ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1968 Shelby => Topic started by: Bob Gaines on December 04, 2017, 01:56:57 PM
-
ADMIN NOTE: This thread was split from another discussion and moved to this section
Another mystery is the owner of this GT500 tells me that his Marti report says that this car is Shelby #055. That seems hard to believe since ours was built four days later and is Shelby # 602.
If you are comparing Shelby build dates vs Shelby number that can be explained. The build date is the finish date . I believe the cars were typically started in sequential order at Smith but not finished in sequential order many times. With that said a car with a earlier production Shelby VIN could have the same or close build date as a later production Shelby VIN marked car. This is for Shelby/AO Smith not Ford. The Ford line didn't have the issues that the Smith line did. If you are talking Ford assemblyine build/completion dates that don't jive in relation to Ford VIN numbers that is more of a mystery IMO.
-
Did find another example of our "hanging tag" 68 San Jose this time Cougar.
Another mystery is the owner of this GT500 tells me that his Marti report says that this car is Shelby #055. That seems hard to believe since ours was built four days later and is Shelby # 602.
Projected or real NJ date (that should be somewhat easy to explain) or are you comparing completion dates at AO SMith?
-
The projected build date on our 68 GT350 was 12/16/67 actual build date was 12-02/67 Shelby production number is 602.
My friends 68 GT500 projected build date was 12/ 04/ 67 actual build date was 11/28/ 67 Shelby production number 055.
-
Another mystery is the owner of this GT500 tells me that his Marti report says that this car is Shelby #055. That seems hard to believe since ours was built four days later and is Shelby # 602.
Marti what do you think of me splitting this other "mystery" off into its own thread?
Would guess that with Mr Disher's focus on 68 all these years he may have stuff he wants to add and I've compiled a short list I would be happen to post for the discussion
-
Marti what do you think of me splitting this other "mystery" off into its own thread?
Would guess that with Mr Disher's focus on 68 all these years he may have stuff he wants to add and I've compiled a short list I would be happen to post for the discussion
Yes I agree it is off topic and should be under the Shelby heading.
Thanks
-
Trying to stay focused on a somewhat narrow window (can always expand it later) here is some data from Marti reports of 68 Shelbys
Limited myself to those prior to Feb 68 - in hope it would help the discussion. Did leave the one last example in (from Feb) since it appears to be "out of order" also
By Ford VIN and by Ford completion date. Marti's two examples inserted in blue
VIN - Projected Ford Date - Real Ford Date
8T03S115994-0136 11/30/67 11/24/67
8T0xS1xxxxxxx-0055 12/04/67 11/28/ 67
8T03J126779-00309 12/09/67 12/01/67
8T02Jxxxxxxxx-00602 12/16/67 12/02/67
8T02J134472-00915 12/27/67 12/15/67
8T02J134497-00938 12/28/67 12/22/67
8T02S134508-00949 12/28/67 12/30/67
8T02J149384-01183 1/11/68 1/13/68
8t02J149484-01705 1/16/68 1/16/68
8T02J155517-01768 1/23/68 1/24/68
8T02S169370-01686 2/21/68 2/14/68
Only one car in this sampling sort of out of (Shelby) sequential order when compared to the Ford VIN. Maybe its where it was placing in the holding area when unloaded from Ford or for some other unknown reason
-
I've run into this with '68 Shelby's also, where the Ford VIN and Shelby number are scattered. Would be prudent to stick to a close Ford VIN to compare assembly plant details and then Shelby unit numbers to compare details from OA Smith... assuming that they were built consecutively by number.
-
Jeff is the first column the actual completed date and the second the projected date?
-
Jeff is the first column the actual completed date and the second the projected date?
Fixed ::) I think. Been a busy week
-
I called another friend near me that has a 68 GT350 also and asked for his Marti report. Unbelievably it was built five days before our car and one day before the Shelby I posted about. His car's VIN is 8T02J11XXXX-00323 The projected build date is 12/08/67 the actual build date is 11-27-67.
All three of these cars are not 100 miles apart, cool.
-
Let me try to help.....
Ford assigned VIN numbers are not sequential....on the first day of production Ford did not build car number 1 then car number 2.....etc
Ford VINs were assigned by the computer...so they may have built number 2, number 7 and number 10...just a hypothetical.
Then you need to consider only one of every of every 71 Mustangs built was sent to AOSmith for conversion to Shelby.
These cars were loaded on rail cars and sent to Michigan. They did not keep track of serial numbers and once cars were unloaded they could have sat outside for weeks. The first car loaded would be the last car off, the first car parked in the holding might be buried, until production caught up.
Shelby did not assign serial numbers in strict numerical order. The first five cars built were Shelby numbers 41, 339, 101, 301 and 56.
So, once you take all those items into account its entirely possible....
It is correct to say generally speaking, lower Ford serial numbers equate to lower Shelby numbers, but not always.
-
Let me try to help.....
Ford assigned VIN numbers are not sequential....on the first day of production Ford did not build car number 1 then car number 2.....etc
Ford VINs were assigned by the computer...so they may have built number 2, number 7 and number 10...just a hypothetical.
Then you need to consider only one of every of every 71 mustangs built was sent to AOSmith for conversion to Shelby.
These cars were loaded on rail cars and sent to Michigan. They did not keep track of serial and once cars were unloaded they could have sat outside for weeks. The first car loaded would be the last car off, the first car parked in the holding might be buried, until production caught up.
Shelby did not assign serial numbers in strict numerical order. The first five cars built were Shelby numbers 41, 339, 101, 301 and 56.
So, once youtake all those items into account its entirely possible....
It is correct to say generally speaking, lower Ford serial numbers equate to lower Shelby numbers, but not always.
Pete,my question is are the cars you mentioned the first five cars started on or the first five cars completed? The build date is the completed date not the started on date. It is unreasonable to assume that both can be one and the same for all cars. I am unaware of a recorded Ford started on date. Also it has been my suspicion that Ford assigned a particular Ford VIN to a particular Shelby VIN rather then letting Shelby assign them . This suspected practice was not just 68 but going back to at least the the beginning of 67 production and maybe further back in 66 production yet still. With that said I understand that some Ford VIN's did not correspond sequentially with the associated Shelby number(Some Shelby VIN numbers that were low had a Ford VIN that was higher then another car with a higher Shelby VIN number. The buck tag in the case of the 68 seems to indicate Fords awareness of the Shelby unit so it would make sense that it was possible for Ford to assign the Shelby VIN too in order to keep track of things. I know I am a heretic. Just my point of view until solid evidence suggest otherwise.
-
Ford assigned VIN numbers are not sequential....on the first day of production Ford did not build car number 1 then car number 2.....etc
I have known that VIN number were not sequential for some time. I was comparing the Ford completion date to the Shelby sequential number.
Pete do you know if production stopped at AO Smith during the UAW strike at Ford?
Bob's theory of Ford assigning the Shelby production numbers is interesting and some thing I had not considered.
-
I don't have the 68-up SAAC registry, but thought I had remembered that '68 Mustangs, destined to be Shelby's, were built in batches. At least similar equipped or by color.
-
I don't have the 68-up SAAC registry, but thought I had remembered that '68 Mustangs, destined to be Shelby's, were built in batches. At least similar equipped or by color.
Mangers of plants as well as workers have offered a different opinion since the same type (heavy with options and big blocks) would slow down the line. They might have been started together since the bodies did not require additional special work/brackets/modifications but were worked into the general mix for the second half so to not slow down the line with all the other things.
They did (it appears) get entered into the system by their DSO. As a side note same thing has been claimed for years about the San Jose built Shelby's "built in batches" though have never found anything to support that though again they were typically all entered into the system (Ford VIN assigned) when the special DSO was received by the factory. With the 67 dates all available its appears that those cars were not completed all in big batches.
Back to 68's alone
-
The five cars I mentioned were the first five started. I am not sure why the Shelby completion date is important, I must be missing that? Especially in light of the fact Smith did not practice strict inventory controls like first in / first out.
I am aware of the strike. All 1968 Shelbys were built after the strike ended by AO Smith, with the exception of those first five cars. So therefore the strike had very little impact on 1968 Shelby production.
I would disagree with “built” in batches. Ordered in batches ...yes. The build sheet groupings I have seen indicate the Shelbys were randomly interspersed with Mustangs.
Bob, I dont think your theory is out of line, but I would need more evidence. I think the fact the numbers appear more random and not coordinated with Ford VINs would seem to indicate it was a Smith assignment.
-
Yes, I was thinking more along the lines of VIN's being close, which supports the 'ordering' based on DSO. Actual build dates I'm sure are scattered... then throw in the randomness of when they were completed at OA... think I'd rather watch paint dry :D ;)
-
Just to clarify I think those first five cars were also the first five completed. I base that on physical characteristics they have ( I have seen 3 of the 5 ). There is also a memo that refers to five “pilot cars”. We aslo know # 339 was finished before October 5, 1967 because we have pictures of it in Paris. Kevin Marti has confirmed with me these cars were the first Shelbys. Interestingly, #101 is DSO 8D2508, so its probable cars were not shippd according to DSO either.....Im not sure how many (if any) other Shelbys were assigned that DSO?
After the strike the production techniques changed, so it is easy to identify those cars and separate them from the pre-strike cars. Hope that helps....
http://www.thecoralsnake.com/Productionchanges
http://www.thecoralsnake.com/first.htm
-
Just read the first post again....
While it seems somewhat unlikely, Smith was doing about 50 cars a day. That represents about two weeks of production from car # 55 to # 600.
Remember, some cars sat for weeks before being brought in for conversion. Some cars were built and not immediately accepted by Shelby.
In short, there are a lot of reasons these two cars are close together. I’m not entirely convinced Kevins “completion” dates are correct, after looking at Smith’s shipping ledger dates.
-
The five cars I mentioned were the first five started. I am not sure why the Shelby completion date is important, I must be missing that? Especially in light of the fact Smith did not practice strict inventory controls like first in / first out.
I am aware of the strike. All 1968 Shelbys were built after the strike ended by AO Smith, with the exception of those first five cars. So therefore the strike had very little impact on 1968 Shelby production.
I would disagree with “built” in batches. Ordered in batches ...yes. The build sheet groupings I have seen indicate the Shelbys were randomly interspersed with Mustangs.
Bob, I dont think your theory is out of line, but I would need more evidence. I think the fact the numbers appear more random and not coordinated with Ford VINs would seem to indicate it was a Smith assignment.
I am a little confused but going by your latest post #17 it seems to indicate that you meant to amend the highlighted statement in this earlier post to read the the first "completed". Is that right?
-
I believe they were both, the first five started and the first five completed. If you have something completed before October 5, 1967, you will surprise me. That would be #339, Ford # 8T02J110578
-
While it seems somewhat unlikely, Smith was doing about 50 cars a day. That represents about two weeks of production from car # 55 to # 600.
50 cars a day... that would be about 17 weeks (5 work days per week) for the entire '68 production of about 4,500 cars. Are you sure about that?
-
I believe they were both, the first five started and the first five completed. If you have something completed before October 5, 1967, you will surprise me. That would be #339, Ford # 8T02J110578
What leads you to believe they were started first?
-
Many days it was less....I have the running production totals.
50 is the maximum per day. I used that to illustrate the separation was not that great. Regular production lasted from the end of November to the very beginning of July, about 32 weeks more or less.
-
For Mr. G.....If they were completed first and have unique build characteristics they were started first. I dont think they would have started with something like production tail light treatment, then switched to a non production method and then switched back to production techniques....
In short, they were started first based on how they were built and the fact there were only a limited number of cars present at Smith/Shelby before the NJ plant stopped production. Those are the five cars I listed above. They were started and finished based on the fact they were appearing at various shows before regular Shelby production restarted.
This is documented in a factory memo. I know Brian has the memo on his site, let me get you the link.
-
The date 10-24-67 is before Smith received regular production Shelbys.
http://1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-10-24-activities-by-sa-ionia.asp
Kevin Marti has shared with me all the cars that were at Smith before the October 24, 1967 date. I shared them above.
Bullet 7b....b) “Ford management along with Mr. Shelby were embarrassed by their appearance in shows.”
Indicates these five cars were completed :D
-
The date 10-24-67 is before Smith received regular production Shelbys.
http://1967shelbyconvertible.com/documentation/original-documents/1967-10-24-activities-by-sa-ionia.asp
Kevin Marti has shared with me all the cars that were at Smith before the October 24, 1967 date. I shared them above.
Bullet 7b....b) “Ford management along with Mr. Shelby were embarrassed by their appearance in shows.”
Indicates these five cars were completed :D
I am curious what kind of document inventory or otherwise that showed the cars at the Smith Plant and in what context they were referred to as?
-
Many days it was less....I have the running production totals.
50 is the maximum per day. I used that to illustrate the separation was not that great. Regular production lasted from the end of November to the very beginning of July, about 32 weeks more or less.
32 weeks (160 days): average is about 27-28 cars per day, considering a 5 day work-week.
It would be about a month's worth of production between #55 and #600 (19 work days)
-
If the first five cars numbers are 41, 339, 101, 301 and 56 that shows me that there was no relationship between the Shelby number and when it was produced.
I find all of this very hard to understand ???
-
Charles, I am disagreeing with you, I have always contended that cars were not built in strict numerical order. I am sorry if I didnt make that clear. That was my point of discussing the first five “pilot” cars and sharing their serial numbers.
Mr Gaines theory that Ford knew the Shelby numbers is still possible, but needs more developement, imho
I am willing to share anything I have that may be helpful to the conversation and a better understanding.
-
I am curious what kind of document inventory or otherwise that showed the cars at the Smith Plant and in what context they were referred
Please help me with this....I’m not understanding the question
-
Charles, I am disagreeing with you, I have always contended that cars were not built in strict numerical order. I am sorry if I didnt make that clear. That was my point of discussing the first five “pilot” cars and sharing their serial numbers.
Maybe this was meant in reply to Marty's comment? I have no opinion on the order the cars were made, just recent comments regarding the units/day estimates.
-
Please help me with this....I’m not understanding the question
I am wanting to know what kind of document was used to determine the start date. Was it some kind of inventory document? Some kind of check list for parts?
-
To the best of my knowledge Smith did not keep track of a cars “start” date. Maybe this is what I’m missing...Why would that be important? Cars were “quality” checked when they arrived, but Im not sure Smith recorded every cars arrival date?
-
Charles, I will post some more that will hopefully clarify your questions...I will show you something new :-)
-
(http://saacforum.com/galleryc/albums/userpics/10081/scan0001~4.jpg)
Here is one of the monthly tally sheets, where they kept track of cars completed
-
To the best of my knowledge Smith did not keep track of a cars “start” date. Maybe this is what I’m missing...Why would that be important? Cars were “quality” checked when they arrived, but Im not sure Smith recorded every cars arrival date?
Because the cars in question my be the first ones finished but not the first ones started on. It may be just as you say but there might have been other units that were started on that didn't get finished before the cars that did. Without the started on records it is hard to tell which is why I asked. It is a little out of the ordinary that the pre production cars have such a higher Shelby number given the show cars and preproduction cars of other years 65,66,67 and 69 ether didn't have a assigned Shelby number or don't seem to follow that wide of spread.
-
Thanks for posting that Pete
Had not seen that before
-
They had to be the first ones started, because they were the only five Shelbys at AO Smith assembly.
;D
-
Thank to everyone for helping me understand the early struggles and practices at AO Smith.
Pete thanks for sharing your Shelby tally sheet. I am amazed that such a document survives.
I now see there are some things that we will just not ever know completly.
Marty
-
Shelby inspected every car Smith built. That's why you see the difference in the numbers. Not all cars were immediately "accepted". Often times, these were things AOSmith had no control over.
This led to some "discussions". The other side of this conversation is the business relationship. Someone had to pay for corrections, updates and changes. Often times, AOSmith was slow to be paid. This three headed relationship (Ford/Shelby/AOSmith) ultimately led to the end of the program. One of the main reasons there were no cars after 1969 was that AOSmith declined to build them. I can only surmise that was due to this dysfunctional relationship.
-
Shelby inspected every car Smith built. That's why you see the difference in the numbers. Not all cars were immediately "accepted". Often times, these were things AOSmith had no control over.
This led to some "discussions". The other side of this conversation is the business relationship. Someone had to pay for corrections, updates and changes. Often times, AOSmith was slow to be paid. This three headed relationship (Ford/Shelby/AOSmith) ultimately led to the end of the program. One of the main reasons there were no cars after 1969 was that AOSmith declined to build them. I can only surmise that was due to this dysfunctional relationship.
The late pay by Shelby to vendors/sub contractors seemed to be a common MO for Shelby American/Automotive from 65 - to the end of the program according to stories heard from past employees and subconctractor employees over the years.
-
They had to be the first ones started, because they were the only five Shelbys at AO Smith assembly.
;D
If it wasn't clear before to clarify I was asking about documents of one type or another that indicate they were the only ones there then. The build date info by itself falls short of that. Help me understand your point of view.
-
That information was shared with me by Kevin when I inquired about how many cars were built before the Paris auto show. It was an effort to identify the car.
I probably have the Marti reports, but I am not home for several days.
-
Here is one of the monthly tally sheets, where they kept track of cars completed
Thanks for posting. Looks like they had a tough time getting them through Shelby acceptance.
-
For Mr. G.....If they were completed first and have unique build characteristics they were started first. I dont think they would have started with something like production tail light treatment, then switched to a non production method and then switched back to production techniques....
In short, they were started first based on how they were built and the fact there were only a limited number of cars present at Smith/Shelby before the NJ plant stopped production. Those are the five cars I listed above. They were started and finished based on the fact they were appearing at various shows before regular Shelby production restarted.
This is documented in a factory memo. I know Brian has the memo on his site, let me get you the link.
That information was shared with me by Kevin when I inquired about how many cars were built before the Paris auto show. It was an effort to identify the car.
I probably have the Marti reports, but I am not home for several days.
Ok maybe you can share later. I understand that you have the build dates of the first cars completed (Marti reports). I don't dispute the first cars finished based on your say so . I am skeptical if they were the first ones started however. That is just me. Speculation that they were the only ones started at that time is just that speculation . It might be just as you say but I was hoping to see something in the way of some kind of documentation that would indicate only those 5 cars were there at AO Smith first or not . I understand that you are making a reasonable assumption that the cars were started on first because of some odd taillight variation not seen on the regular production cars. It may be just as you say however this doesn't preclude the possibility of other cars being started also then stopped for some reason maybe taillight refinement while r+d was being done on some others. There are a number of instances of the starting on cars then stopping only to be finished later in 67 production for a example. It still stumps me why such a wide spread on the Shelby VIN for a pre production car. If the Shelby numbers were applied randomly it would have seemed to be more logical that Smith or at SA to assign a lower number more representative of the first of their kind or maybe consecutive of each other of the five first cars? With that said you can understand why I am suspicious of the process as you laid out. As I said before the wide spread of VIN sequence is out of the ordinary compared to all of the other year Shelby's for pre production design cars. Hopefully some more evidence will show up in the future that will be more conclusive for what cars were at Smith prior to being finished at the beginning of production. The significance of that in my mind is that it gives a more rounded picture of what happened when production first began in 68.
-
Bob, I think you are confused. There were only 5 cars at AO Smith How could there possibly be other cars involved?
-
I thought the items submitted were fairly clear and supported my statements.
If you can show evidence of any other cars being at Smith before the end of October, 1967, that might be helpful.
Almost every production Shelby built has a Ford VIN that is higher than 115xxx. That indicates to me those cars could not have been there, because they werent produced until November, post strike.
We know #339 was started and finished before October 5, 1967 because we have pictures of it in Paris. Now, if you want to submit it is not 339, you will need to show some concrete evidence.
-
Bob, I think you are confused. There were only 5 cars at AO Smith How could there possibly be other cars involved?
I suppose I could be confused but then you may be too because I have asked a number of times, in different ways, in various posts if there is some kind of documentation to support that only those five cars were there. In return I keep getting push back using speculation or the completion date as evidence. It might be just as Pete says but by asking the question and offering a reason why the question is being asked does not make the burden of proof on me when something seems out of the ordinary. I am just asking a question . Don't shoot the messenger.
-
Not shooting anyone. Just stating the documentation as to what cars were at AO Smith I've had this discussion many times with Pete and seen the dates. There were 5 cars at Smith. Burden of proof would be to show others correct? There are clear time lines as to when car were built at Ford, when prototype work was done and actual evidence (the cars) of which received that prototype work. Lets take the tuna can taillight cups. They are on 5 cars we are mentioning. Do you think Ford started using that then switched to assembly line style then back to tuna cans? That would be out of the ordinary IMHO
-
I think The answer is the Ford build dates. The first four cars are all consecutive Ford Unit numbers of the 110xxx series. The next large grouping of cars built by Ford for Shelby was post strike 115xxx cars.
The strike had very little effect on 1968 Shelby production, except when it comes to the five “pilot” cars.
The other cars destined to be Shelbys were not built by Ford during the time frame being discussed.....cars with 8T0xx115xxx or higher numbers were simply not available to AOSmith. In other words, only a handful of 1968 Shelbys were even possible candidates.
At least thats my understanding. :D
Being a heretic isnt bad, you can be reformed
-
Almost every production Shelby built has a Ford VIN that is higher than 115xxx. That indicates to me those cars could not have been there, because they werent produced until November, post strike.
We know #339 was started and finished before October 5, 1967 because we have pictures of it in Paris. Now, if you want to submit it is not 339, you will need to show some concrete evidence.
This loops back to the original questions, surrounding the assignment of Shelby number vs. the Ford VIN (and production date). Why would some of the first 5 cars end up with 300 series numbers?
-
I think The answer is the Ford build dates. The first four cars are all consecutive Ford Unit numbers of the 110xxx series.
This is the part that is tough to understand, that the Ford numbers were consecutive but the Shelby numbers were all over the board.
As Spock would say it is not logical.
-
I can honestly say, I have no explanation for that. It may lend validilty to Mr Gaines theory the relationship between the two numbers was preassigned and Ford simply filled the orders at their convienence.
The first four cars were one 350/fb, one 500/fb, one 500/cnv, one 350/conv
-
Is there any correlation with the '68 Shelby order sheets? Numbers assigned based on orders, but only built/converted based on priority/scheduling?
Surely, AO didn't order Mustangs to be converted to Shelby's based on speculation. An order from Dealer X comes in for a green '68 GT500, but they don't have any in 'the yard' at that time, so a batch order sent to Ford. Although, when that Dealer X order came in, there was an order number attached to it, which would be the Shelby number?
-
Well, there may be different animals here...I have not seen an order form for an engineering car. Only some order forms survived and those would later have a specific Shelby number added to them. I am not sure when in the process that was done.
-
Every car should have had an order to the assembly plant, even engineering cars. I doubt the standard dealer Shelby order form would have been used for that though.
-
Not shooting anyone. Just stating the documentation as to what cars were at AO Smith I've had this discussion many times with Pete and seen the dates. There were 5 cars at Smith. Burden of proof would be to show others correct? There are clear time lines as to when car were built at Ford, when prototype work was done and actual evidence (the cars) of which received that prototype work. Lets take the tuna can taillight cups. They are on 5 cars we are mentioning.Do you think Ford started using that then switched to assembly line style then back to tuna cans? That would be out of the ordinary IMHO
Yes Tim I already addressed that in a previous post. One possible explanation would be maybe there were other cars started and then stopped until a better solution could be developed . The five that are in discussion maybe the ones that got through while others were stopped waiting for a better solution. The finish date (build date) is not in question. The finish date in itself does not answer the questions. Speculation based on the finish date is just that speculation. The high Shelby number is what is raising the red flag for discussion . Those numbers that are all over the board are what is out of the ordinary compared to other years and so it has spark suspicion in my mind and the reason for my questions. There may be a logical explanation but I am continuing to try and explain why the question is being brought up. I don't think this issue (if the five cars were the only cars at Smith during the beginning or why the large spread in vin numbers) is going to be answered well until additional information is added to the discussion. It may have to be tabled until then .
-
Is there any correlation with the '68 Shelby order sheets? Numbers assigned based on orders, but only built/converted based on priority/scheduling?
Surely, AO didn't order Mustangs to be converted to Shelby's based on speculation. An order from Dealer X comes in for a green '68 GT500, but they don't have any in 'the yard' at that time, so a batch order sent to Ford. Although, when that Dealer X order came in, there was an order number attached to it, which would be the Shelby number?
I know that in the previous year cars Shelby built cars on speculation and most of the time not based on dealer orders. they sent the completed cars to be held in lots in strategic different geographic locations. Dealer orders were many times delivered from those lots. There are quite a view stories of original owners ordering cars and they would come to the Dealer in different colors and options. on a number of occasions the buyer settled rather then wait for another shipment. I think it is reasonable to assume that the same strategy of building cars on speculation was used in 68 production. To what degree they were built on spec is up to speculation. Although a different year I thought that the info would be relevant to the discussion.
-
I guess I’m really thick headed. If all the cars with Ford serial numbers (115 series) were built after October 1967, which “other” cars might have potentially been a AOSmith?
My understanding is there were only five cars below the 115 series cars. The fact that the 115 series cars weren’t built by Ford until November 1967 is documented in Kevin Marti’s Tag book, that’s not a point of debate is it?
I apologize in advance, I have been traveling all day.....
If you have a specific car in mind as being a pre-strike car, maybe we can discuss it individually? Im not trying to be closed minded, just trying to evaluate the evidence. I have been looking at this for a while.
-
Well you’re not alone ‘Pete I guess I’m thickheaded too Lol
As ‘Pete said there’s no explanation about why they started with certain numbers. You will not find a 350 convertible number lower than 301. Does that mean they built 300 other cars before they built the 350 convertible? Obviously not. You can keep making claims that we need more evidence but I think these of been documented extensively in the absence of exact completion dates at AO Smith does not negate the fact of what we know
Why don’t you ask Mike Shally when his car was completed? After all it’s number 6 right?
-
I think better to ask him when Ford built the car
Or maybe some someone can ask him how long it takes to go from Chicago to the west coast on American Airlines ? Lol
-
Forgive me if this takes us off track/thread just a little and more than happy to have the info posted elsewhere but it might be helpful to the discussion.
First I'm not convinced that comparing practices in 65-67 and 68 since the cars were not completed by the same people, many of the suppliers and so on but since it has been brought up let me offer that there are many examples in 67 production that suggest that they were not assembled/finished in a random order but often in response to needs - most likely an order given the data we have.
Also not sure if comparing the start up cars and their order is representative of what was the practices of "normal" production. Welcome input if I'm missing something here
-
Attached is the original order form for my '68, 2152 and the Marti report. I'm guessing there was a Shelby Automotive contingent in Southfield that would send over the order to AO Smith?
Sequence of events:
2/18/68 - Order received at NJ assembly plant (Ordered as batch of cars by SA or AO?)
3/22/68 - Car serialized (Ford VIN assigned)
3/28/68 - Retail order placed by King Motor Co., Alabama, Shelby number assigned - 2152
4/3/68 - Scheduled build date
4/8/68 - Chassis Bucked
4/22/68 - Actual date built
4/25/68 - Released from assembly plant
7/29/68 - Sold to original owner (known from copy of original title)
So, a couple things here...
1) As Bob corrected me earlier, AO Smith or Shelby Automotive, whoever was processing the orders, was placing orders before cars were sold/ordered for retail. There does not appear to be any correlation between the order sent to the assembly plant and the retail order.
2) The Shelby number could have been assigned before a car was even built at the Ford assembly plant. In the case of 2152, the Shelby number was assigned almost a month before the car was built at the Metuchen plant.
3) It took 3 months from the time the car was completed at the assembly plant to be shipped to AO, converted to a Shelby, then sent to Koon's Ford in Va. and sold.
Just one of many, but might shed some light on the ordering process. It doesn't answer if there was any priority or batching of like colors or equipment cars at AO. It doesn't help to determine if cars were built in sequence of orders received.
-
You are correct with I think one exception imho. Pete can elaborate more on this than me but I am pretty sure when a dealer ordered a car they didn’t build that particular car but matched the order to one they had already built or were going to build Often those order sheet had original ordered color crossed out and another color written in
-
I am not entirely sure how the complete process worked. Some parts of that orange sheet were filled in by Shelby. I suspect it was matched to cars already in the pipeline. Many dealers didnt specify cars, but were sent what was on hand.
Charles there is a shipping ledger, which will tell you when the car left AOSmith.
I see it was sold to a navy man.
-
I think better to ask him when Ford built the car
Or maybe some someone can ask him how long it takes to go from Chicago to the west coast on American Airlines ? Lol
Now that is more constructive then to continue and refer back to the Shelby build /completion date ::) .
-
I see it was sold to a navy man.
Seems that he at least ordered it, but that name does not match the original owner!
Interestingly, you have a copy of a similar order sheet that was ordered from the same dealer in Alabama and then shipped to Koons.
-
I can take a look for it!
-
You are correct with I think one exception imho. Pete can elaborate more on this than me but I am pretty sure when a dealer ordered a car they didn’t build that particular car but matched the order to one they had already built or were going to build Often those order sheet had original ordered color crossed out and another color written in
It notes on the orange sheet that SA may substitute equipment at their discretion.
Any idea what the 5-20 written above the gray area means?
-
I can take a look for it!
This one.... looks like it was written by the same person.
So, notice the No. at the top of the page, 3051... guess those numbers aren't sequential or there were multiple books being used?
-
Could it be the date the order was filled?
-
Seems possible.
-
Forgive me if this takes us off track/thread just a little and more than happy to have the info posted elsewhere but it might be helpful to the discussion.
First I'm not convinced that comparing practices in 65-67 and 68 since the cars were not completed by the same people, many of the suppliers and so on but since it has been brought up let me offer that there are many examples in 67 production that suggest that they were not assembled/finished in a random order but often in response to needs - most likely an order given the data we have.
Also not sure if comparing the start up cars and their order is representative of what was the practices of "normal" production. Welcome input if I'm missing something here
First off I am not sure ether however since we are in agreement Shelby American and Shelby Automotive built cars on spec,it adds credibility that the logical suggestion that these other practices were similar too. Also there are just as many example that some later vin cars in 67 finished before earlier vin cars. There only has to be one example of this to establish that the stop and start procedure happened. If it happened in 67 it could just as easy happen in 68 for similar or even different reasons. I think that given these facts makes a comparison of practices relevant to the discussion at hand regardless of outcome. I have the feeling that I am getting pressure not to bring up these heretic questions and ideas . FYI I am not predisposed to leaning to one school of thought or the other . I am bringing up reasonable questions to get at what ever the truth is. If this threatens someones ideas then I am sorry about that but I can't think of another way. If we are able to work out how things happened and it maintains the status quo then if nothing else it will make the case for a particular idea stronger. Now with that said If the Ford completion dates for every 68 Shelby are after the Ford build dates of the five cars in question in a significant way then we can agree on that establishing if it was possible for other cars to be at Smith uncompleted prior to the strike. Has Kevin Marti been able to establish that pattern? Also I think the most reasonable explanation for the wide spread vin separation is that Ford knew which Shelby VIN was going to be assigned to what Ford vin chassis prior to going to Smith and or completed at Ford . That would explain why instead of a low sequential Shelby vin number (relatively speaking) car was not used for pre production like the other years. The Ford Chassis may still have been one of the first available to Smith even though it was just the higher pre assigned Shelby number assigned to a early chassis .
-
Interesting that your order sheet copy is for a car identically equipped. What does the registry say about 2040? (Sorry, I only have the 65-67 one).
-
Also I think the most reasonable explanation for the wide spread vin separation is that Ford knew which Shelby VIN was going to be assigned to what Ford vin chassis prior to going to Smith and or completed at Ford.
I'm thinking Ford had no idea what the Shelby unit number was going to be as illustrated in my example above. I don't see why they would need to know or even care? From a Ford perspective, they just build cars as orders received, what difference would it make that a car was going to be a Shelby? Other than they were built differently than a regular Mustang.
-
I'm thinking Ford had no idea what the Shelby unit number was going to be as illustrated in my example above. I don't see why they would need to know or even care? From a Ford perspective, they just build cars as orders received, what difference would it make that a car was going to be a Shelby? Other than they were built differently than a regular Mustang.
From my point of view I think that is exactly the reason why they knew and cared.
-
I guess for now, im sticking with the Ford records, photographic evidence and Shelby memo.
At least until some evidence to the contrary appears.
-
I guess for now, im sticking with the Ford records, photographic evidence and Shelby memo.
At least until some evidence to the contrary appears.
So I take it by not being specific on what Ford records a check of Ford build dates of other 68 Shelby's compared to the five has not been done?
-
:o Yes, it has been done!
All Mustangs built by Ford for Shelby were built in November 1967 or later. That is a fact in Marti’s Mustang and Cougar tag book book.
Do you disagree with that information?
The exception is the five cars mentioned.
-
If this threatens someones ideas then I am sorry about that but I can't think of another way.
That actually is hysterically funny. I’m not gonna speak for everyone but I think some of us are not threatened when someone disagrees with us or challenges so many are
-
:o Yes, it has been done!
All Mustangs built by Ford for Shelby were built in November 1967 or later. That is a fact in Marti’s Mustang and Cougar tag book book.
Do you disagree with that information?
The exception is the five cars mentioned.
Hard to argue with that
-
For the benefit of those who don't have the "Ford record"
(http://saacforum.com/galleryc/albums/userpics/10081/scan0003~5.jpg)
The underline shows the highest serial number series before the strike. In other words the highest possible number Mustang built was 8T0xx113999. If the Ford number is higher, it could not have been present at AOSmith, before the strike.
The circled number shows where post strike production started (November 1967)
-
This chart would be for 'Serialization' dates based on the unit numbers and not necessarily when the cars were scheduled to be or actually built.
-
Okay, I will go that. So a car could be built before it was serialized?
-
This chart would be for 'Serialization' dates based on the unit numbers and not necessarily when the cars were scheduled to be or actually built.
I read it as a list of VINs (example cars within 100400-125200) that were assembled during November 1967, looking backwards.
Looks like it shows when cars were actually built and not scheduled since that is normally fairly sequential compared to the car's (in this case) Ford VIN.
Don't think it works for projected date since Dearborn and San Jose list cars with VINs under 10 (first ten cars assigned a VIN) possibly being assembled four months after production started and if it was projected date its hard to believe that they would have skipped over/reserved VINs in the first 10 (for this example) for use four months later.
If it does represent real build dates then it shows the wide range of, at least a limited number of VINs, being not assembled during when Ford projected. Kind of supporting what we've accept for a while.
Just my take on the page & information presented on that page
-
Yes, it could be when they were built or scheduled to be built since the numbers overlap month to month. I didn't catch that the first time around.
My car has a 192448 unit number, serialized on 3/22, scheduled for build 4/3, but not actually built until 4/22
According the the chart, the car would fall into March/April or May.
-
So can we now agree that 115xxx series cars were not available to AOSmith in October 1967?
-
According the the chart, the car would fall into March/April or May.
Or at least cars within your cars VIN range were built during those time periods.
So can we now agree that 115xxx series cars were not available to AOSmith in October 1967?
I've got nothing to prove otherwise
-
Or at least cars within your cars VIN range were built during those time periods.
I've got nothing to prove otherwise
I am on board with that
-
Weeeeeeee..... :D
-
Any idea what the 5-20 written above the gray area means?
I don't like reviving old threads but found something interesting about the Shelby Work Orders. The Registry shows my car was shipped on 4/11/68 to Mel Burns Ford. The numbers on my work order above the dark box are 4-11. Could this be the date the cars were supposed to be shipped out to the dealers?
#2152 has 5-20 on his work order and and his car was shipped on 5-23-68, # 2040 has 2-19 on his work order and the car was shipped on 2-21-68. Anyone else have a work order they can look at to see if I am on the right track?
-
I don't like reviving old threads but found something interesting about the Shelby Work Orders. The Registry shows my car was shipped on 4/11/68 to Mel Burns Ford. The numbers on my work order above the dark box are 4-11. Could this be the date the cars were supposed to be shipped out to the dealers?
#2152 has 5-20 on his work order and and his car was shipped on 5-23-68, # 2040 has 2-19 on his work order and the car was shipped on 2-21-68. Anyone else have a work order they can look at to see if I am on the right track?
Not familiar with the term "Shelby Work Order" used for 68 Shelby production.
-
HI Jeff,
I was referring to the yellow sheet I purchased from Kevin Marti. On my Marti Auto Works invoice he refers to it as the Shelby Work Order. I think in this thread, Charles Turner referred to it as the order form.
(http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/gallery/10/2415-280318074701.jpeg)
(I think I really screwed up creating a gallery here) I did get the picture posted though.
Jeb
-
(http://www.thecoralsnake.com/green500jw.jpg)
-
HI Jeff,
I was referring to the yellow sheet I purchased from Kevin Marti. On my Marti Auto Works invoice he refers to it as the Shelby Work Order. I think in this thread, Charles Turner referred to it as the order form.
Thanks - so many different terms for the same thing. Always an issue in discussions so just wanted to clarify
Would expect that Pete and a few others (Vinny and Tim come to mind) are the ones that have studied any date spreads
-
LOL! Thats the one Pete! What do you think about my theory on the numbers above the dark box on the work order?
The Registry shows my car was shipped on 4/11/68 to Mel Burns Ford. The numbers on my work order above the dark box are 4-11. Could this be the date the cars were supposed to be shipped out to the dealers?
#2152 has 5-20 on his work order and and his car was shipped on 5-23-68, # 2040 has 2-19 on his work order and the car was shipped on 2-21-68.
-
I have not studied them, but it looks like you are probably, estimated shipping date, when the paperwork was processed
-
(http://www.thecoralsnake.com/green500jw.jpg)
Love those vintage pics with hubcaps and whitewalls! ;)
-
Love those vintage pics with hubcaps and whitewalls! ;)
I got a laugh out of the CB whip.
-
I got a laugh out of the CB whip.
10-4 good buddy!
-
Just to add a little info on old thread on scheduled and built. Car I'm currently working on, 8T03S169333-1424 Scheduled 02/19/68, built 02/14/68. Gotham Ford, Sunlit Gold, A/C, 4 speed.
-
Let me try to help.....
Ford assigned VIN numbers are not sequential....on the first day of production Ford did not build car number 1 then car number 2.....etc
Ford VINs were assigned by the computer...so they may have built number 2, number 7 and number 10...just a hypothetical.
Then you need to consider only one of every of every 71 Mustangs built was sent to AOSmith for conversion to Shelby.
These cars were loaded on rail cars and sent to Michigan. They did not keep track of serial numbers and once cars were unloaded they could have sat outside for weeks. The first car loaded would be the last car off, the first car parked in the holding might be buried, until production caught up.
Shelby did not assign serial numbers in strict numerical order. The first five cars built were Shelby numbers 41, 339, 101, 301 and 56.
So, once you take all those items into account its entirely possible....
It is correct to say generally speaking, lower Ford serial numbers equate to lower Shelby numbers, but not always.
After slogging through this thread it left me with at least one unanswered question.
Who stamped the door VIN tag?
Did Ford stamp the door tag including Shelby number (means they knew what Shelby numbers to assign to what VIN).
OR
AO Smith added onto the Ford door tags which would have been loose (glovebox) or they removed, re-stamped and reinstalled.
OR
AO Smith had blank Ford door tags so they restamped the original Ford info, stamped the Ford VIN to which the Shelby VIN was also added.
The underhood tag is immaterial as it could be added anytime in the process by anyone.
-
The door warranty tag was stamped and installed by Ford in NJ
The Shelby number is not on the warranty tag
-
This might be helpful
http://www.thecoralsnake.com/Warranty
Ford did know the “Shelby” suffix (probably after AOSmith assigned it), but it wasnt really relevant to building the “Mustang” part of the job or the NJ construction.
-
This might be helpful
http://www.thecoralsnake.com/Warranty
Ford did know the “Shelby” suffix (probably after AOSmith assigned it), but it wasnt really relevant to building the “Mustang” part of the job or the NJ construction.
That subcontractor assignment seems too haphazard to me . I am of the opinion that Ford knew what the Shelby suffix was going to be prior to AO Smith. At least until evidence suggest otherwise. Just me others may think differently.
-
One of the things about seeing 68s on the field is that you normally only get to see the dash VIN and the underhood fender tag. I should have been more diligent about seeking out 68 warranty tags before posting.
In the world of 67s different states have different views on how to deal with what to call these cars. Some list the cars as FORD or MSTG (or some variant) mine says it's a SHLBY.
Considering there is a dash VIN (Fed required) what does the title say?
I think this is still in the '68 Shelby VIN' lane.
-
How a car was titled were specifically determined by individual DMV workers and States. It is a completely nonissue 50 years later.