Disclosure: This site may receive compensation when you click on some links and make purchases.

65K Miles? 1965 Mustang Find


This 1965 (yes, I know it has ’66 wheel covers, but the seller says it’s a 1965) Ford Mustang looks like it hasn’t been cherished in a while. The seller says it was their late father’s, and wants it gone because it “haunts” them. From the inner trunk edge we can see, it looks like the car was originally a medium metallic blue, although the black finish on it now isn’t doing it any favors. It does look relatively solid, though, and the seller will send pictures of anything you’d like to see (I’d want a lot more detail before I placed a bid). We have no idea of running condition from the ad, so I’m assuming it doesn’t. The car is for sale in South Gate, California, and is offered here on eBay with a buy-it-now of $4,000 but lower offers are welcome. The V8 is claimed to be a 260 (can anyone tell if that’s true from the picture below?) and if it’s original would be a nice combination with the automatic. I’m wondering about the 65,000 mile claim, though, and can easily see this car having 165k on the odometer. However, with all the parts available for this generation Mustang, it may not matter, especially if the shell is solid. Take a look at the few pictures available and let us know what you think!


  1. Patrick McC.

    “Like I said car is complete with engine, transmission, alternator etc.”

    Great! I’m so glad it has an alternator! Let’s be honest, that would have been the deal breaker.
    On a more serious note, this is literally what my MG Midget looked like when I bought it and it’s currently in the middle of a nut-and-bolt restoration. I hope this goes to a better home.

    Like 0
  2. wagon master

    If a 260 v8 is correct, I think that makes it an elusive 64 1/2 early release. I don’t see the vin to confirm engine code.

    Like 0
  3. JW

    Note to Ebayers: If your going to take crappy pictures at least pick the option to super size them to save on others eyesight, think of it as a humanitarian thing.

    Like 0
  4. Warren

    260 had a generator

    Like 0
  5. Rich

    I wrote to the seller and asked for more pictures. It would be nice to check the VIN and door tag. Of course a few more interior pics would be good too.

    Like 0
    • Frode Willmann

      I belive the 260 had a separate tube in front of the engine for refilling oil and clean valve covers.

      Like 0
  6. Len

    Makes me want to tear into my 67 Mustang GT fastback. Still can’t find an engine!

    Like 0
  7. Rob

    I had a true 64 1/2 pony and i as i recall they did not come with chrome valve covers at all so there is one thing i see and yes they did have a altenator , but also the block number will verify the motor they were a specific number on those blocks before the 289 ci came out. and far as 65k …lol…id add 100 k to that the way it looks and stickers ect on a 65k mile car i dont think so unless your a teen ager then the car is probably not original . id say 165k . and you should be able to track that by the emissions that has been done and documented by dmv.

    Like 0
  8. Rancho Bella

    My useless two cents is: I’m sick to death of people calling ’65 Mustangs that were made in ’64………..’64 and a half Mustangs

    Then that applies to all cars made in ’64 for the ’65 season.
    Dose the Vin plate read 1964?

    Then would that not apply to all cars made the prior year for the new season?

    Ford people please chime in and correct me if I am wrong.

    Like 0
    • Jesse Mortensen Jesse Staff

      The early cars are a little different than the ’65s and I think that is why we make the distinction.

      Like 0
  9. roundhouse

    The hint of blue paint on the intake manifold means this is not a 289, so maybe it is a 260. In 1965 the 289 was painted black in tribute to the Indy engine in Jimmy Clarks’ car. And yes, 1964 model year was always called 1964 1/2 because of the April 1964 release instead of September 1963, which would have been called a 1964 model.

    Like 0
  10. Rancho Bella

    What does the Vin read? ’64 or ’65 on these cars?

    I’m confused about paint colors you just described.

    289 painted black for Jimmy Clark……….
    Blue 260…………
    I’ve never read this. Guess I don’t know my Fords

    Like 0
  11. Rocco

    This is not the original eng. The eng. in this pic is a ’70’s 302(’70’s carb,late PS pump,etc.). Not uncommon to find a later model eng in a 50 year old car, but I would have at least made it look original on the outside.

    Like 0
  12. JB

    I factory ordered a Mustang (K code) in May of 1964 and took delivery in
    June. One of the first, if not the first, K codes in the NW. I had ordered white walls (in fashion then) and it came with dual red line tires. At the time I didn’t know if I liked them. The title showed it as a 1965. I have never understood why those early cars are called 64 and 1/2. Can anyone help?

    Like 0
    • Mike Williams

      Your early K code would have had a generator and accomping radiator support louvers. So it would a be a early production Mustang, aka “64 1/2”

      Like 0
  13. Rocco

    The early cars had different(1st design) body parts(hood,headlight ass.,). Also, a generator instead of an alternator, some interior pieces. So the term 64 1/2 was used as a reference. BTW, I have seen an original title that had 64 1/2 on it.
    Also in mid 1963, the Galaxie came out with the fastback design, that was referred to as a 63 1/2. It is mainly a reference point.

    Just my $.02

    Like 0

Leave A Comment

RULES: No profanity, politics, or personal attacks.

Become a member to add images to your comments.


Get new comment updates via email. Or subscribe without commenting.