The worth of the fastback body style (officially 2+2)—that’s what the sale of this 1965 Mustang is going to demonstrate. If it were a coupe, it would likely be in the $15K range. As a fastback, it’s worth considerably more, even if it’s not show quality. Maybe more, even, than the $21,000 that’s being asked. If you’re the one who makes the best cash offer, you’ll head to Basking Ridge, NJ to pick up your car. Mitchell G is the person you’ll be thanking for the tip.
Why are the 2+2 models higher in price than coupes, and even, sometimes, convertibles? Rarity and beauty. Production numbers were about 410,000 for the coupe, and about 70,000 each for 2+2s and ‘verts in the 1965 model year. Thus a premium exists, even for a minimalist car like the one for sale here. Minimalist how? It has the inline 6-cylinder engine with a three-speed manual gearbox. (To its credit, it does have a full-length console and the handsome spinner hubcaps.) It’s not going to be dog-slow, but if the tranny works anything like the identical one that I once owned, it will go nowhere in first, have all the gearing in second, and cruise in third at highway speed. One more gear would just be so perfect. Is it possible to simply drop the 4-speed of the era in seamlessly? Naturally, this is what you’d want to do. Just save the original one for the collector who might be the caretaker after you.
Then there’s the point about beauty. Look at that profile. Well, actually, you can’t, because the seller hasn’t posted proper “shoot-around” photos. More like vacation pics he took while on a fishing trip. That same lack of detail in the image department makes it very hard to tell if the paint job here is any good, or what’s underneath it. Further, doesn’t anybody know how a 1960s odometer works? The claim for this one, which reads 1,469, is as follows: “But do not know if this is accurate.” Really? It’s not hard to figure out that this car has cracked over the 100,000-mile mark, despite the lack of a digit that would make that clear. The rusty bits under the hood and the dirty carpet would attest to that.
All clutter aside, this is a desirable car, seen here on craigslist. So if you’re on the hunt for an early Mustang 2+2, is this the one for you? A phone call and a visit would be in order. If the underside is crunchy, or the rear wheel arches and trunk drop-downs filled with Bondo, then move on. If the body is solid and the floors are intact, then this might be worth a look, and like as was said above, these things don’t come cheap. Personally, I’d pay the premium over a coupe body style in most cases. In this instance, though, I’m not sure I could fall in love with the color and interior enough to fork out the price the current owner sees as reasonable. What about you?
This would be a nice car, except to me, the 6 cyl and 3 speed. A 289 and a 4 speed and there’d be lots of interest. The way it is, not so much.
A friend from my high school years was very disappointed when his parents bought him a new 1965 Mustang with the similar 6-cylinder 3 speed manual transmission – he felt emasculated and believed the girls wouldn’t be interested in dating him. His other friends were driving Corvettes and Austin Healey 3000s – I was waiting for parts for my 62 Austin Healey Sprite. Those were interesting times indeed.
This is a 2 minus 2
Full length console, spinners in addition to rocker panel trim usually means “Special” for Mustangs…at least on the regular woof ones…
There is rust on top of the inner fenders on either side of the drivers shock tower and to the front of the passenger shock tower. If it’s there, it’s in other places. It’s worth a look if you live nearby and want an early fastback, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
Steve R
I am not that knowledgeable about Mustangs, but I didn’t think that a four speed transmission was available behind an I-6 engine from the factory. I owned a 1960 Falcon wagon with a 170 I-6 and a Dagenham (produced by Ford in Great Britain) four speed transmission (mine was a non factory installation). It was also used in Falcon vans (I sold my spare Dagenhams to a Falcon van owner). I was led to believe that this was the only four speed for the I-6 engines. It was a VERY weak design, tended to eat synchros, and parts and rebuilding knowledge were getting more difficult to locate. I rebuilt the transmission in my Falcon and sold the car prior to new issues. I remember when the very first Mustang fastbacks came out. My best friend in the 7th grade came from an affluent family. We came home from school one day and there was a new yellow Mustang fastback parked in his driveway, likely the first one in town- wow! To this budding car nut, it was like a flying saucer. We drove all over town with his parents and wound up pigging out at the A and W for dinner that evening. The car drew a crowd.
There was a four speed option available for the 1965 mustang. It was not the same one used for the V8 however.
My aunt bought an identical 65 2+2 in 65, it was even a 6 cylinder 3 speed car. Hers was green too, I just don’t remember after all these years if it had a saddle or black interior.
She only lived about an hour southeast of Basking Ridge, it might even be her old Mustang?
I wonder how many stang fastbacks with a 6 cyl were made each year from ’65-’73.
Makes no sense there has been no non fastback mustang coupe – for decades.
Kevin Marti has published a book titled MUSTANGS BY THE NUMBERS that will tell how 6 cylinder Mustangs were produced for each year.
A classmate had a Poppy Red (orange) 2+2 that made my turquoise ‘65 coupe look so plain. Do you still have that sharp ride, Phil Dotson?