• 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.

1968 GT VS A Non GT California special.

sportyworty

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
258
Location
Vista, Ca
Yes that is the case on the C they are rare and weird but were made. Also I can assure you that I own a 390 S GT/CS 4 sp and while it has HD suspension it is not a GT. Lots of mistakes were made on brochures the biggest well known example being the 427 availability for 68 on Mustang.
 

Mosesatm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
9,177
Sorry, but I'm not buying into the C-code GT idea until I see proof.
 

sportyworty

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
258
Location
Vista, Ca
ok no problem they made C code GT in 67 as well. I have not earned much credibility on this forum because I do not post much. Maybe later over the weekend I will post a Marti for you. Had a Royal Maroon one FB.
 

teamlo

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
259
ok no problem they made C code GT in 67 as well. I have not earned much credibility on this forum because I do not post much. Maybe later over the weekend I will post a Marti for you. Had a Royal Maroon one FB.

I'd love to see the Marti report if you can post it. I'm not casting doubt, I just like to see Marti reports!

Terry
 

teamlo

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
259
Does anyone know anything about the single '68 big block Mustang (I can't remember which engine) that was supposedly built with a C4 transmission? To me, that sounds like it might just be an error on the data plate stamping, but you never know!

Terry
 

Mosesatm

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
9,177
ok no problem they made C code GT in 67 as well. I have not earned much credibility on this forum because I do not post much. Maybe later over the weekend I will post a Marti for you. Had a Royal Maroon one FB.

That would be perfect.

Thanks
 

sportyworty

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 25, 2002
Messages
258
Location
Vista, Ca
Yes Terry it was an error as pointed in the new 428 Reg. We discussed it a lot prior on the registry. Here is another interesting fact. All of the 68.5 R code Mustangs were GT but this was not the case for the Cougar 68.5. Also the PDB was a mandatory extra cost option on the 68.5 Mustang but again not the case for the Cougar. keeps it fun for even the people that have been at it for a long time. I learn new things all the time but the above stuff is not new and known in the community if you dig around.
 

DeadStang

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
345
ok no problem they made C code GT in 67 as well. I have not earned much credibility on this forum because I do not post much. Maybe later over the weekend I will post a Marti for you. Had a Royal Maroon one FB.

I think I remember that car...did you buy it 4 or 5 years ago-ish? Kind of ratty, but solid?
 

6t8-390gt

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
490
Location
Central Virginia
In 1967 you could order the GT with the 289 2-V(C-code); but not in 1968! Kerry, I too would like to see a Marti report if you could post it. It would be real interesting to see the entire option list for that car. If it does in fact exist I think I would pay Kevin Marti to research how many 68 C-codes were built with GT option because it should not exist.

1968 is a very confusing year due to the mid-year engine additions and deletions. The quarter reflector changes, seatbelt changes, UAW strike, the change of the 289/302 engine blocks, etc., etc. In reality the more you look and research the more you find. All the early model Mustangs had minor mid-year changes that are often overlooked until you really examine and compare model years.

As stated earlier, some standard equipment of the California Special were in part also included in the GT option which makes it all the more confusing. I always wondered if a California Special was also a GT did it have the standard pop-open gas cap (included in CS option) or the GT pop-open cap (included in GT option package)? I've seen them both ways, but have never seen an "original" car to know 100%. Same goes for the center caps of the S/S wheels?! The CS sales brochure addresses some of these thing; but not all (ie. fog lamps).

Danny
 

dalorzo_f

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,886
Location
Brisbane Australia
So are all S codes GT's?
Categorially, no. Common misbelief due to the "390GT" engine... folks assume the GT option is there, it ain't.

The GT also deleted the engine size and Mustang fender script, replaced with the GT badge. Not sure how this was handled on the Cal Specials.

The gas cap and hubcaps would be GT on a GT car. The Lucas/Marchals and GT/CS grille would stay, not stock 68 GT. The pop open cap is about the only part I can think of similar to the GT option on the GT/CS (but different for non GT cars), so not sure about "some standard equipment of the California Special were in part also included in the GT option ". Only a different pop-open gas cap...?

Isn't there also a difference in the interior package?
No, no interior changes were part of the GT/CS option. (unless you count the fog light switch).

From what I have seen the discs were "supposed" to be a required option on 68 GT big blocks. Many S coded had discs (I own a 68 non-GT drum S code)
 

Ruppstang

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
3,080
By Ford documentation most post strike S codes were GTs. I have the document, if I can find it I will post it.
Marty
 

franklinair

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
4,744
Here's a page from the salesmen's book pertaining to 1968 Mustang engine availability & requirements: It says the 390 4V requires the extra cost GT package.

Neil
 

Attachments

  • MEGAFILE 002.jpg
    MEGAFILE 002.jpg
    203.2 KB · Views: 62

teamlo

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
259
Here's a page from the salesmen's book pertaining to 1968 Mustang engine availability & requirements: It says the 390 4V requires the extra cost GT package.

Neil

That was true when this salesman's book was printed (April 1968). At the beginning of the model year, you could get the S-code engine without the car being a GT.

I also was not aware that all X-code 390 2V cars had dual exhaust (as stated in the salesman's brochure, which doesn't differentiate between GT and non-GT with respect to the X-code engine). I would have assumed dual exhaust if it was a GT, single if not.

Terry
 

Ruppstang

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2009
Messages
3,080
Own two post strike '68 S codes. Convertible/C6, no GT. Coupe/4sp, GT. Built 6 days apart in mid December in San Jose...

Possibly all orders taken post strike were required to be GT.
Just a thought. Marty
 

dalorzo_f

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 7, 2006
Messages
1,886
Location
Brisbane Australia
Respectfully, no, on the post strike "requirement".

I have a post strike Marti verified non-GT S code.

While non-GT S codes are not the majority, they are reasonably common. I think most putting up the $ for the S engine probably wanted a bit more fun and would assume most would have gone for the GT option as well.

But the GT option and the 390 were never mandated as a pair.

As for Ford docs, as they were printed long in advance of the model year many aspects are just not correct. Like the mythical 427 in a Mustang in 68. Mentioned in many Ford docs, never built.

I have no idea why this myth refuses to die as the facts clearly show the S code was never required to be a GT....
 

teamlo

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
259
Own two post strike '68 S codes. Convertible/C6, no GT. Coupe/4sp, GT. Built 6 days apart in mid December in San Jose...

From documentation I have seen (Marti reports and other papers, including a Ford document dated Dec 1967) and cars I have observed, I'm convinced that at some point during the 1968 model year, the GT option became a requirement if you wanted the S-code engine. Exactly what date that was is anybody's guess at this point. Was it post strike? Absolutely. Was is immediately post strike? No. Was it January, February, March 1968? Who knows? I'd like to see a Marti report from a late '68 model year build showing a non-GT S-code car. Not saying they don't exist, just haven't ever seen one or read about one. Having said that, I've never seen a unicorn either. But I am pretty much sure they don't exist.

Terry
 
Last edited:

6t8-390gt

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 19, 2004
Messages
490
Location
Central Virginia
I just looked over the 9 pages of Marti Reports posted on this site; every S-Code GT/CS has the GT equipment group!

Danny
 
Top