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 12/26/2014, 12:42 PM   #1
robert campbell
My Car Details
 

Location: Bremerton Washington
Joined: Apr 07
Posts: 3,646

My Garage
1968 GT Equipment Option

All,
I was looking at the last Mustang Monthly issue and it had a 1968 Mustang convertible with a 390, 4 speed, and was a GT. The article commented that it had drum brakes and not power discs. Led the reader to believe that the GT option in 1968 had power discs as part of the option. My memory said no, so I penned a polite e-mail to the editor. He responded back and asked me if I was willing to pen an article on the GT option for all years. I said I would, but in researching this I felt that MM must have done this before. My brother has an extensive MM collection and we found a great article in the April 17 1995 MM issue. That would be the 30 year anniversary of the GT option as it was introduced in April of 1965. In April of next year the GT option turns 50 years!!!

May still do the article, but in researching I found a link to the Ford media website and the link below explains the 1968 GT option as captured in an official Ford brochure. Thought you guys might be interested. I also have the 1966, 67, and 69 link to the official Ford brochures if you are interested.

Rob

https://media.ford.com/content/dam/f...ng_Options.pdf
robert campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/26/2014, 03:43 PM   #2
dalorzo_f
My Car Details
 

Location: Brisbane Australia
Joined: Jan 06
Posts: 1,886

My Garage
Nice!

Would suggest if you do write it to clearly note the use of the "390GT" engine in 67/68 S codes, does NOT make the car a "GT". Amazing how many still don't get the distinction, and have people note my convertible is "wrong" as it has 390 badges and no GT ones... and drums, as it came from the factory!

One other spin, often missed but noted in the linked doc, was that if you got the GT option on a S code then the power brake option was a mandatory add-on. Which kinda made it part of the GT option, but only for S codes (a mandatory "option" to an option!).

I'd suggest you offer to do a comprehensive overview of all the GT options year-by-year, as to this day its still a source of confusion to many. Here in Oz many refer to a "GT hood" (louvered), which only makes it worse...
dalorzo_f is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/27/2014, 06:30 AM   #3
Ruppstang
 
Ruppstang's Avatar
 

Location: Weeping Water, NE.
Joined: May 09
Posts: 2,345

My Garage
Rob that is the 68 Mustang sales broacher. I have one. I also have the 67 Mustang on also. I have both 67 and 68 Ford dealer option books that explain all of the GT equipment.
I'll post a Ford sales addendum that came out in late 67 that explains the GT option on the S codes that Frank was speaking of.
If you wright the article and want any of this information I would be happy to forward it to you.

BTW Mustang Monthly's response to you speaks volumes about the current revolving door at the editor's office. LOL you found the answers in their own magazine.
Marty
Attached Images
  

Follow HCS restoration at http://68hcs.weebly.com
Ruppstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/27/2014, 10:06 AM   #4
robert campbell
My Car Details
 

Location: Bremerton Washington
Joined: Apr 07
Posts: 3,646

My Garage
The 1967 one speaks to the required disc brakes on the S code. another interesting spin in 1967 is people also equate the quad tip exhaust as "GT exhaust tips". But in 1967 any V8 in the Mustang could have the GT option. But only the K and S code automatically got the quad tips. An yet another but is the dual exhaust was its own stand alone option that you could add.....

Part of the customize and design your own package that Ford was pushing. And we wonder why we are all so confused. My brothers Mustang with the 6 Rochester's on it was a one of one car. It was an "S" code 4 speed GT car with standard interior, but it also received the "Competition Handling Package" which was a spendy option and a level above the "Heavy Duty Suspension" option that was part of the "GT Option"....... But the HD option could be added also to any car with a V8.....

Whew. The Competition suspension option was $388.53 while the GT option was only $205.00 on his Marti report. Only 141 Mustangs in 1967 were ordered with the Comp suspension option. His car was one of two delivered to the Philco Corporation. They loaded her up!!!

Rob
robert campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/27/2014, 06:33 PM   #5
CougarCJ
My Car Details
 
CougarCJ's Avatar
 
Spaceman Spiff

Location: Beautiful Willamette Valley
Joined: Jul 06
Posts: 1,816

My Garage
I can't find the thread on the Concours Mustang forum, but I am pretty sure that in 1968, the mandatory 'power disc brake option' was removed from the GT package. Meaning that a 1968 Mustang GT, didn't always get PDB's.

Scott Behncke
1968 GT/CS 302-4V Honors flysis income beezis onches nobis inob keesis
West Coast Classic Cougar A good source for Mustang mechanical parts too.
CougarCJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/28/2014, 07:30 AM   #6
Ruppstang
 
Ruppstang's Avatar
 

Location: Weeping Water, NE.
Joined: May 09
Posts: 2,345

My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by CougarCJ View Post
I can't find the thread on the Concours Mustang forum, but I am pretty sure that in 1968, the mandatory 'power disc brake option' was removed from the GT package. Meaning that a 1968 Mustang GT, didn't always get PDB's.
The 68 GT package did not include PB unless you got a S or R code engine. then PB were required at additional cost but still not part of the GT option.

BTW the 67 GT option did include PB on all engines.
Marty

Follow HCS restoration at http://68hcs.weebly.com
Ruppstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/28/2014, 09:02 AM   #7
sportyworty
 
sportyworty's Avatar
 
The Cobra Jet Den

Location: Vista, Ca
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 257

The R code was the only mandatory PDB for 1968. It was an extra cost option automatically invoiced.

The S and X code whether GT or not had to be optioned to get power.
My S code GT/CS 4 speed had disc no power and was not a GT. No mention of brakes on invoice or Marti
Deadstang GT/CS X code GT with drums. No mention of brakes on Marti

Disc brakes were part of the GT package 65-67 only

The Cougars were no mandatory PDB for the R code for interest sake

Last edited by sportyworty; 12/28/2014 at 09:19 AM..
sportyworty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/28/2014, 09:15 PM   #8
Ruppstang
 
Ruppstang's Avatar
 

Location: Weeping Water, NE.
Joined: May 09
Posts: 2,345

My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportyworty View Post
The R code was the only mandatory PDB for 1968. It was an extra cost option automatically invoiced.

The S and X code whether GT or not had to be optioned to get power.
My S code GT/CS 4 speed had disc no power and was not a GT. No mention of brakes on invoice or Marti
Deadstang GT/CS X code GT with drums. No mention of brakes on Marti

Disc brakes were part of the GT package 65-67 only

The Cougars were no mandatory PDB for the R code for interest sake
I got my information from a 68 Ford sales broacher.

Do you have a addendum to show this change? I would like to know how the cars you mentioned above could have been built under Fords enisle policy, or were there ways to get around them?
Marty

Follow HCS restoration at http://68hcs.weebly.com
Ruppstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/28/2014, 10:49 PM   #9
sportyworty
 
sportyworty's Avatar
 
The Cobra Jet Den

Location: Vista, Ca
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 257

Marty the brochures were printed before the cars were produced. Often they have incorrect information. The Brochures also show the 427 as an option as an example or the Torino Cobra that was never built being just a Cobra neither Fairlane or Torino.. We have the original invoices and Marti reports today as correct documents. Ford got money for everything and it is listed as an option. If it does not call out PDB it did not get it. I have had a lot of 68 big blocks and collect Reports so this has always been an interesting topic.
sportyworty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/28/2014, 11:48 PM   #10
sportyworty
 
sportyworty's Avatar
 
The Cobra Jet Den

Location: Vista, Ca
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 257

The fact that every 68.5 R code Mustang was a GT and the Marti Reports always call out the PDB as its own option tells us it was not part of the GT package. The reports do not break down packages like GT, Reflective, Visibility etc. If the 390 were to have mandatory PDB it would be called out on the report. It is of course on some cars but it is not on many because it was not ordered nor mandatory. Maybe this post makes more sense. Good debate and I am open to new facts.
sportyworty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/29/2014, 06:03 AM   #11
Ruppstang
 
Ruppstang's Avatar
 

Location: Weeping Water, NE.
Joined: May 09
Posts: 2,345

My Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by sportyworty View Post
The fact that every 68.5 R code Mustang was a GT and the Marti Reports always call out the PDB as its own option tells us it was not part of the GT package. The reports do not break down packages like GT, Reflective, Visibility etc. If the 390 were to have mandatory PDB it would be called out on the report. It is of course on some cars but it is not on many because it was not ordered nor mandatory. Maybe this post makes more sense. Good debate and I am open to new facts.
Thanks, I am not wanting a debate just trying to better understand and want to use Ford printed materials where possible to form my opinions but you make a good case with the reports.
I do have a 12-12-67 Ford addendum that says that Scode option would only be available with the GT option. I have been having trouble posting pictures on this site but I will try.
Marty
Attached Images
  

Last edited by Ruppstang; 12/29/2014 at 12:13 PM..

Follow HCS restoration at http://68hcs.weebly.com
Ruppstang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/29/2014, 10:45 AM   #12
sportyworty
 
sportyworty's Avatar
 
The Cobra Jet Den

Location: Vista, Ca
Joined: Aug 02
Posts: 257

A debate is not an argument. We are all hear to learn. You contribute a lot to the hobby and I personally appreciate that.

That "addendum" is proof that printed materials were even incorrect 5 months after production commenced.This is exactly how misinformation propagates in the hobby. Lots of documented non GT 390 S engine cars. We now have 3 incorrect facts on printed materials in this thread alone. I can forward the threads of past discussions on this topic from the VMF, 428 Reg, Concours and FE Forum to who ever is going to write it up for the mag if that helps. Lots of people have contributed to this topic over the years. We just need to collect it as the answer is apparent with out question. This is just one of many topics that goes around and around.
sportyworty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/29/2014, 04:56 PM   #13
robert campbell
My Car Details
 

Location: Bremerton Washington
Joined: Apr 07
Posts: 3,646

My Garage
The 68 1/2 Cobra Jet "option" was just that, a mid year add. From my experience (not as extensive as either of you) the 390 (X or S) without the GT option could be acquired with drum brakes and not discs. But I would like to see the info that Marty has. 1967 was one confusing year for options.

I like to say never say never! And I am not completely convinced on the total accuracy of the Marti reports. But again that is the best (and only) source we have to shed light as to how these 50 year old cars were ordered. Unless of course we stumble onto original owner cars that have not been modified. I have been talking to a new member of our site that has an interesting GT/CS with part of an interior décor group, but some items missing. A barn find that is very untouched. Door grills with "Ford style" cloth tape over the holes for the door lights, but original inserts and holes for the grills on the doors. Sheet metal codes that align. He will post pictures soon.

At the same time I fully realize we need to set some boundaries for MCA judging and such. Full Ford period correct documentation is a great add to Marti reports and corporate history. A friend of mine had a 1965 GT Fastback. He purchased it from the original owner. It had amber colored fog light lenses that back in the day were considered not correct. He dug and dug and found old ford historical documentation that confirmed the existence of these lenses. His hard work rewrote the MCA judging standard to allow for these as correct. And all of this was based on a low owner car and hard work.

Rob
robert campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/29/2014, 08:45 PM   #14
dalorzo_f
My Car Details
 

Location: Brisbane Australia
Joined: Jan 06
Posts: 1,886

My Garage
Quote:
the 390 (X or S) without the GT option could be acquired with drum brakes and not discs. But I would like to see the info that Marty has.
'68 S code "BOSE" FoMoCo internal space filler order, factory drums. S code option engine, no discs, no GT called out...



S GT coupe built 6 days later...GT and PDB both noted as options.



To me this would indicate drums were standard equipment on an S code.

I would guess one could have ordered an S code with PDB and no GT, but don't have a Marti to prove it.

As noted the Ford docs can be confusing/incorrect as they note general sales info not definitive data on specifics in some cases (e.g. which cars got dual exhaust with dual quad tips). Most likely printed well in advance of the model year for pre-sales marketing, and subject to post printing changes in production. Have never seen amended versions or errata docs to amended any glitches that came up later...
dalorzo_f is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12/30/2014, 08:21 AM   #15
somethingspecial
 
somethingspecial's Avatar
 

Joined: Aug 05
Posts: 1,766

My Garage
Here is an S code Marti report with PDB w/o GT option noted.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 8R01S142095_stdrpt.pdf (120.0 KB, 6 views)

Mike Jewell
GT/CS Registrar
mikej@bigbytes.com
If at first you don't succeed, Parachuting is not for you!!!!
somethingspecial 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
Do you like the 1968 model year Mustang even if its not a GT/CS? classicsguy GT/CS and HCS Discussions 25 05/12/2009 08:10 AM
Selling My 1968 GT/CS GTCSMustang Classified Ads 6 05/11/2009 02:01 PM
1968 - 1968 CS and HCS Coffee Table Book hookedtrout GT/CS and HCS Discussions 45 05/09/2009 11:53 AM
1968 Mustang Headrests--Dealer Option Redwingrobb Classified Ads 8 06/23/2006 09:38 AM
Why 1968 is better than 2005 PNewitt GT/CS and HCS Discussions 7 09/29/2004 11:36 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:46 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.