Learn me: 66-67 Mustangs

ddavidv wrote:

Junkyard_Dog wrote: If you can live without the Mustang styling, a Falcon or Comet will do all the same stuff for a 1/4 of the buy-in.

Not unless you settle for a 4 door. Falcons are bringing good money these days. I've looked at both, and I'd say Falcons are only a 25% discount off a comparable condition/equipped Mustang. Remember, we're talking decent drivers, not restored show pieces.

Funny and true story. Back when I was searching for a an early falcon, back in the early nineties, I could not find any decent examples in my price range ($2k-$3k) in the mid-atlantic region. Keep in mind, this was pre internet era. All I could find were rust buckets or restorations & clean survivors that were over my budget. That's how I wound up buying a Mustang instead.

I enjoyed my 'stang, but not enough to want another one. I still want an early falcon though, preferably a '63 2 door sedan.

Thanks guys. Anyone have thoughts on a good shop in the DC area for a PPI? These are the two I've found searching:

http://www.flemingsultimategarage.com/index.php

http://www.classiccarmd.com/contact.htm

Hoping to call tomorrow and see if any of them can help out (if they're open). I'm primarily worried about rust or accident damage. I figure anything mechanical I can probably handle.

I for one have always preferred the look of the notch back on '65-66 models. The fast back looks better on the later models but I'll always prefer the notch on the early ones.

We forget how old cars drove and it's an eye-opener when we get behind the wheel. A few years ago (several in fact), a friend restored a '68 Vette to near factory stock. Right down to the original size wheels and tires it was. Everything was rebuilt and aligned when I took it for spin. Man...what a complete wallowing pig! I felt unsafe at anything above 60.

"I for one have always preferred the look of the notch back on '65-66 models. The fast back looks better on the later models but I'll always prefer the notch on the early ones."

X2 Absolutely ! ! !

"Man...what a complete wallowing pig!"

You always have to increase the caster angle on that series of Corvette. Drives straight and true afterwards, full confidence, but you definitely need to have the power steering hooked up as well or you'll never get it out of the parking lot. Heavy as Hell.

http://www.desertclassicmustangs.com/1965_mustang_fastback_9000.html

This is by and far your best bet. Starting with a completed shell means you know there's no rust, which is the worst and most expensive part of owning one. For 99% of the classic Mustangs out there, no rust just means no visible rust. I've got a 1968 coupe, and my roommate has a 1966 coupe. They both have their share of rust issues.

Oh, and collapsible steering columns actually came out in 1968.

Don't forget about the Cougar !

mancha wrote: http://www.desertclassicmustangs.com/1965_mustang_fastback_9000.html This is by and far your best bet. Starting with a completed shell means you know there's no rust, which is the worst and most expensive part of owning one. For 99% of the classic Mustangs out there, no rust just means no visible rust. I've got a 1968 coupe, and my roommate has a 1966 coupe. They both have their share of rust issues. Oh, and collapsible steering columns actually came out in 1968.

I am of two minds about these new shells.

On the one hand, they really are the sensible way to go rather than restore a rust-bucket. Especially if you want it to last a long time without any rust issues. You will NEVER get all the rust out of an original shell no matter what you do. Even dipping the entire shell does not remove the rust between spot welded panels. If you do the math, the cost to buy a repo shell is not far off what it cost to get the rustbucket to the same stage such that it should last twenty more years.

What I won't buy into is calling the finished product built on a repro tub a classic car. A classic car to me is a time capsule; it represents the era and people of the assembly line that it was built on. A classic car also carries the story of its previous owners.

scottdownsouth wrote: Don't forget about the Cougar !

Stop talking about my wife!

Is it any wonder they don't build them anymore? Since the internet, some words have found entirely different meanings. No woman past 20 would buy a "Cougar".

Carro Atrezzi wrote:

scottdownsouth wrote: Don't forget about the Cougar !

No woman past 20 would buy a "Cougar".

Yeah but when I was young, single, & living on So.Cal.I sure met a bunch of Cougars!

I was talking about the hot looking, sexy body car .

Have your cougar buy you a Cougar. Old school rules

In reply to NOHOME:

Well put.

Wow.. So Any love for the falcon trucks? Since 007 watching oddjob rock one...

Much love for that. I mean how can you not love this:

There is just not enough of them out there. I haven't seen one in years.

I thought he was talking about these:

Did someone say Coyote Swap? Walked over and took a few pics of the one being done around the corner.

And for those that are interested, some random clearance pics

And the new suspension that is required to make it happen. When you consider that it only cost about $1300 for the whole front suspension including the brakes, not a bad deal. Original Mustang suspension is nothing to write home to Mom about.

Flynlow wrote: Intention would be just a cruiser, something to rumble along driving at 4/10ths. Way down the line I'd consider resto-modding it with a Coyote 5.0/Tremec, improved suspension, brakes, etc., but 1st 5 years or so would just be fun old car to drive around. Thoughts?

Didn't read the comments yet, but if you're seriously thinking of DOHC down the road, do yourself a favor and start with a '68-newer car. They were designed to fit big-blocks and a Coyote is wider than an FE.

It's a pain enough to fit a small block in a Falcon-based Mustang.

In reply to NOHOME:

Any idea what front suspension that is? Looks like it's Mustang II based. Anything is an improvement over the stock "suspension" but aren't MII kits hampered by so-so geometry too?

Back when I had my fastback I always wanted to save up for the the Total Control Products front and rear complete kit. But it doesn't delete the intrusive (and rust collecting) shock towers.

Of course if you've got money to burn I guess the Griggs GR350 setup is about as good as it gets.

mblommel wrote: In reply to NOHOME: Any idea what front suspension that is? Looks like it's Mustang II based. Anything is an improvement over the stock "suspension" but aren't MII kits hampered by so-so geometry too? Back when I had my fastback I always wanted to save up for the the Total Control Products front and rear complete kit. But it doesn't delete the intrusive (and rust collecting) shock towers. Of course if you've got money to burn I guess the Griggs GR350 setup is about as good as it gets.

I can find out exactly what it is if you need to know. I was amazed at the low cost to be honest; the equivalent for the MGB crowd is $5000. Of course it is a Mustang II base; what is not in the hot-rod world? How good the geometry is I have no idea, however, for a car show cruiser, does it matter all that much as long as it goes straight, stops and steers?

Was just talking to the guy doing the conversion and he says that while this is a 60 with the wider engine compartment, the swap works as well on the earlier cars since the suspension towers have to come off anyways.

The car also has an independent rear suspension. I am not enamored of it, but it is a good talking point.

In reply to NOHOME:

Thanks for the pictures, I appreciate it! Odd question, but if that car is readily accessible to you, any chance you could grab a couple of detailed pictures of the cowl, fender/shock tower tops (where the fender bolts on and the seam underneath), and the unibody seam under the doors? (ie where you hope people DON'T put the jack). That would be very helpful to compare to the car I'm looking at. I can spot bad bodywork on newer cars fairly easily, but I haven't been up close and personal with enough 60s muscle cars to sort the wheat from the chaff.

To Knurled: If the DOHC required a '68 and newer, I would either keep the 289, or swap a 302 in its place. I am only considering 65-66 cars. I goofed on the thread title. I appreciate the advice though!

The car in question:

http://smd.craigslist.org/cto/4776218158.html

65-66 Fastback or 67 Cougar.