"Z" VINs, non-franchised Shelby dealers and "Continuation" invoices

4,243 views
Skip to first unread message

Brian Styles

unread,
May 11, 2018, 12:18:08 PM5/11/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
What exactly is a "Z" VIN? Well, first let's start with a couple of pictures of SAI VIN plates that have the added "Z"

03014 [67200F7A] VIN (Z).jpg03114 [67400F5A] VIN (Z).jpg




A previously offered explanation to the large "Z" stamp added to the car's VIN plate is that "the Z mark indicates this car was complete and somewhat of a warning to not pilfer any parts off of this car to complete another car." 

It has also been suggested that the added "Z" stamp signified 50-state compliant cars, or more specifically that they had the 67-1/2 style front end (outboard high-beam configuration).

Goodell_Interview_Excerpt_Z-VINs.png



It seems to me that the above "don't pilfer parts" warning could have been accomplished just as easy with a hanger card on the rearview mirror or a piece of paper on the dashboard.... Just about anything could have been more obvious than a hard-to-read "Z" on a VIN plate, hidden under a hood secured with locks.  Obviously, if you have to open the hood, you first had to put your hands on the car...

We propose a theory that the "Z" stamp added to the VIN was intended to be permanent; to stay with the car long after it was shipped from SAI. We propose that the added "Z" has to do with a point in time -- perhaps a significant event that took place.

Though we have only a sparse amount of data collected so far, it appears that the "Z" stamps started in April 1967. We think the same is true for the "Continuation" invoices and the 2" square decals added to the windshields of Company Cars might all be related. If our theory is correct, these items mark a very significant point in the Ford - Shelby American corporate timeline.


Here's what we know:
  • Had the deal with Hertz Rent-a-Car not happened in 1966, SAI wouldn't have made it to 1967 (Interview with Bill McLean, son of Jim McLean, SAI's G.M.)
  • Shelby American struggled from the start of 1967 production (a/k/a "launching problems")
  • FoMoCo intervened in the first month of production, October 1966, as indicated by a Ford Executive, Dr. Ray Geddes, taking over operations/ordering, and then tapping Fred Goodell to move to California and takeover engineering in December 1966. (DSO Microfilm & Goodell Interview)
  • Beginning with cars on DSO 2580, the Ordering District was changed again, this time from 84 to 89 (Ford "Home Office Reserve"). This didn't happen when the cars were ordered, however, it did happen by the time they were completed which is why it's reflected in the Ford record (Marti) and not on the typed DSOs on Microfilm.
  • Shelby placed what turned out to be the last fulfilled orders. 12 DSOs ordered 549 total units on March 20, 1967.
  • Official 'Air Conditioning Cooling Tests' are performed at Goodyear high-speed test track in Texas with engineering car #0463. March 21-27, 1967
  • Shelby sends invoice P13289 to FoMoCo for twelve (12) cars that had engine and/or transmissions failures throughout production. April 5, 1967.
  • 37 'demonstrator' G.T. 500 units were shipped to the 37 Domestic Ford Districts between April 6 and April 20, 1967
  • The earliest 'Continuation' invoice (a District Demonstrator sold to a non-Shelby-Franchised Ford dealer) discovered so far is dated April 5, 1967
  • With less demand and excess inventory, cars began getting shipped out to regional inventory lots starting around April 10, 1967
  • The only '67 G.T. Convertible, #0139 is reported 'Stolen' and 'Returned' days later. April 1967.
  • Ford Division press release announcing that 1,000 new dealerships, in addition to the already Shelby franchised ones) would be allowed to sells Shelby G.T. vehicles, dated April 26, 1967
  • Shelby sends Invoice P13498 for $3,600 to FoMoCo for "Loss of Use" ($100/month depreciation) related to nine (9) company cars (6x '67, Shelby, 1x '67 Mustang, 2x '66 Shelby) that were allocated to Ford and shipped to Dearborn between 2/1/67-6/30/67. Invoice dated April 26, 1967
  • Appears that 'Z' stamps began getting added to SAI VIN plates beginning on cars with [Phase II] completion dates of around April 27, 1967.
  • The last business day of April 1967 was Friday, April 28, 1967.
  • Ford awarded the 1968 contract to A.O. Smith Plastics, around this timeframe, and A.O. Smith's involvement in the '67 program was concluded before May 26, 1967 -- see Smith's letter to Ford's Ken VanAkin
  • According to a letter sent to dealers, Ford informed them that the new Shelby Automotive Company (SAC) had been formed on June 1, 1967.
  • 2-inch square numbered decals were added to the lower corners of the front windshields of fixed assets (company cars) at some point after March 31. Our suspicion is that this may have happened around the same time that retail units were branded with the Z-stamp or later, such as when Shelby Automotive was incorporated. 
  • "Mid year" (Spring) is when the convertible body style was supposed to enter production (Staff Meeting Minutes)
  • Ford calculated a loss of $764,000 for the 1967 Shelby Program as of July 1967 (Ford Racing Presentation)
  • Upon terminating the California-based Shelby Program, Ford decided to bring the operation closer to home and award the contract to the company that provided emergency assistance early in 1967 production -- A.O. Smith Plastics.
  • When Ford terminated the program, they took over SAI's assets (engineering vehicles, equipment, and intellectual property, including the "SHELBY" and "COBRA" trademarks) and liabilities (debt and vehicle warranties).

Multiple indicators tend to signal that Ford took over and/or terminated the Shelby program at or very close to the "mid-model-year" point. Could the timing of the "Z" VIN correlate to cars finished after the date that FoMoCo definitively took over or terminated the Shelby Program (and acquired the assets and liabilities of Shelby American, Inc.)?

Was the "Z" added to the VIN plates as an accounting method of 'tagging' or 'branding' vehicles (assets) that were now accountable to Ford rather than to Shelby American? 

For example, if the termination/acquisition date was set at 4/15/1967, then any vehicles completed after that date would be accounted for on Ford's books, and if this theory is correct, possibly received a "Z" stamp.

From an accounting perspective, this wouldn't be restricted to just vehicles. An acquisition would include all assets (vehicles, parts, tools, accounts receivable) and liabilities (debts, payroll and projected vehicle warranty claims).  

When one company takes over another, all accounting records are to a specific date. There has to be a delineation so the "bean counters" know what gets counted to each ledger.  The added "Z" stamp could have just been a simple means of documented an asset was accounted for; a means to ensure that no asset (vehicle) was tallied more than once when Ford's accountants were totaling the assets of the entity they just acquired.  Thus, adding a mark to the VIN, which would have to be looked and written down when performing the inventory, would be the most obvious place to put a permanent mark (stamp).

If we see a pattern that "all cars completed after a specific date" wore a "Z" stamped VIN plate, maybe dealers were sent a memo that if they performed warranty work on a car with a "Z" prefixing the VIN, that the claim form should be sent to Ford for reimbursement rather than sent to SAI?

I'd further speculate that after we answer the question about the "Z" VINs, that we'll know more about the "Continuation" invoices we've been finding. I'd offer the theory that the Continuation invoices would have started about the same time the "Z" VINs did. Dave Mathews has stated that the Continuation invoices relate to cars being sold to non-Franchised Shelby dealers. If FoMoCo acquired SAI around the mid-model-year point (circa April 1967), then I would imagine that one of their goals would be to sell-off the inventory quickly. Expanding the sales channel to include more dealers would most certainly be a means of achieving that goal. 

I'm sure others have already done some research into the "Z" VIN cars and the continuation invoices. 
Please help us test this theory with the information on your car. 
What we have gathered so far:

  • Earliest SAI Phase-I (Shelby Upgrades) start date of "Z" VINed cars:
    • 4/17/1967
  • Earliest SAI Phase-II (Options: Wheels/Radio) completion dates of "Z" VINed cars:
    • 4/25/1967 (Car #1834), Invoice date 6/1/1967, shipped 6/6/1967
    • 4/27/1967 (Car #0552), shipped on 6/16/1967.
    • 3/12/1967 (Car #1149), however, not shipped until four months later, 7/19/1967.
       
  • Earliest SAI shipping date of a "Z" VINed car:
    • 5/2/1967 (Cars #1736, #1992)
       
  • Earliest dates of "Continuation" invoices found:
    • Car #1077; invoiced 4/5/1967 (completed by SAI on 3/29/67) - This was one of the Ford Sales District (FSD) demonstrator units. I suspect the other demonstrator units will be the same and all will be invoiced earlier than the 'retail' continuation units...
    • Car #1276; Invoiced 4/17/1967 (SAI Phase-II completion on 4/13/1967)
        
  • Continuation invoices with non "Z" VIN cars: 
    • Cars #1246, #1834, #1875, all completed before 5/1/1967 do not have the added large "Z", yet all have "Continuation" invoices.

-------------------------

Another possible theory on the "Z" VINs: QA/Inspection mark

Maybe the "Z" stamp was something as simple as an "inspection mark" that indicated the car was not only completed but also had been inspected. The fact that this started in April could be attributable to the date that a new QA/inspection procedure was implemented by Ford. 

Other manufacturers had different methods of documenting a car and its sub-assemblies were QA'd -- including paint stamps (paint/body/trim in the case of GM), wax pen markings, etc. Mopars even had inspection marks (letters/numbers) stamped into and sometimes through the data plates (a/ka/ Fender Tags). The inspection marks were often located in the engine bay.

Still, it seems to me that the Shelby Z stamp was something more permanent....

-------------------------

Brian Styles

unread,
Jun 13, 2018, 3:56:58 PM6/13/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
Inconsistencies detected to date: 

The active theory is based on call cars completed on or after 4/27/67 should have a larger "Z" stamped into the VIN plate.
Therefore, in theory, the following cars should, but do not, have a "Z" added to the VIN. These are exceptions/anomalies for now:

Sequence   DSO     Built (FSJ)   Completed (SAI)    Shipped    Notes
#1867      2581    04/13/67      04/28/67          05/16/67
#2955      2609    06/06/67      07/08/67          07/19/67    Replacement for one of the train derailment cars (PO marked "HOR")
#3092      2608    06/29/67      07/14/67          07/19/67
#3222      2611    07/12/67      07/25/67          07/25/67    Ford Door Tag not removed

There will always be exceptions with large amounts of data.... the question becomes how many are tolerable before the theory needs to be revised. This might be no different that the cars that didn't get their Ford door tags removed by SAI.... humans are known to make mistakes...

Also need to understand that a different date, such as the SAI Invoice date, might be equally, if not more, important to this theory.

[updated: 2/13/2019 - car #1867 added to list]
[updated: 7/17/2019 - car #3092 added to list]

Brian Styles

unread,
Nov 6, 2018, 9:25:46 AM11/6/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

I believe that the need to track what cars are accountable to what company would be even more important given the way the Ford-SAI business relationship was managed ... up until Ford made the decision to terminate the California-based program in the Spring of '67. 

According to Fred Goodell, in his Shelby AMERICAN magazine #53 (1988) interview (emphasis added and spelling corrected):

[Page 14] 
SAAC: Is that when you became the Chief Engineer  for Shelby American? 
GOODELL:  Yes.  That  was  in early  October of  1966. There was some unpleasantness  that preceded my arrival out there. Carroll had a very enviable contract with Ford.  He was  paid  an annual  six-figure lump  sum  from  Ford  for  the use  of  his name. For that all he had to do was appear at some banquets and auto shows and functions like that. Then he had  another contract  with  Ford  for  the  Shelby  Mustang program.  He paid nothing for those cars; they were all billed to him but the only time he paid  for them was when he sold them

If Shelby didn't pay for the cars until they were sold, performing an inventory of what was on the lot would be real important if you were buying the company. If SAI sold a car, money was owed to Ford. If the car wasn't sold yet, no money was owed (yet).  On the date of the acquisition, the accountants would need to know what cars had already been sold (which meant money was owed to Ford) and those cars where had not yet been sold (Ford retains that asset). 

By the way, this appears to be the same time that the interviewer attempted to 'test' the theory about the Z-added VINs having something to do with regulatory compliance. 

[Page 15] 
SAAC: We've  found a fair number of 1967 models which had a 'Z' stamped ahead of their serial number. Most of these cars have outboard headlights and they are scattered throughout  production  (except  that  they are not among the very early cars). Was this an attempt to identify cars which would be sent  to  the  states  which  had  minimum distance between headlight requirements? 
GOODELL: I can't  honestly  recall,  but it sounds like something we might have done. 
[Note: SAAC hm since spoken with Robert Wyatt, the former shop manager at Shelby American,  who confirmed that this is exactly  what  the  'Z' in  the  I967  serial numbers was for.  We'll be interviewing him for  an  upcoming issue. -Ed.] 


Though spattered with memory mistakes by Goodell, this interview remains a great resource. Here's the entire interview for you to read for the first time, or to read again and learn something new... http://www.1967shelbyconvertible.com/research/interviews/fred-goodell.asp

Brian Styles

unread,
Dec 9, 2018, 7:55:02 PM12/9/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

We've noticed that "Continuation" Invoices specifically itemize a "Special Handing Charge" of $100. 

Since Continuation Invoices were only issued to Non-Franchised Shelby Dealers, It would be my assumption that this craftily-worded surcharge was to make sure that the franchised dealers still retained a competitive edge.

i.e. non-franchised dealers would always pay $100 more per car than a franchised Shelby dealer.

We assume that the "F" prefix in the invoice number stood for [F]ord. This was also unique to Continuation Invoices.

Also, you will notice the font used on the line items is proportional. Vehicle (non-Continuation) invoices that I've found use a mono-spaced font for this area. 

Assuming that not everyone has seen a "Continuation Invoice," here's what one (annotated) looks like:



Continuation Invoice - Annotated.jpg



Also worth pointing out is that the itemization lines of the Continuation Invoices is pre-printed in a proportional-spaced font. Therefore all Continuation invoices (just like window stickers) only read "Deluxe Wheels." If there is no charge of $151.74, then your car had steel wheels. If there is a charge, unfortunately that only tells you you have either the Deluxe or the Shelby wheels -- there is no differentiation between the Deluxe Mag Star wheels and the Shelby Aluminum 10-Spoke wheels. If your car was sold through a non-franchised Shelby dealer, you will need the Production Order to determine the correct wheel type for your car.



Message has been deleted

Brian Styles

unread,
Dec 17, 2018, 10:24:03 PM12/17/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
If you don't have the Shelby dealer invoice for your car, or just want to perform a secondary test, take a look at your car's Production Order:

A circled "F" prefix to the dealer's order number in the upper left, and a circled "X99" to the left of the dealer's name would both be indications that the Ford dealership was a non-franchised Shelby dealer.

Perhaps F = order came from Ford corporate? or order came from a Ford dealer?

X99 non-Franchised Dealer Prod Order.jpg




Brian Styles

unread,
Dec 26, 2018, 10:38:29 AM12/26/18
to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

List of the dealerships I've detected to be non-franchised (NF) Shelby dealers. 
The number in parentheses is the number of cars I calculate they sold:
  • Community Ford,  Saline,  MI (2)
  • Coshocton-Buckeye Motors,  Coshocton,  OH (1)
  • Coveney Ford Sales, Inc .,  West Roxbury,  MA (1)
  • East Point Ford Co., East Point, TN (2)
  • Future Ford, Inc.,  Wilmington, DE (4)
  • Graham Ford,  Schenectaty, NY (1)
  • Jerry Watson Ford, Inc.,  Fort Wayne,  IN (2)
  • Quincy Stockton Ford,  Los Angeles, CA (8)
  • Stoval Motor Co.,  Cornelia,  GA (1)

Identifying Non-Franchised dealers using car paperwork:
  • NF dealers can be identified using Shelby American Production Orders by means of a circled "X99" code to the left of the dealer's name and a circled order number in the upper left with an "F" prefix.
  • NF dealers can be identified using Shelby American Invoices by means of the title "Continuation Invoice", Invoice numbers prefixed with an "F" and customer order numbers prefixed with an "F". 


    If you car was sold through a non-franchised dealer, you can see how beneficial it would be to this topic for us to know about it!

    List updated: 12/26/2018

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Dec 26, 2018, 11:55:10 AM12/26/18
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    Another potential method to identify non-franchised (NF) dealers: 

    The term "COD" is sometimes mentioned in the 2010 SAAC Registry footnotes, which gets it from the Notes box on the car's Production Order. 

    From the few Production Orders I've collected, I've found six (6) cars notated as "COD".

    Other than a January '67 sale of car #305 to franchised dealer Courtesy Motors (Colorado), the other five are late-built cars that were all 'Regional Inventory' units.

    Relevant to this topic? not sure yet. Worth noting though...

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Dec 26, 2018, 4:53:30 PM12/26/18
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    Potentially related to my theory of the timing of Ford's termination of the program and takeover of SAI:

    According to the Registry, about 37 cars were shipped to various Ford Districts around the country. When you see these scattered throughout the 3,225 cars listd in the registry, you might not pay attention to them, however, when you apply a filter and sort by the shipping dates of each car, a pattern emerges:

    All of the 37 'Ford Sales District' Demonstrator units appear to have been shipped between April 3, 1967 and April 20, 1967, with the vast majority of them being shipped on April 6th.


    Updated in the original post, recap here:
    • Shelby places what turn out to be the last fulfilled orders. 12 DSOs ordered 549 units on March 20, 1967.
    • 37 Demonstrator cars were shipped to Ford Districts around the country between April 3 and April 20, 1967
    • Cars began getting shipped out to regional inventory centers starting around April 10, 1967
    • Appears that 'Z' stamps began getting added to SAI VIN plates beginning on or or around April 27, 1967
    • Earliest 'Continuation' invoice (car sold to a non-Franchised Shelby dealers) found so far is dated April 28, 1967

    Rich Plescia

    unread,
    Jan 3, 2019, 9:42:01 PM1/3/19
    to 1967 Shelby American Research & History
    Brian,

    I was wondering why so many cars would be sent around the country to different Ford districts. It does seem to indicate your theory of Ford's takeover would be the reason.
    Perhaps just like the initial launch (cars sent to the franchised dealers) these 37 were used to showcase them to any non-franchised Ford dealers at a specific location / meeting point.
    I'd be curious to see what is listed on these 37 car's PO's (purchase orders) for a selling dealer, if any are even listed at all.  

    Rich

    david.willoughby...@gtempaccount.com

    unread,
    Jan 20, 2019, 5:28:18 AM1/20/19
    to 1967 Shelby American Research Group
    Hi Brian

    I really appreciate your forensic approach to these questions about how the '67 shelbys were built.

    In the discussion about the 'Z' on the VIN, I would raise one comment -

    #2751 has the 'Z', and it would follow that your statement might be true - "If we see a pattern that "all cars completed after a specific date" wore a "Z" stamped VIN plate, maybe dealers were sent a memo that if they performed warranty work on a car with a "Z" prefixing the VIN, that the claim form should be sent to Ford for reimbursement rather than sent to to SAI?"

    However, I have a couple of documents sent to me by Dave Mathews relating to #2751 showing warranty work done by Hayward Ford and apparently invoiced to SAI.  It's a bit confusing because the Hayward documents says the warranty work was to replace the brake pedal bush and pin, but the SAI document says clutch pedal bush.  I think this is just a mistake as the dates on the two documents are very close, and the invoice amount is identical.

    This doesn't discount your theory at all; in fact stamping the Z on the VIN plate feels like the kind of thing Ford would have done in this circumstance (I have worked with Ford on a number of occasions and this resonates with their methodical approach to this sort of thing).

    David

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Feb 11, 2019, 1:19:08 PM2/11/19
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    It might also be worth noting the potential 'shenanigans' that appear to take place right around the same April 1967 time frame...
    • Shelby gives each of his sons, Patrick and Mike, a 'Company Car' on April 4, 1967, valued at $3,316.78 x 2.
    •  SAI makes first attempt to invoice the San Jose plant for over $5,000 worth of engine and gearbox repairs to 12 cars on April 5, 1967.
      • One car on the invoice is #0289, actually left SAI with a 427 CID, yet SAI billed FoMoCo $422.79 for the original 428 engine and $140 to R&R it..  
    • The only '67 convertible, #0139, is reported stolen and returned days later in April 1967. More information regarding this farce:
    • Shelby sends Invoice P13498 for $3,600 to FoMoCo for "Losses" related to special company cars that were assigned to Ford / Ray Geddes. April 26, 1967 
    • The long list of fixed assets (company vehicles & leased vehicles) was approximately three full pages long. If Goodell's statement about SAI not having to pay for vehicles until they were sold was accurate, that probably exceeds $300,000.00 of assets that Ford hadn't been paid for.
    I feel that as we find more SAI company paperwork, this list will grow....

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Apr 22, 2019, 8:25:44 PM4/22/19
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com

    Adding a new mark to our timeline, we have just recently come across a letter that was sent to dealers

    The letter was on Shelby Parts Company, Inc. letterhead with an address of 4320 100th St. Torrance, CA 905049 (yeah, there's an extra digit on that zip...)
    Under the name/address it read "A Subsidiary of Shelby American, Inc."



    SPCI - Letterhead Crop.png




    "Dear Sir:"

    "Prior to June 1967,  Shelby American, Inc. had three divisions. We manufactured high performance automobiles, raced automobiles internationally and provided performance service parts." ....  "On June 1, 1967, Shelby American, Inc. split into three separate companies: Shelby Automotive Co., Shelby Parts Co., Inc. and Shelby Racing Co., Inc. Part of the reason for this split was to give more individual service to each type of customer and vendor." .... "During the period of responsibility and record transfer, some internal problems have arisen that will require your help in solving. We would appreciate your furnishing copies of the invoices that make up the enclosed statement. This will enable us to determine which Shelby company is liable and should implement a prompt settlement." 

    Then handwritten at the bottom, it states 

    "All warranty claims are now handled by Shelby Automotive Co. in Michigan and their address is 15670 West 10 Mile Road, Southfield, Michigan 48075  - attn: W.E. Diaz. They will pay directly to you. Our bill is completely separate."


    I think it's clear that the dealers weren't informed of what was really happening behind the scenes. It also seems that Shelby American, Inc. might have remained in existence to be a parent company for Shelby Racing Co. and Shelby Parts Co. that would remain in California. The new Shelby Automotive Company was setup to manage the production (err, I mean shield Ford from liability) of the 1968 models in Ionia, MI. 


    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Aug 22, 2019, 4:03:13 PM8/22/19
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    Two new FoMoCo documents, shared by a member of the SRG, help solidify our theories as to when the dealer network was expanded to include Ford dealers that we not Shelby-franchised.

    Both are from the "Ford Division News Bureau" (seems to be a press release sent to "The Detroit News.")

    The first document is dated March 27, 1967. It appears that it's intention is to generate awareness of the Shelby G.T. 500 model.

    The second document, issued a month later on April 26, 1967, announces that there are only 90 franchised dealers, but that 1,000 more Ford dealerships would have the opportunity to sell the Shelby G.T.

    These two documents fit our theories related to the timeline and our dealer metrics nicely. 

    1967-03-27_Ford_News_Bureau_Shelby_GT_500.jpg


    1967-04-26_Ford_News_Bureau_Shelby_Dealer_Expansion.jpg



    1967-03-27_Ford_News_Bureau_Shelby_GT_500.jpg
    1967-04-26_Ford_News_Bureau_Shelby_Dealer_Expansion.jpg

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    Apr 16, 2020, 4:47:17 PM4/16/20
    to 1967 Shelby Research Group

    A letter from Carroll Shelby Enterprises, Inc., dated 8/22/1967, sent out to the remaining employees of Carroll's various entities.

    We're sorry, but we're going to have to call bullsh*t on the #FakeNews narrative of needing a larger manufacturing facility for 1968 production....


    1967-08-22 CSE Memo - Activities pg1 640.jpg


    1967-08-22 CSE Memo - Activities pg2 640.jpg





    michaelpflatley

    unread,
    Apr 17, 2020, 11:55:19 AM4/17/20
    to 1967 Shelby Research Group
    I noticed the mention of his new office building at Playa Del Rey. Is that the same place all '67 photo shoots took place?

    r.plescia289

    unread,
    May 15, 2020, 10:29:28 PM5/15/20
    to 1967 Shelby Research Group
    None of the '67 photos (brochure pictures) were taken at the Playa Del Ray offices. That move would have been after they left LAX in mid August of 1967.
    (Did you mean the 1968 photo shoots?)

    We have worked with several people on the '67 brochure photo locations.
    Those locations included Redondo Beach, LAX, the Theme Building next to LAX, Encino, Sherman Oaks Fashion Square, and an unknown Ranch location possibly in Santa Monica.

    Brian Styles

    unread,
    May 30, 2020, 4:18:00 PM5/30/20
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    Another letter that we believe helps populate the timeline of Ford's takeover of Shelby.

    As a reminder, if Ford took over SAI as early as May 1, 1967, it would go toward explaining why Shelby generated boatloads of invoices to Ford for just about everything they could think of up through the last working days of April 1967.

    The third paragraph of the attached July 13, 1971 letter is also important to this discussion. (Note: "FoMoCo" substituted for "The Company" to help with clarity):

    When Shelby American, in late 1967, created two new subsidiaries, Parts and Automotive, to take over its parts and vehicle business, [FoMoCo] agreed to absorb all their losses (in return for the chance of receiving all their income) and took over their complete management. Again any recovery against Parts or Automotive with respect to a 1967-1970 product would be billable back to [FoMoCo]. 

    It is our opinion that this letter clarifies that the acquisition of SAI by FoMoCo included both assets (fixed assets, intellectual property, & future sales) and liabilities (warranty obligations & debt). 

    Though the 7/1971 letter states "late 1967," we have the 5/1967 letter that announced to dealers that the new vehicle production business, "Shelby Automotive Company," was formed on or before June 1, 1967. 

    Based on these two letters, it remains my belief that FoMoCo took over Shelby American, possibly as early as May 1, 1967.
    Subsequent to the acquisition, FoMoCo created/incorporated the new Shelby Automotive Company (SAC)
    With the vehicle business carved out to the new SAC, FoMoCo gave the SAI entity (remaining divisions being Parts and Racing) back to Carroll. 

    Perhaps by "late" the letter was referring to late 1967 production, rather than late in the 1967 calendar year?

    Shelby American, Inc. did not have anything to do with 1968 model year vehicle production.


    1971-07-13 Indemnification Letter.jpg


    Brian S

    unread,
    Aug 2, 2020, 6:59:10 PM8/2/20
    to shelbyr...@googlegroups.com
    With all the latest updates from information gleaned from SAI Production Orders and Invoices kindly shared with us, here is some updated info extracted from them and incorporated into our statistics sheet:
    • The earliest INVOICED date we're finding for a Z-vin unit is 4/28/67 (the last business day of April).
    • The earliest SHIPPED date for a Z-vin unit is 5/2/67 (the second business day of May).
    Also, the change in Ordering District, from 84 (Home Office Reserve) to 89 (Transportation Services) appears to have taken place on SVOs, on approximately 5/1/67.

    Could the Z-vin and the SVO Ordering District changes signify Ford Motor Company's official takeover date of SAI? 
    It's sure looking that way...


    Reply all
    Reply to author
    Forward
    0 new messages