1968 Welded Shock Towers

I felt that the below discussion from the Leaf Spring Engineering thread deserved it own thread. It appears that GT/CS and HCS cars with the J code engine and the additional GT option may have weld reinforced shock towers. This reinforcement to my knowledge was done on the line by hand and is supported by the variances. Click on the link and you will see Arlie's GT optioned GT/CS and Mary also discovered this on his GT optioned HCS he is restoring.

This treatment is common on the big block cars and all the S and R code Mustangs I have been around have this treatment. I never equated it to the 1968 J Code Mustangs. This could be another way to spot a true GT J code car in 1968. Not all encompassing, but "maybe" another way to spot one without the benefit of a Marti. It may follow only 4 speed cars.

This would apply only to a Mustang with a J code motor.

Thoughts?

Rob

Mosesatm said:

My J-code GT GT/CS with 3.25 posi gears also has welded shock towers but I assumed a former owner did that work, especially since one of the four welds is simply awful.
Sadly, the 9" posi is no longer in the car.

Click to expand...

http://californiaspecial.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=18987&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1424712479

I believe this to be true both with four speeds and automatics. J codes with the GT option also got a nine inch rear axel and heavy duty suspension.
Marty

I went through all the Marti's posted on the site and found 2 more GT/CS cars with a J code motor and the GT Option. They are owned by:

TraveledGTCS
limelyt

Both came with 3.25 axel ratios.

TraveledGTCS/limelyt,
Can you look at your cars for the welded shock towers? And do both your cars have a 9 inch rear end vice the smaller 8 inch?

Rob

I have a Dec. '67 San Jose GT coupe (not a CS or HCS). Factory 9" axle with 3.25 ratio, automatic transmission. See photos.

Terry

Terry,
From the pics it has a small block in it currently. So is it an "A" code or "K" code car? As much as I am curious about the 1968 J code cars with the GT option, I am also curious about the small block Mustangs in 1967. Whether these cars had the welded shock towers when the GT option was checked.

Thanks for taking the time to photo and post!

Rob

Rob,

It's a '68 J Code GT coupe, per my previous post and signature. Built in December of '67 in San Jose.

Terry

Terry,
I think the build date of 1967 may have confued some folks (like me!).

Mosesatm said:

Terry,
I think the build date of 1967 may have confued some folks (like me!).

Click to expand...

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. :embarass:

teamlo said:

I have a Dec. '67 San Jose GT coupe (not a CS or HCS). Factory 9" axle with 3.25 ratio, automatic transmission. See photos.

Terry

Click to expand...

Terry that is just what I would have expected. I do not think the welded shock towers had any thing to do with GTCS and HCS. It was the high performance V8 and GT combination IMO.

Rob I have a 67 GTA convertible small block built 11-04-66 and it is not welded. I will try to look for a 67 K coded or a 67 Shelby GT350 and see what was done there.
Marty

Marty
Cool!! I posted something on the SAAC site and got some help and some of the normal "pompousicity". Ahh, a new word.....

Rob

Ruppstang said:

Terry that is just what I would have expected. I do not think the welded shock towers had any thing to do with GTCS and HCS. It was the high performance V8 and GT combination IMO.

Click to expand...

Marty, I was just making sure to point out that my car is just a regular GT, not a CS or HCS, just so there was no confusion. Pretty neat all the differences we are discovering related to the small block GT in 1968.

Terry

Hi Rob, I saw your post on SAAC and the generic redirect to the Concours forum. Interestingly enough we have already been discussing this topic so would have been easy enough to link the pertinent thread.
Interesting note is my J code GT 4 speed is a 3.00 limited slip and of course a 9 inch. It does not have a call out for HD suspension so we can drop that from the criteria.
One side is welded only and the car is an original paint survivor.
Here is the discussion if you did not find it in the vast forum.
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=h6aj9p4etarsgjqdu6cnmhih85&topic=5080.0

Here are some pics of my car from a direct inquiry from Marty on a leaf spring thread
http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=h6aj9p4etarsgjqdu6cnmhih85&topic=10404.0

Kerry it would not have call out HD suspension because that was part of the GT option.
HD suspension and the GT optioned cars all used the AU springs. The original owner must have wanted a limited slip axel instead of the 3.25 open that most seem to have.
Marty

Arlie's California Special with the GT option was ordered with a 3.00 rear end with Equa Lok. Code E. 4 speed car.

Picture of Val's driver side welded shock tower treatment. This is a 1967 S code GTA car, and the picture is just for a sample of the look. It is not part of our small block investigation. It is a San Jose car.

Rob

Last weekend a friend who owns a 67 GT350 came down to my shop and his shock towers are not welded. We are headed to Tucson for a MCA national at the end of the month, I'll check some more cars there.
BTW Rob did you check out Bill's car when it was in your shop?
Marty

Marty,
His are not welded. I have a 1967 A code 4 speed, GT Fastback in my garage right now. Not welded, but I am not surprised. And not a K code.

Shelby's are not San Jose specific I think? Wonder if it could be a "plant" thing? Some of the 1967 GT 350 Shelby's have been welded. I think I heard of one that was welded on one side and not the other?

Rob

Think you guys (for the purpose of this discussion) should remain focused on 68 San Jose production. Adding different years, options and such may confuse the search and results. Though the effort and practice might have some similarities.

Shelby's were a "plant specific" thing depending on the year. Basically if it was 65-67 it was a San Jose car.


Have kept searching for 68 J code GTs for data - just haven't found any recently to add to the discussion. And haven't been to the warehouse to look at mine. Pictures were no help

Think you guys have found something - just need to collect examples by VIN and cover the total production period , just not the Cal Special period

Jeff,
I appreciate your thoughts, so to clear the air a bit this is the question:

"In 1968 did the GT Option include shock tower reinforcement (welded shock tower treatment) for the J code engine package"?

A subset of this question is the Competition Handling Package (CHP) option and the Heavy Duty Suspension (HDS) option. I am a bit fuzzy in the 1968 year whether the GT, CHP, and HDS are offered the same as they were in 1967. I do have the complete Ford sales information for 1967. I have an abbreviated portion for the options in 1968 and the suspension portion of the 1968 GT option seems the same as the 1967 year. Basically the Heavy Duty Suspension option.

The CHP option was a limited production option in 1967 and was a large step above the HDS option in 1967 both in cost and performance.

So with the above thoughts let me rephrase the question if the CHP and HDS options were offered in 1968:

"In 1968 did the GT, CHP, and HDS Options include shock tower reinforcement (welded shock tower treatment) for the J code engine package"?

As we know the big blocks for both years "seem" to always have gotten the welded treatment so that is not part of the question. I make the leap that the GT suspension and HDS suspension are one and the same in 1968.

To me this question has been clear if readers follow the complete thread. This is not directed at you, but sometimes readers jump in without starting at the first post. So during the discussion other examples and thoughts are presented to augment the research. A quote from the SAAC site said that all 1968 GT 350's have welded shock towers. That was great information to "possibly" substantiate that all 1968 Mustangs with the CHP option would have the welded shock tower treatment based on a following SAAC statement. This assumes that all Shelby's started out as Mustangs (to my knowledge). But trust me I do not have the collective knowledge on all that is Shelby. Another quote from the SAAC sit said that all 1967 and 1968 Shelby's started with a Mustang with the CHP option. According to Marti the CHP option was only ordered on 141 of all the Mustangs produced in 1967.

Below is my brothers Marti and window sticker for his 1967 Mustang that is an S code and not part of the question. But it shows the rareness and cost of the CHP in 1967. If the CHP option was available in 1968 along with the HDS option then we need to expand the 1968 search to look at these options also when ordered with a J code engine alone or as a GT, GT/CS, HCS, and a Shelby. Again, at the risk of losing readers that do not absorb the entire thread.

Just to be crystal clear, my purpose in all of this was to provide the person looking at a 1968 Mustang with a J code 302 option represented as a GT with one more arrow in the quiver "visually" without a Marti to ascertain the GT option that adds value to the Mustang.

If we find that all of the above rings true, then a 1968 302 car without welded shock towers cast some doubt as an authentic GT. But I always like to say "never say never".

Rob

robert campbell said:

Jeff,
I appreciate your thoughts, so to clear the air a bit this is the question:

"In 1968 did the GT Option include shock tower reinforcement (welded shock tower treatment) for the J code engine package"?

Click to expand...

Yes - good focus and statement of your research


As far as the 67 competition suspension package - it doesn't matter that's not your focus at this time

Don't think it was an option like it was in 67. The name was reused in other years but the package was not the same Apples and oranges sort of thing.

The Heavy duty suspension package was offered just about every year and was often part of another package but not always. Again if you follow down that path (or down the Shelby mod one) I think it will confuse things and things and get you back to looking as 2V's with this or that package - unrelated to the statement of focus.

Just an observation. These discussions can take on a life of their own and become moot real quick.

Just my thoughts and concerns for your effort