. Your thoughts on the new California Special book/registry

[Ruppstang]

Arlie do you think there is a difference in the metal tail light panel or are you thinking there may be damage?

 

[Mosesatm]

Marty, I'm not sure what you're asking.

Scott said he wanted a shot of the taillight panel area, but it's covered with the cardboard panels so if Rob is going to look at the taillight area he's going to need to carefully remove those panels.

Does my answer match your question or are we on different pages?

 

[Mosesatm]

Scott,
Is this the shot you want?

 

[GTCSMustang]

I was curious about the placement of the taillight panel and the "gap" as identified in the photos below. The green GT/CS has the panel placed considerably farther out (larger gap) than the red HCS. And as a result of the placement the gas cap appears recessed.

Just wondered if that might be the reason for the differences we are seeing.

Scott

 

[Ruppstang]

Arlie I was wondering why the panels need to be removed. I see.
Scott that makes some sence and will be easy to check. I look at mine tomorrow.

 

[DLedin]

Not sure if this is of a lot of use but in the book there's a fairly good shot of the back of one of the seven debut cars from the Feb. 15th, 1968 reveal event at the Century Plaza Hotel. On page 45 there's a Wimbledon White CS photographed fairly close from the rear.

To me, the gas cap does not look to be as recessed in this photo as in the ones provided in this thread on page 6. For those that have the book, what are your impressions? The degree to which a cap is recessed may not be a make it or break it feature in determining an early CS.

-DLedin

 

[CougarCJ]

I have been pondering on the tail panel issue. Cracked open the Ford MPC.

Rear panel (inner) that holds the tail lights, Ford part number C7ZZ-6540324-B. With a note (exc. 65 GT/CS, GT350/500).
Then on the next line, it listes the GT/CS and Shelby.
This is common in the MPC's to contradict itself, as parts go obsolete. "65 GT/CS" the '65' part of this is refering to the body code 65 as in; 65A, 65B, 65C, & 65D.

My contention is that Ford had pre-stamped rear panels that were used to assemble the bulk of our cars. The MPC suggests that a specific panel existed. Furthermore, this panel would have existed since we know that 1968 Shelby Mustangs were in full production.

As I recall, the rear panel on my car looks to have had the smaller round holes stamped or punched, instead of drilled as is described in the book. I am going to look again to be sure. I further don't believe that my tail panel has the 'nibbler' marks for the vertible cutouts either.
Any of you 1968 Shelby guys have rough tool marks where the modifications were done?

The cutting jig that is described in the book (page 111) to make the round holes may have stressed that rear panel enough, to cause a depression in the middle where the gas tank opening is located. Was the fuel tank filler neck support bracket already installed at this point? This would undoubtedly have contributed to a gap behind the fiberglass panel and the filler neck, if it were not.

 

[Mosesatm]

DLedin,

All we're saying is that a funky taillight panel on a car proves is that the car is an extremely early car. As of right now that's all we know. We certainly aren't claiming that all extremely early cars have the funky panels. We also can't claim that all stage cars had them. My guess is that only a small handful of the early cars have those panels, and that's only a guess.

The issue comes to into play when a recent photo of a supposed stage car shows a correct (flush) panel and the photo from 1968 shows a recessed panel. Some of us like to find red flags on cars and that's a huge red flag on this car.

 

[DLedin]

...The issue comes to into play when a recent photo of a supposed stage car shows a correct (flush) panel and the photo from 1968 shows a recessed panel. Some of us like to find red flags on cars and that's a huge red flag on this car.

There are a number of shots from 1968 of the car on the stage in the book. Just so that I'm referencing the same image as you, can you direct me to which specific photo from 1968 you're referring to that shows an obvious recessed gas cap? Don't mean to be thick-headed here but I'm just not seeing it.

On page 61 there's a reproduction of a print promo by A.O. Smith. The black & white CS photos used in it are of the same Gulfstream Aqua stage car. The left photo shows the car from behind. Though it is from a distance, one can see the outer ring of the gas cap quite easily. To me, it doesn't appear recessed or hidden in the shadow of the rear panel. Then again, lighting is everything when it comes to a photo.

-DLedin

 

[Ruppstang]

Here is are a couple of pictures of the HCS built 7-16-68 the filler cap seems to be resessed a bit. We may find this inconsistancy maybe completely random. The holes in the HCS tail light panel were rough cut, I do not have any good close pictures. My dads GT-CS is disassembled I will get some of it today. Marty

 

[robert campbell]

I have been pondering on the tail panel issue. Cracked open the Ford MPC.

Rear panel (inner) that holds the tail lights, Ford part number C7ZZ-6540324-B. With a note (exc. 65 GT/CS, GT350/500).
Then on the next line, it listes the GT/CS and Shelby.
This is common in the MPC's to contradict itself, as parts go obsolete. "65 GT/CS" the '65' part of this is refering to the body code 65 as in; 65A, 65B, 65C, & 65D.

My contention is that Ford had pre-stamped rear panels that were used to assemble the bulk of our cars. The MPC suggests that a specific panel existed. Furthermore, this panel would have existed since we know that 1968 Shelby Mustangs were in full production.

As I recall, the rear panel on my car looks to have had the smaller round holes stamped or punched, instead of drilled as is described in the book. I am going to look again to be sure. I further don't believe that my tail panel has the 'nibbler' marks for the vertible cutouts either.
Any of you 1968 Shelby guys have rough tool marks where the modifications were done?

The cutting jig that is described in the book (page 111) to make the round holes may have stressed that rear panel enough, to cause a depression in the middle where the gas tank opening is located. Was the fuel tank filler neck support bracket already installed at this point? This would undoubtedly have contributed to a gap behind the fiberglass panel and the filler neck, if it were not.

Scott,
I am confident that the filler neck support was already in. These cars were basically complete and painted when they were pulled aside for the final dress up items. About the only items that were installed on the line AFTER the debut cars could have been the taillight harness and fog light harness. That would make sense so the interior did not need to be hugely disturbed. But, who knows, even after the cars were actually ordered, and would be Marti verified, they may have had ALL the GT/CS items put in far down the line. The hood pins, the side scoops, the script, and the taillight panel and end caps were definitely easy to install after the fact. And were judging by the crudeness of their installation.

With the filler neck support in the car, I doubt that it would have flexed very much. I will take a bunch of critical measurements on the car in my area. I bet the distance from the GT/CS taillight panel straight back to the original panel will be noticeably different on this car. I will also decode the sheet metal date codes on the quarters. They may tell a huge story also.

There may be minor differences in some cars, but the green car and the one up here are very different. And extremely similar to the debut cars. Again, I have pictures of the purported debut car and its taillight panel is not even close to the car on the stage. A huge red flag as Arlie and I like to say.

Rob

 

[Mosesatm]

There are a number of shots from 1968 of the car on the stage in the book. Just so that I'm referencing the same image as you, can you direct me to which specific photo from 1968 you're referring to that shows an obvious recessed gas cap? Don't mean to be thick-headed here but I'm just not seeing it.

On page 61 there's a reproduction of a print promo by A.O. Smith. The black & white CS photos used in it are of the same Gulfstream Aqua stage car. The left photo shows the car from behind. Though it is from a distance, one can see the outer ring of the gas cap quite easily. To me, it doesn't appear recessed or hidden in the shadow of the rear panel. Then again, lighting is everything when it comes to a photo.

-DLedin

See page 47.
I would scan it and post it but we all know what would happen then.

 

[robert campbell]

See page 47.
I would scan it and post it but we all know what would happen then.

Arlie, let me guess.......... copy right infringement........... Darn, I guess the comparison and judgment will be made by the experts on this site. Without interference. Amazing that this red flag was overlooked.

Rob

 

[390cs68rcode]

you guys getting all wrapped up the in bashing crack me up.

 

[DLedin]

See page 47.
I would scan it and post it but we all know what would happen then.

OK, thanks. Obviously I don't need a scan anyway.

I wondered if that was the image you based your conclusion on. It does look dark around the gas cap but I wouldn't bet the farm based on that image alone myself. IMHO, it's open to interpretation and not conclusive enough. What's really needed is a closer, more oblique camera angle which unfortunately probably doesn't exist.

-DLedin

 

[Mosesatm]

No, betting the farm would not be a good idea. It's just a red flag that raises questions.

 

[Mosesatm]

you guys getting all wrapped up the in bashing crack me up.

Well that's good because your snide little GIF files crack me up.

 

[GTCSMustang]

There is a claim made by the author of the book that the Gulfstream Aqua GT/CS debut car has been identified...right? Is the "red flag" that calls this into question the photo on page 47 of the book? Specifically, the dark area around the gas cap? And the more recent photo of the car (pg 60) showing the gas cap more flush with the taillight panel?

Is there anything else that calls it into question? I'm just trying to understand the "red flag" without going back and reading all the posts.

Scott

 

[Midnight Special]

...Page 47 to me, does not show a dark area around the cap, nor does it appear the cap is recessed. What I get are two separate reflections of camera flash from the different textures between the actual cap and and its outer ring. The ring reflects only at top & bottom with the remainder (only) appearing dark...

The car on page 60 may very well be the "stage" car. All evidence appears to be there. That would be cool! What I want to know is why Rob's GNS has the same evidence re: high script holes on an original panel, but not "Martied" with the GT/CS option!

Was it also one of those very early hand-built cars??

P.S. Jason, Time to switch to JPEGs over GIFs ;-)

 

[docsimmons]

Got my two books in the mail today SN#'s in the 300's, one number off my vin. Also my car is listed. although it took a long time a so far happy with the product.