1968 GT VS A Non GT California special.

[390gtmustang]

What is the difference between a Gt equipt California special and non GT. Seems like all California specials is equipt with gt package. Can anyone explain.
Thanks in advance.

 

[stangfan]

I believe that only the 4v engine cars could have the GT package. I also understand that only something like 8% of all the GT/CS cars built were genuine GT cars. Many non-GTs have had the GT hubcaps and GT rear valances installed along with the dual exhaust tips.

 

[x-codegtcs]

Steve is right about 4V cars only qualified for the GT equipment package - dual exhaust, suspension improvements, front disc brakes, fog lights (although all GT/CS's had these) were all part of the package. I am sure there are some others GT options that were included, but that is all that comes to mind.

A non-GT GT/CS wouldn't have the dual exhaust or suspension improvements. The front PDB (and maybe a few others) were available as an option.

 

[sportyworty]

S code cars received dual exhaust and many are not GT including GT/CS. Disc brakes are not an automatic include for GT Package for 68. There are documented C code and X code GT 2V cars for 68

 

[x-codegtcs]

I knew the x-code was eligible but not c-code. Interesting. I guess anything to sell a car...

 

[DeadStang]

My X-code has 4 drums, power nothing, and is a GT.

 

[Edward Bodoh]

Gt / non Gt

Isn't there also a difference in the interior package? It's been a while since I've seen my coworkers Gt optioned car...but I know his door panels are different than mine. Then again I also know his is a C code car....

 

[x-codegtcs]

Deadstang- that is interesting. So I guess from this that GT is nothing more than stiffer springs and 7/8" sway bar. I could have sworn I read some where that disc brakes were a required part of ordering GT. but then again has anything with mustangs ever had a cold, hard rule? I think not!

 

[franklinair]

From my 1968 Mustang salesman booklet:

1.) "325HP 390" 4V 8Cyl requires extra cost GT Equipment Group"

2.) "GT Equipment (Includes Dual Exhaust with bright extensions, Fog Lamps, GT Ornamentation, F70 x 14 wide oval WSW tires, HD suspension, SS wheels, Pop open gas cap and chrome engine trim on 390 4V or 428 4V engine. Available with 302 4V or 390 2V.")

Neil

 

[x-codegtcs]

So are all S codes GT's?

 

[franklinair]

Apparently all 390 4V required the GT package. No interior references to the GT package. That would have come under the interior decor option.

Neil

 

[Mosesatm]

Here's a post from Danny that discusses non-GT S-codes.
http://californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=79873&postcount=33

 

[teamlo]

Just to add a couple comments (I am referring to the '68 model year in general, not specifically concerning the GT/CS and HCS):

Early in the '68 model year, there was a requirement of a 4V engine (S-code or J-code) for the GT equipment group. This was of course before the release of the R-code (CJ) and the X-code (390 2V) engines. All '68 R-code cars were GT equipped, save for the 50 "135 series" cars built for racing. Of note, the X-code WAS available with the GT option even though it was a 2V engine. To the best of my knowledge, there were NO C-code cars equipped with the GT package (I believe Kevin Marti's data supports this).

Furthermore, in terms of suspension, the GT equipment group (with J-code) got you a 9" rear axle (9" was standard on all big block cars) as well as upgraded (higher numerical) axle ratio, though this was not specifically advertised in any sales literature I have seen. IIRC, 3.25 with J-code and S-code. Standard ratio with R-code was 3.50. For GT with X-code, I believe it was 3.00. C-code cars (GT not available) would have 8" with 2.79 as standard. J-code non-GT would be 8" with 3.00 as standard. I don't remember specifically about S-code and X-code non-GT cars. I also believe that ordering air conditioning had an effect on what axle ratio you got.

To add another layer of ambiguity, I owned a '68 J-code GT coupe that had a 9" with 3.00 gears, and was listed as such on the Marti Report as "optional axle ratio". The car did not have air conditioning. This topic has been discussed at length on the forum before.

Terry

 

[Mosesatm]

My J-code GT came with a 3.00 rear, but since the option list shows a locking differential it may have been special ordered.
http://californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80916&postcount=107

 

[teamlo]

My J-code GT came with a 3.00 rear, but since the option list shows a locking differential it may have been special ordered.
http://californiaspecial.com/forums/showpost.php?p=80916&postcount=107

That's cool to see! You have the 3.00 rear (Equa Lock) in a GT car, no A/C, and the axle ratio isn't listed as optional. The car I spoke about in my last post was an early (Sept '67) build Metuchen car that was used in a "Local Promotion". I know of at least 2 other cars with exactly the same option list, built essentially at the same time in Metuchen, all used in a "Local Promotion" at Ford dealers in the greater Edison (Metuchen), NJ area. I think we find out more and more about the likenesses and differences of these cars every day. Neat stuff.

Terry

 

[x-codegtcs]

I think a guy could go crazy trying to sort it all out! LOL

 

[Bumblebee]

I think a guy could go crazy trying to sort it all out! LOL

That's what makes it so interesting!

Mine has the GT Equipment Group as shown on the Marti report being an S Code, and was meant to have a 3.00:1 rear but was delivered with a 3.25:1 rear! It was made on the last day of production (elite Marti report commentary) and when the owner picked it up it had a deluxe interior, even though it was ordered without it.....hmmm, probably emptying the parts bin in readiness for the 1969 model.:cheesy:

 

[Ruppstang]

S code cars received dual exhaust and many are not GT including GT/CS. Disc brakes are not an automatic include for GT Package for 68. There are documented C code and X code GT 2V cars for 68

I would love to see any documentation of a 68 C code GT.
Marty

 

[teamlo]

I would love to see any documentation of a 68 C code GT.
Marty

Me too!!

 

[franklinair]

My salesman's booklet dated 4-29-68 does not list the 289 being available (I guess by this time Ford had made the complete transition to 302's as the smallest V-8 available.)
But, WHAT IF earlier orders (when 289's WERE available) could the GT package have been ordered with that engine? Just a thought.

Neil