Topic: 68 Shelby Vin and Completion Date Discussion

[TLea]

 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?

[Coralsnake]

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

[J_Speegle]

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

[CharlesTurner]

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.

[TLea]

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

[Coralsnake]

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.

[Bob Gaines]

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  .

[CharlesTurner]

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.

[Coralsnake]

I can take a look for it!

[CharlesTurner]

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?

[CharlesTurner]

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?

[Coralsnake]

Could it be the date the order was filled?

[CharlesTurner]

Seems possible. 

[Bob Gaines]

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 . 

[CharlesTurner]

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).