Topic: 68 wheel opening molding

[ruppstang]

I was reading a 68 Ford option brochure and under moldings it said Not available with F70x14 wide oval WSW tires, FR70x14 wide oval radial ply WSW tires or 428 4V. 
It was dated 4-29-1968.
I can only assume that those tires caught the moldings. So no late 68 GT's should have the wheel opening moldings because of the wide ovals?  Our 67 GTA came with the moldings. And our 12-02-67 GT350 lists them on the Marti Report. So possibly this change occurred early in 68.
Marty

[67gta289]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

[Bob Gaines]

I was reading a 68 Ford option brochure and under moldings it said Not available with F70x14 wide oval WSW tires, FR70x14 wide oval radial ply WSW tires or 428 4V. 
It was dated 4-29-1968.
I can only assume that those tires caught the moldings. So no late 68 GT's should have the wheel opening moldings because of the wide ovals?  Our 67 GTA came with the moldings. And our 12-02-67 GT350 lists them on the Marti Report. So possibly this change occurred early in 68.
Marty

No moldings from the factory typically on 67 GT350. They could be dealer added . Something reasonable would expected to prove that addition from the factory or dealer in the case of most concours venues.

[somethingspecial]

No moldings from the factory typically on 67 GT350. They could be dealer added . Something reasonable would expected to prove that addition from the factory or dealer in the case of most concours venues.

Are you saying one would need documentation to prove Dealer add on to avoid deduction at say an MCA Concours Trailered class judged event?   Since the brochure was dated 04-29-68, is there any earlier date of this non-available option?  If not, would this be acceptable prior to the 4-29 date?
Just some things to ponder.  Mike

[67gta289]

There might be some date confusion.

Marty's original post was about 4/29/1968, F70x14 or FR70x14.  This would presumably cover the late 1968 Mustang GT models.

The original post also for comparison stated that they were on his 67 GTA (F70x14).

Finally the original post stated that his 68 Shelby GT350 (12/2/67) shows them as an option on the Marti report.

Bob's reply was in regards to the 1967 model year Shelbys, and stated that they did not get them from the factory, and would want to see evidence.  Perhaps Bob missed the dates - there was a lot packed in that little paragraph.

As for MCA Concours, and this 4/19/1968 brochure, I think (opinion here) that the judges that knew/know about it are in the minority, and would not likely be caught.  Then again maybe it's just me in the minority because I did not know.  However, this sort of education would increase the percentage of those in the know.

I'm sure that Marty posted this to get some discussion going, perhaps finding someone with a Marti report, original owner car, etc. to back up or dis-prove the memo.

[Bob Gaines]

There might be some date confusion.

Marty's original post was about 4/29/1968, F70x14 or FR70x14.  This would presumably cover the late 1968 Mustang GT models.

The original post also for comparison stated that they were on his 67 GTA (F70x14).

Finally the original post stated that his 68 Shelby GT350 (12/2/67) shows them as an option on the Marti report.

Bob's reply was in regards to the 1967 model year Shelbys, and stated that they did not get them from the factory, and would want to see evidence.  Perhaps Bob missed the dates - there was a lot packed in that little paragraph.

As for MCA Concours, and this 4/19/1968 brochure, I think (opinion here) that the judges that knew/know about it are in the minority, and would not likely be caught.  Then again maybe it's just me in the minority because I did not know.  However, this sort of education would increase the percentage of those in the know.

I'm sure that Marty posted this to get some discussion going, perhaps finding someone with a Marti report, original owner car, etc. to back up or dis-prove the memo.

Yes I missed the sentence before and only saw the sentence that started with  "67 GT 350 had them listed on the Marty repot".68 GT 350 they were a mandatory factory option. 67 the option was not typically available.

[ruppstang]

Sorry for the confusion. English was not one of my favorite subjects. I should have studied harder.

Yes this would just apply to the later cars but it is interesting that as Bob points out they were on all of 68 Shelby production.

[Bob Gaines]

Sorry for the confusion. English was not one of my favorite subjects. I should have studied harder.

Yes this would just apply to the later cars but it is interesting that as Bob points out they were on all of 68 Shelby production.

Marty, not your fault but mine. Options like that were referred to as mandatory options by SA/Ford meaning that the car could not be ordered without the options. Shoulder harness on fastback 67 /68 Shelby's,  the same thing applies. One would think that it would considered a option if mandatory but that is SA/Ford's language.   

[ruppstang]

One other point to add to this discussion is that per this addendum to 68 Mustang optional equipment dated 12-12-67 the wheel opening molding could no longer be purchased alone but were paired with front and rear bumper guards. So if all of this is true late GTs would not have the wheel opening moldings or the bumper guards. The build date is so important to understand how these cars were built. It is difficult to remember all of these variables on the judging field.
Marty