GT/CS Sanctioned Club? -MCA Judging Rules

[case12]

Was reading the latest Mustang Times from MCA and Bill Johnson, the president, in his editorial is talking about reaching out to partner with other clubs in the mustang hobby such as the Bullitt Club, SVTOA, Shelby USA.

This may be a question for Paul, Bob or Jon - But would we be more effective in promoting the GT/CS if we were an official club that was recognizable by other groups? This may also help make judging rules legitimate with other sanctioned bodies.

I am new to the group, so I wanted to test the idea and see if it has been tested before. This is the best forum I have been involved in, and it seems like it would be reasonable and useful for it to be an official and sanctioned body?

Casey

 

[case12]

BTW - When saying GT/CS, I mean to be inclusive of HCS as well. Casey

 

[PNewitt]

Well, this is a good point to bring up here. It sounds like MCA is either losing members, or gaining too many late model Mustangs. Most of the early cars are in the (basically non-rust) west.

(To be kinda blunt about it) I don't think there should be any question on the legit nature of the rules and guidelines that I wrote for the 1996 Registry. Years of hard and tedious work went into them. It shouldn't take a "club" status to make the GT/CS (and HCS) rules "legit". Frankly, that's absurd....but if it takes some sort of club to get my points across, and eliminate some of the "problems" and lack of education of what a GT/CS (HCS) is at car shows, then I'm all for it.

This is just how the process works for these things. If it was a matter of "I" only versus club rules, I'd understand, but my research is based on talking to a lot of individuals that were there, who designed and engineered the cars--that helped me form those GT/CS Rules.

By the way, I was on the San Diego Mustang Club rules committee back in '84, and that was a very detailed rules book.

Paul Newitt

 

[68gt390]

Paul;
You bring up a good point. That seems to be happening to a lot of local clubs as well. Gaining more late model members. I know our local club over the past couple years has had that happen, talking with our club president we've gone to a 60% late model and 40% classic ratio of members. We are now in the process of looking at the way we break out class' for the late model mustangs at our local show's were before we didn't have that problem. Just goes to show things are changing. Guess that's called progress. As one person put it if we don't get new blood, the club might cease to exist.

Don

 

[PNewitt]

I appreciate and understand your comments, Don, and you and Russ are doing what you can for the GT/CS (HCS).

I've always thought that every Mustang Registry (Mach 1, T-5, Boss, HCS, etc..) should write a set of their own rules and detailing information for judging--to make up a big rule book. MCA has droppd the ball all these years, and never spearheaded this.

Relying on Ford info can be "dangerous" in the sense that it's so misleading--the taillight frames--case in point. Hard info, including updates, recalls and production changes are only caught by those in the registries. You can't base rules on current Ford service part info.

On another point, as the late models "replace" the early cars (just like the slow demise of the Model T, Model A, and Early T-Birds, etc..--to newer cars in car shows), I feel that it is even MORE important to get this information thoroughly completed and in print NOW to preserve our marque. That is why the information about the GT/CS was so comprehensive in my books. I did my part. I also spent my money publishing, instead of restoring my own GT/CS--for the good of the hobby.

Paul N.

 

[case12]

Paul's history and effort for the GT/CS, along with others in this forum, is truly amazing, and it was not my intent to question that....

My thinking was beyond MCA or judging rules - and was probably more in the vein of marketing the GT/CS breed at the same level of its peers (who do seem to have sanctioned clubs. ie, shelby, bullit, svo).

Maybe we already have that peer status through the individual efforts of people from this forum...

It was only an idea I had when reading Mustang Times, and I just thought I would throw it out there....

Casey

 

[PNewitt]

Hey Casey--

No, I took no question or offense to anything said here on this thread. It's just that in my experience with MCA (not a real lot of) has been less than positive, outside of a good letter from a past president some years ago.

"I" feel that MCA hasn't seriously embraced the GT/CS, because it is a west coast car. Only a handful of MCA chapters are out here. Most are in the south and midwest.

I've had great success and support from SAAC (Shelby Automotive Automotive Club) by comparison, including two pages in that huge Shelby World Registry book!

I've thought of a club--it's just a whole lot of work. There are A LOT of WONDERFUL GT/CS and HCS owners out there, and It would be a neat thing to do. I have several other interests, and really not a lot of time to do that--not to stop anyone from forming a GT/CS club, if they would want to (through this website?) That would be up to Jon (but he's busy doin' calendars right now!).

If I can help owners somehow by some sort of "sanctioning" of some sort of group (i.e. my GT/CS Registry), then send me the paperwork from MCA.

Paul N.

 

[68gt390]

[quote author=case12 link=board=1;threadid=1225;start=0#msg6869 date=1102100173]
Paul's history and effort for the GT/CS, along with others in this forum, is truly amazing, and it was not my intent to question that....

My thinking was beyond MCA or judging rules - and was probably more in the vein of marketing the GT/CS breed at the same level of its peers (who do seem to have sanctioned clubs. ie, shelby, bullit, svo).

Maybe we already have that peer status through the individual efforts of people from this forum...

It was only an idea I had when reading Mustang Times, and I just thought I would throw it out there....

Casey
[/quote]

Casey;
As Paul said, there is no offense taken to anything you have asked. They are very valid questions. Hang in there with the rest of us. Through this site and other means of publicaton, We all hope to someday get many of these questions with "Judging and other areas" answered. As Paul mentioned in his post there are very few MCA Chapters out here, fortunately our club here in Ohio is one of those "Mustang Club of Ohio" plus the fact that due to Ford keeping very shoddy records many of there publications and what they did publish are not carved in stone. Until buying my GT/CS I was unaware of as I call it "the plite" of the GT/CS here on the east coast. I think I was one of the first in Ohio to buy a GT/CS and have since learned through talking to local restoration shops that there are what I think to be about 4 or 5 in this state. Either through ignorance or just plain complacency folks on the East Coast just don't know about these cars. I have been trying to educate folks in this area about the GT/CS and will continue to do so through every means of advertisment at my disposal. As I have mentioned in other postings on this site, I will soon be MCA certified as a judge. Once this is accomplished I will continue to strive to move up the ladder and trust me the GT/CS will be at the top of my list. That's just how I feel about this car. I am one of the few in Ohio who was fortunate enough to be raised in California when these cars came out and have been in love with them from day one. It is due to Paul's books, Jon's efforts on this site, Bob Teets, and Doug (68Sunlitgold), that I have been able to become as knowledgeable on these cars as I am. I still have a ways to go but, I will get there.

Don ;D

 

[PNewitt]

BTW--

As a side note, the research for the GT/CS gleaned information for ALL (SJ) 1968 Mustangs, including:

When the "stock" louvered was dropped in Jan to pay for workers wages, and when the shoulder harnesses were added;

When the rear reflectors were changed;

When the knee pads, and WS pillar pads were dropped;

The "secret" change from 289 to 302 blocks for the"C" code engine.

...and when front bumper guards were phased out.

All of these items you will not find in "official" Ford literature (or Marti report), unless you had access to internal memos, or, like us, did this the hard way by counting cars, and assembling the puzzle.

Paul N.

 

[our special]

Hi Paul, would you elaborate a bit more about the "secret" of going from the 289 to the 302?
Dave

 

[68gt390]

Dave;
If I'm not mistaken when Paul talks about the "secret" of going from the 289 to the 302 blocks for the "C" code engines was simply the fact that Ford used 302 blocks in some of the "C" code cars by simply using 289 heads. These cars were still listed as a "C" code 289 even though they actually had a 302 block.

Don

 

[deestix]

Hey all,
Very interesting thread. FYI, Tom E (hcsstang) and I both live near Philly, and in Feb '05, AACA will be holding a judging seminar at its annual meeting there. We both plan to go to the Mustang break-out discussion, and with the help of Paul's books, talk about improving the judging accuracy of our cars. My GT/CS has already been photographed by one of the AACA judges who I know through our NJ Mustang club.
Richard R

 

[our special]

Thank you Don. Our CS is one of the 289's with a 302 block. When I took the engine down last year, to freshen it up, I noticed the 302 cast into the block. This block also has the serial number stamped in the top left corner. I noticed in some of the past postings that some people were having trouble finding the serial number on their engine. Maybe it is only the 302 blocks that have the serial number stamped in the block and not the original 289 blocks. Just thinking out loud.
Dave

 

[68gt390]

Dave;
You are one of the fortunate folks who actually got their block stamped with the "VIN". At the San Jose plant it was kinda hit or miss as far as the stampings went for the VIN's on the block. I have two San Jose cars (68 GT and GT/CS) only my CS has the VIN stamped on the block.

Don

 

[68sunlitgold]

Dave,
I have 2 San Jose cars (GT/CS and coupe only 250 VIN # apart) both with 289 with correct cast numbers, and both have the VIN #'s stamped on the block. So I don't think it was only for the 302's listed as 289's, by the way, what is your build date. I only ask becuase this "swap" by Ford was thought to happen during the change over from 289 to 302 and they had more 289 heads than blocks so they used 302's.

Doug

 

[our special]

Hello Doug, according to the Marti report our CS was built on March 18th. and the serial # is 150383. How does this compare with yours? I don't know if there are any casting numbers on the outside of the block to indicate if it is a 289 or 302 block, but it is cast into the valley on top of the block for sure. Have you had the dome off of either of your engines? If not, you may find that you have 302 blocks also. It seems like it was hit or miss on a lot of things that FORD was doing at that time. It will be intresting to see how your build dates match up to mine.
Dave