Topic: K codes with wrong engine codes

[Coralsnake]

Does anyone know about a batch of Dearborn built k codes that had the incorrect engine codes stamped into the front aprons?

[midlife]

Sounds more like someone dropped a K-code engine into an A, D, or F-code Mustang, or K-code non-Mustangs that didn't designate the HiPo engine.

[CharlesTurner]

Haven't heard of that before, but a thorough inspection of the unibody of these cars could yield some answers.

[cobraboy]

Thankfuly all three of my unibody VINS are there. 

[midlife]

So what's the story here?  Does the VIN have a K-code but the engine is not, or vice-versa?  Is only one of the three VINs mis-stamped?

[Bob Gaines]

Does anyone know about a batch of Dearborn built k codes that had the incorrect engine codes stamped into the front aprons?

I have seen a few examples of mis stamped A code SJ 67 GT350's and K code GT500's. Most likey there are examples at every plant. I haven't heard of any urban legend like stories of a large amount of K code mis stamps at Dearborn however.Bob

[67gta289]

I've got a 1967 "C" code mis-stamped as an "S" code in all three inner fender stamps.  Door tag was correct. John

[SFM6S0000]

I remember an article or letter written in about 25 years ago (either Mustang Monthly or Mustang Times), where a guy had bought a completely original 1965 Mustang coupe with the High Performance 289 from the first owner. The car had never been apart and was in good condition. Had the Ownercard and owners manual, car appeared to be all correct. But while the door data plate and all of the documentation had a K for the engine code, the aprons had a T (the rest of the info; year, plant, body and consecutive number were the same). Sounded legit, and I have seen quite a number of stamping issues in the years since. The deal with the 67 Shelbys (A in lieu of K and K in lieu of Q) are the only 'group' mis stampings Ive ever heard of. But the Shelbys were probably the only cars built in large groups based on engine type.

Dave

[Coralsnake]

I have a buddy with an original 1966 Dearborn built coupe. The history of car is known. Both inner fenders have the t code stamping for the engine. The door tag is a k code. The consecutive unit numbers all match ( three locations)  The car has the correctly dated k code drivetrain. no sheenanigans...body has all the k code features as well, no body modifications.

I may have read this same Mustang Monthly article as well.....have to look it up. Thanks

The car is not for sale. I dont have an agenda. Just presenting what we found.

This in no way relates to the Shelbys. I have several examples of those where the 1968 windshield tag engine code doesn't match the other tags. I suspect those tags were stamped at another location on the production line.

[65,66,67UNRESTORED]

 I recently bought an unrestored 1965 Mustang GT K code Coupe that has C in the fender apron stamp. The car has the original door data tag, VIN stamped engine and transmission. Everything is date coded correct. All the suspension components are original as is the steering box too. Mistakes did happen.

A friend of my father's had a 1966 High Country Special with a T stamped fender apron and C stamped original door data tag. The car was a Gold winner multiple times in the MCA unrestored class with it's original C code drivetrain in place.

Does anyone know which Mustang Monthly covered this topic years ago?

[jwc66k]

Mistakes happen and fraud exists.
Jim

[65,66,67UNRESTORED]

 I agree and that's why I prefer to buy unrestored cars. A restored car that is unique must have before restoration pics along with heavy documentation to interest me. Keep in mind Mustangs and Shelbys didn't have much value in 1976. That is the date on title car I bought from the second owner.  Thankfully we have Marti Reports for 67 up.

[Bob Gaines]

I agree and that's why I prefer to buy unrestored cars. A restored car that is unique must have before restoration pics along with heavy documentation to interest me. Keep in mind Mustangs and Shelbys didn't have much value in 1976. That is the date on title car I bought from the second owner.  Thankfully we have Marti Reports for 67 up.

All of your points are well taken except the part about the date on the title of the car having signifgance in relation to justifying originality. Not to be argumentive and my comment is meant with all due respect but unless I am missing something the piece of paper that a title is does nothing to verify that a car has remained unchanged from that date on the title. The only thing the date typically verifies is that it has remained in the same persons ownership since that date and even that can be disputed like in the case of a open title that has changed hands after one or more transactions without being re titled.

[65,66,67UNRESTORED]

Bob, My point is that it probably wouldn't have been a thought to fake a K code back in 1976 as they had such little value. Heck, in 1988 (12 years later) a friend sold a very nice 1968 GT500 convertible out of Hemmings for $12k. Today the same car is worth 10 times as much or more. I wish I could buy Mustangs and Shelbys for 1976 prices today. This is why the title dated 1976 is significant to me. Just my 2 cents.
 

[J_Speegle]

Does anyone know about a batch of Dearborn built k codes that had the incorrect engine codes stamped into the front aprons?

Any particular year or time period at Dearborn?