428 SI EECS engine availability issue affecting DSOs 2534, 2536, 2538 & 2540

Skip to first unread message

Brian Styles

Nov 27, 2018, 7:19:08 PM11/27/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
DSOs 2534, 2536, 2538 and 2540 are the four DSOs with the highest number of per-DSO package & trim discrepancies (between DSOs on Microfilm and the registry/Marti data). A careful scrutiny reveals that all appear related to exhaust emissions. 

At the start of this project, we had collected about 10 Marti reports . Based on the actual Ford record, they verified that there were two different packages on these DSOs.  

This is completely contrary to the "one package and one trim per DSO" method of ordering cars. 

My initial assumption was wrong -- that there may have been a data entry mix-up when inputting the orders into the Ford computer system. Could the package codes have been messed up during data entry? This would resulting in multiple package codes associated with a specific DSO. Could the error have happened when entering the DSO number into individual the car records?

As we gather more information on these 235 units found on these 4 DSOs, this topic will be updated and hopefully the solution will become clearer.

If you enjoy puzzles, want to help or just want to look at the raw data, please take a look at the workbook here. You'll notice the sheet is currently sorted by San Jose (Ford) build date -- this reveals a clearer pattern as compared to sorting the records by SAI sequence number:

In summary:

DSO 2534 was for 52 (412F pkg) units
412F =28
Emissions - Correct (412F)
410F =24
No Emissions - Incorrect (410F)
DSO 2538 was for 60 (402F pkg) units
402F =58
Emissions - Correct (402F)
400F =2
No Emissions - Incorrect (400F)
DSO 2540 was for 18 (412F pkg) units
412F =11
Emissions - Correct (412F)
410F =7
No Emissions - Incorrect (410F)
Total from DSOs 2534, 2538 & 2540 - units built without the emissions that were ordered.
DSO 2536 was for 105 (400F pkg) units
400F =72
No Emissions - Correct (400F)
402F =33
Emissions added, resulting in a 402F pkg (probably a 'make-up' for the cars built w/o emissions on the other DSOs)

Brian Styles

Dec 6, 2018, 12:03:28 AM12/6/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Observations (Updated):

  • A total of 235 cars were ordered on these four (4) DSOs. 
  • When cars from all these DSOs are combined and then sorted by SJ_build_date + package + paint, the first ~33 to get build were are missing emissions, the middle 166+3 (169) were built correctly, and the last 33 had emissions added to them when built.
  • Per microfilm, all four (4) of these DSOs were received by Ford on the same date (accepted 11/08/1966). 

  • We found four (4) cars shipped to California that are without emissions (0409, 0450, 0710, 0787). Also found eight (8) cars that had emissions and were not shipped to California. Of course this shouldn't have happened, but probably did a lot more than expected.... Regardless, this is inconsequential to this particular research topic. 
  • [edited] Making things tougher, there was an extra unit,car #0368, on DSO 2538 and a unit, #0434, was missing a unit from DSO 2534. This was very difficult to solve as it was due to incorrect information from another source that the registry relied upon. Topic on discrepancies.

Rich Plescia

Dec 7, 2018, 12:44:29 PM12/7/18
to 1967 Shelby American Research & History
Hi Brian,

This overlap of packages has been bugging me for a while. Your additional observations were helpful to understand the issues a bit clearer.
I'm going to email you a couple of Marti Reports (Ford VINs will be blocked out) from these DSO groups.
Maybe if others who read this can send some Marti's too, it will show us more clues as to what happened here.

If we can figure out why DSO 2538 has an extra car, and if it fits into DSO 2534, that might be a big clue.
Am I correct in seeing on your DSO 2538 chart, the extra car is a Dark Moss Green painted unit?




Brian Styles

Dec 7, 2018, 2:14:31 PM12/7/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

The missing unit from DSO 2534 was found on DSO 2528. It was car #0434.

The extra unit on DSO 2538, car #0368, actually belongs on DSO 2539:

Message has been deleted

Brian Styles

Dec 7, 2018, 11:53:46 PM12/7/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
The more I look at the data, and with a timely reminder from Dave Mathews that "The production line does not stop just because of a parts shortage," the more I believe that this was a non-critical component shortage and that's how we explain this mess:

Again, here's a link to the cars on DSOs 2534, 2536, 2538 & 2540. data, sorted by San Jose build date + package + paint:

Adding to the understanding, here is my updated theory:
  • DSOs 2534, 2538 2540 are batched together and built from 1/4/67 through 1/13/67.
  • Line at San Jose did not yet have the new 428 EECS engine assemblies on 1/4/67 when needed.
  • The first 33 cars built between 1/4/67 and part way through Fri 1/6/67 had non-EECS engine assemblies substituted, resulting in the cars ending up a 410F or 400F package (depending on DSO), even though they were originally ordered with emissions as a 412F or 402F.
  • 428 engines with EECS arrive at the assembly line during the day on 1/6/67.
  • Production continues and the remaining cars on DSOs 2534, 2538 and 2540 are built as-originally-ordered with emissions (packages 412F/402F).
  • Production of the DSO 2536 cars commence on Monday, 1/16/67. The package code ordered on DSO 2536 is 400F.
  • Production of the base model 400F cars on 2536 continues into Wednesday, 1/18/67.
  • The last 33 cars on DSO 2536 received 428+EECS engine assemblies -- apparently a 'make-up' operation, resulting in the ordered 400F package becoming a 402F package. These 33 cars were built from 1/18/67 through 1/23/67.
  • There also appears to be a trim material shortage that affected 32 of the 33 emissions-added make-up units from DSO 2536 -- resulting with them getting 5A BLACK interiors rather than the 5U Parchment interiors that were ordered.
  • The customer, Shelby American Inc, still received the same quantity of emissions-equipped cars they originally ordered.
  • Ford computer records are updated by the assembly line to reflect the "as-built" configuration (actual packages delivered). While the cars differ from how they were ordered, the assembly line never stopped!


(for reference)

Update: through the efforts of Dave Mathews and Rich Plescia, the following discrepancies in the sorted research file have been resolved:
  • trim: 0433, 0446, 0504, 0608, 0617, 0621, 0624 - resolved!
  • package & paint: 0602 - resolved!
  • package: 0709 - resolved. 

Of the 33 emissions make-up cars on DSO 2536, car #0796 is the only one of them that didn't get its trim changed from 5U Parchment to 5A Black. This is the remaining anomaly....

Rich Plescia

Dec 8, 2018, 12:43:01 PM12/8/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Hi Brian,

Let me be clear here for anyone reading this. Both of these strong theories point to a Ford specific issue, NOT a registry error!

I like this parts shortage theory better than the DSO mix-up by Ford's data entry dept. The New Years holiday certainly could have played a role in a parts delay. With the last batch of cars running down the line in '66 as non emissions cars, it is plausible the emissions parts were late for arrival at San Jose. (I believe only California was an emissions state at the time starting in 1967.) I agree, the emissions parts would not be a critical component for the production line and it could continue without them. I'm sure there were Mustang orders needing to be filled as well as the Shelby order.

Initially, my issue with the theory was on the back end where they added the unit shortage on DSO 2536.
It seemed off putting they would add them on a different package. DSO 2534 is a 412F package (428 /auto /emissions) while DSO 2536 is a 402F package (428 /4spd / emissions). However after looking at the next several DSOs in line, none of them were ordered as emission equipped cars for quite a while. If I'm correct the next DSO 412F package was not scheduled unit DSO 2560. After seeing this, I think it is reasonable the shortage of emission units would be added to 2536 to fulfill the Shelby order.

Rich Plescia

Dec 8, 2018, 1:58:35 PM12/8/18
to 1967 Shelby American Research & History
One more detail I noticed;

On DSO 2536, the added cars with emissions have a 5A black interior trim code. While the cars that follow the order are non emission cars with 5U parchment interior.

Since the shortage of emissions units on DSO 2534 had 5A black trim, it appears Ford tried to make the added cars on DSO 2536 as close to original DSO 2534 order as possible.

Brian Styles

Dec 8, 2018, 3:25:11 PM12/8/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

Interesting theory on the trim discrepancies on DSO 2536. I hadn't thought of it that way.

While it makes no sense as to why the plant would change the trim color on 32 of the 33 'emissions make-up' cars, I have no other explanation as to why it worked out that way other than it is a coincidence... a big one. Perhaps explainable depending on if cars were put to the side or run specially to complete the 'make-up.'


May 1, 2019, 3:35:54 PM5/1/19
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

Interesting read. 

Believe there are a couple of things that have been overlooked so bear with me.

I believe I understand what the group has found in the records in relationship to cars that were planned as Thermactor equipped cars being assembled instead as non-Thermactor cars. The idea of that the reason for this choose was related to missing or lack of supply of Thermactor related parts is not correct in my opinion.

Engines were pretty much completely built at the engine plants and equipped for specific applications, AC non-AC, Thermactor or non- Thermactor, automatic or 4 speed and other combinations, then labeled, crated and shipped to San Jose where some combinations needed a couple of parts attached (example AC compressor on those models), attached to the matching transmission then installed into the body. Emission parts were not installed at San Jose but instead at the engine plant and there does not seem that there is any evidence that there was any shortage of those parts.

I can't explain why San Jose choose to start building a group of cars originally identified as Thermactor equipped rather than choosing another DSO with those specifications but apparently they didn't and instead choose to change the engines in a group of cars from three groups instead. Will leave that for a follow up or we'll just have to accept it happened for some unknown reason for the time being.  Managers would not normally allow any build to start without being certain that all of the parts were available in house before the car was started. This may have not meant every nut or bolt but it has been strongly communicated to me that this was an important step and not something that was over looked

At the same time they would have known where more Thermactor equipped engines were in the supply chain and when they expected them to arrive at the depo and routed to the assembly plant in Milpitas and made additional plants based on that knowledge.

So I suggest that it was not a shortage of any individual part or parts - plants typically didn't start building cars without all the parts, at least the vast majority and especially the essential ones, before they started a build of a car according to the plant managers I've spoken with, but were short of onsite engines for all of those cars they wanted to build.  Given the time of year this took place weather and the condition of the transportation rails could have also played into this situation. Something that should at least be considered though it does not make a difference in the outcome and result of the end findings.

I don't understand why San Jose didn't choose just to build 33 non-Thermactor cars from another DSO group as I mentioned above but there are a fair number of things we may never understand and know so will leave it at that for the time being or until a new leaf is turned over at some point in the future.

Comments and feedback are welcomed 

Jeff Speegle

Brian Styles

May 12, 2019, 7:42:37 PM5/12/19
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Hey Jeff,

I appreciate you clarifying the terminology and helping with the explanation of exactly how the assemblies and components came to be complete cars.

Equipped with this updated understanding,  I performed some additional research into the option codes that Ford used on the orders (both DSOs and SVOs).

The spreadsheet linked by the original post now has now been updated with the option numbers, but for those with limited time, here's the abridged version:

  • DSO 2534, originally a 412F package, should have received the 7393141 engine option. 
    • The shortage resulted in some of these units (built on 1/4/66-1/6/67) getting the 7393138 engine option (resulting in a 410F pkg).

  • DSO 2540, originally a 412F package, should have received the 7393141 engine option. 
    • The shortage resulted in some of these units (built on 1/4/66-1/6/67) getting the 7393138 engine option (resulting in a 410F pkg).

  • DSO 2538, originally a 402F package, should have received the 7393139 engine option. 
    • The shortage resulted in some of these units (built on 1/4/66-1/6/67) getting the 7393137 engine option (resulting in a 400F pkg).

  • DSO 2536, originally a 400F package, should have received the 7393137 engine option. 
    • The 'make-up' resulted in the last 33 units (built on 1/18/67-1-23/67) of this DSO getting the 7393139 engine option (resulting in a 402F pkg).

Hope this continues to help with the team research effort....

Rich Plescia

May 27, 2019, 10:18:07 AM5/27/19
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Thanks to Jeff's additional insight, I believe we have been using the wrong terminology as I don't think this was a component (engine assembly) shortage at all.

Based on closer scrutiny of the data, it appears the 1/6/67 date is the first time use of these specific engines versions (412F auto with emissions, and 402F 4-speed with emissions).
I'm suggesting the factory did not receive these engines in time for the planned production start at the beginning of the new year due to the holiday break and logistic delays.
It simply appears the engines arrived at the line two (2) days late.

Stay tuned for more info to outline these details.

Brian Styles

May 28, 2019, 10:04:44 AM5/28/19
to 1967 Shelby Research Group


As the old saying goes, sometimes you have to take a few steps back to see the forest though the trees...

Your latest observations demonstrate that truly successful research comes from a team effort; that results often come from looking at the same subject matter through a different lens and from a different distance. 

Your theory, that the 428 Emissions (EECS) engine assemblies were to be ready for regular production on January 4, 1967, if correct, does have one more component that will need to be discussed and researched further -- mainly that there were two 428+EECS cars that were build prior this date. 

I'm specifically referring to the two engineering cars, the Coupe #0131 and the Convertible #0139, which were both built about 6 weeks earlier in November 1966.

Granted these were engineering cars,and they were almost built in Metuchen rather than San Jose (for reasons still unknown), but this is one wrinkle that will still need to be explained. Off the cuff, I believe there are two possible explanations:
  1. That the 428+EECS engines were available from November 1966, however, they weren't needed for another six weeks, and then when they were needed, they were two days late getting to the line for the batch of cars that were to be built on January 4, 1967 (possibly due to logistics related to Christmas and New Year's holidays), or...

  2. That the first two cars to get 428+EECS (#0131 & #0139) received pre-production configurations of the Emissions system unique to the 428-8V Special Interceptor.
Either explanation is plausible though I tend to lean toward #2 -- that the first two cars may have had a non-regular-production configuration and installation of their EECS systems. The EECS may have even been added at the assembly plant rather than the engine plant, which might explain why the diverter valve is mounted to the passenger shock tower with a special L-bracket. 

The following photo shows some of the details of the EECS installation in #0139, albeit after the car was converted to a single 4bbl carburetor setup).

67-0139 EECS System (1967-07-07 photo).jpg

67-0139 EECS System (1967-07-07 photo).jpg

Penny Smith

May 29, 2019, 5:10:32 PM5/29/19
to 1967 Shelby Research Group
I know very little of #131 and only a bit more (because of all of your efforts) the convertible. But it appears to me that there wasn't much figuring out that was needed to make the Thermactor work on the new application and it just appears that these first two test units were not very different from what followed.

Seems that they thought that the solid mounting of the valve was important as I would as would the filter but with a little experimenting and like some engineer they found that a change of hoses would relocate the valve and it would be isolated enough while suspended by the same hoses. So would agree at this point with Brian's #2 "That the first two cars to get 428+EECS (#0131 & #0139) received pre-production configurations of the Emissions system unique to the 428-8V Special Interceptor." but don't believe that the system would have been added at the car plant. Too many issues with removing the top end of the engine to swap out parts and to get all the different items needed individually.

Another consideration would be what engine and configuration do the order or the add/delete sheets specify for both/either.


Rich Plescia

May 30, 2019, 10:00:49 AM5/30/19
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Thanks for your added thoughts Jeff.

Unfortunately cars #0100, #0131 and #0139 were each the only unit ordered on their DSOs. There were a total of 16 single unit DSOs during the 1967 model year production. With only one unit on the DSO, the likelihood of finding the corresponding SVO in the car falls between 'unlikely' and 'not a chance.'  It is possible that a microfilm of all SVOs exists, in which case our hope lies with Kevin Marti. 

Furthermore, the SVOs found so far have been a detailed breakdown of the DSO, without modifications. Therefore it is doubtful we will ever be able to confirm the engine configuration by option code.

The 413 package orders would be the same as noted by the DSOs on microfilm. As you likely know, that only tells us how the car was ordered, not how it was actually built. There are option codes on the DSOs, and they are consistent with all other DSOs.

I also believe Brian's #2 theory to be more likely of the two (The first two cars to get 428+EECS (#0131 & #0139) received pre-production configurations of the Emissions system unique to the 428-8V Special Interceptor.)

Brian Styles

Nov 4, 2019, 8:44:39 PM11/4/19
to 1967 Shelby Research Group
I now theorize this topic may be closely related to the "Why were the first eight GT500+AC+EECS cars almost built in Metuchen instead of SJ? topic

Give it a read and help keep this important research topic going! 

1967 Shelby Research Group

Nov 16, 2023, 3:24:48 PM11/16/23
to 1967 Shelby Research Group
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages