67 Decor Interior

[Coralsnake]

This is an interesting thread....

Is there a separate interior code for "white" ?

Or is this merely one person's interpretation of a color they think they have?

[shelbydoug]

That's the point. According to Ford, there is only one color.

In reality, the color variation is obvious to a lot of people. Lots of people have expressed opinions as to why the color could have varied so much.

Officially it's Parchment but literally it could look white, and various versions of it.

I'm personally glad I only have to wrestle with the Charcoal Black Metallic and the degrees of flatness or gloss?

I don't think Ford ever intended or suspected that anyone would ever care or rate interior colors?

The '67s seem to be the booby prize with Ford records not matching what was actually built.

As an owner of a '67 GT500 that has a K engine code in the Ford number, I'm critical of Ford's records too simply because it is their mistake, and their records saying the car is a Q is just an untruth on their part. It makes me look like a fraud. So personally, at least on '67s I'd be cautious of going to war over what Ford records say vs. what they actually built.

I hold some sympathy here for an owner being outraged by being told his car doesn't match the records. I'm in that group too.  When I get kicked in the chachkas I'm not too polite either.

[Coralsnake]

"Looks white" or "is white" is still a variation of Parchment if there is no other code

[Richstang]

Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).

However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).

They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.

[shelbydoug]

Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).

However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).

They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.

I've never seen a smooth Parchment seat? What did I miss?

[Richstang]

Regarding Parchment 5U trim interiors; I'm not debating the shade of color (as white, off white, or parchment).

However I will debate the time frame and DSO groups which they were built in.
There were NO 'early' cars. They were all built within just three months with the first built on 12/30 and the last built on 3/28
(with one exception...a special order single unit mid May).

They were all ordered as 5U 'comfortweave' trim. Not one was ordered as 6U 'smooth' trim. All the Marti Reports I have on hand confirm the 5U trim.

I've never seen a smooth Parchment seat? What did I miss?

Check out reply #4...

[shelbydoug]

OK. Now I'm confused. Eight Barrel never used the term 6u. You did. I thought we were talking about 6A and 5A, and you went and told him that his car was built as a black interior?

I have to stop multitasking with my porn time here. I must be confusing 34DD with 5A? Where does he say he has a 6U interior? 

[Richstang]

That's the point. According to Ford, there is only one color.

In reality, the color variation is obvious to a lot of people. Lots of people have expressed opinions as to why the color could have varied so much.

Officially it's Parchment but literally it could look white, and various versions of it.

I'm personally glad I only have to wrestle with the Charcoal Black Metallic and the degrees of flatness or gloss?

I don't think Ford ever intended or suspected that anyone would ever care or rate interior colors?

The '67s seem to be the booby prize with Ford records not matching what was actually built.

As an owner of a '67 GT500 that has a K engine code in the Ford number, I'm critical of Ford's records too simply because it is their mistake, and their records saying the car is a Q is just an untruth on their part. It makes me look like a fraud. So personally, at least on '67s I'd be cautious of going to war over what Ford records say vs. what they actually built.

I hold some sympathy here for an owner being outraged by being told his car doesn't match the records. I'm in that group too.  When I get kicked in the chachkas I'm not too polite either.

Hi Doug,

The '67 Shelby owners are lucky to have a paper trail to follow. We know precisely how these '67 Shelby's were ordered by SAI (DSO microfilm), how they were planned to be built by Ford (SVO - Add/ Delete sheets), how they were built at San Jose (Marti Reports), and how they were completed at LAX (SAI Production Orders and Invoices). Other year Shelby's don't have this luxury.

The Ford build data is the authoritative document. It tells us exactly how the units were built by package, paint, and trim. Those are not variables.  I disagree with them not matching how the cars were built. While the Ford data can certainly have mistakes (We are talking about 50 + year old computer punch card technology) I have yet to find a definitive error in these areas.

The gray area on a Marti Report is where they interpret the Shelby supplied details. It does not come from Ford, so it vulnerable to human input errors. That's why I keep repeating owners also should get the SAI documents to confirm their options on the PO such as the wheel type, radio, and lemans stripes. (Yes, the lemans stripes were likely never added at the factory). SAI Invoices further detail how it was equipped and sold to the dealers with the listed charges.

When it comes to the engine code / stamping, that is a factory error, not really a Ford Data issue, but still is a Ford related mistake. (It's not exactly the same issue as what started this mess.) It is a shame Ford made those mistakes for owners like yourself, but I believe the SAAC '67 Shelby registrar has this well covered. (We can't thank Dave (and Nancy) enough for all their efforts here).

Do you have a Marti report for your car? Does it note the stamp code error or is it listed correctly in there? 

Also what is the interior trim if you don't mind sharing? The DSO group calls for it to be 5A black, but the Marti will tell us if there was a shortage that day and if 6A was used as a replacement. Thanks for any help on this research.

[Richstang]

OK. Now I'm confused. Eight Barrel never used the term 6u. You did. I thought we were talking about 6A and 5A, and you went and told him that his car was built as a black interior?

I have to stop multitasking with my porn time here. I must be confusing 34DD with 5A? Where does he say he has a 6U interior? 

From reply #4
"You didn't address white Vs. Parchment interiors or that early white cars are smooth. You just addressed black."

He doesn't mention 6U directly, but he mentions "early white car are smooth" meaning 6U 'smooth' not 5U 'comfortweave'.
Also his interior photo, previously posted elsewhere, shows parchment smooth seats, not parchment comfortweave.

"DD" holy crap!

[shelbydoug]

Yes I have a Marti on this car. I got a note from Marti, basically trying to break it to me gently that my car was a fraud.

I had to get Dave Mathews to intervene, so to speak.

Marti's data clearly indicates to him that the ORIGINAL CAR was stamped with a Q. Dave says he has about 25 cars around mine that the engine codes are incorrectly stamped on including A codes on the GT350's.

So if you want to die on the cross of accurate Ford data, you've been warned that they admit no mistakes. What that data shows ain't necessarily what they built. Like I said. I've got an example right here.

So there you go.


DD is nice. You need big hands to appreciate that. She's a nice girl. A bit free...but nice. 

[Richstang]

Die on the sword...hell no...it is 50 year old punch card data. (Also have to wonder how Marti interprets that info)

Yes, now I remember you telling us this before. Something is a foul there.
What does it say at the top in the VOI (Vehicle Order Image) section in the Ford vin; 'S' or 'A' or maybe 'K'?.

Would love to know the trim code if you have it?

[JD]

maybe this will help...

[Richstang]

Now I'm going to have to debate 6U 'smooth' trim. OY VEY!

We have no orders from SAI for 6U trim, no SVO sheets with Ford planning to use 6U trim, and no Marti Reports listing 6U trim (that I'm aware of). If anyone knows of a Marti with 6U noted please jump in here with a posted copy. (please redact the Ford VINs) If we ever do find a Marti with 6U trim we will have to consider it a replacement on a material shortage for 5U parchment 'comfortweave' trim. I'm not buying it, so please prove me wrong!

In all fairness to JD's post, it does answer Doug's question.
Ford did make 6U trim. It was only available on Mustangs as far as I know.

[JD]

It was my understanding that the smooth material(s) were intended for convertibles and why (no?) '67 closed cars (Shelby's) got it.

If one did - installation mistake at Ford???.

[shelbydoug]

Now I'm going to have to debate 6U 'smooth' trim. OY VEY!

We have no orders from SAI for 6U trim, no SVO sheets with Ford planning to use 6U trim, and no Marti Reports listing 6U trim (that I'm aware of). If anyone knows of a Marti with 6U noted please jump in here with a posted copy. (please redact the Ford VINs) If we ever do find a Marti with 6U trim we will have to consider it a replacement on a material shortage for 5U parchment 'comfortweave' trim. I'm not buying it, so please prove me wrong!

In all fairness to JD's post, it does answer Doug's question.
Ford did make 6U trim. It was only available on Mustangs as far as I know.

My car was missing it's orginal seats when I got it. In my '68 so far I found three copies of the build sheet. One under the springs on the rear seat bottom. One in the same place on the driver's seat and the other in the wiring harness.

I didn't expect to find the one under the drivers seat. This is uncommon for a '67? A build sheet would prove to me the way the car was built...probably.