 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / March 2005GT 350 or 300????
I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it and a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it said GT 300 though so that is possible. It was very good looking, It wsa silver with white striping. Anyone have any info on this??? Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT > I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it > and a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it > said GT 300 though so that is possible. It was very good looking, It wsa > silver with white striping. Anyone have any info on this??? I saw a silver one with charcoal stripes (gorgeous combo), at highway spd. (the other way), and did see a stripe job like you're describing. Circumstances prevented me from getting a good look at the rocker stripe, but I did see... something... I dunno, I'm intrigued too. So the only actual info I have is that it was apparently not a one-off =)  SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 >I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it and >a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it said GT >300 though so that is possible. It was very good looking, It wsa silver >with white striping. Anyone have any info on this??? There's a guy who works at the local Mustang shop who bought practically the first GT to arrive in CO. He's got his lookin' like a Herts GT350 but the stripes say GT281H. EESH! SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > There's a guy who works at the local Mustang shop who bought practically the > first GT to arrive in CO. He's got his lookin' like a Herts GT350 but the > stripes say GT281H. EESH! I agree. While the Hertz color combo and stripes might be okay, putting the GTXXXH moniker on there is sorta tacky in my book. Patrick '93 Cobra I agree! I'd use the word "cheesy" but hey "tacky" works, too! SignatureScott Swain 512-497-4841 http://oceanMedia.net >> There's a guy who works at the local Mustang shop who bought > practically the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Patrick > '93 Cobra > I agree! I'd use the word "cheesy" but hey "tacky" works, too! Well I like it. I like the "SS 502" badges on Malibus, the "5.8" badges on Mustangs, etc. The only objection is the "GT350" did not refer to engine size. GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; no such thing as a 350 ci Ford. 180 Out one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111509154.787770.220550 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: >> I agree! I'd use the word "cheesy" but hey "tacky" works, too! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 180 Out Mebbe there's a Chebby in it.. Joe Calypso Green '93 5.0 LX AOD hatch with a few goodies Black '03 Dakota 5.9 R/T CC >>I agree! I'd use the word "cheesy" but hey "tacky" works, too! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 180 Out Actually, thats not why they named it 350. They couldn't think of a good name for it and they decided that they would call it GT something. They figured the distance from them to the door across the way would be a good number. It happened to be 350 feet. Thats where they got the name from. I may not be 100% accurate but it was something like that! Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT Erik D wrote: > They figured the distance from them to the door > across the way would be a good number. > It happened to be 350 feet. Thats where > they got the name from. I may not be 100% > accurate but it was something like that! Yeah, that's the legend. There's an alternative one, that "350" was the street address of the Shelby American facility at L.A. International Airport. The problem with that one was that it's demonstrably untrue. The legend of the GT500 is simply that they needed a number bigger than 350, and "500" was it. As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 = 351.9 ci. 180 Out <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 = 351.9 ci. Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the common nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact, I would say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just confuse most people. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > I was speaking of the common nomenclature, > not the EXACT displacement. And what I wrote was this: "The only objection [to a "GT281H" rocker panel stripe] is the "GT350" did not refer to engine size. GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; no such thing as a 350 ci Ford." Sorry, it's just a little game of mine. Others are the 4.13 x 3.98 "428" Cobra Jet (426.6 ci) and the 4.125 x 3.76 1970 "SS 396" (402.0 ci). A new one: the 4.13 x 4.00 "427" Z06 Vette motor (428.7 ci). Pretty annoying, I know. 180 Out > I was speaking of the common nomenclature, > not the EXACT displacement. And what I wrote was this: "The only objection [to a "GT281H" rocker panel stripe] is the "GT350" did not refer to engine size. GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; no such thing as a 350 ci Ford." Sorry, it's just a little game of mine. Others are the 4.13 x 3.98 "428" Cobra Jet (426.6 ci) and the 4.125 x 3.76 1970 "SS 396" (402.0 ci). A new one: the 4.13 x 4.00 "427" Z06 Vette motor (428.7 ci). Pretty annoying, I know. 180 Out > <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just confuse most > people. Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out. Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless. Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too. This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri. It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge. Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 Why don't you Google? You can find plenty 180 Out TS 2 > > <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote > > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is > incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, > "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms > of technical acumen in this group. <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; 352? The 352 cid version of the FE was never offered in the Mustang. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; > > 352? The 352 cid version of the FE was never offered in the Mustang. Indeed, a Shelby Mustang with a 352... and of course, they were also available with blown 289s. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 >> GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; >> >> 352? The 352 cid version of the FE was never offered in the Mustang. > > Indeed, a Shelby Mustang with a 352... and of course, they were also > available with blown 289s. AFAIK, The smallest FE ever offered in the 'Stang was the 390 starting in '67. I know they were dropped into Ranchero's, Galaxies, Fairlanes, etc (the mid and full size platforms). From everything I've ever read, been told, or heard, the GT350's were all SB's, and the GT500's all BB's. The 352 being a BB would not have been in a GT350 let alone ever actually dropped into a Mustang. The 352 pretty much disappeared after 1967 in favor of the 390, except in the trucks where the 390 block was used with a 352 crank to make a 360 stump puller. The 352 block disappeared and only the cranks were being produced, and those exclusively for the trucks. Evidence otherwise please... SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > one80out@hotmail.com wrote in news:1111509154.787770.220550 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: >>>GT350's came in 289, 302, and 352 ci versions; >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (the mid and full size platforms). From everything I've ever read, been > told, or heard, the GT350's were all SB's, and the GT500's all BB's. This is indeed the case... I was not the one who posted this. But afterwards, I realized my response was a bit unclear. I was actually chuckling at the idea of a GT-350 Shelby Mustang with the old 352 FE. The 352 > being a BB would not have been in a GT350 let alone ever actually dropped > into a Mustang. The 352 pretty much disappeared after 1967 in favor of the > 390, except in the trucks where the 390 block was used with a 352 crank to > make a 360 stump puller. The 352 block disappeared and only the cranks were > being produced, and those exclusively for the trucks. Evidence otherwise > please... There is none! (Enter Ed McMahon)... "you are correct, sir!" It's good to see you're back. In your absence, I earned my fangs. Glad to banter a bit. =) SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 > This is indeed the case... I was not the one who posted this. But > afterwards, I realized my response was a bit unclear. I was actually > chuckling at the idea of a GT-350 Shelby Mustang with the old 352 FE. AH! It was really hard to tell. Looked like YOU were advancing the theory. Sorry. > It's good to see you're back. In your absence, I earned my fangs. Glad > to banter a bit. Good to be back. Gubberment work, what a PITA! SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >>This is indeed the case... I was not the one who posted this. But >>afterwards, I realized my response was a bit unclear. I was actually >>chuckling at the idea of a GT-350 Shelby Mustang with the old 352 FE. > > AH! It was really hard to tell. Looked like YOU were advancing the theory. > Sorry. Hell no; and no "sorry" is required! I'd expect a bust of the chops with a rusty, lumpy-a.s FE cam for furthering that idea. >>It's good to see you're back. In your absence, I earned my fangs. Glad >>to banter a bit. > > Good to be back. Gubberment work, what a PITA! Sounds like it. So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued... SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 > So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued... Yes, from what I've been able to figure out, this car is most probably the prototype for the High Country Specials. It was built in Dearborn, not San Jose as all other HCS's. All markings, badging, and paint are original which could ONLY be on an HCS, and both the HCS registry and the Special Paint registry have acknowledged it's extreme rarity (the only one). The problem with it being a '66 is that There's no way to confirm absolutely why this car exists or how it happened, since Kevin Marti's info doesn't go back that far. Incidentally, this car is currently for sale. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 >>So, you've actually got a 66 HCS, eh? I'm intrigued... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > could ONLY be on an HCS, and both the HCS registry and the Special Paint > registry have acknowledged it's extreme rarity (the only one). Ho-ly Shnikies!! I guess that's where the "6F" comes from... The problem > with it being a '66 is that There's no way to confirm absolutely why this > car exists or how it happened, since Kevin Marti's info doesn't go back that > far. That's very interesting. I'm sure you've done your research, but is there any other source, any way to get internal Ford documentation (maybe archived, on microfilm) to verify this, or have you tried that? That's truly a unique car. I'm MORE intrigued. > Incidentally, this car is currently for sale. In this market, I'm sure it will bring a bundle. What are you asking? SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 > Ho-ly Shnikies!! I guess that's where the "6F" comes from... You got it! Either nobody else got it, or they just haven't said anything. > I'm sure you've done your research, but is there any other source, any way > to get internal Ford documentation (maybe archived, on microfilm) to > verify this, or have you tried that? Yeah, the car has already been in the "Rare Finds" section in Mustang and Fords, asking for any info from former Ford employees or anybody who might know something be forwarded to either me or Jerry Heasley. No luck. I've done what I could on my end and in discussion with the local Shelby club president, and Registries. There are a few plausibly explanations, but There is no evidence to back up any of them. I'd ask the original owner, but he's dead. >> Incidentally, this car is currently for sale. > > In this market, I'm sure it will bring a bundle. What are you asking? It's almost a basket case, not trashed, but needs lotsa work. I've had alot repaired, all the rust except for a floorboard. I have tons of parts, but it needs a motor. It's all there though (sans motor) and nothing's hidden. $3500 obo. I have recent pics if anybody wants'em. SignatureScott W. '66 Mustang HCS 289 '68 Ranchero 500 302 '69 Mustang Sportsroof 351W ThunderSnake #57 > I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it > and a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > '94 white lightning > '01 white GT Anything is possible with those stick on numbers from Wal-mart :p > Anything is possible with those stick on numbers from Wal-mart :p LOL. I can't talk, I have enough stickers on my car to run the Daytona 500 ;) Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT >> Anything is possible with those stick on numbers from Wal-mart :p > > LOL. I can't talk, I have enough stickers on my car to run the Daytona > 500 ;) I've thought of getting the following sticker for my '67... "My Other Car Is A Crappy Old Tempo". > Erik D. > '94 white lightning > '01 white GT SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 > I've thought of getting the following sticker for my '67... > > "My Other Car Is A Crappy Old Tempo". I wanted to get my other car is a lightning, and my other car is a mustang for my vehicles. >> I've thought of getting the following sticker for my '67... >> >> "My Other Car Is A Crappy Old Tempo". > > I wanted to get my other car is a lightning, and my other car is a > mustang for my vehicles. That would certainly be better. But seeing that on a slick '67 coupe I'm sure would elicit laughs, though. =) SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 I need one that says "My other car is a tractor" | > I've thought of getting the following sticker for my '67... | > | > "My Other Car Is A Crappy Old Tempo". | | I wanted to get my other car is a lightning, and my other car is a | mustang for my vehicles. Are they there to help hold it together? Oh oh oh... that's right, to make it go faster.... i forgot. Maybe the recent problems you had with it were the car trying to commit suicide out of pure shame. *wink* You know when one of our own fesses up, we have GOT to give them a hard time! Kate | > Anything is possible with those stick on numbers from Wal-mart :p | [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] | '94 white lightning | '01 white GT > Are they there to help hold it together? > Oh oh oh... that's right, to make it go faster.... i forgot. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > time! > Kate Yeah yeah yeah!! I know Kate. Fact is though, I kinda like the stickers I have on it. I have "4.6L V8" on each side of the hood scoop, my C stripes that were on the car when I got it(I like those alot), and also I have reflective black fill-ins for the bumper letters on the rear. Not too bad I guess, but I think they are tasteful! :) Erik D. '94 white lightning '01 white GT > I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it > and a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > '94 white lightning > '01 white GT It's a dealer applied sticker/applique/whatever you call it. I've seen a few of them around. Signature.boB 1997 HD FXDWG - Turbocharged! 2001 Dodge Dakota QC 5.9/4x4/3.92 1966 Mustang Coupe - Daily Driver 1966 FFR Cobra - Ongoing project Ford dealers offer a striping option, but many folks have been going to vendors like Graphics Express to purchase stripes with "GT300" to pay homage to the Shelby but indicate the '05 GT horsepower. > I saw an '05 GT rolling around yesterday. It had racing stripes on it > and a stripe on the bottom that said GT 350. It almost looked like it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > '94 white lightning > '01 white GT 66 6F HCS wrote: > <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exact, I would say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that > would just confuse most people. Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out. Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless. Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too. This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri. It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge. Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 66 6F HCS wrote: > <one80out@hotmail.com> wrote > As far as there being 352 ci GT350's, they weren't FE's. They were the > 4 x 3.5 "351" Windsors in the '69's and '70's. 4 x 3.5 x 3.142 x 8 = > 351.9 ci. > > Yes, yes, technically you are correct, however, I was speaking of the common > nomenclature, not the EXACT displacement. If I wanted to be exact, I would > say I have a 392.9 Windsor in my '69. Although that would just confuse most > people. Indeed it would. This common frame of reference is more practically important than demonstrating a solid grasp of arithmetic and PI functions, so thank you for pointing this out. Using this, and rounding up or down one cubic inch of displacement, for identification purposes, however it may be mathmetically derived, means the difference between "Windsor" and "FE" in this case, which of course is the most important distiction of all. Therefore, this simplistic mathematical differentiation becomes completely worthless. Similarly, the 301.9 aka 302 is a technically a 4.9, and not a 5.0. But, it's known as the 5.0 by millions, and therfore this engine is incorrectly referred to as the 4.9. When I hear "4.9 Ford", I think, "300 ci six banger". And I think everyone else does, too. This comes from having worked at parts stores for years, and from putting hours in working on both of them as well. "Give me a water pump for a 1985 4.9 Ford" means something totally different than "give me a water pump for a 1985 5.0 Ford". My friend with the broken-down Bronco can tell you what it meant to him on a July day in Missouri. It basically comes down to contrived knowledge versus actual knowledge. Please excuse my long-windedness, but I needed to make this point excruciatingly clear for newbies. Being around RAMFM since early 1996, I've learned there is really not much you can take for granted in terms of technical acumen in this group. SignatureWound Up ThunderSnake #65 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.