Very interesting topic here.
sorry for off topic question, but how many red 68 GTE’s have been listed as re bodied in registry?
@Rob I would like to see a wider view of fender apron VIN, plus images of underside of fender apron VIN.
I have already buttoned up the right side. I can take a pic of the underside only. I will take a wider shot of the left side as well as a close up. Can’t wait to dig the vacuum canister out on the left side that runs the headlights…….
I hope that people trust me that I am photo’ing the VIN’s and sheetmetal date codes of the same car. Not many W code red Cougars around here to photo……
Rob
All,
Here are the final photos of this GTE. I have sheetmetal date code photos of both the battery apron and the left from inner apron that have the VIN numbers as well as the left side VIN number. Enjoy. I took a “wider shot” so we can see the cars engine compartment. I thought about taking a photo of me taking the photo… Remember this is not my car I am just a local Mustang restorer who has been into Ford since 1971.
Jim has all of these photos and wants to see it in person before he removes the re-body from its identity in the registry. Jim still has the go no go at this point.
Because of this cars checkered past we have went to detail few cars can withstand. I bet 99 percent of the cars in this registry have not had such rigorous date and VIN identification as this car. The owner, Bart Lovely wanted this to be as transparent as possible.
By the way, we have been told that the rear taillights are one off proto types.
Rob
Wide shot
A bit closer to the drive side VIN
The driver side VIN
Driver side inner apron the VIN is in. February 21 1968. A bit blury but the 2 is clear for the month.
Driver side VIN from bottom.
Driver side coil spring cover February 29 1968
Passenger side VIN from bottom
Passenger side date code in battery apron. March 8 1968 still ahead of the 15 March 1968 build date of this car.
Passenger side coil spring cover. Same as driver side February 29 1968.
Sorry,
Battery apron is March 8 1968 not March 6. I have corrected it in the previous post. I will take a nice shot of the taillights soon.
Rob
Robert thank you for going to the extra effort to document this! The value of what you are doing goes beyond this car to give us a good bench mark for just how to document one of these cars. Great job!
XR7G428,
Thank you for the kind words. I like to let the car tell the story as best it can. If you dig deep enough and look over the easy bolt on changes the car will reveal what it is. It takes time and patience to do this. I love a car that has been misjudged in the past by owners who did not do “due” diligence for its true identity. This car has been black listed due to the owners who did not go the extra mile or did not know a person who could. Buyers and owners who denied the experts on this site to look at it.
All and all it has been a fun journey to reveal the bones of this car!
The pedigrees of these rare cars are safe with the registrar and the experts on this site. All and all, all I did was provide information for the new owner who wished to be totally transparent and honest with this car.
Rob
thunderchero –
Sorry for the delay in answering your inquiry concerning the GT-E Registry.
The Registry doesn’t list any vehicles as “rebodied” per se, even where that rebody is acknowledged and proven beyond doubt. That’s not the purpose of flagging a vehicle as a possible rebody with a ? and $.
The purpose of this designation is purely for my benefit as Registrar, so that when asked by someone interested in purchasing a particular car, that he/she is informed that “some objective evidence” indicates that the car may be rebodied, so “let the buyer beware” and determine for themselves whether or not that is the fact.
However, to directly answer your question regarding red GT-Es in the Registry (flagged as possible rebodies) it is 5.
Jim
All,
Check out these taillights! Some have said they may be a one off prototype. Out of my knowledge of Cougars!
Rob
Great photos, well based upon the low VIN #, and the fantastic detailed photos. Those grills weren’t made by Joe Blow in his garage. I’d say that IMHO those are factory Ford/Lincoln/Mercury pieces. My question to those who might be wiser than me, where is the paper work on these units? Where are the blue prints for the design of them? Drawings? Engineering paper work?
And please don’t tell me they only made one set, aren’t these exactly the same as the Henry Ford car? Who is holding on to the secret stash?
did you get a chance to take a tail lights off and look for any markings?
Not at this time. If the owner wishes I can take them off to see what markings may be on them. Again, this is not my car.
Rob
So it sounds like the GT-E that Robert is working on is NOT the same as the other red GT-E that was a known rebody. Right?
I’m asking because I recall reading a post by the the guy that did the swapping / rebody work. I think it was over on the MC.net forum, and would have been years ago.
I just want to clarify whether or not there is still a restored rebodied red GT-E out there that people need to be aware of. I know all the red GT-E’s look alike, right?
Mike –
That’s correct, there are several other red GT-Es out there that are flagged as possible rebodies (including one that is the poster child for all rebodies in that the owner of record at the time, the person doing the work on the car, and the donor vehicle are all known, and there is documentation as well as photos of the rebody in progress).
Jim
Well as a casual observer, I’m confused, of course with my “CHEMO BRAIN”, that’s typical. Isn’t this car we are discussing, one and the same as the Mustang Unlimited car, as that car had those unique rear tail light grills ? And I thought it was documented as a rebody.
OR, was it’s status as a rebody only conjecture?
If this car is not one and the same, then there are 2 or shall we say 3 Cougars including HF 2’s car, that have this rear tail light treatment?
Enguireing minds want to know.
Except for those with a Black Vinyl roof, or to narrow it down to Standard and XR-7, I guess one could say “they” all look alike.
Cobra the car in question was the Mustangs Unlimited car. It was not verified by someone from the registery. That’s why the question of rebody. I’ve seen car when it was offered on E bay by prior owner in Mass. This was before Mustangs Unlimited bought car. The car was 91 code for stand interior. Was changed with some XR7 & G items. The motor was not original. It was a 427 medium riser. The original motor is now in know Black GT-E in registry. The tail grills where on rear lamps. Never was able to verify if Ford parts. Only seen grills on HF’s car in pictures. So I’d say two cars. Glad to see new owner doing due diligence to verify car.
I hope this is next months “ride of the month” I would like to hear the full story on this GT-E.
It sounds like it will have a good future with it’s new owner.
I’m glad to hear that this GT-E is finally getting it’s due. I’ve always said it was a great car and wondered how it became confused as a rebody. Do all GT-E’s get inspected for authenticity before being added to the registry? That seems like it would be a lot of work for Jim and others. After all these are just cars and people have changed parts on all types of Cougars over the years so that should not make anyone think any less of any Cougar or car for that matter.
There are three Cougars with taillight grille bars. My 1968 convertible conversion has them. 
I’m sure that my Cougar will never get confused with it’s taillight grille bars being genuine Ford “pre production” parts. I have always thought the the bars looked great and I wanted something different for my convertible. So I made a pair for my Cougar.
Back to the GT-E, congratulations to the owner. I’m glad this story of a rebody has been put to rest finally.
Steven
1967Scode–
See post #47 below for how the Registry works. If you still have questions, feel free to ask.
Jim
Thanks Jim I reread post #47. That makes sense to me.
Steven