Topic: 68 Shelby Vin and Completion Date Discussion

[Bob Gaines]

 

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.   

[TLea]

Bob, I think you are confused. There were only 5 cars at AO Smith  How could there possibly be other cars involved?

[Coralsnake]

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 Gaines]

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.

[TLea]

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

[Coralsnake]

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. 

Being a heretic isnt bad, you can be reformed

[CharlesTurner]

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?

[ruppstang]

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.

[Coralsnake]

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

[CharlesTurner]

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?

[Coralsnake]

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.

[CharlesTurner]

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.

[Bob Gaines]

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 .

[Bob Gaines]

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.

[Coralsnake]

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.