1968 GT VS A Non GT California special.

[Ruppstang]

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....

Here is a pretty convincing Ford document. Note the last line in the far left column and the date on the far right bottom.

 

[teamlo]

+1 on the very convincing Ford document, although it lists the 427 as "now discontinued". It never was available, as we now know

Terry

 

[sportyworty]

Here is a more convincing document. I own one like previously mentioned. Not a GT yet an S code with HD suspension built March 21





Also regarding the question on the R code GT/CS and HCS obviously flat hoods w/o turn indicators for the Hood Scoop and yes they had the GT Pop Open Gas cap. Scott Fuller has a survivor in original paint and I have spent a considerable amount of time with the car. Happy to answer any other questions about the R cars and their nuances regard ing the GT/CS and HCS package.

 

[6t8-390gt]

Kerry,
That is the latest non-GT S-code I have seen. I am not arguing that non GT S-codes exist; just that at "some point" in production Ford required the GT option to coincide with the S-code. I was obviously intended to happen some time between January and April 1968. Did that car have the recessed rear reflectors or the later style? It is also interesting that the above car does not have disc brakes either! Cool find and documentation!

Do you have a Marti report for a 1968 C-code GT? That would really send me over the edge!

Danny

 

[Ruppstang]

Here is a more convincing document. I own one like previously mentioned. Not a GT yet an S code with HD suspension built March 21





Also regarding the question on the R code GT/CS and HCS obviously flat hoods w/o turn indicators for the Hood Scoop and yes they had the GT Pop Open Gas cap. Scott Fuller has a survivor in original paint and I have spent a considerable amount of time with the car. Happy to answer any other questions about the R cars and their nuances regard ing the GT/CS and HCS package.

I think the answer may be that both of these cars had the HD suspension and met Fords GT requirement another way. Just a thought Marty

 

[sportyworty]

Danny the recessed markers ended Feb 22 per our research of reports on SAAC. around the same time the dash knee pad was dropped from production. My car actually has non power disc but cant say if they are original to the car. It takes more than HD suspension to be a GT so that would not meet Fords GT package "requirement" you are forgetting the cosmetics. The car did not have the dual quad tip exhaust or valance cutouts and GT wheel caps either. I did not come across the C GT 68 Marti yet. I have had over 200 Mustangs and have a lot of paper work here. I understand that extraoridinary claims require extraordinary documentation which I have not provided yet but think you know me from the 428 reg not to be a Bull shitter. I did find the C GT 67 Marti. Stay tuned I showed it to Fuller and deadstang so it is here some place.

Marty the pics of the Marti and the invoice are the same car so it is just one example not two

 

[gt/csj4]

Bob teets' cj hcs isn't a gt tho..I'm not sure if I am reading incorrectly but it was stated ALL 68' 428 cars were gt's. I know for fact bobs isn't...hd suspension maybe but no gt outside attributes

 

[Ruppstang]

I do not think that Ford required the GT option on S codes because they thought it needed badging. I believe that it was more performance driven and that is why possibly the HD suspension may have met that requirement.
I have a 67 GTA convertible that is a C code, That was not that uncommon in 67.
I have been a MCA judge for a long time and am perfectly willing to accept almost any thing with the proper documentation.
I find this very interesting and thank you for your information.
Marty

 

[sportyworty]

I agree Marty and understand what you are saying about the GT. It did however include cosmetics like the exhaust,GT caps etc I mentioned as well as the performance/suspension upgrades. You got both was my point. The S codes all had the GT 390 engine. The GT performance part ended in 68. The 69 was a GT car but the 390 was no longer a GT engine rather the new for 69 IP (improved performance) with a smaller cam and an Autolite replaced the holley.

I can assure you that Bob's R code HCS is a true GT and it is called out on his Marti as such. The car is known in the 68.5 world. The only non GT R code Mustangs were the first 50 "135" series cars. As I previously posted the 68.5 Cougar was an exception on the GT as well as the PDB. Bob's car was born with quad tips and GT wheel caps unless it has a delete notation on the Marti but it had PDB and GT package

 

[dalorzo_f]

It is also interesting that the above car does not have disc brakes either!

Actually quite common. People who wanted to 1/4 mile the big blocks often left off the discs to save weight.... My S convertible was a factory manual drum car...

Also intereting how the date for the "requirement" keeps slipping as more facts showing the proposed dates were wrong. First the strike, mine proves it was not, then "early" '68, Kerry's proves in late March it was not the case... now it shifts later... so unless anyone can prove the last car off the line as an S code had no dics tha date will still be debated and shifted later and later....

Confusing teh HD suspension option with the GT is a fineese to try to prove a point shown to be suspect.

May just buy a Marti statistical report to try to put this one to bed... ask for the manufactuing date of the last non GT S code in '68... but then folks would probably still argue anything later was "required" instead of the odds of it being a very popular combination being more prevalent.

As for the dash knee pads, it appears in San Jose it may have been even earlier than the Feb data, my GT S coupe (with discs) has no knee pad, the convertible built 6 days earlier at the same plant, in mid Dec '67, does.

 

[gt/csj4]

I agree Marty and understand what you are saying about the GT. It did however include cosmetics like the exhaust,GT caps etc I mentioned as well as the performance/suspension upgrades. You got both was my point. The S codes all had the GT 390 engine. The GT performance part ended in 68. The 69 was a GT car but the 390 was no longer a GT engine rather the new for 69 IP (improved performance) with a smaller cam and an Autolite replaced the holley.

I can assure you that Bob's R code HCS is a true GT and it is called out on his Marti as such. The car is known in the 68.5 world. The only non GT R code Mustangs were the first 50 "135" series cars. As I previously posted the 68.5 Cougar was an exception on the GT as well as the PDB. Bob's car was born with quad tips and GT wheel caps unless it has a delete notation on the Marti but it had PDB and GT package

insert foot to mouth to my original post stating "fact" haha


I had to delete what I initially replied with cause I re-read your response and it makes sense. I wasn't asking in a non-sensical manner or smart ass way, I just have known this car since his son Scott found the car 20+ years ago and have been there for the entire resto, so, I was curious as to why its missing notable gt apperance pieces. But, I can see maybe these were deleted options.

 

[sportyworty]

I never took it as a smart ass remark. We danced once before on the GT J code 9 inch and since then a mutual respect is in place. The fact that you are passionate about the cars at your age is admirable in my view. Your blanket comments will subside as time goes on lol. We are all here because we share a common interest and should have these discussions where we all can contribute and share. I have very few posts since joining in 2002 but that's because I have plenty on other Mustang forums lol. The GT anomolies are of particular interest so threw my hat in the ring.

 

[gt/csj4]

I never took it as a smart ass remark. We danced once before on the GT J code 9 inch and since then a mutual respect is in place. The fact that you are passionate about the cars at your age is admirable in my view. Your blanket comments will subside as time goes on lol. We are all here because we share a common interest and should have these discussions where we all can contribute and share. I have very few posts since joining in 2002 but that's because I have plenty on other Mustang forums lol. The GT anomolies are of particular interest so threw my hat in the ring.

Major cheers to you on that response. If we were in closer places, demographically , I'd say lets get a beer to properly "cheers" to one another.... Unfortunately we have to rely on the power of the net.
And I remember the GT J code 9'' topic quite well, and I commend that you still do as well. Nonetheless, I wont further detour from the OT/OP's question any further, however, cheers to you :cheesy:

 

[6t8-390gt]

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


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....

May just buy a Marti statistical report to try to put this one to bed... ask for the manufactuing date of the last non GT S code in '68... but then folks would probably still argue anything later was "required" instead of the odds of it being a very popular combination being more prevalent.
QUOTE]

I thought of doing the same thing; so I'll propose an offer. You (or I) request the info from Marti. If his research shows the S-Code was offered without the GT Option for the entire production year I'll pay for the research. If it shows the Non-GT S-codes ceased production in March or April (supporting the Ford documents posted here) you pay the full research fees. If any doubt exists after the research is complete we split the cost up the middle. I just can't see paying Marti twice to answer the same question.

Many of these "facts" and "myths" Kevin Marti has been able to solve because FoMoCo released the data to him; Mustang and Ford guys should be greatful!

Danny

 

[teamlo]

Very cool to see a March 1968 car with the S-code and non-GT. Also the latest one I have seen yet. 1968 was indeed a very interesting year! Thanks for posting that.

Terry

 

[Bumblebee]

This thread has been fascinating and entertaining, thank you all for your contribution! I hope that there are many more like this, it's like trying to disentangle (if that's a word!) the science from the art.

Really enjoyable and useful, thanks all.

 

[teamlo]

This thread has been fascinating and entertaining, thank you all for your contribution! I hope that there are many more like this, it's like trying to disentangle (if that's a word!) the science from the art.

Really enjoyable and useful, thanks all.

As I (and others) have pointed out, the 1968 model year was IMHO the most fascinating of the first generation car (by that I mean '64.5 to '68). Engine changes, the whole 427 Mustang thing, GT/CS and HCS, introduction of the CJ, the strike, changes in standard as well as optional equipment, all the regional special editions and different paint colors, questionable dates once thought to be correct and now proven otherwise. It just keeps getting better! Great thread. Thanks everyone.

Terry

 

[teamlo]

As for the dash knee pads, it appears in San Jose it may have been even earlier than the Feb data, my GT S coupe (with discs) has no knee pad, the convertible built 6 days earlier at the same plant, in mid Dec '67, does.

My current San Jose J code GT coupe (late Dec 67 build), has no knee pad, but does have padded A-pillars. Front lap belts only, no shoulder belts.

I'd assume they just kept installing the knee pad until the stock at the assembly line ran out. Personally, I like the way the knee pad looks. I always wondered why they deleted it, since it was supposedly a "safety" feature, and by '68 the cars really started to incorporate more safety features (collapsable column, padded A-pillars, knee pad, more heavily padded steering wheel and console pads, shoulder belts, locking front seat backs, rounded reverse lockout on 4-speed shifter as opposed to the "T" style, etc.). I even saw a car on ebay some time ago that had REAR shoulder belts. Oh and radial tires too! Really cool stuff. I love it.

Terry

 

[Ruppstang]

I can't wait to see that Marti research. It will be good to finally have the facts and feel confident in the information we are telling others. Marty

 

[sportyworty]

There is always over lap on dates when a change is put in place. My point was we do not seem to see anymore knee pads after that approx date.
Yes the radial tires are super rare on these early cars. 1967 was the first year they were offered on a Mustang. I had a K code 67 Convertible that called out the Radials. They were a Gold line and looked great on the Nightmist Blue. You can look to the Cougar for more of the rare options like those rear shoulder belts. 68 was interesting like some of the 302 cast blocks having 289 internals and heads. it is difficult to find a 302 block dated after the strike and many of the GT 350 have July/Aug blocks up until around the late Jan AO Smith build. At one time the 65/66 Mustangs dominated this hobby and whether you are an Eleanor fan or not I do not think it hurt the increased interest level for the 67-70 cars. The Cougar received the 427 in 68 so it is still in the family of pony cars not just mid and full size. Check out this rare 68
Kerry

http://specialmustang.com/cgi-bin/s...Special&optn=&name=Mustang Challenger Special