At first glimpse, this 1965 Mustang 2+2 (fastback) looks worth pursuing, depending on where its currently under-reserve bid of $33,400 goes. And truly, any A-code fastback, rare as they are, is going to command a minimum of $40K and perhaps much more. But this car gradually unveils its flaws as you move past the ad’s original, super-sexy high rear view image, which admittedly captures the best angle of this nearly perfect piece of automotive art. As those blemishes are revealed, the discerning buyer has to wonder how much it will cost to rectify them, and thus whether the new owner would better look elsewhere.
Let’s start with the Shelby stripes, which run along the hood only, not over the roof and across the trunk. First thought: “Who does that?” Second thought: “It’s cheaper to repaint a hood than a whole body (if you hate the stripes).” This is an act of customization that does nothing but mar an otherwise lovely exterior. Did the person who commissioned these stripes actually think he was improving on what Ford gave birth to? But mitigating our disbelief is the fact that the seller has two hoods—this one, and the black one. Put that on for the photos, you turkey! Then we can make a judgement about the claim that this is an “original paint survivor.” It’s got lots of marks, coded here as “patina,” but is the topcoat the one Ford applied? You’re going to have to see for yourself to know for sure. The data plate’s paint code, “A,” does decode to Raven Black, though I’m a little suspicious of the shine on this pony car.
Then there’s the murky history. The car, with 60K on the clock, presents as a reasonably low-mileage survivor. But the seller muddies the water by saying that it hasn’t been driven much for 40 years. Thus you should not expect a straightforward history. He adds that the engine is believed to be authentic to the car (but there’s no guarantee, is the implication). But wait—what color would a 1965 289-V8 be? That’s right—it would be black with gold valve covers. This one is painted up in 1966 livery of Ford Corporate Blue (though even that’s a little light in shade). So this engine points to being a replacement. Then the seller says that the tranny is not original, and that it was changed in around 1977. In any event, it’s a three-speed manual, and the transmission code on the body tag decodes to a four-speed stick, so you’ll want to swap that back asap.
So back to the authenticity claims, as seen here on ebay. If this really is a 60,000-mile original, how did that driver’s seat end up so badly used that it’s a mismatch with the look of the passenger’s seat? Then there are the usual Mustang questions. The DSO for this car is Louisville, where they get snow and thus, I assume, use salt on the roads. This is a long way from San Clemente, CA, where the Mustang now sits, and there are no images of the only thing that matters on an early Mustang—the integral frame rails from underneath and from inside the trunk. In sum, I’m not saying this is a bad car. It obviously has its charms. But there’s a lot to know that’s not now apparent, all of which affects the value of the car, which, as of now, has not been reached, whether you take the auction reserve as a guide or go by other current sales history.
Odd one here Brian. 🤔
Isn’t this the same one from the West coast we went ove a few weeks ago ? Looks like the same finger pointing…..whats up with that front bumper ? No under side pictures for a high price car.
While the seller’s claim of originality is definitely suspect – for starters, it should either have trim in the side cove or a paint stripe around it – I really don’t understand the negativity in this article. Original or not, this seems like a nice, driver-level car that someone could enjoy now and improve over time, yet that aspect of it was completely passed over.
No trim on fastbacks. That was only on couple and convertible models
That should have said coupe. Not couple
With respect to the previous comment, 1965/ 1966 fastback Mustangs did not receive the chrome “cove trim”; that was reserved for (non-GT package) coupes and convertibles. A closer loot at the engine is warranted to verify it is not a later 302 cubic inch.
Brian is right to be suspicious.There is a lot to verify on a 50 + year old car and many- myself included – know what getting burned feels like. Even after an inspection paid for. Can be stuck Paying top dollar for a car not as advertised or with issues – need the facts.
A few years ago I flew to Texas to look at a Torino where the seller had sent me pictures. Turned out having penetrating rust all over and a bad engine. The pictures I was sent were 15 years old, turns out. Hard pass, paid for a hard lesson.
This ad says it has a “correct” engine …what is that, date correct, cubic inch correct or original? Looks not original given color scheme wrong, coil position not a ’65.
No mention that it was once a 4 speed.
Underside?
Mismatched front seats – what else?
Not small things on a possible $40K car.
There always needs to be healthy doubt until it checks out in person.
This is a Dearborn car (F), order received at the factory and warranty plate stamped on Friday, Nov. 20, 1964. Gobble gobble. Car was built roughly in the middle of the production run for ‘65s, so it definitely should have a gold and black engine. So the whole drivetrain was replaced, it happens. As long as the floors, trunk, rockers (inner and outer) are solid and it has a clean title, everything else is easy after that. Unfortunately there’s no way to tell from the ad, and buying a first-gen Mustang sight unseen is always a bad idea. $33k seems like top dollar to me but, as always, it’s worth what someone will pay for it.
I don’t think it’s worth the price either, but I need to point out a few problems with your response. First the seats are not mismatched, thats what happens to 60 year old vinyl that gets sun baked. Second, unless you can see the engine a lot better than anyone else how do you know it’s painted wrong? Yes the valve covers are the wrong color, but the only picture I see of the engine the block could very well be black, it certainly doesn’t look blue. But interestingly enough the interior door handles and window winders are the early 64 1/2 -65 style. If they are original to this car that has to be pretty close to the cut off for them
The color of the right shock tower makes me wonder exactly what color this car came out of the factory with.
Why? All the mustangs had black inner fenders and shock towers regardless of the color of the body. Not like new cars that are painted body color under the hood.
When I was in high school in the 80s it was popular to get one of these and restore it or what they now call restomod so with this kind of stuff going on its possible the seller is just passing on information they were told and you have to inspect it yourself or hire someone in the known to check it out before you buy so you know what you are getting yourself into either way it will make a fun cruiser to have.
How hard is it to touch up the door armrest bases – & get the correct color padding?
IMO, racing stripes & a vinyl roof look a lot worse – on ’69 camaros.
Pix show a black engine, with blue valve covers.
Author whiffed on that, as did the negative Nancys. “But but but…valve covers” – yeah…what gets over-torqued and bent and then leak all the time ? Stamped valve covers. Somebody slapped blue ones on, but you guys want to burn the seller at the stake.
Guys…take a breath and step back a bit. This does not reflect well on barnfinds.com, nor its jabbery peanut gallery.