As I’m sure almost all of you know, the Ford Mustang’s debut in April of 1964 took America by storm. Of course, the higher-performance versions got most of the press and still get the most attention today. However, many more of the basic models were sold and just as today, the popularity of those lesser-spec’d models is what enables the production of the higher-performance variants. This early convertible is one of those and is listed for sale here on eBay, with no-reserve bidding currently just over $2,000. It’s located in East Hampton, New York.
I’ll deal with the folks that are saying “there isn’t a real 1964-1/2 Mustang” first. I agree, all of the early cars were officially considered 1965 model year cars. However, amongst Mustang enthusiasts the cars built between March 1964 and August 17, 1964 are known as “early 1965” or “1964 1/2″ model year Mustangs. As far as this car goes, we don’t have enough information to determine a production date (there is a digit missing from the VIN in the ad) but the engine, 13” wheels and other features identify it as one of these early cars. The license plate that is visible here dates from 2001-2010, which gives us an idea of when this car was last on the road.
That rust on the rear cowl worries me, and I can only imagine what the torque boxes must look like. However, unusually for a convertible the top appears intact, so I’m hoping the floors are not completely gone. As the sum total of the seller’s description is “Car does not run. For parts or restoration only” you are going to have to fill in some of the blanks yourself. Obviously an in-person inspection would be desirable. Any Barn Finds readers close to East Hampton?
The interior actually looks surprisingly nice considering the rust, with the padded dashboard especially looking better than I would expect. That’s a manual transmission shifter, more than likely attached to a three-speed considering the specification of the car.
The 170 cubic inch six-cylinder engine was only available in these early cars. It was equipped with a single-barrel carburetor and made 101 horsepower in stock trim. I don’t see a lot of rust on the shock towers, which raises my optimism somewhat for the underside of the car. If the price stays low, perhaps this could be a real steal, even with the rust issues, as all panels up to a complete body shell are available.
Most New York State cars of that era are noted for being rough buckets because New York uses so much salt on their highways. However since this 1 is from Long Island it may be in better shape. Long Island gets very little snow so obviously they don’t use as much salt as the rest of the state does so will depend on where this car spent its early years.
I wonder if there’s any reason specifically that the seller says it is for parts only? Is there something he knows that he’s not telling anybody?
This car is in E. Hampton, which is right on the ocean making rust evrn more of an issue
Don’t you see in the description? Snap that thing up immediately — It’s one of those rare FWD 1964 Mustangs!
This is going to take a motivated buyer.
Look at the rust between the top and the truck lid.
There are so many clean examples on the market, why bother with this one?
I’m with Miguel – there are better examples to start a project with.
This looks like a base model convertible, with an aftermarket shifter (Hurst Mystery Shifter?) and sans the original spec white stripe tires.
I remember going to the local Ford dealer on 17 April 1964 with my older brother. When he looked inside the white coupe sitting in the showroom, he exclaimed, “This is nothing more than a glorified Falcon..!” My thought was, “No foolin’…” He obviously hadn’t read any of the pre-release stories about the marque. (LOL)
I agree this car is not worth the effort, we did a 6 cyl 67 coupe that needed almost every panel on it after paint removal. We were so upside down we gave it to our oldest son for college and he traded it for a late 70’s Bronco with a lift and big tires. After owning 4 they don’t call them Rustangs for nothing.
Were you in it to make money, or for the fun of doing it?
Everybody is in it for the money in one way or another.
I don’t care who you are it hurts to lose thousands on a car after doing so much work on it.
This is why I rarely ever sell anything.
I drive a 1972 Ford LTD right now.
I have people ask all the time if it is for sale.
I have to tell them no because I have too much money in it.
I did it for the wife because she is the Mustang nut, our 70 Mach1 is her 4th and last. We have been looking for a first generation Bronco because I kick myself for getting rid of our last one in 1995 for $5,500 and it was in excellent condition but modified with a 351W.
It doesn’t matter if it was to make money or for the fun of it, you still need to keep an eye on the budget.
Steve R
Even though I don’t actually buy or sell that many cars on EBay, I love how sellers want you to sign away your first born child’s rights with “ratings this and that”,and ‘no exceptions”, and “check with me first before bidding”, yet can’t provide us with more than one poorly constructed sentence as a descriptor of what we need to give up our first born’s rights for. We have to give up the Farm, for something that they can’t take time to detail themselves. It is all about getting paid, I guess….Funny. Sad.
Hot dawg!
Wow another unsolved mystery!
I wonder what victims car it belonged too!
It’s like the wrong turn movies 🎥 and cars hidden in the woods 😦
Rusty, crusty, stuck in the mud…lost cause, POS… ? No way.
In tact original ! It has the rectangle Falcon instrument panel/gauges. August 1965 (H). Pathetic Ebay ad…
Would love to know the full story. Looks like the drive wheel was digging a ditch…the kids joyriding ran off when the seller started chasing and shooting. The car has been there since 19?4.
I think your story sounds about right but it happened sometime after 2001 because of the type of license tags on it.
@John m Leyshon.
Looks like a staged picture to my mind. Anybody else think so?
Fyi, Jamie, the white Empire plates are still valid today. Replacing white plates with yellow is optional.
That disclaimer probably cost him half of what the car is worth.
Appreciate that you explained the 64I/2 myth , but I am not sure everybody will ever understand it, just yesterday someone told me they had a 641/2. Your not very popular when you tell them, they don’t.
Don’t worry Joe, anybody that knows about the evolution of the Mustang also knows them as a 1964 and a half.
I thought the early 64 1/2 Mustangs had generators and the 65 had an alternator. Could have been updated or it is not a early Mustang.
The early 65 did have a generator. In the course of 50+ years most have been updated to alternators. It is a a very common modification. The 170 engine is the most obvious clue to this being an early car. At least from the photo’s above.
I agree this looks staged. The interior is to clean and the still look inflated. I would guess the reason it’s listed as a parts car is because it was probably a stolen car with no title. Plus severe rust issues.
buyer beware on this rustang–start with the plenum and work your way down. I’m sure its crusty sitting on the ground.
Good luck to new owner. Careful how u move it!!!
It would be best to just leave it to a slow death right where it is. Car has no value.
There were enough differences between the ’64 1/2 and the ’65s for the owners to say they do have one.
There was a difference in the front headlight bezel and of course the V8 engine was the 260 and not the 289 for those months.
There’s a reason, that there are no pics, of inside the trunk. There probably isn’t one…. 170 cid…low end base model…But wait, it has a Hurst shifter….LOL
It is the rust that you don’t see that will drive you nuts in a restoration. The panels are all available but it will take big funds to repair.
It would be better to find one without all the rust repairs needed for this early 65 in my opinion. The bidding is close to $3k now. Really!!!
I can’t help wonder if the owner would have driven the car onto 2 sheets of 3/4 ” treated plywood how much better the body would be especially the under carriage. Or if it was stuffed into a over sized shed with a wood floor. I don’t mind paying a fair price for somthing but when there is deliberate neglect followed by a request for top dollar that’s when I get irritated. What’s worse there are people out there willing to pay up, all that does is drive all the prices up and inflates the true value. We all know all to well what happens to bubbles when we put to much air in them, yes the go boom.
Had one of these little pups back in the day when it was just a nice old car (early 80s). 200 six with a 4 speed. Fun, spunky little car for bumpin’ around town. Solid and reliable. Sold it for pretty much a song, but then, at the time, it was just an old car. Made money on it so I was happy.
Tilly, you can refer to it as a 64 and a half all you want, but one never left the factory with a title that said 64 and half. It is possible that state motor vehicle could change it, but Ford didn’t. By the way my source, Gale Halderman, if you don’t know he is, he was the Ford designer who was head of design tor the car, from inception. And he will tell you it was all about marketing, when they released the car, but they were all 65’s period, even though the early cars have some differences due to the rush to market them.
Well, keep goofing and piling on ! Bids keep climbing with every passing hour. Good glass and interior parts are enough alone.
The car has an alternator. Not unreasonable to think the original generator would require replacement and be upgraded to an alternator at some point in the last 50 years (makes sense !)
Do some research guys (dont get upset Miguel). That rectangle instrument panel/speedometer is prior to September 1964. All had VIN# of 1965 Cars, though production began in April of 1964. Called 64 1/2’s and Vin coded D-H. No 260 ! All 289 V8’s in 65. All circular gauges.
Prove me wrong, I respect that and humbly admit when I’m incorrect. Talking car’s is fun. Just keep it at a entertaining opinion if you aren’t sure.
“Don’t go confusing me with facts son, I already made up my mind” (foghorn leghorn)
The current high bidder ($2800) is going to be way upside down in a resto even if none of the work is farmed out. A 170 3-speed is the bottom of the food chain, even as a convertible. Nice driver examples are easily had for well under 20K. This poor thing is going to need it all. After doing several of these myself, I can speak from experience.
Beatnik, come on buddy you are slipping. The Hurst Mystery shifter had a round shift lever. The Syncro-Loc had the flat shifter like the 4 speed Competition Plus shifter. (I think I got that right.) I live out west where the interiors are fried to a crisp. I would have paid $1,000 just for the guts in this car.
I always thought that I should have a counterpart back east or mid-west. Where we could partner up where I supply the rust free stuff and the partner would supply the nice interior stuff. We could meet 1/2 way and do vehicle swaps.
Any takers??
Wayne –
You are correct. The Hurst Mystery Shifter had a round shift lever. But the Syncro-Loc had the flat shifter lever like the 4 speed Competition Plus shifter.
I had a Synchro-Lock, with the flat lever, in a 37 Ford Pick Up I drove in high school. If I remember correctly the Mystery Shifter was like $19.95 and the Syncho-Lock was a little over $50. But that was a long time ago, so those numbers may way be off. See the Hurst display in the photo.
When the Mustang debut it offered a 260 cu V8. I think these were left over engines from the Mercury Cyclone.
Thanks Craig for the verification. It has been a long time since I have seen that display! 1971 was probably the last time. We had it in the NAPA store where I worked in High School. So I used to sell them. I have no idea what the prices were. When I bought my ’55 Chev convert. It had a 3 speed with a Mystery shifter that the pattern was backwards because the original installer put the levers upside down so that he did did not have to file the notches in the transmission shifter pegs. I drove it that way for a week and then pulled the engine and transmission out to replace the engine. While out, I then filed the pegs so that the shifter worked correctly. I drove it for about another week and found a 4 speed gearbox. Then I had to buy the Competition Plus shifter. A ROYAL pain to install in a convertible with the additional X frame. NO ROOM!
As you barely have enough room to get the transmission in.
But I drove that car for the rest of high school (2.5 years) and through college.
I put about 125,000 miles on that car with no air cleaner on it. (Spent the money on mags, 4 speed and girls. Never enough for an air filter!) Needless to say the engine was worn out when school was done. No place to work on it. So I traded for a 340 Dart.
Kanadianmarkseh. All due respect in regard to your membership. Considering myself as much as i enjoy the site.
The 64.5 Mustang is a no reserve auction. Totally driven by the market, not a ridiculous seller as in most cases.
I know the cars pretty well. An inline 170 CID Six was the base in the initial April 1964 release. You could option a 260 V8.
Around 8/1964 the base engine was a 200 CID Six. Opt for a 289 2V, Mustang GT 4V…High output, etc. Then came Camaro, Firebird, Charger? ‘Cuda ..(AMC marlin ? lol)…Loved the AMX too. I long for the simpler times….
I regress
Federal law requires each vehicle to have a model year designation. A model year can only have one January 1 during a production run. The model year is determined by the year that the January 1 occurs. Extreme long model year would be from January 2, 1994 through December 31, 1995. Yes, that is almost two calendar years, but all cars would be 1995 model year vehicles. However, the 1995 model year production run would probably have been stopped around July, 1995. The production run for 1996 model year would start around August of 1995 and run through July, 1996; meaning it would include January 1, 1996. Sorry this is so convoluted, but this is how the government works. Hope this helps. 1994 1/2 was a marketing thing, not an official, governmental designation.
Wayne ! Love your story man. I grew up in the late 80’s. Neighborhood Sunoco gas monkey…pumped the 89 octane leaded gas, checked the oil, tire pressure, wash the windows and mirrors. Made some tips. Had to help the mechanics (grab this/that lol), learned a ton.
TO DAVE HENRY ! and anyone else interested in vin #’s
There were no “laws” or standards on VIN #’s until 1980. All Ford VINS began with the second digit of the model year. IE, 1964 mustang began with a “5” to reflect it as a 1965 model, confirming to standards set for ’65. A 1974 Lincoln began with #4.
All US vehicles beginning in 1981 conformed to a 17 digit VIN# . The 8th to last digit representing the year alphanumeric. Started with letter B in ’81. C in 82, B in 83 and so on …Letters I , O & Q were omitted to avoid confusion with numbers
1989 Camaro … 1G1FP21F3KL205407
1989 Mustang… 1FABP40E6KF218912
Letter K = 1989
In 2001 it went back to numbering…
2009 Dodge = 3D6WH48L09G522526
Just FYI on VIN #’s
The USA EPA defined model year designation prior to 1980. I agree VIN rules may not have been set until 1980, but there never was a VIN designation for a 1/2 model year vehicle. You’re correct that the “5” was for 1965 and that the first Mustang builds were ‘65.