The Mustang would enter its fifth year in 1969 and saw its biggest styling update that year, although still on the Falcon platform it would use through 1973. The fastback would increase in popularity, going from 13% of production in ’68 to 20% in ’69, perhaps because its roofline was more sweeping than before. This ’69 fastback is said to have had only two owners and the mileage claim is just 19,000. This may explain the asking price of $41,000 in San Diego, California, and here on craigslist. Thanks for this latest tip, Barn Finder rex m!
By 1969, the pony car market was well-saturated, so the Mustang’s sales were down to “only” 300,000. But that still led all the others in the field, especially the Chevy Camaro which fell short of that figure by 50,000 units. This Lime Gold fastback is said to be an untouched original car and certainly looks like it, although the wheels are aftermarket. We’re told it’s a “matching” automobile which surely the seller means numbers matching. Although we’re told the Ford has a V8 and automatic transmission, we aren’t privy to what that motor is and there is no photo of the engine compartment. A standard 302 cubic-incher would be logical.
The body and paint look flawless and while one photo suggests a patch in the right front fender, that may be an optical illusion. It’s not there in another shot. The interior is equally nice, and this looks like a car that would be most enjoyable to drive. If this were a Mach 1, the seller’s price point would seem more likely. But as a standard-issue Mustang, even in this condition, the seller is going to have to find someone who just has to have one of these cars.
Finally! One of these that isn’t a rust bucket or an overpriced “project! I always liked these but today it’s extremely hard to find a good one.
I actually like the clean appearance of the fastback over the dolled up Mach 1. Logically, Im assuming, with no reference to the engine it would be the boring 302-2V as that won’t get anyones blood flowing. Especially in appearance let alone flooring the gas pedal. Neat wheels.
What does all matching mean? Unless it’s a big block, there’s no serialized stamp. The fact that they don’t post any specific details should give pause as to authenticity of true low mileage “survival”. I’d give the car a real going through before plunking down $41k for base car, even though it’s a fastback.
I will say this once again. Yes Virginia there is such a thing as a VIN stamped Ford engine and transmission. Starting in the 1968 model year the federal government mandated that the manufacturers stamp the VIN on all engines and transmissions. Ford did that so every 1969 model will have the VIN stamped on the engine and transmission including this Mustang. Now please stop spreading this misinformation.
The 1969 Mustang ‘Sports Roof’ will always have a special place in my heart. It was my favorite car of the more than 100 I’ve owned in my life, mostly because it was the courtship car in high school and college for my long-lost, way out of my league, love of my life girlfriend at the time.
If this is a genuine 19k mile car, it’s certainly the nicest one in existence, and unusual in being a base car and not one of the hot models like the Mach 1 or Cobra Jet. I would look very closely to make sure, and want to know the story of how it’s come to have so few miles over 52 years. That patch on the lower passenger door, and seat wear, suggests it might have some use on it?
Everything is worth what someone will pay for it. But even with my irrational love of the ’69 Sports Roof, you have to have a lot of nostalgia to pay 41 large for a base car (albeit at least with a 302) and automatic. For that price you could almost get a new Mustang GT (or at least a late model one) with similar (though ‘retro’) styling, vastly better performance, handling, comfort, and usability.
It all comes down to the thickness of one’s wallet. If my bank account had a couple more zeros I might not think twice about dropping $41k on another car for what would likely be a collection. But with limited money and garage space, I’d think hard about spending that kind of money.
Yup – agreed on all points. Love the car, and would be nice to have a low mileage super clean base – but it’s unclear that it’s a 19k car, from the pix, and description. It could be, and would warrant a thorough inspection with an Elcometer, and replaced parts. If authentic, and ALL original, unbent, rust free – it’s certainly worth asking to someone. Otherwise – it’s priced too high for 302 2v auto base
sportsroof.
It certainly isn’t untouched. Somebody touched it. The rear end is way too high for stock springs.
Steering wheel isn’t stock either. I have this same aftermarket wheel on my 79 F150.
Someone swapped the front and rear side marker lights. What should be on the front is now on the rear and what should be on the rear is now on the front.
The front seats may not be original to this car. The highback bucket seats were only used in the Mach I model. It does not appear that this car is, or ever was, a Mach I. However the only way we would know for sure would be if the seller would provide the codes on the door data plate and/or a Marti report.
Hard to tell for sure, but the wheels may be a set from a 73 Mach 1. I had a 73 with those factory wheels. The center caps don’t look exactly right, so maybe they were aftermarket until Ford offered something like these. Nice car, but an eye watering price.
They look like a set of standard aluminum slotted wheels from the era.
The wheels are not original.Way overpriced.
Take a look at the driver’s armrest. Pretty beat up for just 19000 miles.
Only the boss 302 got 15 inch tires for ’69?!
http://images.craigslist.org/00p0p_jIL7YcppvNYz_0CI0t2_1200x900.jpg
Just like the AAR Cudas and T/A Challengers. The front fenders are different, the wheel arch is bigger.
Another creative writing assignment for the BarnFinds staff. I pulled up the add it does not claim to be a 19,000 mile car, it only list the odometer as 19,000. Based on wear this is 119,000 mile car all day long. Having owned a few of these it is nice car but no where near the asking price, but it is listed on the LA LA land craiglist.
That’s been a problem with feature cars on this site for a long time. It’s used as click bait even though everyone paying attention realizes what you are saying is true.
Steve R
That interior doesn’t sing 19000 miles. Torn seat, worn carpet. Torn drivers door pad, missing arm rest. Nice project but way to much money.
These are one of my favorite cars mainly because I had one in high school. This one, while nice, has a misleading ad and too much $$ asking price IMHO. I hate it when it says “all originalb/untouched” but as others have noted, I see several things that are not stock like the wheels, steering wheel, and rear suspension height. No way I’d consider this car w/o a thorough inspection by me or someone I trust. Too bad, nice car overall.
Doubtful it only has 19,000 miles. $41k…hahaha
There are a few things that don’t add up on this car it has a Mach 1 interior and only one Sport mirror when they came in pairs, if this was original it should have the base door panels, and camera case dash components it needs a Marti report for this money.