Classic Mustangs List Archive

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Johnny Gonzales (email redacted)

Howdy,

I am restoring a 64 1/2 Mustang (Wimbeldon White/Black Interior). The
issue I am now dealing with involves the seatbelts.

The front seatbelts are silver and metal and the rear seatbelts match
the color of the interior. What's the correct configuration?
--

Johnny Gonzales
Oakwood Intermediate School
409.764.5530

Try Not. Do or Do not.
There is no try. -- Yoda, Jedi Master

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David McCracken (email redacted)


,
>
> I am restoring a 64 1/2 Mustang (Wimbeldon White/Black Interior). The
> issue I am now dealing with involves the seatbelts.
>
> The front seatbelts are silver and metal and the rear seatbelts match
> the color of the interior. What's the correct configuration?


Rear seat belts were not standard equipment on 64 1/2 and 65 mustangs. It
sounds like someone has added a later style seat belt pair to your rear
seat. Your front seat belts sound like the correct original ones. Hope
this helps.

David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Karl Rotcavich (email redacted)

Johnny Gonzales wrote:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I am restoring a 64 1/2 Mustang (Wimbeldon White/Black Interior). The
> issue I am now dealing with involves the seatbelts.
>
> The front seatbelts are silver and metal and the rear seatbelts match
> the color of the interior. What's the correct configuration?
> --
>
> Johnny Gonzales
> Oakwood Intermediate School
> 409.764.5530
>
> Try Not. Do or Do not.
> There is no try. -- Yoda, Jedi Master
>
Johnny,

If you have a true 64 1/2, the rear seat belts were installed at the
dealer, so what you have is probably considered correct, excpet by the
absolute purist who will tell you, you shouldn't have any rear seat
belts...

Hope this helps,

Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: Johnny Gonzales (email redacted)

Karl Rotcavich wrote:
>
> Johnny,
>
> If you have a true 64 1/2, the rear seat belts were installed at the
> dealer, so what you have is probably considered correct, excpet by the
> absolute purist who will tell you, you shouldn't have any rear seat
> belts...
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Karl
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
> archive please visit:
>
> antler.webworks.ca/cm
Karl,

I don't know if I have a "true" 64 1/2. Here's the VIN Number and Data
Plate information:

5FO7U131725

65A M 86 11E 21 3 5

I used the Vintage Mustang Decoder I found on the net,

mercury.net/~mach1/.
--

Johnny Gonzales
Oakwood Intermediate School
409.764.5530

Try Not. Do or Do not.
There is no try. -- Yoda, Jedi Master

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: David J. Hammar (email redacted)

On Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:22:39 -0500, "Johnny Gonzales"
<(email redacted)> wrote:
>I don't know if I have a "true" 64 1/2. Here's the VIN Number and Data
>Plate information:
>5FO7U131725
>65A M 86 11E 21 3 5

Though others may already have pointed this out, the determination here is
easy:
1965 Mustangs with Consecutive Unit Numbers < 250000 (Dearborn) or < 125000
(San Jose) are "1964-1/2s".
Anything higher is not.
Yours qualifies
-- Dave H.
aloha.net/~djhamma


---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm

This read-only message was archived from a public mail list.
Mail From: (email redacted) (email redacted)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but here's what I always thought was the easy way to
tell a 64 1/2:
If a Mustang was generator equipped it had to be a 64 1/2 (as the change to
alternators took place for the 65 model year in August '64)
Would it be correct to say that no 65 would have a generator and no 64 1/2
would have an alternator?
thanks
Jesse

---------------------------------------------------------------------
For information on Subscribing and Unsubscribing as well as a list
archive please visit:

antler.webworks.ca/cm