The Ford Mustang California Special is one of those limited-edition models you either think is enormously cool or consider a bit of a poser. The package, which largely focused on cosmetic enhancements, could be optioned up into a muscle car with Shelby-grade performance without the price tag. However, in most cases, it was equipped like the one we see here on eBay: a 289 V8, automatic car with all the visual enhancements that made it look like a Shelby for far less money. This one sadly is offered without a title, and bidding is up to $5,500 with no reserve.
While most cars that are intended to appeal to customers on the basis of looking cool but not being much of a performer are often a mixture of wheels and decals, the California Special dug pretty deep to make it a stand-out. The bodywork was actually modified to a significant degree, which is more than I can say for most cosmetic dress-up packages. The rear taillight panel was the most significant visual clue that we were dealing with a different kind of Mustang, as it featured an iconic Shelby-style rear end and Thunderbird taillights. It also had the typical badges and non-functional side scoops.
The interior was largely unchanged from a standard Mustang, but other exterior enhancements included a blacked-out front grille with Marchal fog lamps, hood locks, and a pop-up-style fuel door. The stripes were also a C/S-specific feature. Incredibly, all of these details appear to still be accounted for on this example, which doesn’t come off as a restored car. Instead, it simply seems like one that was put in the garage and left alone. I would imagine at some point when values reached their bottom, the C/S Mustangs were appealing to enthusiasts looking to pillage parts for their non-C/S cars.
The 289 V8 is a tried-and-true powerplant, and when equipped with an automatic transmission, it’s an easy-to-live-with cruiser. The engine produced just under 200 b.h.p. and a healthy 288 lb.-ft. of torque. The engine currently turns over but there’s no spark, which is hardly a surprise for a car that has been sitting in a barn since 1985. Sadly, the owners have misplaced the title for the car, which will likely severely limit interest. All that said, it still looks like a solid example of a rare California Special with all the right bits still attached.
Would have been great if Shelby built a notchback coupe; these CS are unique and interesting.
Ford also had a “High Country Special”, sold through Colorado dealers, with about as much interest. They were offered from ’66 to ’68, with about 1,000 cars sold. Cal Specials were only offered for 5.5 months in ’68, and only 4118 cars were sold, making the High Country much rarer with only 251 sold in ’68. It was a classic swing and a miss. Apparently, folks didn’t want to spend the extra $194.31 for one.
Were the 68 Cali Specials left over 67’s or is ? I don’t see the federally mandated side marker lights on the side of this one but the VIN decodes to a 68.
Front side markers/lights are there, somewhat hidden by the bumper, rear had either marker lights or side reflectors (not lighted) which were easily removed. Steering wheel is definitely 68, not 67. There are other indicators it’s a 68 such as seat back upholstery pattern is different both years. Shame about the title situation, would add $ to the sell. (By the way I still have several NOS mustang dash parts, haven’t put them up for bid yet)
Early 68’s had a molded rear quarter reflector and after sometime in Feb they had just the bolt on quarter reflector. Neither were lamps on the back.
Ford only offered reflectors on the rear. No light in rear side markers on all cars and trucks in 1968. Starting 1969 all side marker lights were lights.
Why can’t the selling owner apply for a duplicate title, unless…
The seller is not the owner. He’s a “dealer” or flipper. New York does not require a title on a car this old, but does require a transferable title. The seller is located in New York, the license plates are from Pennsylvania.
There is basically no description and there are no detailed pictures of rust prone areas. The top of the inner fenders fore and aft of the shock towers show significant rust, I’d be surprised if this car hadn’t had rust repairs at some time in its past.
Steve R
I want to see more info / pictures on the black Celica GTS in the background. It appears to be a 84′ or 1985.
I hope that it’s saved and restored. Even though they’re not Shelbys, they are unique enough to draw a crowd at a Michigan car show or cruise night. Best wishes to the new owner. Take care of it.
No title is a no for me.
Sounds like to me (as should be) a TITLE still needs to be given to the buyer, even if it’s considered a transferable one.
Some states don’t give titles on older cars.NH will not give you a title on a car older then a 2000 model year.
When you register a car with DMV, how are they supposed to register it in the buyers name with just a bill of sale. There’s no important information about the car on that. I would have to believe the seller would have to get documented paperwork from their DMV to go with the bill of sale so the buyer can register it in their state
If you ask that question using Google for a specific state that doesn’t require titles on an older car like this you will get a breakdown of what that state require. They all have different requirements.
Steve R
This one is over $10,000 bid so far. Interesting that the last PA inspection was in 85 and registered in 86. Better photos than usual with not too much rust. I wonder if the PA plate would give enough info with a bill of sale in the tough state of PA. I could take time at any rate to check if all is legal. Lots of bids for this desirable car but could be all for naught with the unknown. I did check for curiosity, and Webster is a suburb of Rochester NY, near Lake Ontario, so not real close to PA.
Dave, the seller is a quasi dealer, he has several other cars listed as well as several sold in his completed listings. He should have taken care of the registration prior to listing the car. There is a lot of potential downside risk to the buyer for cars with this sort of registration issues. It might not be a big deal for a car selling for a few hundred dollars, not so when it’s in the 5 figure range.
Steve R
i would be dammed if i would pay almost 11k for a car with no title. everybody involved with this car sounds to me be just plain lazy about the paperwork. too many red flags on this pony.
The current seller is interested in the $$$$$, getting it sorted out will take time and cost money. It’s not necessarily lazy, it’s about profit.
Steve R
Sounds like this seller is skipping a link in the chain for DMV laws. Unless he’s a licensed dealer this is a violation of the law. Even if he’s a dealer this is not how to handle a transfer of ownership now assuming that the registration is in the names of the owners that sold it to him.
either way Steve it’s just plain lazy and illegal as well.
California is scary on titles. Az can provide a ‘bond’ not sure on other states. But the cost to bring it back to Cali and do repairs kills it for me.
Too many hoops to jump through to bring her into my state. Sad.
I think I remember reading that the sellers can’t find the title. If that’s the case why don’t they go to their DMV and request a duplicate title?
The stripes across the end caps and trunk look really strange and even make the Mustang emblem look out of place. They should be about 1/3 of the thickness seen here. The missing side markers on rear quarters could have been flush mount which required a recessed area in the quarter panel or a reflector in a chrome housing that was screwed to the quarter and protruded outward. If I’m not mistaken a few months ago we saw one similar to this color with a Marty report, after reading it I learned the stripes could be ordered with letters deleted like this car, it also had the fat stripes in the back and was my 1st time seeing them. In conclusion I believe this is a legit CS and the side markers were the protruding style which pitted easily and got tossed during a repaint.