The car as it looked later until today in Jim Philion's
ownership.
|
A 1967 or 1968 Trans Am season Notchback prototype
Yes and no
- the experts are still investigating the case and a new report on this
subject will be a hot topic in January 2012
The car as presented
in June 1983 at the Carlsbad Raceway in Southern California.
It was a San Diego Region SCCA Solo event, or time trial.
Photo courtesy Frank Sheffield /Flickerphoto.com
This car had been "officially
recognized" for a long time as a SA notchback prototype. The last SAAC
registry (1997) still listed this car as prototype car and notchback # 1 and the car presented
here on the left with door #68 was
actually shown at the Monterey Historics some time in the mid 80ies. It was
also pictured in various SAAC publications.

Photo courtesy Ken Garcia
The car became a mystery in the period shortly before an auction sale in
2008.
According to then hints from insiders there were 3 reasons mainly for an alert
given to the auctioneers:
A) Tt never raced for the Shelby team in 1967
B) it carries a
6-cyl engine code acc. to the Marti report
C) it's VIN was altered to a V8 digit
some time in its history
D) The Marti report also indicated that it might have been used as a
dealer promo car instead, the address was a Tennesse dealership.
The later history was recorded like this:
Purchased in 1970 by Craig Moscotitz (MA)
Purchased in 1971 by Peter de
Silva (MA) and used in hillclimbs and autocrosses
Purchased in 1979 by Peter
Stish (PA) and a restoration started, which was completed by Ted Gildred in Terlingua livery after he purchased it in 1982.
Displayed at the Monterey Historics 1983.
Last known owner as of 2008
through into 2012 Jim Philion.
As mentioned earlier it was offered at the Russo and
Steele auction in 2008, but pulled prior to the event due to an information
given by SAAC.
Editors note: (updated
1st January 2012)
We received meanwhile some
insight into a documentation that will reclaim the cars authenticity:
The 200 pages report was done in a major research about many so far unknown
67/68 TA season details and brought up more history information
about this prototype
for the 68 T/A season from the original owner
including history logbook on this car and statements of Mitch Marchi (retired Ford designer and working at Kar Kraft from
66-68) about this car.
We show you the presented details of the history of this car to judge yourself.
According to that report,
proof will be shown that state:
A) The car was built exactly the same date as the first batch of the 25
notchbacks delivered to Shelby American, but at Dearborn, December 28, 1966
B) The car was redirected during production by Jaques Passino to be send to
Kar Kraft
Remark: Kar Kraft had the order from Ford to develop changes for the 68
Trans-Am season. The most obvious visible parts are the Kar Kraft flared
fenders, that were made there plus many suspension and other
items.
C) The car was purchased by Tom Tlusty from Kar Kraft (who was also
responsible for purchasing, accounting and inventory of Kar Kraft) in August
1967 with the intended purpose of turning it into a hobby racer
D) Mitch Marchi, then Kar Kraft design engineer, remembers the car sitting all
season 1967 in front of his office and states this in a confirmation letter.
He also confirms some more details about the car (see excert below)
E) The VIN was altered due to insurance reasons at Kar Kraft when it got a V8
HP there. Minimum two other 68 T/A cars got altered VINs there.
F) Tom Tlusty sold the car in 1969 after
redirecting his interest to 68 SA notchback #2, which was more than ready to
race.
G) He sold the prototype car to a friend in Ohio whom he knew from military
service.
From there the known history is mostly agreed.
According to the report Chuck Cantwell, Austin Craig and Peter Stish checked
the car out in 78/79, before the restoration started.

We will keep you updated
about the arguments and counterarguments that may follow.
Disclaimer: We're not taking a role in
that case,
just reporting on the issue and will keep you updated to make your own
judgement. In the end the related parties will probably need to review presented facts.
|