We featured a rusted and drivetrain-less Chevelle yesterday, but if I really wanted to feel that much pain, I’d probably go with this instead. This 1967 Mustang was once fitted with a 289 and a 4-speed transmission. Ford had increased the size of the Mustang in ’67 to make room for a big block, so the 289-2v check-mark obviously isn’t the most desirable to have options list. With a project this rough though, one shouldn’t feel too bad for dropping something less than factory original in it. Since you will probably always be upside down on this one anyway, it might be a better idea to focus on fun rather than investment potential. If the sheet metal isn’t paper thin, I’d be tempted to drop a big block in it and go drag racing! What would you do with it? Take a look here on eBay where the seller is asking $4,495 or best offer.
there was a time I could tell the difference in Mustangs from looking at the grille, but, not anymore.. the side marker lights say ” 68″ the seller states it is a “67” the side markers ” could” have been added on. back in the day one could get a 390 in the ‘Stang I don’t think a 351 was available in 67 or 68 ( forgotten, really) the 289 with the 4 bbl and a mild cam was a trooper 271 horse moved it right along ( once again, I don’t remember if the HIPO 289 was avail in the stang, but was on the Cougar) I think the 271 horse 289 with the right suspension parts would make this a mover add a 4 speed or a 5 speed Manual tranny it will be a classy car! .. so, yeah, I would fix it up ..
The fake air vents are a 67
ya probably worth bring back to life , but not for the price tag they are asking for a plane jane car.
I’ve seen a lot worse than this car for the money. A closer look at the undercarriage and if it pans out offer $2500 then drop a big block in it and go Camaro hunting.
1967 is my favorite year for the early Mustangs, partly because the side marker lights on the almost-identical ’68 looked like glued-on afterthoughts. I don’t think these are the OE side markers, but why would anyone go to the trouble of adding them to a ’67? Maybe they’re just reflectors. They still look added-on.
Note to seller: Pull up the carpet and let people see the floorpans. Nobody’s going to want the carpets.
My suggestion: 390, 4-speed, 9-inch rear end, have fun. And take off those damned reflectors!
It looks like a base model ’67 with perhaps aftermarket side maker lights installed at one time.{If you look at a ’68, they are different shape. The “C” in the vin number just means it was a 289- 2 barrel. Being a base model, no power steering or brakes, it was likely a 3-speed and not a 4sped. Door tag may give more data about original tranny. Good project for someone.
Too much $$ for a car like this, just look on craigslist these are every where for half that. In fact when you get in to this level of $$ you can get one running and driving with a V8. I, myself, have had 2 1966 mustangs and road around in a similar 1968 mustang, my moms car for 10 years. It was a nice car that drove and handled well and never let us down. Funny how owners over value these cars just because they are mustangs. I had a 1966 junker with a 6 banger I traded a dirt bike for, it was just transportation to and fro for a while. I was in my early 20s and needed a work car. mean while in the garage was a 1966 mustang A sedan full on race car I bought when I was 19 [I’m 59 now]. I still have that one but in pieces including the boss 302 engine [ yes it is real with screw in freeze plugs etc]. I am looking for another 1966 body now so I can rebuild her and go vintage racing. Seems the bodies are almost every where for 500 to 2500 here in wa. Condition dictates price except for a few people who list absolute rusted out junk for 4k plus like the seller of this car.
My cousins old ’67 Mustan Coupe was like this, but he sold it in 1970 when the car was only 3 years old to a guy who street races against a new 1970 Corvette (I believe it was a ZL1) and wrecked the car