what's wrong with this shelby?

M

mikemustang289

Member

Jan 12, 2006

224

0

16

mesa, az

Jul 15, 2006

#1

• Jul 15, 2006

• #1

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Ford...ategoryZ6236QQihZ020QQitemZ300006371166QQrdZ1

Was looking through the pics and noticed this 65' has under ride traction bars which are correct for the 66' gt350

The 65' should have over ride traction bars and since is it number 151 I don't see why they would be missing.

Am I correct, every 65' i have seen, and only a few, have had over ride bars.

Seems weird to me.

 

1

180 Out

Member

Jul 23, 2005

375

0

16

Jul 16, 2006

#2

• Jul 16, 2006

• #2

You're right about the underriders being incorrect. All '65's and the first 200 or so 66's had the overriders. That looks like an 8" diff to me, too, which would also be incorrect. Could be a replacement of the axle along the way, which if it was a quickie repair prior to 1970, when originality didn't mean diddly, this would explain the switch to underriders, since the overriders had brackets that had to be welded onto the axle tubes.

View attachment 455411

 

M

mikemustang289

Member

Jan 12, 2006

224

0

16

mesa, az

Jul 16, 2006

#3

• Jul 16, 2006

• #3

So 150 grand gets you a "restored" shelby with a completely incorrect rear end, the wrong traction bar setup which would be very hard to replace and likely a wrong gear ratio (non 3.89) and probably no locker as well.

He did say the quarters were replaced so maybe the car had been hit and damaged the housing??

That looks like a stock 8' and its not a waffle case either so it is true to the pre 67' 8" rear.

Maybe the guy came across a totaled shelby and just swapped everything over, In reality that's all these cars were anyway. the fabrication on the rear and over ride traction bars would be the hardest thing to replicate correctly.

 

B

bnickel

Founding Member

Aug 21, 2002

5,640

3

77

57

lubbock, texas

Jul 16, 2006

#4

• Jul 16, 2006

• #4

looks like a 9" to me, i think it's just a funny angle on the pic.

 

M

mr-fixit

Founding Member

Jul 19, 1999

466

0

17

Malvern,Pa.

Jul 16, 2006

#5

• Jul 16, 2006

• #5

There are a lot of details that are wrong on that car, most are an easy fix, but for that money I would at least expect the right wheels.

 

D

D.Hearne

New Member

Sep 29, 2000

11,730

6

0

south louisiana

Jul 16, 2006

#6

• Jul 16, 2006

• #6

I think you'd have to be a complete idiot to pay 150 grand for a car like that.

 

R

Ronstang

New Member

Apr 4, 2004

1,294

0

0

63

Houston Texas

Jul 16, 2006

#7

• Jul 16, 2006

• #7

I does have the correct export brace though. I do not know if they actually reproduce the original export brace.......notice the bolt spacing?

 

6

66moneypit

Member

Dec 28, 2004

536

0

17

Northern Va

Jul 16, 2006

#8

• Jul 16, 2006

• #8

D.Hearne said:

I think you'd have to be a complete idiot to pay 150 grand for a car like that.

Click to expand...

Not saying I disagree with you....however if you have 150 grand to spend on a car (shelby or otherwise)...you must be doing something right. It's all about priorities.

I think people buy these cars purely as investments now. Chances are someone will buy it, fix it to be factory correct and sell it.

 

dennis112

15 Year Member

May 15, 2005

1,561

36

79

Amish Wonderland of Central PA.

Jul 16, 2006

#9

• Jul 16, 2006

• #9

bnickel said:

looks like a 9" to me, i think it's just a funny angle on the pic.

Click to expand...

Axle tubes don't look tapered (as they should be on a Mustang 8" OR 9".) Possible 57-59 Ford housing.

 

M

mikemustang289

Member

Jan 12, 2006

224

0

16

mesa, az

Jul 16, 2006

#10

• Jul 16, 2006

• #10

The guy emailed me back, it is a 9" rear but his friend who he is selling the car for says that the traction bars are correct.

 

R

Ronstang

New Member

Apr 4, 2004

1,294

0

0

63

Houston Texas

Jul 16, 2006

#11

• Jul 16, 2006

• #11

mikemustang289 said:

The guy emailed me back, it is a 9" rear but his friend who he is selling the car for says that the traction bars are correct.

Click to expand...

No they are not. He can claim what he likes but that does not make it true. The traction bars are not correct for an early production 65 Shelby....PERIOD. That is definitely a 9" rear but as has already been stated it does not taper down on the ends so it is either a fabbed one or a 57-59. This could easily be a rebody that was built from a heap of 65 Shelby parts or a partial car.

 

M

mikemustang289

Member

Jan 12, 2006

224

0

16

mesa, az

Jul 16, 2006

#12

• Jul 16, 2006

• #12

He certainly made a point to clearly state that the car was a Shelby and not a fake when I stated that the rear end made it appear to give the impression that the car is not in fact an actual shelby. I will email him again and see what he says.

 

R

Ronstang

New Member

Apr 4, 2004

1,294

0

0

63

Houston Texas

Jul 16, 2006

#13

• Jul 16, 2006

• #13

mikemustang289 said:

He certainly made a point to clearly state that the car was a Shelby and not a fake when I stated that the rear end made it appear to give the impression that the car is not in fact an actual shelby. I will email him again and see what he says.

Click to expand...

What he says is irrelevant at this point if he claims the traction bars are original or correct. If he says the 9" rear in there is the original one he is lying again. What he says means little.