1966 Mustang Shelby Killer Vert

[73StangCoupe]

Check this one out... I've never heard of a Shelby Killer. My son-in-law's mother is considering buying this car.

http://www.redlineautosports.com/1966-Ford-MUSTANG-CONVERTIBLE-SHELBY-KILLER-Factory-C-Code-Now-Has-a-K-Code-289270hp-motor-RedLineMuscleCars-com-Oklahoma-73463/5089891

Seemed really pricey to me. But I checked Hagertys and they have a real 66 Mustang GT Vert with the hipo 289 average price at $57726. The Vin shows that the car is a C Code, not a K Code. Just wondering what everyone thinks.

Thanks...

 

[midlife]

Too much money even for a Shelby tribute. This is a convertible (Shelby didn't do convertibles in 1966), and the stripe isn't correct. Probably in the $30-$35k range is appropriate.

 

[73StangCoupe]

The asking price is $29K. Sorry i didnt make that clear. Thanks!!

 

[rottenralph]

I like it but I am not sure I would cough up that much money for a tribute car. I like the color and 17's for sure.

 

[69 Rustang]

IIRC, Shelby did build 12 convertibles in 1966. They were all for family, friends, or somebody important--just not for sale. Many are accounted for. This car is NOT one of them and is a tribute car. Looks like it was a pretty solid car to start with. Average quality paint work, interior, and top installation. I can't see the block numbers, but the harmonic balancer looks right for a K motor. It has front disks, bug not sure if they are factory or Granada. Did not see any indication of the rear brakes on my pass through the photos. The a/c is all add on stuff, but looks like it could work. But the thing about a/c is that K motors did not have a/c I think. It would make a good driver.

 

[rpmcarter]

well it all depends on how much money your willing to waste. I personally dont get the "clone" bandwagon and everybody paying BIG dollars for well .....some emblems!!!

When I got to was a " .C.." now is a "..K" Woooooooo WE I guess we are suppose to jump on now that he's identified your buying an average car with a cool motor. Is that Motor worth another 10g's? Not to me.

 

[Boss1Ray]

IIRC, Shelby did build 12 convertibles in 1966. They were all for family, friends, or somebody important--just not for sale. Many are accounted for. This car is NOT one of them and is a tribute car. Looks like it was a pretty solid car to start with. Average quality paint work, interior, and top installation. I can't see the block numbers, but the harmonic balancer looks right for a K motor. It has front disks, bug not sure if they are factory or Granada. Did not see any indication of the rear brakes on my pass through the photos. The a/c is all add on stuff, but looks like it could work. But the thing about a/c is that K motors did not have a/c I think. It would make a good driver.

Agree - Shelby did build a few 1966 convertibles. I was fortunate to get the opportunity to drive one! I have to admit it was at a Shelby meet and I was assisting parking and aligning cars in the car show area. I went up to the owner and suggested he move his car over to the assigned area - he threw me his keys and after seeing my expression on my face said, "hey it's just a car!" He actually let me drive it!!! Something tells me he would probably think and say different today! Great guy - super nice car!

http://saacforum.com/index.php?topic=3270.0

Ray

 

[1972MustangSVH]

It would have taken me about 78 miles to get to the assigned area...


they didn't even have the stickers on the side yet when they took the one with the top up.

 

[69 Rustang]

I looked again through the photos and noticed some discrepancies that cause me a lot of unease with the seller. One picture shows an early car 289 with power steering and red reflection from the hood. That picture has a power steering pump. The undercarriage photos and the earlier engine photos do not show a car with power steering. An additional photo shows a rear console lit up. The other photos show the car does not have a console.

I believe the floor pans have been replaced, but then, not many early convertibles still have their original pans at this point. I can see lines of weld in a few photos. The underhood finish work around the VIN stamp is very poorly done, one of my personal pet peeves. Another peeve is the painted over door latches that should be silver cad finished. Of course the shifter is aftermarket. For a car so flashy, the interior is rather spartan with standard trim panels, seats, ugly floor mats, no console, no rally pak, etc. I don't think it has a power top either.

I don't think the front disks are factory, likely a Granada swap. The master cylinder has been upgraded from a single pot to the front/rear split which is actually a safety improvement.

 

[luxstang]

Wow Dave, you really looked closely. I only noticed the missing side stripes. Looks like "let's put on some stripes reading "KLR" and make it official".

That kind of discrepancies that Dave listed would make me very weary.

On the subject of Shelby convertibles: They did make some later. A friend of mine has one and it's legit.

Here's what I remember of what he told me: Somewhere in the 80ies (IIRC, don't nail me onto that date) Shelby took a few old Mustangs, restored them nuts and bolts and built their own clones to exact vintage specs using nos parts that were on shelf.

Those cars were given Shelby VINs, a plaque on the dashboard and are officially in the Shelby registry. There were only a few verts (4, IIRC) among those cars but they were 66.

By the way, that guy is not a loon. Lots of money, good collection of cars, (among them one of only 3 produced vintage Aston Martins that was the official show car at the Paris Auto show booth when it was new), etc, etc. So he's not the kinda guy to make that up because he could easily buy two vintage Shelbys on a whim.

Here's the car:



The plaque on the Dashboard reads "Test driven & personally inspected by Caroll Shelby":

 

[Boss1Ray]

Thanks Lux - I forgot about those!!! Great pics!

Ray

 

[whitesoc]

I like the car....although I think Shelby KLR on the sides is cheesy.

 

[Kit Sullivan]

That is nothing more than a nicely-modified '66 convertible. I don't see it as a "tribute" because there was never an authentic "KLR" offered for sale, so... what is it a tribute too? Just a general "tribute" to Shelby Mustangs in general? If so, maybe I will take a 79 Mustang, plaster some "Shelby" stripes on it, come up with my own sub-moniker ("GT-2.3"? "Ghia-350"?) and sell it as a "tribute".

Even the "SHELBY KLR" letters are done in a font that just did not exist at the time, and would never have been used as a stylistic choice at the time even if they were.

When these odd-ball cars turn up, I keep going back to my original opinion: If it wasn't actually made/ built by Ford or a Ford-authorised assembly line subsequent to FIRST DELIVERY to a dealership or the first owner, then any modifications are worthless in general, and only have any real value to the individual who may be purchasing it.

Many Mustang owners call items on thier cars "original" because the dealership installed them prior to first delivery to the first customer.

Ram air, front spoliers, rear spoilers, side stripes, etc...if Ford did not build it that way before arrival at the dealership, I don't consider it "original".

But that doesn't mean I don't like it! (Except for the Frank Cone models...don't like those!)

 

[1972MustangSVH]

Even the "SHELBY KLR" letters are done in a font that just did not exist at the time, , and that, to me, made it incredibly cheesy. Might as well have called it the Shelby LMNOP in that font.