1965 Mustang owners?

[Packofcrows]

Thinking of buying a 1965 Mustang. $2000. Real cheap. Local built.

Pro: 8/10 condition, 2nd owner, stock 90%, 77k, stock 289. Owner has a 302 they will throw in for $500 more. Poppy red.

Con: awesome rust streak throughout trunk and quarter panels. About $800-1200 fix (according to shop) IMO worth it for the condition. Not a fastback!

Runs good.

Anyway, anyone own one of this machines? I know mpg is cr@p, but I love the look and for this condition, they are rare around here.

Would you consider buying one? Have you had trouble finding parts for DD repairs? Maintnance?



I'd love to get a flat black or pearl white on it



P.S. I know we not a Ford forum.

[Tcoat]

Although personally not a fan of any year Mustang I have an intimate knowledge of the very early ones. My mother had a 64 1/2 coupe for a few years when I was a kid (it was well used when she got it) and a 64 1/2 convert when I was a teenager. The convert was bought and semi restored by my sister and I spent 100s of hours working on it.

Right up front it is important to know that the early Mustang coupes were intended to be a cheap throwaway import fighter. They were never built to last and frankly it is amazing that so many have. It wasn't until 68 that Ford figured they were popular enough to up the quality of the parts and start to upscale the whole line (there were exceptions in the earlier models but the bulk were the throwaways).

Some key points:
Check the frame behind the rear axle very closely, especially where the exhaust crosses over it. This is a huge rot area and both my mom's and many others I have seen actually had about 6 inches of frame completely missing there.

Check the rear bumper mounting bolts at the frame. This was another problem area.

Check the rocker panels and rear wheel arches closely for bondo. I know that this is probably a CA car but those things rusted if they passed too close to a salt shaker. The steel they used in these was about 80% made of scrap (remember all those WW2 ships? They all went somewhere) and had a very high oxide content even when new.

Check the headlight pots and mounting hardware closely. These things can crumble to dust and are hidden behind the bulbs so you don't know.

If worried about maintaining or increasing the value keep the original engine. The 289 is a very easy engine to work on and still has great aftermarket support.

The stock diffs on these sucked balls. I don't remember what raio we swapped to but it made a huge difference.

Odds are that the suspension has been reworked by now but if not then upgrade it or stick to skinner tires. These cars were designed for very narrow bias ply tires and you can have all sorts of shit go wrong by just slapping wide radials on them.

There are many pluses to having one of these old Mustangs and even though not big on them myself it sounds like $2K is a great deal (I could probably flip that for about 4 times that here). They do hold value well but the top prices go to the special models and even they can fluctuate wildly some times. Parts are very easy to get with both repros and new OEM being quite inexpensive. If a fan I don't think I would hesitate buying that one if all the things I mentioned are OK.

I am currently also looking for a weekend car but am going the MOPAR route and casually shopping for a late 60s Dart or Duster.

[venturaII]

I recently owned a '67, which is basically the same as the 64-66 cars, but with a slightly wider track and longer wheelbase. Rot is the biggest issue here in the northeast; in Cali, your concerns might be different. The way I see it, I'd rather pay for a solid body that needed suspension and/or brake work. Those are just hard parts and are available anywhere, and more importantly, the work can be done in almost any driveway/garage. The front frame is notorious for rot, as are the torque boxes at the front of the stamped frame rails, and the shock towers. Any rust there is going to be a problem that needs addressing. Make sure replacement floor pans haven't been scabbed over the rotten original ones. Pop rivets along the pinch weld seam at the bottom of the rocker boxes are a dead giveaway, and are surprisingly common (here, at least). Same goes for rear quarters; there's a convenient body line at the top of the rear fenders that allows people to do poor bodywork and hide it easily. Get in the trunk and look at the top of the rear fenders for welds/rivets. The inner fender liners in the rear will rot at the front edge too; if you can, pop the rear seat bottom out (it's very easy...) and check out the corners where the pan meets the inner fender wells. Body parts are readily available in a variety of prices and quality, but bodywork (GOOD bodywork) is not cheap. It's easy to start peeling the onion and realize that there's a TON of parts that need replacing (and the associated labor needed to do it), when from the outside things look like a simple fix. Likewise, it's easy for an unscrupulous person to inexpensively reskin a car that is otherwise rotten, and have it look surprisingly good. Hope it turns out to be a steal of a good deal for you - they're fun cars, even with the wheezy 200" six. A low option, el-strippo 1st gen Mustang doesn't weigh much more than 2500 pounds.

[Tcoat]

Hey @Packofcrows you know this was just moved not deleted right?

[DJCarbine]

Parts are cheap and easy to find. I had a 66 mustang with the factory 289/top loader 3 speed "C code" car. Ended up swapping to a more modern T5 transmission and converting to disc brakes and daily drove it for 5 years or so back in the early 2000s

Lots of information out there for these cars, lots of cheap parts, and very easy to work on. Body panels are cheap but the quality is questionable if they are a repop or not NOS. The 289 is a fun engine, I had a decent cam and GT40 heads on mine and it would move very nicely, especially since the car is pretty light. Throw in a 5 speed with a nice rear end and the car will really wake up.


A few things that I can remember from years past.....

Parking brake is crap
Make sure your setbacks are in good condition (used to be somewhat common to go wot and end up staring at your headliner as the seat back collapses)
Rear gear is usually a 2.xx highway gear, not so good for performance
Check the washer fluid bag for bugs/treasure/drugs
Ditch the points for a magnetic style pickup
Nothing wrong with manual brakes, but 4 wheel drums should consider conversion to at least front discs IMO
Check condition of the pedals, had to replace mine with aftermarket roller bearing conversion due to so much slop in the brake/clutch pedal bushings
That being said, the clutch pedal is like kicking a dead hooker off your kitchen countertop
The steering column is lovingly referred to as a "spear-o-matic" in accidents
Look up the "Shelby drop" that relocates the control arm mounting points for better front suspension geometry
Pay more for a body that doesn't need work

These cars are cheap to find, especially the early coupe cars unless it is a 64 1/2 with the 260 v8. I would pay more for a body that is in better shape but with worse mechanicals. The cars are so easy to work on when it comes to brakes/drivetrain/suspension.

[Packofcrows]

Finally found this damn thread!

So, ive given it enough thought and tomorrow or Sunday ill be visiting the car owner again. She said the engine is done for, so it made me think... "What about a mustang+2jz engine?"


what you guys say? Son and Father project to complete in 3-5yrs? Maybe 2jzgte?

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Packofcrows

Finally found this damn thread!

So, ive given it enough thought and tomorrow or Sunday ill be visiting the car owner again. She said the engine is done for, so it made me think... "What about a mustang+2jz engine?"


what you guys say? Son and Father project to complete in 3-5yrs? Maybe 2jzgte?

It would be ummmm ... unusual. I think that it would be way more work then it is worth since the car is in no way setup for the extensive electronics required. You have you choice of literally dozens of engines that would be far easier and more appropriate for the car. Keep in mind that the Mustangs of that vintage are not even close to sports cars so a nice heavy big block is nothing too rule out.

[Nevermore]

Not an owner, but if I had one I'd want a toned down version of this. I used to want a fastback really bad, but I think I like this more.



Edit: Although, after going to Jalopnik and reading how many people hate Ken Block for doing that to a '65 (some say '66?) I might not pursue such an idea. I don't think I could handle that kind of backlash. They're still pretty in stock form though.

[Packofcrows]

Originally Posted by Nevermore

Not an owner, but if I had one I'd want a toned down version of this. I used to want a fastback really bad, but I think I like this more.



Edit: Although, after going to Jalopnik and reading how many people hate Ken Block for doing that to a '65 (some say '66?) I might not pursue such an idea. I don't think I could handle that kind of backlash. They're still pretty in stock form though.

sick as f! Imagine a rally! BRB gonna google this.

[strat61caster]

See if you can test drive one that runs first, I did a few weeks ago, quickly cured me of any desire to have a classic muscle as anything other than a showpiece cruiser.

Edit: I did enjoy rowing through the gears though, double clutching pretending to be Steve Mcqueen...

[evostanman]

I had a 68 coupe with a 351 Windsor swap

Regret selling it, everyday!

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by strat61caster

See if you can test drive one that runs first, I did a few weeks ago, quickly cured me of any desire to have a classic muscle as anything other than a showpiece cruiser.

Edit: I did enjoy rowing through the gears though, double clutching pretending to be Steve Mcqueen...

So true! The rep that some of these cars have is far more nostalgia then reality.
Even many of the fastest (in stock form) make the 86 look like a bloody Ferrari. And the handling...Oh lord the handling.

I am however still on my quest for the perfect Sunday cruiser.