Said to be a real barn find car, this 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback appears to be a pretty solid project. For sale here on Craigslist in Mesa, Arizona with an asking price of $19,500. Yes, you read that right, they are asking $19,500 for this car. That price wouldn’t be out of the question if there was something special about this particular car, but the ad doesn’t indicate that there is.
Under the hood, it looks like a typical forty year old car that’s seen a pretty hard life. The ad doesn’t indicate the size of the engine, nor does it show the VIN tag. Presumably this is a 289 or 302. The ad states that it “starts and runs great.” If that’s true, it could make a potential buyer look past the visual condition. This car is for sale in Arizona, which would lead you to think bone-dry. This car appears to have more rust than usual under the hood for an Arizona “barn find” car.
The ad only contains three sentences describing this car. There are quite a few pictures, which is a good thing. However, with out much information, prospective buyers aren’t left with much. I’m guessing with bare floors, and other items removed, this was someone’s project. Whether it was a true barn find, then started as a project or it was a project car that was relegated to the “barn” is hard to say. Either way, this looks like a fairly solid project. But with an asking price so high, I hope the seller is negotiable. Buyers in the market for a mid-sixties Fastback, may be better off to buy a completed restoration for a few thousand more than take on this project.
19.5K? Good Luck.
When you don’t know what it’s worth – ask a lot.. Rule of thumb..
Proof of my comment on the other fastback about crazy money.
I’m sorry but, if the seller really believes this car is worth that kind of money he needs to state why. I would need a lot of convincing.
I really don’t understand paying big money for early Mustangs They were not muscle cars like GTOs, Chevelle’s Road Runners. they were better looking Falcons… Mustangs did not handle that well and had lousy drum brakes Just buy a 2005 – 2009 Mustang if you like the styling they are much much better cars to drive
They were available with disc brakes. They were of the four piston fixed caliper design. I agree with you that they are not true muscle cars but they started the pony car craze. On the same token, why do people go ga ga over a 57 Chevy?
Agree – the GTs had thicker sway bars and disc brakes. Also easy to upgrade both of those. My first ’66 way back in the 80’s had a terrible roll, but the 66 Fastback I have now hugs the ground. With a 289 4bbl it has plenty of go for such a light car. Also to point out, there were many more fb’s in 65 than ’66 when many of them were being sidelined for Carroll Shelby and his GT350s. Over 76k fastbacks in 65 and only about 35,000 in ’66. If it had a Pony interior would be about 1% of the production on that option alone.
It’s not just a better looking Falcon, it’s a MUCH better looking Falcon, and an iconic, first year car, and the price is lower than almost anything new–that to me is a fair way to judge a collector model like this. I won’t be buying it either, because my ’06 xB will probably last me the rest of my life. But I think the ’65 Mustang with either roof (or none) is a gorgeous car, and I’d rather pay the price of a new one and get an old one in great condition. Or the price of a new Nissan Versa for a ’65 project. BTW, the description says it looks like a “typical forty year old car,” but it was forty years old a dozen years ago. These cars are honest to God antiques now.
By the time you got this in the proper shape, you would be in BMW 5 series and Mercedes E- Class territory. New. Fully loaded.
Ford hit a grand slam, out-of-the-park home run with these cars – over 1 million sold in less than 2 years. They’re popular today for many of the same reasons they were popular when new: they’re attainable (generally speaking – this one appears to be overpriced), they look great, and they can be anything you want – a sedate 6-cylinder driver, a concours restoration, or a resto-mod that can run with modern performance cars.
With so many built, it’s rare that I take my ’68 convertible out without strangers sharing fond memories of Mustangs that touched their lives. The cars were and are more than the sum of their parts. You either get that, or you don’t.
Not to mention they made several hundred thousand of them not so many fastbacks but still thousands of them as well
If it is a numbers matching car, it will have the 289. The 302 did not come out until 68. Overpriced IMHO. Even for a Fastback. 20K will buy a lot of car to the patient shopper.
The car itself is in far better shape than the other Mustang featured today, and would make a better project stang, but the price takes it out of the picture. That’s just crazy.
Wow….Mustang collector’s flipping…..geez….wounder if they took off all the good parts already ?
I couldn’t see $19.5k for this if it were a Hertz GT350 unless there’s a couple pounds of gold hiding in the wheel well!
Rusty, if you want to sell me a real GT350-H for $19.5K I’ll buy it. Heck, I’ll even round it up to $20K…but must be complete…and run & drive…and like I said, must be real.
But agreed that altho the fastbacks look good, they don’t handle nearly as good as they look.
It wouldn’t have to be complete for that price, just real.
A couple of troy ounces of gold is about $31,000.00 US,so that would be a great find!
Those Econoline van hubcaps really tie the room together.
Absolutely! Those poverty caps were the same as the ones on my mother’s ’57 Country Sedan. Very rare. Highly collectible. Worth their weight in aluminum…
You might be correct that fully restored it will be worth about the same as a new BMW or Benz, the difference being it will keep going up in value while the other cars will be heading in the opposite direction.
Maybe someone wants to drive this in lieu of a new loaded car. Different strokes for different folks.
I would agree; crazy money for fastback Mustangs and I’m a Mustang guy.
(yeah I’d opt for the new one too)
Yes, way over priced. But I recently bought a ’66 coupe with the six and auto trans, truly rust free, for $5k. It’s fun to drive because the power-to-weight ratio makes it surprisingly spry. Some of us just prefer the experience of older, simpler cars, Mustangs provide an easy, affordable option, and repop parts are readily available for almost the entire car (except, as it turns out, a pitman arm for manual steering).
I’m hanging on to my ‘stang, doing a rolling restoration, and having fun.
Ride, Sally, ride.
Why the hell 19500 dollars? Was is the Jon Bon Jovi puberty car?!?
$19.5K! Dream on…..
Crack pipe. Oh wait, wrong forums 😉
The asking price is optimistic but the 65 to 70 fastbacks are going for crazy money restored, ask me how I know because ours is going up for sale tomorrow for 40K on ebay, but we have 53K in it and have a appraisal of 45K also it falls in to the category of Haggerty’s value chart of between a #2 & #3 car.
Wife—“get rid of that thing NOW”!!
Owner—“all right already–its posted on craigslist, I’ve done all I can”!
I don’t get those who think this car’s price is ridiculous. The fastback is the most desirable body style, and the prices on these cars are only going to go up. Now, should a car that sold in very high numbers in this condition be worth $20K? No. But the market will support these prices now.
Added a comment above on the handling and power, but even though I’m a die-hard 66 mustang guy, this is crazy pricing. Being a ’65, and in rough shape, lots of rust, sketchy engine, etc. These didn’t have ‘matching numbers’, the block stamp and the date on the carb would be in the range but not matched to the VIN.
Matching VIN #’s on 289 K-code, 390(’67-’70), & 428 Mustangs only. Any high performance ‘stang BOSS’s etc had the VIN stamped on the block & trans.
Yep, that was my point. They didn’t have matching numbers. The only way to verify ‘original’ engine is the date stamps on the block and the autolite carb.
Too much! $19.5k for drivers floor rotted thru etc. what else not pictured or described? Makes one wonder. Good luck.
It’s hard to tell, but I don’t see any sign of the 289 V8 emblems on the front fender. A 289 car would have a C, A, or K in the 5th digit of VIN for 289. The seller doesn’t disclose the VIN, so I would be careful. Maybe that’s why he put those dog dish hub caps on it so we couldn’t see the 4 lug 6 cyl wheels.
Oh, the seats are in backwards too. LOL
But it originally had a full console by the looks of the shifter.
You give people a free ad with free pictures and they put in a minimum of information and pictures like they were paying lots of money ?