I was scouting around the internet and I found this Mustang that I thought may prove to be quite interesting. Listed for sale here on eBay is this Mustang Convertible D Code. It is located in Annandale, Minnesota, and is offered with no title, but a Bill of Sale. The seller has also set a BIN of $4,995.
Well folks, if it’s rust, rot and corrosion that you’re looking for then you’ve come to the right place. Things look particularly ugly under here. The seller labels this as a project car, but my gut instinct tells me that this particular Mustang is not likely to move under its own power. If it weren’t a convertible I may be a bit more optimistic, but the lack of a roof means that under-car structural integrity is vitally important and it is one area where this little Ford is lacking. By the way, when it comes to bolt-on panels, what you see is what you get.
This is the item that commands the attention of the seller. He states that this is a 289ci D Code engine. Looking at it I have no reason to doubt it from what I can see, but I would like a closer look. The engine is said to turn over, but is not currently running. If it is a D Code engine I would probably want to have a bit of a look inside it before I even considered kicking it into life. Backing the 289 is a 4-speed manual transmission.
When I look at the interior one of the things that amazes me is the amount of interior components and trim that look salvageable. The dash looks like it would come back to life with a bit of work, and the pad looks okay as well. Door cards also appear ok, and even the carpet looks like it might be able to be used. The seats will require new covers and the fronts aren’t the original black items. The soft-top needs at least a new window, but it would require really close inspection to determine whether that could be salvaged. If there was any question about it I’d consign it to the nearest junk yard because you don’t want water leaking into your freshly completed project car.
My instinct is that this is not a project car, but that it’s a donor car. This would suit someone who already has a good shell that they want to build into something special, or for someone who wants to transplant the good components from this Mustang into something like a Dynacorn shell. To me restoring this particular shell doesn’t make economic sense, but the salvaged components could be the basis for a really nice car.
It’s an early production 65. There’s no 1964 Mustang.
Seems to me that they were called 1964 1/2 Mustangs. This could be a good donor for a solid coupe 6cly automatic conversion.
Ya, Mustang people call them that to differentiate early production cars. The titles say 65 and Ford calls them 65s too. Apropos of nothing, just a pet peeve of mine.
Sorry, but there was some 64 Stangs made. I almost bought one.
Sorry, but there were never any Mustangs made that were 1964 models.
All of the early cars had VINs that started with a 5 for 1965. None had VINs starting with a 4 for 1964. The very first pre-production Mustang ever VIN serialized was 5F08F100001.
Also, Ford considered all of these early cars as 1965 models.
Some people have pointed to an occasional vehicle title that has a Mustang titled as a 1964, but of course a state can call it whatever it wants for its own documents, but that is meaningless, just for their own use. The VIN is everything.
Sorry to inform you Steve, my 64&1/2 fastback is and always titled as a 64 and I am the original owner and I hold the original title!
Wrong Way, the point is that Ford VINd them as ’65s.
There are no Mustangs that have a VIN that starts with a 4.
But it’s maker says it’s a 65.
I understand what you are saying now! I should keep my nose in my own back pocket that has always kept me out of trouble Miguel! LOL
Wrong Way, that’s exactly what I was saying in my post. A car can be “titled” as whatever the state accepts, but titles are messed up all the time. I have a car where the VIN and the car brand are shown incorrectly on the state issued title. If the state had screwed up and titled your car as a 1964 Ferrari Mustang, would your car then be a one-of-one Ferrari? Of course not.
The only real official documentation that matters at all is the VIN. Wrong Way, what is the first number of your VIN? It’s a 5. In terms of weight it is the 100% decider. Every other factor: title, manufacturer claims, magazines, advertisements, etc. add up to 0%.
Ford never called the early cars 64-1/2. They were proud to call them 65s.
Sort of like the 70 1/2 Camaro’s . I believe GM had a big strike back in the day and the Camaro’s introduction was delayed. Weren’t early 1964 1/2 Mustangs a 260 cu. in. V-8 ? Painted gold rather than Ford blue ? Early Mustangs came with generators , which this looks to have
Yes except the 70 1/2 Camaro had a 70 VIN, not a 71. Of course the Mustang was always intended by Ford to be a 1965, just introduced a few months earlier than usual. The Camaro got delayed unintentionally.
The first Chevrolet Berettas, Corsicas and C/K trucks that were introduced in March of 1987 were all VINd as 1988s.
There were a few 1987 VINd Berettas but they were test cars and very hard to find, not that anybody is looking.
I thought the early 64 1/2 came with a 260 v8 painted gold & black.
That was the 2v V8. The 4v was the D code.
Based on the VIN, this is indeed and early ’65 289/4v.
The 1964.5 also has a special almost shark like front section on the grille but no front sections.
It looks like a rust bucket flipper 64 to me folks (see the f on the engine and vin on eBay)
Have fun with a no title car and swapping
all metal out from Minnesota. The nice is a v8 four speed if block is not cracked from cold weather and freeze plugs not punched out to drain.
R – Designates one of three assembly plants (there are F, R and T)
F = Dearborn, Michigan; R = San Jose, California; T = Metuchen, New Jersey
09 – Designates one of three body styles (there are 07, 08 and 09)
07 = Coupe; 08 = Convertible; 09 = Fastback
A – Designates one of seven engines used
A = 289 4 V premium fuel
C = 289 2 V
K = 289 4 V high performance
T = 200 1 V 6 cylinder
U = 170 1V 6 cylinder (1964 1/2 Mustang only)
D = 289 4 V (1964 1/2 Mustang only)
F = 260 2 V (1964 1/2 Mustang only)
201258 – Designates the consecutive unit number
Classic, what F in the VIN are you talking about?
D is the engine code on this one.
By the way, if you have a friend with a mechanics shop they can do a lien sale and get a title for just about any car. That is a secret. Don’t tell anybody.
The second digit is an F: 5F08D169605
Here’s a decent decoder: https://averagejoerestoration.com/1965-mustang-vin-and-data-plate-decoder-sheet/
Adam, How many cars do you own or have ever owned? Sounds like you are a expert in the automotive field and I’m just wondering what business or businesses you own?
The production date would tell you if it was a 1964 1/2 but it is gone.
The VIN says it has a 289 not the 260.
What would lead anybody to believe this was a real 1964 1/2 other than a few parts that could have been installed over its life?
What would lead anybody to believe this was a real 1964 1/2 other than a few parts that could have been installed over its life?
The D engine code in the VIN is for the early ’65(aka 64 1/2) only.
What would lead anybody to believe this was a real 1964 1/2 other than a few parts that could have been installed over its life?
The D engine code in the VIN is for the early ’65(aka 64 1/2) only.
It has a generator in the engine pic that is the main difference in the early production runs. Ford for 65 switched to an alternator.
Jim, that’s certainly the most obvious difference, but there are actually multiple. Here is a good rundown: http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/mustang-1964/
This makes that ’68 mustang earlier look like a bargain as far as a project.
That’s just a pile of parts that isn’t worth much. 65 Mustang restoration parts are not super expensive and won’t require as much work to install to a good donor car.
I would pass on this one.
Oh common, this is nothing but junk and should be labeled as junk! I wouldn’t give $4,99 for this much less what he is asking especially without a title! Motor and tranny worth maybe $1500.00 not a penny more! JMI!
Expensive parts car. Would be great to see someone put back together with the correct 64 1/.2 parts, hood, headlight buckets. Generator.
Good luck to the new owner.
It’s got a 65 gas cap. I had a 64 1/2, it came with a black gas cap
Lee, while I wouldn’t bet my life on it, I think the regular model year ’65s had the black inset on the gas cap too, except the GT, which was all silver and said “GT.” For 1966 the standard Mustang had a silver gas cap. I am guessing this has a 1966 gas cap.
I love the BF community. I just learned a ton of inormation about Mustangs I didn’t even know that I wanted to know. Not a sarcastic comment.