the difference between 68 and 68 gt

[mr-fixit]

I am showing my age here, but I remember in 68 you could only get a GT with the 302 4V, or the 390 engine. The 428 came later and was definitely available in GT's. My neighbor had a white GT with black vinyl roof with the CJ.
Also, in 67 the C code 2bbl 289 was available in the Fairlane GTA, one of my teachers had one, and I am pretty sure it was available in the 67 Mustang GT as well.

 

[Jester67]

Lord knows I've written down a few debatable tid-bits over the years, we gotta try to keep each other in line and corrected. Primary example that is not a direct hijack of this thread is that for ~20 years the "official" word was that the 65-67 C-code was not eleigible for the GT/GTA packages, but since about the year 2000 I keep hearing they were. Not very common since the upgrade from a C to an A was less than $100, but a C-code GT is not necessarily incorrect.

I want to back off from one statement, the GT package was not ENTIRELY cosmetic, for axample you had to have a V8 and you had to have a 4-speed manual or the C4/C6. It may well be that the latter is similar to the C/A discussion, nobody ordered the GT package and put a 3-speed manual in them but I've never seen a "real" GT with the 3-speed manual in it.

Since the GT package was a separate option package I'd say there were 428s in SOME 68 GTs. Although when the CJs came out mid model year and swept the Winternationals they were selling the CobraJet package fairly easily.

I love those FE's, a buddy of mine has one and just yesterday was complaining about the lack of an active aftermarket industry for them...sigh...all good things eventually end I guess.

According to the buck tag on my car it is a GTA but it is a C code 2V car VIN 7F01CXXXXXX. Another interesting not the buck tag on my car is in the location that it should be if it where a 68 I guess it was so late in the year mid August that the change was made to it. The tag looks to have never to have been disturbed. I did not buy it as a GT I thought it was just a well-equipped coupe because the fenders did not have the correct holes and the fog lights where not on it. It turns out that when I talked to the person that owned it be for the person I bought it form they bought it with the front sheet metal gone because of a miner collision and he had replaced them with parts from a donor.

 

[86bluecobra]

holy crap you classic guys know your stuff. we need more melvins like you guys answering questions in the 5.0L forums

 

[krash kendall]

I am showing my age here, but I remember in 68 you could only get a GT with the 302 4V, or the 390 engine.

Sorry, no 302s untill they came out in 1969. The 289 was still the small block option in 1968.

 

[65up2d8]

Sorry, no 302s untill they came out in 1969. The 289 was still the small block option in 1968.

302s came out in 1968. They only came with a 4 barrell carb and were rated at 230 horsepower in '68. 289s were also used that year, though, in order to use up what Ford had on hand.

 

[Jester67]

Sorry, no 302s untill they came out in 1969. The 289 was still the small block option in 1968.

Nope you could get a 302 in 68 in fact it was THE small block in late 68 you could not get a 289.

 

[krash kendall]

Yes, I was mistaken thank you. I went back and checked the chart. It actually states that both the 289 and 302 were options.

 

[danny clemens]

Lord knows I've written down a few debatable tid-bits over the years, we gotta try to keep each other in line and corrected. Primary example that is not a direct hijack of this thread is that for ~20 years the "official" word was that the 65-67 C-code was not eleigible for the GT/GTA packages, but since about the year 2000 I keep hearing they were. Not very common since the upgrade from a C to an A was less than $100, but a C-code GT is not necessarily incorrect.

I want to back off from one statement, the GT package was not ENTIRELY cosmetic, for axample you had to have a V8 and you had to have a 4-speed manual or the C4/C6. It may well be that the latter is similar to the C/A discussion, nobody ordered the GT package and put a 3-speed manual in them but I've never seen a "real" GT with the 3-speed manual in it.

Since the GT package was a separate option package I'd say there were 428s in SOME 68 GTs. Although when the CJs came out mid model year and swept the Winternationals they were selling the CobraJet package fairly easily.

I love those FE's, a buddy of mine has one and just yesterday was complaining about the lack of an active aftermarket industry for them...sigh...all good things eventually end I guess.

I had a 67 C code GTA way back in 1973. It had manual disc brakes and manual steering. Sure wish I still had it.

 

[chepsk8]

Huh?

Melvins?

We're just GOOD!

 

[65up2d8]

Yes, I was mistaken thank you. I went back and checked the chart. It actually states that both the 289 and 302 were options.

I'm 33 and am not one to flame you over such a little mistake. You're a very informative contributor to this site. We all make mistakes, although we often don't like to admit them.
With that lead in, I debated, for a second, over whether to point out your slight mistake. After a few seconds, though, I realized that the knowledge we have all gained through experience is for the pups, and that should always be shared, no matter how ungrateful some of them may seem at times. They are, at times, like our own kids, ungrateful as hades, but they'll realize someday, hopefully, what us old farts had something to offer.

P.S. Some true old farts will call me on the fact that I am only 33 years old, but the teens still see me as an old fart.

 

[86bluecobra]

Melvins?

We're just GOOD!

melvins= super nerds of car facts/info

 

[krash kendall]

I'm 33 and am not one to flame you over such a little mistake. You're a very informative contributor to this site. We all make mistakes, although we often don't like to admit them......


P.S. Some true old farts will call me on the fact that I am only 33 years old, but the teens still see me as an old fart.

Thanks for the good words! I've actually made a reference binder with all the hard to find information or details about the early cars including available options, dimensions, schematics, etc. I almost always check it before posting, but in this case I was thinking of the '69 and up 302 water pump hence the error.

On your second point - I'm turning 33 in February and find what matters more is personal experience and retained knowledge than how many times you've been around the sun. As far as cars are concerned, I've been my own primary mechanic and go-to guy for my friends for 17 years now and I don't know if the young guys here always apreciate how fortunate they are to have this wealth of knowledge of their fingertips that was unheard of to us when we got our first cars.

 

[68RCodeConv]

Lot of information here, some right and some wrong.

In 1967 you could get the GT/GTA package with a 289-2v (C-code), 289-4v(A-code), 289 HiPo(K-code), or 390(S-code. The GT package came with an upgraded suspension, disk brakes and some cosmetic changes.

In 1968 you could get the GT package with the 302-4V (J-code) the 390 (S or X-code) and the 428 CJ (R-code). Still had the upgraded suspension but disk brakes were optional.

All 1968 Mustangs with a 428CJ were GTs. It was a mandatory option.

 

[chepsk8]

68RCode,

Do you have one? It's rarer than a Shelby....

 

[LMan]

In 1968 you could get the GT package with the 302-4V (J-code) the 390 (S or X-code) and the 428 CJ (R-code). Still had the upgraded suspension but disk brakes were optional.

mmmmmmm...4-wheel drum-brake GT. Mongo like. :Teh-Win:

 

[68RCodeConv]

Yes, I have one....

I do happen to have a 1968 R-code (428CJ) Mustang convertible. 552 R-code convertibles produced in 1968. 518 ended up being made into Shelbys, leaving only 34 regular Mustangs (although they were all GTs).

Mine is red with a deluxe red interior. Auto, tach, 3.91 gears, manual top, power steering. Kind of an odd combination.

I'm currently restoring it. It needs everything (and that is not an exaggeration).

 

[68RCodeConv]

mmmmmmm...4-wheel drum-brake GT. Mongo like. :Teh-Win:

Tell me about it. When I was in high school my brother had a 1968 GT fastback with the J-code 302, deluxe interior and drum brakes.

Never understood why disk brakes were optional in 68. Every other year they were mandatory on the GTs (not sure about 69).

 

[chepsk8]

R-Code..

Damn! Lucky! Bring it back. Last time I saw one of those was 1991 at a SAAc convention at Watkins Glen.

Very, very jealous.....

 

[Edbert]

I find it fascinating to see how official word changes from decade to decade. I have published books from authoritative sources like Jerry Heasley and the MCA which say the the C-codes were not elligible, that was accepted as gospel in the 80's even though now it is not. I always wonder how things become official like that anyhow.

So what is the official word? Can a 67 GT/GTA have drums or not (seen both opinions posted in this thread). They were mandatory with the handling package but that package was not mandatory on the GT/GTA.

Oh...not just an R-code but and R-code vert? I'm not a big fan of what FoMoCo did between the 67-68 model years but that 428CJ is da bomb!

 

[Jester67]

It is my understanding that disc where mandatory in 67 but not in 68. The change in disc brakeing system might have allowed this chance.