Topic: 68 Shelby Power Antenna

[Oz390]

What was the original part number? 

Anyone know of other parts that would suffice for a "simialr" look?  Based on a few photos I've seen some of the Crown Vic and Tbird antennans from the early 70's appear to be very similar...

[Bob Gaines]

What was the original part number? 

Anyone know of other parts that would suffice for a "simialr" look?  Based on a few photos I've seen some of the Crown Vic and Tbird antennans from the early 70's appear to be very similar...

Since there was no factory 68 Shelby power antenna there is no original part number . The big car power antennas were what was typically substituted for the factory telescoping antenna. Bob

[Oz390]

Hmmm... thanks for the educational tip.  I had seen a photos of the Green Hornet with one and made the assumption it was a standard Shelby item...

[Bob Gaines]

Hmmm... thanks for the educational tip.  I had seen a photos of the Green Hornet with one and made the assumption it was a standard Shelby item...

Although good that it is one piece, the Green Hornet restoration was hardly a state of the art historically correct restoration 20 years ago  let alone today . Bob

[Oz390]

Not opening that can of worms... thanks for the info.

[Coralsnake]

I think we will be fighting those worms for a long time. Not even mentioning the fact it's not technically a Shelby

[Oz390]

Yep.  It was a prototype.  Hand made one-off lets-see-what-we-can-do-in-the-shed build that was never meant to survive.  I'd bet the builders would have done whatever they wanted, with wahtever was at hand, factory or "normal" Shelby processes be damned.   

Hard to have latter day "experts" agree on how a one-off hand-made car "should" have been done! ;-)

But me, I'd call it more Shelby than not.  I'll leave it to SAAC and others to decide... It's just a real good lookin' car to me.

Those late '68 reflectors on a supposedly August '67 car are a worry...

[Bob Gaines]

Yep.  It was a prototype.  Hand made one-off lets-see-what-we-can-do-in-the-shed build that was never meant to survive.  I'd bet the builders would have done whatever they wanted, with wahtever was at hand, factory or "normal" Shelby processes be damned.   

Hard to have latter day "experts" agree on how a one-off hand-made car "should" have been done! ;-)

But me, I'd call it more Shelby than not.  I'll leave it to SAAC and others to decide... It's just a real good lookin' car to me.

Those late '68 reflectors on a supposedly August '67 car are a worry...

I thought you were not going to open the can of worms?? You are in luck and the worry of deciding if the car is a Shelby or not has been taken care of by the "experts" at SAAC based on facts and evidence and not hearsay and urban myth. You talk like the entire car was built from a clean slate from the ground up? I hope that isn't the impression you have. If so you are misinformed. It started out as a regular Mustang and with the exception of the areas that were modified for body and suspension and engine which were few relatively speaking to the rest of the car. The rest of entire car would be as a regular Mustang. It is that part of the car (Regular Mustang part) that a opinion can be formed based on workmanship and historical accuracy. If that part of the car that can be compared to other examples is sub par historically speaking then it is logical to assume that the unknown prototype sections that can't be compared to any examples would be restored to at least close to the same level of accuracy. The prototype aspects of the car were things I looked at with interest and didn't formulate a opinion on because I didn't have a frame of references. I had followed the build up of the car and know that the independent rear suspension for example had parts sourced from a later model T bird based on what the restorer said. That part had to be built by the restorer by scratch because it was missing. You must not have seen the car first hand because the errors and omissions on the regular Mustang aspects of the car were wide spread to any knowledgeable Mustang enthusiast back  20 years ago when it was restored let alone by today's more informed standards. As I said before it was good to see it in one piece and the restorer did nice work and put in untold hours trying to simulate the suspension and engine mods but at the same time it was a shame that the restorer wasn't more versed in regular Mustang build techniques .The car deserved better IMHO.  Bob

[Oz390]

Well aware it started out as a "normal" Mustang and the entire car was not hand fabricated from sheet metal by the folks that worked on it.  And that a lot of the restoration is a best-guess, not-accurate, lets-make-it-close emulation of the original that missed the mark in many areas by current standards. 

My point was as a one-off prototype its really impossible to know exactly what was done in all aspects, and IMHO its a good looking car...

[TLea]

I would have sold them the rear axle carrier if they asked me 

[Bob Gaines]

I would have sold them the rear axle carrier if they asked me 

But it has a replacement U joint with a grease zert    . He probably wouldn't have wanted it then . I couldn't resist Tim . Bob

[TLea]

Oh but that could be easilly changed