GT 350 or 300????

Undoubtedly the 300 comes from its hp rating. Someone is cashing in on the legacy of those legendary Shelby GTs, and I can only hope it's Shelby himself.

AFAIK, The smallest FE ever offered in the 'Stang was the 390 starting in '67. I know they were dropped into Ranchero's, Galaxies, Fairlanes, etc (the mid and full size platforms). From everything I've ever read, been told, or heard, the GT350's were all SB's, and the GT500's all BB's. The 352 being a BB would not have been in a GT350 let alone ever actually dropped into a Mustang. The 352 pretty much disappeared after 1967 in favor of the

390, except in the trucks where the 390 block was used with a 352 crank to make a 360 stump puller. The 352 block disappeared and only the cranks were being produced, and those exclusively for the trucks. Evidence otherwise please...

@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

This is indeed the case... I was not the one who posted this. But afterwards, I realized my response was a bit unclear. I was actually chuckling at the idea of a GT-350 Shelby Mustang with the old 352 FE.

The 352

There is none! (Enter Ed McMahon)... "you are correct, sir!"

It's good to see you're back. In your absence, I earned my fangs. Glad to banter a bit.

=)

Yeah, that's the legend. There's an alternative one, that "350" was the street address of the Shelby American facility at L.A. International Airport. The problem with that one was that it's demonstrably untrue.

The legend of the GT500 is simply that they needed a number bigger than

350, and "500" was it.

As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the

4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 =3D 351.9 ci.=20

180 Out

"Wound Up" wrote

AH! It was really hard to tell. Looked like YOU were advancing the theory. Sorry.

Good to be back. Gubberment work, what a PITA!

wrote As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the

4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 = 351.9 ci.

Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the common nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact, I would say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just confuse most people.

And what I wrote was this: "The only objection [to a "GT281H" rocker panel stripe] is the "GT350" did not refer to engine size. =A0GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; no such thing as a 350 ci Ford."

Sorry, it's just a little game of mine. Others are the 4.13 x 3.98 "428" Cobra Jet (426.6 ci) and the 4.125 x 3.76 1970 "SS 396" (402.0 ci). A new one: the 4.13 x 4.00 "427" Z06 Vette motor (428.7 ci). Pretty annoying, I know. =20

180 Out

And what I wrote was this: "The only objection [to a "GT281H" rocker panel stripe] is the "GT350" did not refer to engine size. =A0GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; no such thing as a 350 ci Ford."

Sorry, it's just a little game of mine. Others are the 4.13 x 3.98 "428" Cobra Jet (426.6 ci) and the 4.125 x 3.76 1970 "SS 396" (402.0 ci). A new one: the 4.13 x 4.00 "427" Z06 Vette motor (428.7 ci). Pretty annoying, I know. =20

180 Out

Hell no; and no "sorry" is required! I'd expect a bust of the chops with a rusty, lumpy-ass FE cam for furthering that idea.

Sounds like it.

So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued...

Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group.

Why don't you Google? You can find plenty

180 Out TS 2

Wound Up wrote:

knowledge.

Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group.

66 6F HCS wrote: > wrote > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the > 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 = > 351.9 ci. >

Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out.

Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless.

Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too.

This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri.

It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge.

Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group.

"Wound Up" wrote

Yes, from what I've been able to figure out, this car is most probably the prototype for the High Country Specials. It was built in Dearborn, not San Jose as all other HCS's. All markings, badging, and paint are original which could ONLY be on an HCS, and both the HCS registry and the Special Paint registry have acknowledged it's extreme rarity (the only one). The problem with it being a '66 is that There's no way to confirm absolutely why this car exists or how it happened, since Kevin Marti's info doesn't go back that far.

Incidentally, this car is currently for sale.

Ho-ly Shnikies!! I guess that's where the "6F" comes from...

The problem

That's very interesting. I'm sure you've done your research, but is there any other source, any way to get internal Ford documentation (maybe archived, on microfilm) to verify this, or have you tried that? That's truly a unique car. I'm MORE intrigued.

In this market, I'm sure it will bring a bundle. What are you asking?

"Wound Up" wrote

You got it! Either nobody else got it, or they just haven't said anything.

Yeah, the car has already been in the "Rare Finds" section in Mustang and Fords, asking for any info from former Ford employees or anybody who might know something be forwarded to either me or Jerry Heasley. No luck. I've done what I could on my end and in discussion with the local Shelby club president, and Registries. There are a few plausibly explanations, but There is no evidence to back up any of them. I'd ask the original owner, but he's dead.

It's almost a basket case, not trashed, but needs lotsa work. I've had alot repaired, all the rust except for a floorboard. I have tons of parts, but it needs a motor. It's all there though (sans motor) and nothing's hidden. $3500 obo. I have recent pics if anybody wants'em.