Classic Motorsports Shelby, you should be ashamed

I can't help myself... All this was started by a guy that put Cragars on a '63 Mercury Monterey Colony Park? OMG...

Disclaimer... The preceding has been a joke and should be taken as nothing but a joke...

I've been following the Shelby project, and think it's a cool car and a very good project for magazine articles.

I was fine with the patina on the Shelby, but I much prefer a patina over good steel - even with a little K-mart rash. Structural rust is another matter. Once the paint has been disturbed to repair the panels, it's very hard to match patina. Faux patina is just weird. A good repaint is in order, IMHO. Kudos for keeping the color.

I think it looks badass freshened up. I thought it was a little goofy to keep patina for patina's sake, while doing a 100 point restoration under the skin.

It's Tim's toy and he can certainly do whatever he wants with it. But I'll probably drool over it this year at the Mitty, whereas last year someone asked me what I thought of the car and I realized I either hadn't seen it, or if I had, I hadn't noticed it.

I don't understand why driving something that looks beat the berkeley up is a treasured thing to some people.

In reply to DaveEstey:

It's only original once, and some people value that. But the line between patina and beat up is subjective, so what you think is "beat the berkeley up" is a treasured thing to someone else. Now in this case the car wasn't original anyway, so I'm not sure why you'd want to keep it like it was, but you get the idea..

DaveEstey wrote: I don't understand why driving something that looks beat the berkeley up is a treasured thing to some people.

Chicks dig scars.

Patina implies use, weather, miles, experiences, and stories.

Faux patina is stolen honor.

If it was just some random Mustang the needed a resto, ok I get it. But, It was more of the fact that it was a Shelby, a real Shelby, that was being enjoyed while at the same time pissing off the Barrett-Jackhole investment/restoration set as well as most of the unwashed drolling masses that invaded our hobby when owning an old car suddenly became "cool", muddying up the waters for the rest of us. A slap in the face of convention, if you will. I'm sure most of you won't get what I'm on about, and that's ok, move along please, nothing more to see here

That being said I can understand Tim's reasoning for painting it, as I suspect he's had his fun with it and he's ready to move on, and with a Shelby there's no point in not cashing in. But still, I stand by the opinion that it was about 10 times cooler before it was painted

Not a line of thinking I'll ever understand. I'd rather make my own history with a vehicle than rely on those before me to make it "cool".

I reread the article last night - I feel it was worth fixing as it is stated the owner now has $75-$80,000 in a car worth $100,000. That last batch of $5,000 body work seals the deal that it's a $100,000 car.

Easy for me to say as I am not playing with cars in this ball park - I'm down the street in the Accord minor leagues.

Aeromoto wrote: That being said I can understand Tim's reasoning for painting it, as I suspect he's had his fun with it and he's ready to move on, and with a Shelby there's no point in not cashing in. But still, I stand by the opinion that it was about 10 times cooler before it was painted

I don't understand why an older repaint is better than a newer repaint. I do understand protecting the original finish but that was long gone.

In reply to dculberson:

I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but I think some of the people on this thread were under the impression that it was the original paint. If they think the re-paint shouldn't have been covered up, then I don't understand that line of thinking at all.

'Patina' is SO overdone. There, I said it.

It's like 'murdered out', it's run its course. The next new automotive fad will be here momentarily.

It's also not my place to comment on how someone paints (or doesn't) their car. At the end of the day 1) how does it hurt me and 2) it ain't my car. I will, of course, make snarky comments about some stupid looking cars online but I won't do it to someone's face.

Now, if they do something idiotic which causes the car to lose steering or brakes and they run into me because of that, then at this point it's DEFINITELY my business and I reserve the right to bust some azz over something like that.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but I think some of the people on this thread were under the impression that it was the original paint. If they think the re-paint shouldn't have been covered up, then I don't understand that line of thinking at all.

The fact that it was or wasn't the original paint was niether here nor there. It was the idea that a coveted Shelby was being enjoyed unrestored, instead of being restored and then forever destined to live under a car cover as an investment in some collector's multi car garage, which is most likely the fate of this car once it sells. If some of you can't see the tragedy in that, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

This WHOLE thread is why I got out of the Mustangs... and into the imports(which interesting enough is heading down a similar road)

I was a big Ford freak back in the early to mid 90s. I was office manager for one of the Mustang restoration supplies company - A1 Original and Obsolete Mustang

When the community (in this case...read as MCA judges) tells me what I can, or can't do (mod or stock). i quickly let those folks continue to feel special... you know like those special needs kids who need constant approval....

and move on to something their sorry ass isn't involved in.....

It's just a mustang.

One that Shelby didn't even wanna play with anymore because it became so bloated. Should they also make sure all the fiberglass aligns like E36 M3 like it did when it left the water heater factory? Shelby was an shiny happy people and his business associates were shady characters.

Yea, it's rare and pieces-parts are expensive (a close friend has been chasing down the elusive grill "racetrack" since '85) but it is not an iconic entity entitled to ownership by all of us so we may dictate its care. It's CM's Vette and they can paint a dragon on it if they want. I still see it as a kick ass, grassroots DD.

SyntheticBlinkerFluid wrote: I haven't read the article, but having been in the antique/classic car restoration business for many years, I will agree with what people have said in this thread already. There is a point where patina is no longer patina and it becomes rot. By the sound of it, that's where the Shelby was. Even with the respray, the Shelby is an interesting color. It isn't the normal "White and Blue" Shelby, so it doesn't bother me that it was repainted.

I agree with this......well mostly, Lime Gold is a beautiful color. I drove that car's gt500 twin my first year at mecum, granted it was all original, original owner, etc.....The owner bought it to take to the ice cream parlor every weekend.....and so it did for 33 years. It was a $175k time capsule.

I am a firm believer of saving history, if that takes altering things, so be it. The right call was made on this car, as I am always sad seeing a real shelby rust into oblivion.

That said, SBF, I disagree........white w/blue stripes is still the best color combo(which I rarely see anymore @ mecum)

Aeromoto wrote: The fact that it was or wasn't the original paint was niether here nor there. It was the idea that a coveted Shelby was being enjoyed unrestored, instead of being restored and then forever destined to live under a car cover as an investment in some collector's multi car garage, which is most likely the fate of this car once it sells. If some of you can't see the tragedy in that, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Have you seen the car in person? It still looks like crap! There are door dings and scratches and imperfections all over it. It's the perfect driver now, not a show car.

The last time I saw the car in person was at PRI 2011 in the Ford booth. It looked pretty damn good then.

Aeromoto wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but I think some of the people on this thread were under the impression that it was the original paint. If they think the re-paint shouldn't have been covered up, then I don't understand that line of thinking at all.

The fact that it was or wasn't the original paint was niether here nor there. It was the idea that a coveted Shelby was being enjoyed unrestored, instead of being restored and then forever destined to live under a car cover as an investment in some collector's multi car garage, which is most likely the fate of this car once it sells. If some of you can't see the tragedy in that, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Whether or not it was the original paint may not have been a factor to you, but may have been to others here, which is why I mentioned it. It absolutely is to a significant number of fans and collectors. My Mustang wears the original paint, even though it's highly flawed. I know first hand what people's opinions are on the subject because they ALL let me know, and my car is just a plain old Mustang.
Besides, you must not have read the article, or not read it carefully. They didn't do a concours restoration for a reason, which is so that it can be driven without worrying about it and to keep some of the pantina. And Tim said in the article that he has no plans to sell it. I've gathered from past articles that he's kind of a fan of the Mustang and Shelby, so I'm guessing he's going to keep this one around for a while. And while it's in his possession, I really doubt its going to sit in the garage much.

In reply to Aeromoto:

Okay, that was before the paintwork. It still wears many of the imperfections that it had at PRI. It is by no means a museum piece, a show car, or anything like that. Hell, my Trooper has much better paint than the Shelby (and it's original)- where's my 4 pages of admiration?

Curmudgeon wrote: 'Patina' is SO overdone. There, I said it.

Do you want to REALLY jump the shark? Lay down new paint to fake rust on a fiberglass streetrod

Aeromoto wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to dculberson: I'm not talking about anyone in particular, but I think some of the people on this thread were under the impression that it was the original paint. If they think the re-paint shouldn't have been covered up, then I don't understand that line of thinking at all.

The fact that it was or wasn't the original paint was niether here nor there. It was the idea that a coveted Shelby was being enjoyed unrestored, instead of being restored and then forever destined to live under a car cover as an investment in some collector's multi car garage, which is most likely the fate of this car once it sells. If some of you can't see the tragedy in that, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

I don't see where the paint job sentences it to life in prison. That seems to have more to do with the owner than with the paint.

Aeromoto wrote: If it was just some random Mustang the needed a resto, ok I get it. But, It was more of the fact that it was a Shelby, a real Shelby, that was being enjoyed while at the same time pissing off the Barrett-Jackhole investment/restoration set as well as most of the unwashed drolling masses that invaded our hobby when owning an old car suddenly became "cool", muddying up the waters for the rest of us. A slap in the face of convention, if you will. I'm sure most of you won't get what I'm on about, and that's ok, move along please, nothing more to see here That being said I can understand Tim's reasoning for painting it, as I suspect he's had his fun with it and he's ready to move on, and with a Shelby there's no point in not cashing in. But still, I stand by the opinion that it was about 10 times cooler before it was painted

Did it look cooler? Arguably yes. But now he can drive the car in the rain whereas before doing so resulted in wet carpets from leaking seals due to rust. Now it's fixed and protected (with new paint) well enough to be a solid driver.

From talking to Tim at Carlisle, he basically said owning a Shelby Mustang has been a dream for decades and now that he has one he doesn't envision selling it anytime soon. But sometimes life gets in the way with what one wants. Especially when your business is project cars. He can't keep all of them. We'll have to ask him about the Shelby again when their daughter is heading off the college and those bills start rolling in, but I get the impression he plans to keep and enjoy this car for as long as he can.

Personally, as a GT6 owner, I was sad to see the Group 44 car sold, but after talking with him, I understood why and had to agree.

Tim or Tom can correct me if I am wrong, but can't we thank a Shelby for this madness called GRM anyway? If I remember correctly Tim sold his GT350H to start the magazine and always wanted another Shelby.

Now, as to the topic at hand, unless it's a decent original paint, there's no reason not to repaint it any way you want to. Sounds like he just went with a driver paint job anyway. A car lets you know what it needs if you really look, and if it was rusting, there really was no choice. Like everyone said, patina is one thing, rot is another.

My big memory of '67 GT350's is a guy I knew in college had a beautiful red one. At the time I had a '67 Cougar with a 390 4-speed, not so nice looking of course. Anyway, he kept trying to get me to race him, and being stupid like I was, finally said yes. Long story short, the Cougar blew it into the weeds (no corners were involved of course), and the guy hardly ever talked to me again... His car was so nice looking though!

What kind of overly emotional pantywaist started this whiny little cry fest? Man up and grow a pair, it's just a car. Nit picking contradictory semantics over original vs unoriginal vs unrestored vs restored, and projecting insecurities regarding the fate of previously sold cars, is nothing more than a bunch of schoolgirl nonsense.