CaliforniaSpecial.com -- Message Boards -- 1968 California Special Limited Edition Ford Mustang GT/CS
D I S C U S S I O N . F O R U M
COMMUNITY
1968 GT/CS & HCS
2007+ GT/CS
1966-1967 HCS

Vote!

Old 06/29/2007, 11:04 AM   #16
lwlw
My Car Details
 
lwlw's Avatar
 

Location: Chicago, IL
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 36

Tim, thank you.

We love "Lucy" and it does matter to us that she has turned out to be a clone.
Our concern is that we have a car that is paid off, without a title in our hands. We don't feel comfortable driving it - maybe we worry too much but I know Larry and I would rest alot easier if all the legal mumbo-jumbo was behind us.
lwlw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 11:21 AM   #17
Mosesatm
 
Mosesatm's Avatar
 

Location: Spokane, Washington
Joined: Jan 05
Posts: 7,381

[QUOTE=Midnight Special;....yet, my originals get picked apart by so called experts....

[/QUOTE]

That's just rude and I will never understand why people do it, especially to a driver. But then if you blast past them fast enough they won't be able to pick it apart!
Mosesatm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 11:48 AM   #18
joedls
My Car Details
 
joedls's Avatar
 

Location: Lake Forest, CA
Joined: Mar 05
eBay: 65-4-me
Posts: 1,980

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosesatm View Post
That's just rude and I will never understand why people do it, especially to a driver.
Amen, Arlie!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mosesatm View Post
But then if you blast past them fast enough they won't be able to pick it apart!
Exactly

Joe

HP numbers are good and all, but they're like asking someone how much they can bench. What difference does it make, if I can still kick your ass.
joedls is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 12:11 PM   #19
franklinair
My Car Details
 
franklinair's Avatar
 

Location: Franklin, NC
Joined: Mar 07
Posts: 3,873

My Garage
Not to imply any intentional wrongdoing, but for the benefit of ALL website members, what dealer was involved in the sale transaction? No longer in business?
Neil Hoppe
franklinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 12:13 PM   #20
Midnight Special
My Car Details
 
Midnight Special's Avatar
 

Location: Grass Valley, California
Joined: Nov 05
Posts: 3,697

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwlw View Post
Tim, thank you.

We love "Lucy" and it does matter to us that she has turned out to be a clone.
Our concern is that we have a car that is paid off, without a title in our hands. We don't feel comfortable driving it - maybe we worry too much but I know Larry and I would rest alot easier if all the legal mumbo-jumbo was behind us.
...You will at the very least get a state issued (modified) VIN. My hope is that you can verify enough to recover the '68 VIN.

In any case, my heart goes out to you.


Arlie - I have tried what you said, but I keep running out of gas & have to stop - THAT's when they git me! ;-))

Last edited by Midnight Special; 06/29/2007 at 01:11 PM..

Tim
Midnight Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 06:56 PM   #21
Stacey Enderle
My Car Details
 

Joined: Jun 06
Posts: 181

Far-fetched possibility,...

This is a far-fetched possibility, but I wonder if starting with the original VIN number issued by the Marti Report if they can do a title search from where the car was originally purchased. I know they got privacy laws up the yen-yang, but there are places out there that specialize in doing title searches prior to 1981. It's costly, but you may get some clue as to what happened along the way. If the car had spent any time in Oregon, (title change that is) well, that would be out of luck there because the state of Oregon completely purged all records pertaining to motor vehicles. There are sites you can log onto, they don't guarantee it, it's a hit and miss deal. As soon as I can dig up the printouts I'll relay it to you folks.

Best Regards,

Stacey

I had LOTS of practice on tracing down my grandmother's biological parents, it's no different with a car. But in this situation, you'd have to have the pros do the title searches. They're more geared on that end of it.

Little Red Mustang hiding in the leaves
Stacey Enderle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 08:05 PM   #22
6t8-390gt
 
6t8-390gt's Avatar
 

Location: So. Maryland
Joined: Jul 04
Posts: 487

Earlier this week I checked out a car that was sold as a 1970 RAM AIR IV GTO JUDGE, all indications to me is the car is a re-body. The owner was doing exactly what you did. He took it to the state for inspection. I haven't heard what the StAte's "expert" determined.

Something to consider and look for. As mentioned earlier the shoulder belts were not offered in 1967, look for the attaching bolts under the headliner. To the best of my knowledge all 68's received the attaching bolts. The car has the correct 68 fenders with side lights and rear reflectors (both are easy to add) Remove the inner rear seat panel and inspect both rear quarter panels. Are they 68 style, 67 style, or replacements. All the wiring is different b/t the 67 and 68's, what wiring is present? The front suspension is also different. How was the dash VIN plate attached? The rivets used were of a particular style and not (supposed) to be available to the general public. Remove both fenders and check for the "confidential" VIN. Also is the motor and trans stamped with the partial VIN.

Is there evidence that the entire dash has been replaced? At this point I would not consider the car a clone. You need to be thorough in your inspection and investigation of the two VIN's. What color was each car (VIN)? Remove the carpet and look for evidence of the original color.

Good Luck

Don't give up yet, prove your car is in fact an X-code.


68 S code GT Fastback, 68 J code GT Conv., 68 1/2 R code GT Coupe




6t8-390gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 09:37 PM   #23
John McGilvary
 
John McGilvary's Avatar
 
Original owner/ First car/ CS/CJ

Joined: Mar 06
Posts: 321

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwlw View Post
Tim, thank you.

We love "Lucy" and it does matter to us that she has turned out to be a clone.
Our concern is that we have a car that is paid off, without a title in our hands. We don't feel comfortable driving it - maybe we worry too much but I know Larry and I would rest alot easier if all the legal mumbo-jumbo was behind us.
I think "Lucy" is a fine looking Mustang and you guys should be proud!
If she is a clone, she is a good looking one and a fine example. please post more pic's of your fine looking Stang?
I may be one of the biggest critics on this site when it comes to clones and tributes, but when they are done in good taste they become a complement to all the original CS's.
When all the legal mumbo-jumbo is over, you will still have your Mustang to drive and enjoy, CS or not.

Good luck,
John
John McGilvary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/29/2007, 11:45 PM   #24
PNewitt
Guest
 

Posts: n/a

But Wait, There's More...

These are the two photos of the X-Code GT/CS that I received prior to the 1996 Registry. They were part of the original registration of this GT/CS.

Get a good look at this Mustang. The rear quarters have the early type reflectors, but the side script is way off. It has a vinyl top, too. The interior looks like stock '68, by the seats, seat catch, the steering wheel type (w/pad), and the door panels. The car today has the later type rear reflectors.

I'm wondering how the side script was off, although it could be another example of a fixed qtr. panel, and bad script placement, irregardless of the later mods..

At this point, this CS was about 25 years old in these photos.

This is a prime example how one Mustang can go through many changes over 25 to 39 years. I'm wondering if the original car rusted out, which might explain the lack of "no wreck, not stolen, etc." records.

If I decide to contact the owners just prior to 1996, I'll share whatever is appropiate and ethical--if the answers I get require some tact and scrutiny. So, we'll see.

As for "where originally purchased", it had a 73 DSO (Salt Lake, I think). From there it moved around the midwest, like an orphan.

Ironically, we see cars like this, but we should be happy that it's still here, 'cause a lot of them are long gone, crushed, rusted, or torn apart. This is why what we're doing is a good thing--by saving and restoring these cars.

Paul N.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	xcode.jpg
Views:	31
Size:	108.5 KB
ID:	4565  
  Reply With Quote
Old 06/30/2007, 01:23 PM   #25
franklinair
My Car Details
 
franklinair's Avatar
 

Location: Franklin, NC
Joined: Mar 07
Posts: 3,873

My Garage
I have read & re-read all of the comments on this issue, and I spoke with Loretta Wolski last nite.
According to the Marti Report, it indicates that C/S #8R01X155900 was produced with a 390-2V, C-6 A/T, a 2.75 rear, was white with a red standard interior.
According to Paul's 1996 registry, it indicates that #8R01X155900 had a 390-2V, C-6 A/T, a 3.00 rear, was RED with a standard PARCHMENT interior. (Note that the photos that Paul recieved shows a BLACK interior and mislocated C/S script on the rear quarter panel.)

It must be assumed that somehow 8R01X155900 met its demise and someone had a nice '67 coupe (#7R01C103069) and did a transplant utilizing the C/S components, failing to change the steering column which probably tipped off the dealer the Wolski's were intending to use to re-sell their car. Another easy verification is to look at the torque boxes. '67's only have one. '68's have two. Whether the 2.75 rear was replaced with a 3.00 is a matter of verifying.

Loretta also told me that the C/S VIN plate was not attached (riveted) inside the windshield which is another tip-off. Consequently, the state inspector confiscated the VIN tag & title for the car.

The bottom line is that the Wolski's own a '67 Mustang coupe cloned as a '68 California Special, and I think they have accepted that fact. The next step is to have the car titled using the '67 stamping on the inner fender panel, as the '67 VIN plate is obviously missing. I believe the IL state inspectors should not have a problem in doing so. If the IL officials balk at this approach, I have offered Loretta an alternative means to obtain a clear title for their car. It is a BEAUTIFUL example of a C/S, and I sure wouldn't let it go.

Neil Hoppe
franklinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/30/2007, 02:13 PM   #26
Midnight Special
My Car Details
 
Midnight Special's Avatar
 

Location: Grass Valley, California
Joined: Nov 05
Posts: 3,697

...Nice work Neil! Gracious of you and others to help make the best of the situation...

Tim
Midnight Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06/30/2007, 02:38 PM   #27
franklinair
My Car Details
 
franklinair's Avatar
 

Location: Franklin, NC
Joined: Mar 07
Posts: 3,873

My Garage
Thanks, Tim. It's what I like about this site - everyone tries to assist their fellow Mustangers.
Neil
franklinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/01/2007, 09:02 AM   #28
lwlw
My Car Details
 
lwlw's Avatar
 

Location: Chicago, IL
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 36

#4) Does the car have shoulder belts. I may be wrong, (if I am, someone please correct me) but that was a safety change mid year, and with a 155xxx VIN, you should be able to feel (if it does not have belts) a hole under the headliner just rear of the coat hooks. I don't believe 67s had the provisions for the shoulder belts.

It looks like the headliner was probably replaced too because there are no coat hooks but there does feel like a hole that would kind of line up with the top point of the rear roll-down window.
lwlw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/01/2007, 12:54 PM   #29
Midnight Special
My Car Details
 
Midnight Special's Avatar
 

Location: Grass Valley, California
Joined: Nov 05
Posts: 3,697

Quote:
Originally Posted by lwlw View Post
#4) Does the car have shoulder belts. I may be wrong, (if I am, someone please correct me) but that was a safety change mid year, and with a 155xxx VIN, you should be able to feel (if it does not have belts) a hole under the headliner just rear of the coat hooks. I don't believe 67s had the provisions for the shoulder belts.

It looks like the headliner was probably replaced too because there are no coat hooks but there does feel like a hole that would kind of line up with the top point of the rear roll-down window.

...'Not sure how reliable that is - my '67 has the same thing...

Tim
Midnight Special is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07/01/2007, 01:39 PM   #30
franklinair
My Car Details
 
franklinair's Avatar
 

Location: Franklin, NC
Joined: Mar 07
Posts: 3,873

My Garage
Want to be sure? Look underneath. '68 coupes have 2 torque boxes (L&R).'67 coupes only have one torque box.
Neil
franklinair is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  CaliforniaSpecial.com Forums > GT/CS and HCS Forums > GT/CS and HCS Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
X code or S code twoclassics GT/CS and HCS Discussions 7 09/12/2005 07:11 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.


This site created, owned and maintained by Jon Hanna - Copyright 1996-2011
All rights reserved. CaliforniaSpecial.com is not affiliated with Ford Motor Company

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.