A lost 1966 GT350 found - Forums at Modded Mustangs
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 13 Old May 5th, 2016, 11:01 AM Thread Starter
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,491
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
A lost 1966 GT350 found

A great find but the car is in need of repair. Still, a classic like that is worth repairing.
1966 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 up for sale after 40 years in storage | Fox News

The history of why Ford went to Carroll Shelby is interesting. When the 64 1/2 Mustang came out (originally called an early release '65). The model was released in the spring at the World's Fair instead of the fall to get attention and it was immensely popular. Ford estimated sales of around 100,000 per year. They sold over 400,000 in the first 12 months and passed the million mark in only 18 months. Ford ran out of V8 motors and needed customers to order 6 cylinder motors so they created an advertising campaign called "Six and the Single Girl" coined off of a popular movie of the time called "Sex and the Single Girl."

The advertising campaign was hugely successful. Tons of sixers were sold. So many that the Mustang came close to being called a 'secretary's car." This is the origin of the idea that a six cylinder Mustang is a girls car.

To counter that image it was suggested that Ford leverage the success of Carroll Shelby who was making headlines with his Cobra (not Mustang) and the Ford-sponsored GT-40 program. Iacocca convinced Shelby to "Cobra-ize" a select number of Mustangs to become "Corvette killers" on the race track. Shelby then developed the GT-350 and a legend was born.

1966 was the second year of production and the year the car lost its Mustang tag. It was just called a Shelby GT-350. It had a 289 ci 306 hp motor with a 4-barrel Holley carburetor. That was gross horsepower. The standard changed in 1972. By today's standard it would be around 240-250 net horsepower or around 205-215 rwhp. It ran the quarter in 15.4 seconds (94 mph).
reference: 1966 GT350 Specifications

1966 was also the year of Hertz'z "Rent-a-Racer" campaign. Those cars were later refurbished by Shelby and sold as a GT-350-H.

Eleven 1966 Shelby GT-350s were outfitted at the factory with Paxton superchargers. According to Wikipedia this increased its horsepower to around 440 gross hp (probably somewhere around 330-350 net horsepower (today's standard) or maybe 280-300 rwhp. Maybe a little more. It's hard to convert old horsepower number to today's standard.

When marketed separately the supercharger was advertised to increase horsepower 46% taking the standard Mustang 289 Hi-Po motor from 271 to 395 gross horsepower.
Reference: 1966 Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 Paxton Supercharged - Mustang Monthly
and The History of Paxton Automotive | Paxton Superchargers

I am particularly fond of the GT-350 with a little 289 ci motor with a centrifugal supercharger. My 2000 GT has a little 281 with a centrifugal supercharger.

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1
Eagle2000GT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 13 Old May 5th, 2016, 11:08 AM
Administrator
 
BWAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Clothes Hamper
Posts: 33,174
Blog Entries: 2
                     
iTrader: 4 reviews
never knew some GT350s were factory supercharged. neato.

'65 Fastback
'89 LX 5.0
'90 LX 5.0
'92 LX 5.0
'92 LX 5.0
'97 Cobra

BWAL is offline  
post #3 of 13 Old May 5th, 2016, 01:06 PM
Still slow.
 
1996 GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,738
                   
iTrader: 1 reviews
That was a good read eagle. As being my self being 21 years old I'm not really familiar with the "gross horse power" term.

What made the difference from the horse power rating from older days compared to today's standard? And when did the ratings change?
1996 GT is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 13 Old May 5th, 2016, 10:34 PM
Hardcore Devotee
 
cl0udedth0ught's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: GA
Posts: 2,178
             
iTrader: 5 reviews
I read that article on yahoo. It was a good read. That car is worth some money I'm sure...





2000 GT - Full Bolt-on's

cl0udedth0ught is offline  
post #5 of 13 Old May 5th, 2016, 11:08 PM Thread Starter
US Air Force (retired)
 
Eagle2000GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 13,491
                     
Garage
iTrader: 1 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1996 GT View Post
That was a good read eagle. As being my self being 21 years old I'm not really familiar with the "gross horse power" term.

What made the difference from the horse power rating from older days compared to today's standard? And when did the ratings change?
During the first muscle car war horsepower was measured at the flywheel without any accessories (gross horsepower). And that was the time before the oil embargo where people wanted more horsepower but insurance companies balked. The published numbers were somewhat unreliable because some inflated their horsepower numbers to please consumers and some deflated them to please the insurance company.

In 1972 a new standard was implemented requiring testing and verification of horsepower with all accessories attached to the motor. It was called net horsepower and is the standard we use today. Net horsepower is measured at the flywheel. Brake horsepower (bhp) is also measured at the flywheel but it is not a standard in the United States. But you might hear the Brits talk about it.
reference: http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tech...et-horsepower/

If you compare similar motors from 1971 to 1972 you will see a 20-25% drop in horsepower. The amount of the drop depends upon whether the manufacturer was inflating or deflating the numbers.

I had a 1966 Dodge Coronet 500 with a 426 Wedge and a 1969 Camaro RS/SS 350/300. I have read that many people who currently own the old muscle cars are surprised when they put them on a dyno and learn how little rwhp (compared to new muscle cars) they actually have. For example, an LS6 Chevelle SS rated at 450 gross horsepower puts down 288 rwhp on a chassis dyno.
Reference: https://www.hagerty.com/articles-vid.../13/horsepower

Track times are an indicator. The Shelby GT-350 ran the quarter in 15.6 seconds. A stock 2000 GT would beat that. The famed Shelby GT-500-KR with a 428 motor with twin 4-barrel carburetors ran it in 14.0 seconds (102.7 mph). But with a few mods it could be faster.
reference:http://www.thecarsource.com/shelby/1968/1968specs.shtml

I always thought that the creation of the KR was interesting. A Ford dealer, Bob Tasca in Providence, Rhode Island, got tired of customer complains. He said in the November 1967 issue of Hot Rod, "Do you know how many high-performance vehicles were sold in this country in 1966--exactly 634,434. Do you know how much Ford Motor Company had of this market--7 1/2%." The Ford 427 race engine was too expensive and the 428 was under powered. His team swapped the heads off a 427 onto a 428 and what was later called the 428 Cobra Jet was invented.

Mustang owner hate this but back then the Dodges and Chevys ruled. My old Dodge ran the quarter in 13.0 flat (116 mph) on 8.75x14 tires (later it was H70 Polyglass tires). It spun in the first three gears. Momentum was so strong that you couldn't tell from the marks when I shifted to second. It even spun enough in fourth to leave a little skid mark. But 426 Wedges were pretty rare. The picture below shows the car in 1970 when it had a modified 440 Magnum. That motor was every bit as fast as the Wedge.

Reference:

ProCharger P-1SC, 9 psi, STD 396/383; Uncorrected 388/375; SAE 383/370.
Ret. USAF 1969-1973,1980-1996: Vietnam veteran. Aircraft maintenance. R & D, ICBM Operations.
Also own: 1997 Harley FXDWG, 1998 F-150, and 2002 Corvette LS1

Last edited by Eagle2000GT; May 6th, 2016 at 12:11 AM.
Eagle2000GT is offline  
post #6 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 12:50 AM
Still slow.
 
1996 GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 8,738
                   
iTrader: 1 reviews
Eagle I repped you. That was a fantastic read. It would have been awesome to be around back when muscle cars had a speed war going on haha.

Nothing beats a classic though. My dad used to restore many cars when I was younger and smaller lol. The only one I got involved in was a 1963 falcon two coupe. I was 15, and I regret not buying it when I sold it. I was just too obsessed with buying a mustang at 15 I didnt care enough. Now I miss it a lot haha.
1996 GT is offline  
post #7 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 01:26 PM
The Boss is in
 
8t6gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gods country. Nordern Michigan eh
Posts: 23,756
                     
iTrader: 2 reviews
Pretty bad ass. I like when they find these old barn finds.


I also like how it says "Dreaming of owning a GT350 but cant afford the 200K? Well this one will go for much less." That car will go for $100k the way it sits and cost another 50K+ to restore it. There is no bargains to be had in the classic mustang game anymore. Aside from the extremely rare case where you might find an old lady who has no kids and no friends, and has also never been on the internet- that just so happens to have a classic mustang in the barn and just wants to get rid of it- deals on original stangs aren't out there anymore. Which is somewhat of a shame because unless you have owned it for years and years and bought it when you did get a deal, you need to be fairly wealthy to afford a rare desirable classic Mustang. Oh well, I guess it keeps the values up for people that do own them. But I like to see a lot of people enjoying the hobby, not just the wealthy few that can afford them.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagle2000GT View Post
During the first muscle car war horsepower was measured at the flywheel without any accessories (gross horsepower). And that was the time before the oil embargo where people wanted more horsepower but insurance companies balked. The published numbers were somewhat unreliable because some inflated their horsepower numbers to please consumers and some deflated them to please the insurance company.

In 1972 a new standard was implemented requiring testing and verification of horsepower with all accessories attached to the motor. It was called net horsepower and is the standard we use today. Net horsepower is measured at the flywheel. Brake horsepower (bhp) is also measured at the flywheel but it is not a standard in the United States. But you might hear the Brits talk about it.
reference: Understanding Gross Versus Net Horsepower Ratings - Ate Up With Motor

If you compare similar motors from 1971 to 1972 you will see a 20-25% drop in horsepower. The amount of the drop depends upon whether the manufacturer was inflating or deflating the numbers.

I had a 1966 Dodge Coronet 500 with a 426 Wedge and a 1969 Camaro RS/SS 350/300. I have read that many people who currently own the old muscle cars are surprised when they put them on a dyno and learn how little rwhp (compared to new muscle cars) they actually have. For example, an LS6 Chevelle SS rated at 450 gross horsepower puts down 288 rwhp on a chassis dyno.
Reference: https://www.hagerty.com/articles-vid.../13/horsepower

Track times are an indicator. The Shelby GT-350 ran the quarter in 15.6 seconds. A stock 2000 GT would beat that. The famed Shelby GT-500-KR with a 428 motor with twin 4-barrel carburetors ran it in 14.0 seconds (102.7 mph). But with a few mods it could be faster.
reference:1968 Shelby Cobra Mustang Specs on thecarsource.com

I always thought that the creation of the KR was interesting. A Ford dealer, Bob Tasca in Providence, Rhode Island, got tired of customer complains. He said in the November 1967 issue of Hot Rod, "Do you know how many high-performance vehicles were sold in this country in 1966--exactly 634,434. Do you know how much Ford Motor Company had of this market--7 1/2%." The Ford 427 race engine was too expensive and the 428 was under powered. His team swapped the heads off a 427 onto a 428 and what was later called the 428 Cobra Jet was invented.

Mustang owner hate this but back then the Dodges and Chevys ruled. My old Dodge ran the quarter in 13.0 flat (116 mph) on 8.75x14 tires (later it was H70 Polyglass tires). It spun in the first three gears. Momentum was so strong that you couldn't tell from the marks when I shifted to second. It even spun enough in fourth to leave a little skid mark. But 426 Wedges were pretty rare. The picture below shows the car in 1970 when it had a modified 440 Magnum. That motor was every bit as fast as the Wedge.

Reference:


And to add to this, towards the end of the 60s insurance companies started nailing car companies too with such high horsepower engines, so they started underrating their horsepower numbers. For instance, the Boss 302 was rated from the factory at 290 HP. Yet it puts down over 350 HP on an engine dyno. The Boss 351 puts down just slightly more. And the Boss 429 puts down well over 400 horsepower on an engine dyno, yet was rated from the factory at 350 ish. And also choked down with a restrictive carb to keep some of its power under control.

So any horsepower number released by the big 3 in the last 60s should always be taken with a grain of salt. Because they were nearly always grossly under rated to beat the insurance companies.
8t6gt is offline  
post #8 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 02:56 PM
RAT FINK
 
ghunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Clarksburg WV
Posts: 939
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
There are very few bargains to be had on any classic, desirable car nowadays thanks to Barrett-Jackson and Mecum and all the auction houses where those cars bring in tons of money from the well-to-do baby boomers that want the cars of their youth. Even the cars that were "bottom of the barrel" back then, like 350/auto Chevelles, are going for over $20K.

To find any "real" bargain on a pre-'73 car now you almost have to find somebody that doesn't know what they have or what they're going for now, or find a four door or wagon version (which obviously only applies to the full size cars like Torinos, Impalas, Malibus etc), which aren't nearly as cool...or get something that is a total basket case and restore it yourself.

Did you guys see the other day where that Hemi Cuda that was worth $1.something million was stolen? Apparently it was a one of a kind because it had some kind of flower print vinyl top on it, except the top was a reproduction and not even the original. Crazy the amount of money being spent on those things.

2005 Mustang GT
CMS Stage 1 cams, Lito Tune, C&L Racer, CMDP, SR UDP, JBA LT's & catted H, FRPP Touring AB, Koni STR.T, BMR springs, J&M upper/mount, BMR lowers & brackets, J&M pb, Steeda Tri-Ax, Brembos
2009 Ranger XL SCab-4.0, auto, 4WD
ghunt is offline  
post #9 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 03:30 PM
MM Fanatic
 
Woodman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 4,562
               
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8t6gt View Post
Pretty bad ass. I like when they find these old barn finds.


I also like how it says "Dreaming of owning a GT350 but cant afford the 200K? Well this one will go for much less." That car will go for $100k the way it sits and cost another 50K+ to restore it. There is no bargains to be had in the classic mustang game anymore. Aside from the extremely rare case where you might find an old lady who has no kids and no friends, and has also never been on the internet- that just so happens to have a classic mustang in the barn and just wants to get rid of it- deals on original stangs aren't out there anymore. Which is somewhat of a shame because unless you have owned it for years and years and bought it when you did get a deal, you need to be fairly wealthy to afford a rare desirable classic Mustang. Oh well, I guess it keeps the values up for people that do own them. But I like to see a lot of people enjoying the hobby, not just the wealthy few that can afford them.

---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------





And to add to this, towards the end of the 60s insurance companies started nailing car companies too with such high horsepower engines, so they started underrating their horsepower numbers. For instance, the Boss 302 was rated from the factory at 290 HP. Yet it puts down over 350 HP on an engine dyno. The Boss 351 puts down just slightly more. And the Boss 429 puts down well over 400 horsepower on an engine dyno, yet was rated from the factory at 350 ish. And also choked down with a restrictive carb to keep some of its power under control.

So any horsepower number released by the big 3 in the last 60s should always be taken with a grain of salt. Because they were nearly always grossly under rated to beat the insurance companies.
A fairly common way for them to "underrate" the motors was to read the HP figure at a lower RPM than the peak. Car peaks at 4400rpm but you post the 4000rpm figure. THat way you're not "lying" but you're not giving the full truth either.

The insurance companies knew it, but they get their money anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BWAL View Post
woodman: achieving the impossible since 1967. 1973? 1980? 1985? 1976? whatever, you get my point
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWAL View Post
ford's advertising slogan was literally "you can pay for all of it today or you can go fuck yourself"
Woodman is offline  
post #10 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 04:10 PM
The Boss is in
 
8t6gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Gods country. Nordern Michigan eh
Posts: 23,756
                     
iTrader: 2 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghunt View Post
There are very few bargains to be had on any classic, desirable car nowadays thanks to Barrett-Jackson and Mecum and all the auction houses where those cars bring in tons of money from the well-to-do baby boomers that want the cars of their youth. Even the cars that were "bottom of the barrel" back then, like 350/auto Chevelles, are going for over $20K.

To find any "real" bargain on a pre-'73 car now you almost have to find somebody that doesn't know what they have or what they're going for now, or find a four door or wagon version (which obviously only applies to the full size cars like Torinos, Impalas, Malibus etc), which aren't nearly as cool...or get something that is a total basket case and restore it yourself.

Did you guys see the other day where that Hemi Cuda that was worth $1.something million was stolen? Apparently it was a one of a kind because it had some kind of flower print vinyl top on it, except the top was a reproduction and not even the original. Crazy the amount of money being spent on those things.
Yeah it's totally insane. I didn't see that about the Cuda though, but I can believe it.

You're right about the bottom of the barrel cars too. Chevy Novas were nothing special and a nice one now a days will bring over 20k since the camaros and Chevelles are brings over 40.

Same for Mustangs. The only somewhat affordable Classic stangs are the coupes. Any fastback even if it was just a plain Jane hub cap wearing 302 automatic is a $20,000+ car since they can clone it into a Mach 1 or whatever they want. Real Mach 1s, 30+ for a 351. 428 CJ Mach 1s and you're 50+. Boss and Shelbys anywhere for 80-200+. Just absolutely insane.

I had a guy plain as day walk up to me at a car show and look over the Boss. He says "What would you have to get for it?" And I told him it wasn't for sale. He just says "Will 65 get it?" I said, "No, sorry it's not for sale." He says "Do I need to go up around 80? I've always wanted a Wimbledon White 4.30 locker car." Then I told him it wasn't for sale again. It was hard to turn down that type of money, but money isnt everything. Once the money is gone, all you have is a memory of the car you once had. And I suppose that's probably why these guys are willing to spend that kind of cash on them, to reminisce in the memories of their youth. And since they have the money, price doesn't mean too much anymore to them if it takes them back 40 years.
8t6gt is offline  
post #11 of 13 Old May 6th, 2016, 04:15 PM
Administrator
 
BWAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Clothes Hamper
Posts: 33,174
Blog Entries: 2
                     
iTrader: 4 reviews
i turned down a $30k offer for my '65 fastback and i've never even driven it lol

i probably should have taken it though. i haven't kept up with the value

'65 Fastback
'89 LX 5.0
'90 LX 5.0
'92 LX 5.0
'92 LX 5.0
'97 Cobra

BWAL is offline  
post #12 of 13 Old May 7th, 2016, 01:30 PM
MM Fanatic
 
02gtKev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 4,065
     
iTrader: 3 reviews
That's nuts, I drove my friend's dad's 69' Mach 1 back in high school, they still have the car today, didn't know they were worth that much.
02gtKev is offline  
post #13 of 13 Old May 7th, 2016, 11:06 PM
MM Fanatic
 
Edgethis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 3,813
         
Garage
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via AIM to Edgethis
Why can't I ever find a car like that sitting behind grandmas house.

Even though my car is a coupe, I love the hell out of it. Some people get too wrapped up in the badge on the fender.

1968 Mustang coupe 5.0/T5 Build Thread
1968 Mustang fastback 351w/C4 Fastback Build

Edgethis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome