HCS: Are they more than a special color Mustang and badge?

[classicsguy]

If a HCS is not a factory GT or a Big block car (1967-68) are they just a Mustang with a factory special color ,badge and produced in limited quantities?

A very known Mustang person once told me many years ago refering to the GT/CS: If a California Special does not have the GT package or big block ..Its just a coupe with an appearance package.

Post your opinions on this subject since I am sure it has been discussed before.

This by no means is intended to offend any HCS or GT/CS owners that are knowledgeable about these special cars.

 

[GTCSMustang]

Your friend is basically correct. The GT/CS and HCS packages are appearance packages only. They might have come on cars that were GTs, or were not GTs. You could get the package on any engine size from a 6-cyl to 428 Cobra Jet. The GT/CS and HCS packages offered no performance enhancements to the car.

Scott

 

[davidathans]

My GTCS is the "best damn looking mustang some people have ever seen" at least thats what i've been told. not because its flawless (by all means its in pretty bad shape paint wise...when you guys see it at the galpin event, you're going to feel my pain) but just because of the appearance package you are talking about...there is something about the fog lights, hood pins, side scoops, trunk lid, and tail lights that makes people think "shelby mustang"...then they hear my car and thats another story haha...but i think the calif special, being a coupe, looks better than most fastbacks too...what i have said goes for the 1968 HCS too because it looks just like the GTCS

so to answer your question:

Are they more than a special color Mustang and badge?

-yes...to some they are the best damn looking mustangs ever made

 

[PNewitt]

If a HCS is not a factory GT or a Big block car (1967-68) are they just a Mustang with a factory special color ,badge and produced in limited quantities?

A very known Mustang person once told me many years ago refering to the GT/CS: If a California Special does not have the GT package or big block ..Its just a coupe with an appearance package.

Post your opinions on this subject since I am sure it has been discussed before.

This by no means is intended to offend any HCS or GT/CS owners that are knowledgeable about these special cars.

First, I'd like to know who said that, because it impresses me as an off-the-cuff statement, without really knowing the whole GT/CS history. There have been cars called "stripos", because all they are is a car with stripes, and maybe a wing and badging added. This has been done at dealers for many years to push cars out the door. A pretty common thing.

The GT/CS is MORE than just an appearance package. If you look closer, you'll see that it had quite a lot of unique parts that could not be added just at the dealer (as such), and that it was a factory production of a very unique nature.

If you could see the parallel production blueprints to the Shelby, and notes relating to the GT/CS project, you'd know that this is more than an appearance package, and more like a Ford production version of a Shelby coupe. There are too many aspects to how this was put together, for it to be considered an appearance package only. By comparison, a '69 Mach 1 has less complicated and extensive modifications to the basic fastback--than a GT/CS has to a basic '68 coupe.

If you compare--part by part--to a '68 Shelby GT-350, there aren't that many differences. The rear ends are identical, the decklid, the side scoops, stripes, fog lights, etc. The Shelby basically has the roll bar, and nose pieces. The Shelby GT-350 engine was the 4bbl 302 with a Cobra Alum intake on it. The horsepower was "OK", but not significant by comparison. A 390 GT --GT/CS had more power than a GT-350, if you want to compare it overall by line.

I wish that people would realize that the '68 Mustang engine lineup was respectible, and that a 2bbl 302 GT/CS (which 85% were made) can hold it's own on the road.

The other aspect that "mustang experts" fail to see is that the overall owner experience, and the attention that it gets far outweighs a subjective comment about it "just being a coupe". You can't make a judgement about a car like this without including it's 40 year owner experience.

Paul N.

 

[PNewitt]

(by all means its in pretty bad shape paint wise...when you guys see it at the galpin event, you're going to feel my pain)

I'd consider your GT/CS as a very proud warrior with battle damage...like the "Memphis Bell".

Wear the scars proudly...you've earned them on the drag strip!

I was hoping that you were coming to GAS...I really want to see that CS of yours!!

Paul N.

 

[GTCSMustang]

Paul,

I understand your point. And it's a good one. But the difference between a Shelby and a GT/CS or HCS is that the Shelby includes performance upgrades in addition to the appearance upgrades. No argument that the GT/CS package is an extensive, factory applied, Shelby inspired, damn good-looking package, but it is an appearance package. And by that I mean that when ordered from the factory, the GT/CS package included no performance upgrades as part of that package. Not saying that it isn't desirable or attractive or a better appearance package than others (like the Sprint). Many of the Shelby items were "appearance-only" too, but many of the performance upgrades were only available if you ordered a Shelby.

Scott

 

[PNewitt]

I guess it would be splittin' hairs to argue to what extent a CS is an appearance package. From a marketing standpoint, I guess, but from an engineering standpoint--and knowing how the Shelbys were made that year-- the GT/CS is about 70% of that same Shelby process at Ford in '68.

It's just that for people to use the term "appearance package", it demeans what it is, and people think, "oh, it was slapped on there in ten minutes". For the average person, the GT/CS still has a hard time with it's misunderstood image problem, and the muscle car guys are quick to catorgize us down to the lower range...(and they think the GTO is the original Musclecar, too).

In my opinion, I also don't think it's fair to automatically call modifications (of any extent) an "appearance package", if it does not have the hottest engine under the hood.

You'd have to think about other examples, and decide where they would fit into the AP catagory...like The Maverick Grabber, Cougar XR7-G, Mercury Spoiler and Talladega, etc...etc...(and what about those plain-jane looking stock '69 Torinos with the 428CJs). Where do you draw the line? Does a hot engine draw the line, despite whatever is on the body and in the interior? Pretty subjective, I think.

I just can't wrap my mind around the GT/CS being only an "appearance package". I just can't!! (LOL)

Paul N.

 

[Mosesatm]

If a HCS is not a factory GT or a Big block car (1967-68) are they just a Mustang with a factory special color ,badge and produced in limited quantities?

A very known Mustang person once told me many years ago refering to the GT/CS: If a California Special does not have the GT package or big block ..Its just a coupe with an appearance package.

Post your opinions on this subject since I am sure it has been discussed before.

This by no means is intended to offend any HCS or GT/CS owners that are knowledgeable about these special cars.

Lumping '67 HCSs in with '68 HCSs sort of skews the question. The '66 and '67 HCSs were special paint and badging. The '68 HCS was a lot more than that.

Are you asking about '66 & '67 or about '68?

 

[Mosesatm]

I guess it would be splittin' hairs to argue to what extent a CS is an appearance package. From a marketing standpoint, I guess, but from an engineering standpoint--and knowing how the Shelbys were made that year-- the GT/CS is about 70% of that same Shelby process at Ford in '68.

It's just that for people to use the term "appearance package", it demeans what it is, and people think, "oh, it was slapped on there in ten minutes". For the average person, the GT/CS still has a hard time with it's misunderstood image problem, and the muscle car guys are quick to catorgize us down to the lower range...(and they think the GTO is the original Musclecar, too).

In my opinion, I also don't think it's fair to automatically call modifications (of any extent) an "appearance package", if it does not have the hottest engine under the hood.

You'd have to think about other examples, and decide where they would fit into the AP catagory...like The Maverick Grabber, Cougar XR7-G, Mercury Spoiler and Talladega, etc...etc...(and what about those plain-jane looking stock '69 Torinos with the 428CJs). Where do you draw the line? Does a hot engine draw the line, despite whatever is on the body and in the interior? Pretty subjective, I think.

I just can't wrap my mind around the GT/CS being only an "appearance package". I just can't!! (LOL)

Paul N.

Paul, whether or not the GT/CS was an appearance package seems to be pretty straightforward and not subjective at all. It was stricly an appearance package since the GT/CS option included no performance modifications.

Besides, we all know that people who turn up their noses at the the '68 HCS and GT/CS because they are JUST appearance packages usually have other childhood, mental, or substance abuse issues that explain such behavior.:tongue: :wink:

 

[classicsguy]

Lumping '67 HCSs in with '68 HCSs sort of skews the question. The '66 and '67 HCSs were special paint and badging. The '68 HCS was a lot more than that.

Are you asking about '66 & '67 or about '68?

To clear the question: The person that told me about the "appearance package" was refering to 1968 California Special Mustangs.

The 1966-67 HCS have only a special paint and badge....the big thing about these years is that they came in all body styles: coupe convertible and fastback while the 1968 GT/CS and HCS came in coupe form only.

A 1967 HCS Big block fastback will be a very desirable car to have.

 

[Mosesatm]

To clear the question: The person that told me about the "appearance package" was refering to 1968 California Special Mustangs.

The 1966-67 HCS have only a special paint and badge....the big thing about these years is that they came in all body styles: coupe convertible and fastback while the 1968 GT/CS and HCS came in coupe form only.

A 1967 HCS Big block fastback will be a very desirable car to have.

This would be a nice one to have, too.

 

[GTCSMustang]

I don’t want to belabor this point, but I just wanted to clear up what I meant by “appearance package”. Simply that it doesn’t include any other enhancements. It doesn’t have anything to do with engine size necessarily. If the GT/CS package came with suspension upgrades, or different rear end ratios, or even different shocks, then I’d say “Yep, it’s not just an appearance package”. I liken the GT/CS package to the Rally Sport package on Camaros in 1968. You could get the R/S package on 6-cyl, 396, Z-28, whatever size engine you wanted, and in combination with other packages like the SS. I understand the R/S package wasn’t as extensive as the GT/CS and has no heritage to anything, but it didn’t include any performance upgrades…like the GT/CS.

Scott

 

[John McGilvary]

Very Interesting.

Well I checked ALL the 68 Mustangs out when they were brand new.
IMO if you say CS is " ONLY " an appearance package, then you would have to say the same thing about a Shelby Mustang. They are both Ford Mustangs with some cool Shelby parts on them.

John

 

[case12]

From the blueprints, Shelby, GT/CS and XR7-G were all being designed together - There is no doubt when you read them. You will see in the Mustang Times article and in Paul's book, that the GT/CS was called the "California Mustang" on all the blueprints, many of which are on the same blueprints as Shelby - like the brake scoop. It only became the "California Special" when they decided to make the scripts on the rear quarter panels days before the launch. It is clear that this vehicle was designed in the same league as the Shelby - but for a different purpose -it is not a Shelby, and it is not an appearance package only - it was meant to be designed as the "best damned Mustang anyone had ever seen". Little Red is it's heritage - and people drooled all over the look of Little Red - Little Red was not just an appearnace package (yes, it also had a massive 428), but it was, at the time, one of the "best damned Mustangs anyone had ever seen". Lee Grey, Lee Iaccoca and Henry Ford II all agreed to build a version of it at San Jose for that reason. So, thanks for David for putting this in perspective - It is the best damned Mustang ever seen! Casey

 

[rvrtrash]

and that a 2bbl 302 GT/CS (which 85% were made)

Paul N.

A little typo there Paul? :grin: On the original question, I have to agree with some of the other comments. To me, there are 3 types of factory modifications to a basic car, Performance (engine/tranny), Handling (suspension/brakes/steering) and Appearance (stripes, spoilers, etc.). To me, if someone said "only an appearance package" I would take it as meaning only one of the three and not the other two. I wouldn't take it as an insult. A Mach 1 with a 2 barrel Cleveland, automatic and open rear end would be "only an appearance package" under the same definition, but no one is suggesting there is no market for them or they're undesireable. With that all being said, if someone is talking down my "Appearance Package" Mustang, I'm going to dump fresh dog poop in the front seat of their Nova. :icon_evil

Steve

 

[PNewitt]

There it is....I just found it right there on the original invoice:

"GT/CS Equipment Package".

That sounds better. Whew!

Paul.

p.s. ya know...I just saw a "SS Nova" the other day...and as it passed, it smelled like rotten, old Ken-L-Ration.

2bbl 302? yep, in the spring...(secret block switch).
(I can't get nuthin' past you guys...LOL!)

 

[68gt390]

With that all being said, if someone is talking down my "Appearance Package" Mustang, I'm going to dump fresh dog poop in the front seat of their Nova. :icon_evil

Steve

Performance (engine/tranny), Handling (suspension/brakes/steering) and Appearance (stripes, spoilers, etc.).

Let's see, I think my car fits all of these discriptions. Performance - 428 CJ (390 "S" code originally), Handling - GT Equipment Group, Appearance - GT/CS (California Special Package) and a four speed to boot doesn't get much better than that. I know my particular car doesn't compete with some of the late model stangs, but, I'll sure as hell give um a run for their money. Steve: I'll even help you shovel in that poop. And I don't care even if it's a "Camero" or what ever.

Don :grin:

 

[hookedtrout]

For me the "appearance package" is the most important piece of the puzzle. No interest in the big block or handling package.

It's ALL about the looks for me. I learned my lesson early in high school. At 14 I purchased my first car a 1965 Mustang with a 289 auto. Had a friend with a Torino 289 and he put a 428 in it and tried his best to talk me into the same swap, had another friend with a Cougar and he did unspeakable things to it with a welder along with adding a big block. All through High School they had their cars in the shop more than on the road from rodding the crap out of them. Me I just looked cool as heck and spent all my time in my car cruising with the girls. They loved it and not one single time did they ever say they wished it was faster and it never broke down once leaving me stranded. Raced it a few times lost most of them, didn't bother me. Worked perfect for me overall! From that point on it was all about the appearance not the performance outside of being reliable.

That's why I bought the CS when the opportunity presented itself. Coolest Mustang I'd ever seen, bought it in 1982 or 83 and the wonderfull little 289 has never let me down once. Fast enough for me, I usually cruise slow and mellow anyway.

Cory

 

[franklinair]

I'm a fairly recent convert to the C/S Mustang, and I truly love it. I'd seen a few of them at shows years ago (1980+/-) , and didn't have a clue as to their origin or special features. As I recall, Lee Iacocca was an advocate of a "cafeteria" style of selection. Virtually any body style, engine, transmission, or options that a customer would prefer. It sold a lot of cars. Our C/S & HCS models fall under that same philosophy (even though initiated in CA). The C/S option was one of many options offered by Ford at the time, and thankfully, only a limited number were produced. Hence, today's rarity. A '68 Mustang could be ordered with a myriad of options: C/S, Sprint, GNS, HCS, and several regional specialties. Any engine-transmission combos, coupe, conv., fastback - you name it. Very few limitations.
We all are fortunate to own (both vintage & current) a RARE MODEL of one of the world's most popular automobiles ever manufactured. Is it a cosmetic model? Sure it is. Is it a spinoff from a Shelby? Sure it is. Is it a 200cu, 289,302,390,428? Sure it is- based on the initial order. P/S, A/C, P/B, G/T? Sure it is- based on the initial order. The bottom line = these are limited production models getting more rare as time goes on (and the new ones will, too). My free financial advice of the day: Don't sell. BUY.

Neil