Topic: Question for the members

[J_Speegle]

Wondering so thought I would ask the active members their thoughts.

Should oddities such as cars built that were out of the ordinary be posted? And if so where would they fit in? 

One of the concerns in showing oddities is it often feeds the idea that "anything" could have happened and we know where that road leads.

I know these are interesting but just concerned possibly about the unintended consequences.

If you don't want to respond publically PM's work also

Thanks

Will remove the thread once its usefulness is done
 

[1966KGT]

Sure, the are out there, would be interesting to see what shows up with complete proper documentation.

[67gtasanjose]

Perhaps in a Members Only section, also perhaps a form of watermark that prevents the specific oddity from being shared without the watermark itself ruining the image.

[ruppstang]

I am not sure what you are asking. IMHO things like factory mistakes that are documented like the lack of a dome light in our unrestored 68 HCS coupe are important to show there were inconsistencies and mistakes made. That was not Fords desire or plan so IMHO restored cars should be build to Ford's desired quality level and standard.

Or if you are talking about prototypes such as Little Red or others I think it is ok as long as the thread title is clear on what it is about.

[tobkob]

Perhaps in a Members Only section, also perhaps a form of watermark that prevents the specific oddity from being shared without the watermark itself ruining the image.

+1   I think it would be very interesting and entertaining to see some of the foul ups without them showing up on restored cars.

TOB

[carlite65]

+1   I think it would be very interesting and entertaining to see some of the foul ups without them showing up on restored cars.

TOB

agreed....would be an interesting read.

[69GT350H]

Perhaps in a Members Only section, also perhaps a form of watermark that prevents the specific oddity from being shared without the watermark itself ruining the image.

This sounds like a feasible option. Knowing this forum you expect to find what is correct and proper. When you do a Google search and it comes up with photos from concoursmustang.com you think that gives it status, the thought that is a correct picture. You do not always get the text that goes with it so you may end up with an "That's not Concours" image but think that it is.

[tobkob]

You do not always get the text that goes with it so you may end up with an "That's not Concours" image but think that it is.

Thus the watermark.

TOB

[jwc66k]

Define "oddity". Is it the spring shield (aka upper "A" arm bracket support) bolts on some Dearborn cars that came into the engine compartment from the wheel well; or the rearranged typing on the door data plate; or the missing paint codes on the data plate that were really part of the DSO; or dealer installed "anything"?
As long as "oddity" is documented as such, does it make a difference?
Remember, Ford did not make "concourse grade" cars.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

Was not thinking of the wrong shock tower being installed on the wrong car, factory fixed VIN's  multiple spare tire hold downs on a single car or things like that.  Those would just be mistakes that were not correct at the plant for one reason or another. Think we have in the past addressed and discussed that sort of thing.

At the same time, though claims may be more than a few, I was thinking and have examples of cars that present themselves as being built  one type of car but were finished out as another. Forgive me but I'm kind of searching for a way to describe them without going into specific at this point.  Would guess the list of examples that we will find is very very small but at the same time it may help distract us at this point in time from what is going on in many of our daily lives.

Just a thought and thanks for the input so far. Will continue to read the responses

[jwc66k]

I think that the Mari Report covers "claims" for 67 and up. Your "search" is really about the 64-66 years, and there is not much back-up data for those years.
Jim

[J_Speegle]

I think that the Mari Report covers "claims" for 67 and up. ..........................

I've found over the years it doesn't always work that way. Kevin is aware of the two cars I'm thinking of and we've discussed the subject a few times in person. Again this is very very limited. 

This sort of related discussion is what I was referring to when I mentioned the unintended consequences (ripple affect) possible with the postings. 

[mtinkham]

If my vote counts, I like the idea of a dedicated Oddities Section.

I agree that "Oddity" should probably have some sort of definition.

....but you guys have done an excellent job with this site, so anything you decide will be fine with me.

Thank you.

[jwc66k]

If my vote counts, I like the idea of a dedicated Oddities Section.
I agree that "Oddity" should probably have some sort of definition.

True. It's the "oddities" that make life (and Mustangs) interesting.
Jim

[midlife]

True. It's the "oddities" that make life (and Mustangs) interesting.
Jim

+1.  Sometimes, the oddities become running changes or standard features.  It's the unusual stuff that members of this forum creates a good discussion.  Be careful, we are more interested in oddities that come from the factory vice after-sales changes by owners.