There’s probably a business in helping people post craigslist ads because here’s an example where the seller—with a really nice car—does almost everything wrong. The automobile in question is a 1966 Ford Mustang Coupe with desirable 289 V-8, for sale here on craigslist in Sacramento, California with an asking price of $8,700.
The problem is very bad photography that doesn’t begin to do a fairly tidy car justice. The photos were vertical—who does that?—and have been cropped by me into uneasy horizontals. There’s only one very bad shot of the Mustang’s exterior, but it looks like the two-tone original copper-and-black paint is holding up fairly well, albeit with some rust in the fender bottoms and along the rocker panels. The chrome is also good, from what we can see. All the trim is in place, as are the distinctive hubcaps.
The owner states that the C-code automatic Mustang has matching numbers, a rebuilt engine, and runs excellently. It’s a California car, though that rust came from somewhere. The owner claims to have “lots of maintenance receipts.”
That’s about it for information. No word on the brakes or other systems, though we do learn the car has helpful power steering. The front seats have their original upholstery, with splits, under cheap covers. The back seat appears pristine. The dashboard appears intact, with even the original radio in place, and there’s a nice floor shifter.
To sum up, it’s a sought-after car, in decent condition but requiring an easy restoration that could be undertaken with the car still on the road. Anyone seriously planning to risk $8,700 will want to see more pictures, especially to try and document the extent of the rust.
Anyone can see that this baby has possibilities. Well, maybe you can’t actually see it, but you can imagine it. It sure helps that the car is running and driving, not just hauled out of wet storage. What do you think?
I had one this color, C code auto, but no vinyl top, s/b/air. Trucking company I worked for acid washed a trailer upwind from it and etched the windows so I traded it. It was a really nice driving Mustang, like a small T Bird.
This seems to be a car in relatively good shape but as Jim is saying the pictures stink and it makes you wonder if there is something to hide!! A C-code automatic is not the most desirable but it sure could be a great driver with just a small bit of work and determination!! If the frame rails are rust free it could be a good buy!!
I think you guys said that the mill doesn’t have the serial numbers on these plain jane mustangs. Pics don’t show you anything. might be a good one being in Cali, but you would neeed to take a look if you are interested. Good luck and stay safe.
Cheers
GPC
Any engine would have a serial number stamped on it to match up with the vin tag. Security against illicit replacement, ensuring that a buyer would know if the used ‘68 GT they’re buying in 1971 came with the 428 CJ they’re paying for, or if it was a plain old 289 2V out of the factory with a junkyard swap.
That applies to Chevys but not Fords (unless it was a K-code Mustang). Fords, with few exceptions, aren’t “numbers matching”.
Heck, if I had the money, that’s a steal, even if you have to put a bit into rockers and upholstery. $8700 bucks would get you a five year old focus or minivan. What would YOU rather have?
No such thing as a matching numbers Mustang for ’66 unless it is a K code.
Seat belt option in 66 or an add on?
Seat Belts became standard all around (Front and rear) in 1966. Optional for rear seats in ’65.
It has a rusty roof.
No need to point out that “at least it has a nice floor shifter”, throughout its entire lineage Mustangs came only with floor shifters, i’m sure you know this though. Oh and BTW, keep up the great job you’re doing, love to see your posts