Ford struck gold on April 17, 1964, when it launched the Mustang, creating a market niche known as the “pony car”. While Plymouth got there 16 days earlier, it seems moot now since the Barracuda stopped production in 1974 and the Mustang is still around 58 years later. The seller identifies his wares as a 1964 ½ Mustang, but it’s really a 1965 model (more on that in a moment). Located in a dark and dusty garage in Rowlett, Texas, this convertible is available here on craigslist for $20,000. Thanks for the tip, T.J.!
Since almost the beginning, there has been a misconception that early Ford Mustangs were 1964 ½ cars since they began production in the middle of the model year. But all Mustangs built before 1966 had “5” as the first number in the VIN and thus were titled as 1965 editions. Most consider Mustangs built before August 1, 1964, to be the “first” production run for ’65 and those built after that date to be the “second” production run for ’65.
To determine if your Mustang is a “64 ½” or “65”, there are some differences to look for:
- There were no fastbacks built until the second production run
- All first production run Mustangs had generators instead of alternators
- If the Ford has a 260 cubic inch V8, it’s a first-run car (the 289 came along a few months later)
The seller doesn’t provide any information that would tell when this car was built. No VIN, no fender tag, no under the hood photos, none of that. But if it were part of the so-called “1964.5” era, it would be one of 28,833 drop-tops built, meaning the guys on the production line were working overtime right from the beginning. We’re told it’s a V8 engine, but we don’t know if it’s a 260 or 289. It has a manual transmission, so that’s likely a 3-speed.
The expression “a picture is worth a thousand words” doesn’t help us much here because the car is photographed surrounded by a lot of debris and its cover is only pulled partially off. So, we only see part of the Mustang and it’s hard to tell if we see faded red paint or dust. The white convertible top looks dark grey from the accumulation of dirt over the years, so the cover didn’t help much. At 80,000 miles, there is no indication if the Ford runs, so we must assume that it does not. This Mustang looks like it could be a nice catch when cleaned up, but the unknowns outweigh the knowns at the moment.
There are a couple of other differences between the 64 1/2 and 65 the hood in the front corners next to the grille are not folded at the edge also the fan switch is off in the middle not to the left side. The gauges were the same as a Falcon in the 64 1/2 the speedometer was different also.
Very Interesting Info……………….TKS
Also generator, door lock buttons and a few more
The ad also states that it has a white top. That don’t look white to me.
I wish there had been more effort on the photos. Really can’t tell much about the car.
No radio antenna or Mustang emblem on passenger side quarter panel. Does that mean it’s a replacement? Maybe it was ordered radio delete, but it should still have the emblem, or at least the mounting holes.
First thing I noticed, as well. This one is not far from me…unfortunately, Texas is iced over at the moment!
I like it, wish I had the $20k to drop on a project like this
scam?
This may or may not be a nice car. But there’s no way I’d drop 20 large on a car that I can’t see!
Might not be a bad deal for a clean driver IF it’s rust-free. A base ragtop can be a lot of fun and not get crazy-expensive if there’s no rust to contend with.
https://onemanandhismustang.com/1964-12-and-1965-differences/ is a good description of the differences. I used to have a 64.5 D-Code Guardsman Blue convertible – nice looking car but mine was too original to mess with and IMO they really aren’t super performers. If you beef up the motor and drivetrain, add disc brakes, etc it gets much much better. A grade school friend of mine restored it – his mom found it buried in someone’s garage in the late 70’s when she stopped for a garage sale and made them an offer.
No engine or interior photos? GLWS.
If I had 20 large burning a hole in my pocket and I could see the car up close and personal I might be interested. It would be nice if the rest of the car was as clean as the passenger front rim/lug nuts picture could lead someone to believe. Best case scenario, a few weeks and a few beers later, the new owner is still smiling.
260 being the only V8 for the early cars is incorrect. I have mustang #6016 built on March 31 1964 and likely sold on the 1st day of sale in April 64. My car is a “D code” which is a 4bbl 289.
Back in the 60s, Ford seemed to have production changes in the February time spot. Early Mustangs came with a 260 v8 and a generator. I had a 64 1/2 black convertible with a black top and 3spd manual trans. Should have kept it.. Paid $750 then (used).
By looking at the pictures I would have to assume that this is in the corner of a body shop. Covered in thin plastic and yellow body tape.
Probably a repaint.
So when ya pay 20k then spend another 20k then wonder to yourself y when you could have bought a nice one ready to drive for 20 k