390cs68rcode
Well-known member
the small square thing under the foglight. CS's have a longer round one.
COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS
-
Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.
289/302 Gtcs
- Thread starter case12
- Start date
OP
OP
case12
Well-known member
Here is my car (sunlit gold) with the GTCS pedestal - a small round cylinder that puts the Lucas lights about center in the grill.
Also, here is the ebay car (candy apple red) with the Shelby pedestal - a small square washer (about 3/4" tall) that puts the Lucas lights close to the bottom of the grill.
The Shelby pedestal was presumably smaller since the Shelby hood was different and came lower into the grill. Thus the square pedestal centered the Lucas lights better in the Shelby grill. The GTCS cylinder pedestal was designed to center on the GTCS hood and grill.
That is my theory at least. Presumably some dealers may have used Shelby pedestals on GTCS's when the Marchal fog light recall occured for both.
Casey
Also, here is the ebay car (candy apple red) with the Shelby pedestal - a small square washer (about 3/4" tall) that puts the Lucas lights close to the bottom of the grill.
The Shelby pedestal was presumably smaller since the Shelby hood was different and came lower into the grill. Thus the square pedestal centered the Lucas lights better in the Shelby grill. The GTCS cylinder pedestal was designed to center on the GTCS hood and grill.
That is my theory at least. Presumably some dealers may have used Shelby pedestals on GTCS's when the Marchal fog light recall occured for both.
Casey
Attachments
still looking for one
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2006
- Messages
- 201
The red coupe and the '"66 Vert.
The 68:
I agree, good color, overall condition (from the picture) nice options.
But there were some mistakes, like the script, made on the resto.
But why is the pre-teenage looking girl with the car?
The 1966 convertible.
What happened to the backup lights, and the side scoop trim? The "model" posing on the car didn't distract me from an incorrect resto.
I am no expert like the rest of you people here, but it seems to me that a rotisserie restoration on a $20,000 or up car, you would attend to the details on the trim. Someone dropped the ball. Putting a GIRL in the photos by the car, even if meant as a nod towards the retro, doesn't change that.
It's about the CAR, read my lips on the internet.
I agree with Arlie, these cars would need to be checked out carefully, before bid. The seller unnerves me....
Mustanglvr said:
The 68:
I agree, good color, overall condition (from the picture) nice options.
But there were some mistakes, like the script, made on the resto.
But why is the pre-teenage looking girl with the car?
The 1966 convertible.
What happened to the backup lights, and the side scoop trim? The "model" posing on the car didn't distract me from an incorrect resto.
I am no expert like the rest of you people here, but it seems to me that a rotisserie restoration on a $20,000 or up car, you would attend to the details on the trim. Someone dropped the ball. Putting a GIRL in the photos by the car, even if meant as a nod towards the retro, doesn't change that.
It's about the CAR, read my lips on the internet.
I agree with Arlie, these cars would need to be checked out carefully, before bid. The seller unnerves me....
BroadwayBlue
Well-known member
390cs68rcode said:
I thought it was just me but something does look weird about it.
Maybe that you can see more because of the Shelby pedestals
Dave's Classic
Active member
Don't get me wrong, I respect any attempt to save a car. I checked the bible [Newitts book]. The Marti report shows a March 8 build date well before the April 19th Marchal cut-off. Seeing as it went to California it should have gotten the recall. One could assume the dealer used the mount in the lucas box rather than fabricate the corract one. I also noticed the lack of side scoop grills, matting and pop rivets [which bugs me, what was wrong with stainless screws?]. The rear stripe and rr emblem would problably get me also. Does Dr. Von Quack have any openings? The leather wheel is a nice addition, but I don't think Ford thought of it! Being a C code car, like mine, it doesn't qualify for the GT package making the valance correct. All that being said, can I have it please. The child can go for her nap now!
Dave's Classic
Active member
The grill looks OK to me. If you look at the sides, in some pictures the bars are even. If you look at some of the under hood shots you can see the grill rivets look original. I think I read that Ford , due to costs, changed the exterior option gruop. Early in 68 Ford deleted bumper gaurds as standard equipment and made them optional in a pckage together with wheel opening mouldings. I am getting therapy. Dave.
still looking for one said:
No offense, but if that was a rotisserie restoration, then I am going to wake up tomorrow finding out I won the lottery. Even an older resto would show much better than that car. The underside is far from the best and neither is the engine bay. Thats almost as bad as when I read Frame Off on a Mustang.
