The Shelby American (Winter 2021)

ark a ’65 GT350 next to a white Mustang fastback and it is apparent that there is very little different, visually, be- tween the two cars. But with the tremendous performance gap between the two, one wonders if the optical similarity is really that big of a deal. In a word, “absolutely!” And nobody knew that better than Shelby Ameri- can. In fact, they saw it as an issue of such significance that the subject was brought up, in a memo, to Ford’s GT and Sports Car Department, in Octo- ber of 1965. Shelby American stated, in part, that, Our prospect’s taste and pocketbook are different from the mass that pur- chase the regular Mustang and it is vital that difference be recognized. Our customer surely wants the public to know that they own a higher priced sports car without providing everyone a demonstration ride. Shelby also concluded that the issue had a definite detrimental effect on the bottom line with the somewhat- stinging self-assessment that, I strongly believe the 1965 Shelby GT 350 would have had a stronger sales appeal if there had been more of a visual difference from the Mustang. The challenge of visually separating the Shelby Mustang from its lower- key Ford base was a constant chal- lenge to Shelby American, being not only fiscal (how to perform the visual separation without busting the budget) but also physical (stylistic changes had to be relatively easily manufactured and installed…and de- veloped in a relatively short time). While Shelby American was not without restriction in either depart- ment, they also had several tools in their toolbox with which to perform this optical divorcement. One of them was a favorite tactic of hot rodders of the day: integrating components from other makes and models of cars into their own. To accomplish this, Shelby frequently raided Ford’s spare parts bin, using Mustang Rally Pacs, Thun- derbird wheel covers, Cougar taillight lenses and Galaxie quad headlights to differentiate their product from Ford’s. Perhaps the most prolific example is the use of 1965 Thunderbird taillights on both 1968 and 1969 Shelbys (and also 1968 California and High Coun- try Special notchbacks), but as one delves into progressively finer and finer aspects of T-Bird taillight use, the number of people familiar with those decreasingly familiar aspects likewise progressively diminishes. Thus, a retelling of the story serves as both a bit of a refresher as well as a primary education. The SHELBY AMERICAN Winter 2021 74 - Greg Kolasa P Because the lenses and grille were set deep within an enclosure, ’65 T-Bird taillights look very different when installed on that Flair Bird than on the transom of an early GT350 (full disclosure: I grabbed this one off the Internet so I have no idea who ac- tually took it). ’65 ‘Bird taillights were selected for use on the ’68 Shelby because Shelby/Ford man- agement felt that bright red ’67 Cougar lenses with no chrome details were “too gross” (their words) when Charlie McHose selected them to be fitted to the prior year’s Shelbys A slightly different look for the same ol’ T- Bird taillights was achieved on the back end of ’69 Shelbys by ringing the chrome grille in blackout paint…but the basic idea was still the same one that first showed up in May of 1965.