My responses in blue
Hi Charles,
thanks for your detailed reply.
i'll try and put a couple of my earlier comments in to better context .
firstly though i was referring largely to 1965 A code, your order sheet is for a 1966 mustang. according to Colin Date's book quote: "Duel exhaust, similar to the Hi-Po 289's was now standard equipment on A code engines for 1966." , so obviously there would be no box to cross for that option. however, even on that order form though you can see the dealer wrote down the bottom some additional items/comments, limited slip diff, console for air and deluxe [seat?] belts. it would seem logical that even on a 1965 order form if there wasn't a box to cross the dealer could write down the bottom the addition of duel exhaust. do you happen to have a 65 order form? or any other ford documentation? it might be interesting to look at
Colin's book is totally wrong on that statement. As I stated, even if a dealer wrote down dual exhaust, they weren't going to get it. I'm sure I have a '65 order form, but from memory, there is not much difference. Something else to consider is that a line item for dual exhaust has never been seen on a window sticker or even in the dealer option price sheet.
also i'm wondering what is that box on the 66 form you posted referring to that says 'Addition to basic' and the other 'Part of basic' under title Check One ?
I don't know for sure. I would assume part of basic means standard equipment and Addition is optional.
sorry about the august 1965 date, that was a typo error on my account, it should have read August 1964, which is of course was when the 1965 model/variants began production (some evidence to say it was a week or two either way but to eliminate trivialities i'll just go with the most accepted or official date and say august 1964), actually it looks like i muddled up that whole sentence .
There were no exhaust changes made during the transition of generator to alternator cars.
i'll quote straight from his Colin Date's book so i dont stuff it up: "with the 289-4V engine, the standard exhaust mimicked the 289-2V's. On early 1965 cars ( [produced] after mid august 1964), the optional dual exhaust system was identical to the 1964 1/2 K-code 289 HiPo system. After October 15, 1965 the (optional) dual exhaust changed to a free flow set up. the the engines individual exhaust manifolds were connected to dual exhaust pipes that ran back along the length of the chassis where they fit into two separate mufflers that were located in front of the rear ale. the pipes then looped up and over the axle, and ran through a set of smaller resonators. the twin tailpipes excited beneath the rear valance. On A-codes with the GT option ( [introduced] late Feb 1965 the twin tailpipes excited through special holes in the rear valance"
Another error in Colin's book. The only 64.5 mustang that could have dual exhaust from the factory was a K code. The "free flow" setup is the Arvinode system, which again, was only available on K codes from the assembly plant. Some very early A code GT's, early March built, may have had Arvinode systems. I only say this because I have seen Arvinode hangers on a March built '65 GT A code.
so that description seems to fit in with Scott fullers pics of the optional exhaust. also it can be seen that dual exhausts were available on A codes somewhere around 6 months before the GT option was introduced
I went and double-checked Scott's website and see absolutely no reference to what you are saying. The image that you provided looks like an old printed flyer.
i dont have any official ford documents (edit, i have a giant ford parts book and have found some interesting bits, i'll add below). as i previously mentioned i am referencing Colin Date's book and some other authors. Colin Date has acknowledged a plethora of ford historians , sources, noted authors and peoples original cars though in his forward. i cant do better than that atm i'm afraid. If he is wrong then so be it, maybe its books like this causing the misconceptions. i thought however it was highly regarded among the community .
Colin's book is a nice coffee table item, but I would not put much weight in most of the information. He never contacted anyone I know to ask to validate information in the book. Seems a pretty common thing to do. Probably more concerned about getting it to print and making $$. There are many books like this that have errors in them which create issues like this (i.e. damage control). The "Mustang Does It" book is one of the worst and we still get folks referring to it.
No, i wasn't taking Mike Meuller's book out of context. trying to be brief i may have not made it clear enough to you though.
it's a pain to type, but for the sake of clarity, i'll quote some of his book. i've highlighted the key parts to save reading
referring to the 1965 mustang he writes:
". . . the 289-4V, sent spent gases into the atmosphere via single tailpipe in standard non-GT applications. At the ends of either GT V-8's dual exhaust were chrome trumpets poking through cutouts in a special rear valance panel. the cutouts displaced the standard bumper guards normally located in those positions.
I have never heard of Mike Mueller before you posted here so have no idea who he is. The sentence above states what I've been saying, only single exhaust on non-GT for 65/66 A codes.
When optional dual exhausts were ordered for any V-8 Mustang, they required the addition of spot welded reinforcement plates at the tail end of each unit-body "frame rail" in back. while the presence of these reinforcements does not necessarily help document a true GT mustang remember, optional duals were available for non-GT's too--their absence on a car in question means it is not a factory built GT no matter how many other features are present. Anyone can transform any early mustang into a GT with all the right parts.
That's not entirely true. The earlier dual exhaust systems did not have the reinforcements in the rear frame rails. Very common misconception. When the GT style exhaust was introduced in March of '65, that's when the reinforcements appeared. The rear floor reinforcement for the hangers was there the whole time though, except for possibly some extremely early 64.5 K codes. The rear frame rail reinforcements should be there on most all 65-66 GT's except for possibly some very early March '65 cars that could have gotten the Arvinode system. Or, maybe some transition cars that got mixed up during the process. There is more to dual exhaust than the rear frame rail reinforcements and rear seat platform reinforcements... which is due to dual exhaust having been born from K code cars. The rear build up a K code and the specific features carried over to A code GT cars. Anything can be faked, but most folks can't do it without leaving some tell-tale signs.
Ford promotional people muddied the waters by offering nearly all GT appearance features (everything save the actual GT emblems) as over the counter dealer options not long after the GT equipment group was introduced. thanks to all this promotional exploitation, a "factory correct" 1965 mustang could have looked very much like a GT but not actually been one. full page ads in 1965 even spelled out the situation in no uncertain terms: "Make your mustang into a GT! your ford dealer has the goods"
A sales promotion for dealers is pretty much irrelevant to what we are discussing. We are discussing assembly line options, not something installed by a dealer after the car was made.
he seems to make it clear he believes that dual exhaust could be ordered at time of purchase. obviously he also later talks about how the parts could be purchased over the counter. i simply included both.
He's wrong about factory ordering. Of course, one could have bought just about anything from a dealer and had it installed, after the car was shipped from the assembly plant.
again , No, i havnt taken Scott Fuller out of context . His site does not only state non-GT dual exhaust for K codes. i do see the page you are referring to that shows only those options, but another page shows options for concourse correct non-GT dual exhausts . in the picture below you can see the 4th option is for a non-GT A code. further down he writes ''every detail copied from original ford assembly line and confirmed by ford engineering drawings''
Please provide a URL link to the page on Scott's website as I am not seeing it. If it is there, I will send Scott a note to let him know. We went over this several times.
as mentioned earlier i had look through my ford parts book, never having used it much, i forgot i even had it because its not the easiest thing to navigate through if you are not familiar with it so i tend to avoid it.
after finally finding my way to the parts and exhausts it does show 1965 A code standard as single exhaust but also an optional dual exhaust . it also shows 1966 A code as having standard dual exhaust but also showed a single exhaust was available. that seems to contradict Colin Date's information slightly but also your order form picture didnt have a box to place an X in
If you're looking at the '75 MPC, it has many known inconsistencies, most from drawings and parts being superseded with later versions. The single year MPC's are usually the best reference for things like this. I can assure you there is no mention of "standard" dual exhaust on a non-GT A code in the single year MPC's.
also it might interest you that before October 1964 there were two exhausts available for the K code, not just the transverse muffler set up but also an inline muffler and
Not that I'm aware of. The only dual exhaust before the Arvinode system was the transverse setup and only available on K codes from the assembly plant. The transverse had 2 resonators before the transverse muffler. The Arvinode systems were a free flow system.
