Classic Mustangs List Archive

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

Sean wrote:

> Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad
> i the local
> paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64
> 1/2 was only
> available in the coupe and caonvertible style.
>
> Sean

Only the coupe & convertible were offered initially. The
fastback you are describing must be an early 65.

Mike Davis

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

>>Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the
local
paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
available in the coupe and caonvertible style.>>>

To the best of my knowledge, the 2+2 were introduced for the 65
model year. FoMoCo never officially had a 64 1/2 Mustang as they had
MSO's of 1965. However, if this 2+2 is a real 64 1/2 (which I doubt)
check these things out:

Generator in 64 1/2
Passenger seat does NOT adjust
standard V-8 was 260, 289 available, 6 cyl was a 170
check hood flange as it was slightly different
pony/mustang lettering on fenders was slightly shorter for 64 1/2

Granted, you couuld make most of these changes however I do not beleive
they ever produced a 64 1/2 2+2

Bob Hill
Homepage: fly.hiwaay.net/~crhill

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

There is no official 64 1/2 2+2, there have been a few early '65's
that have come from the factory sporting quite a few of 64 1/2 specific
parts. Ford was probably just using what was left of the 64 1/2 parts
before they used the new stuff. I saw one in a magazine a few years
back, I believed they headlined it as a 64 3/4.

Mike

Sean wrote:

> Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the local
> paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
> available in the coupe and caonvertible style.
>
> Sean

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

I have watched this thread for the past day. As I understand it:

1) Ford never made a 64 or a 64.5 Mustang. There is no
4Fxxxnnnnnn / 4Rxxxnnnnnn / 4Txxxnnnnnn VIN on any Mustang.
On April 17, 1964, however, they did introduce their new
1965 Mustang, which had an 18-month production run.

IMHO, there are many changes that differentiate an "early 65"
from a "late 65", which is how I prefer to call them.

2) The fastback body style was not announced / produced until
Sept '64. Not sure when the first ones were delivered.

Now as for the question that Sean asked :

> Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the local
> paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
> available in the coupe and caonvertible style.

What you were told is correct. Perhaps the owner is just misinformed, or
has theorized that a 64 1/2 fastback "should exist". Go with the facts:
what VIN, what build date, what body style in the VIN, etc. If the car is
what you want, who cares if the owner mislabeled it a 64 1/2 2+2, when it's
actually a 65 2+2?

The only exception I can think of is if the owner wants an absurd sum for an
average car, he claims is an ultra rare car.


---------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Dettori 86 SVO (2.3l IT)
Divisional VP, Program Trading 70 Mach I (351C-4V)
Paine Webber, Inc. 67 GT conv (289-4V)
New York, NY <reserved 4 67 GT500>
212 713 4683
(email redacted)
---------------------------------------------------------------

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

Sean wrote:
>
> Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the local
> paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
> available in the coupe and caonvertible style.
>

A number of good comments have been made to this thread....jsut a
couple of things to add. To be a "real 64 1/2" we would expect the
ORGINAL door tag to have the following information

Projected build date before Aug 1st or 17 1964




VIN number to proceed
(if Dearborn built) 220310
(if San Jose built) 104363


There were a few prototypes built as early as June 64 but these would
have prototype information on their door tags

As a side note the first Mustang fastback purchased by our family (by my
brother in the mid 70's was so early that it came with the cloth insert
seats (an option that was thought to never have been installed in a
fastback) Still have one of the seat covers which we use in judging
seminars as a visual aid since few owners have ever seen the option. In
fact I don't remember ever seeing a car at a show with this option.
Jeff Speegle
MCA ANHJ

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


I've got a '65 2+2 that was made in the first week of production...
Someone at Ford looked it up and found that Job #1 at San Jose was August
20, 1964 and mine was built Aug 26....

It's got some 64-1/2 parts (flange on hood), and the last time I tore out
the interior (19 years ago or so) I found lots of screws missing and
stuff... kinda like they weren't used to building this new body style yet.

I'd be interested in knowing the sequential VIN number of this supposed
64-1/2 2+2... it might be some pre-production prototype or something...
which would be pretty darn cool...

Dave

On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Michael Melson wrote:

> There is no official 64 1/2 2+2, there have been a few early '65's
> that have come from the factory sporting quite a few of 64 1/2 specific
> parts. Ford was probably just using what was left of the 64 1/2 parts
> before they used the new stuff. I saw one in a magazine a few years
> back, I believed they headlined it as a 64 3/4.
>
> Mike
>
> Sean wrote:
>
> > Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the local
> > paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
> > available in the coupe and caonvertible style.
> >
> > Sean
>
>
>
>

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

David Spangler wrote:
>
> I've got a '65 2+2 that was made in the first week of production...
> Someone at Ford looked it up and found that Job #1 at San Jose was August
> 20, 1964 and mine was built Aug 26....

First, "Job #1" at Milpitas seems to have been nearer
August 1. Thus, your car would have been a few thousand
Mustangs down the line from the first '65 assembled there.

Second, the warranty plate build-dates are more tentative
than actual. Please see the VIN/date listings, below.

> It's got some 64-1/2 parts (flange on hood),

In my experience, most early 1965 Mustangs have
lots of earlier parts...especially the hoods and
door components.

> and the last time I tore out
> the interior (19 years ago or so) I found lots of screws missing and
> stuff... kinda like they weren't used to building this new body style yet.

Missing screws?
Sounds like standard San Jose assembly. ;-)

> I'd be interested in knowing the sequential VIN number of this supposed
> 64-1/2 2+2...

The registry shows these San Jose fastbacks:

- 5R09C131657 tentative build-date of Aug. 26
- 5R09A132750 tentative build-date of Aug. 24
- 5R09A132498 tentative build-date of Aug. 31
- 5R09A132553 tentative build-date of Aug. 28

As you can see, the scheduled build-date is not the
actual order in which the cars were assigned VINs.

Hope that helps.
--
MrF
Allen Cross
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE online source for 1960-1973 Ford information.
voicenet.com/~fomoco
Original articles, NOS stuff, tech advice & more!

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

[from speegle]
>
>Projected build date before Aug 1st or 17 1964
>

Ah, that would be precede..proceed would imply *after*

>VIN number to proceed
> (if Dearborn built) 220310
> (if San Jose built) 104363
>

-------
Regards

Walt Boeninger - Nor Cal SAAC Web Site - norcal-saac.org
Email: (email redacted) 67 GT500 & Shelby T-A coupe/ 71 Boss 351

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

Hi,
My 65 fb according to the VIN was built in Oct 64. My interior has the clip
on handles and the carpet did not cover the entire floor. From the sill
plate to floor level was covered with a vinyl like material. I've heard
this was done on the early cars. Is this true? Also I have one speed wipers
and 2 speed fan. Again I believe an early indicator. Tell me if I'm right
or wrong. Thanks
Bob

----------
> From: speegle <(email redacted)>
> To: Multiple recipients of list <(email redacted)>
> Subject: [CM:5284] Re: 64 1/2 2+2
> Date: Thursday, August 21, 1997 1:10 PM
>
> Sean wrote:
> >
> > Is there such thing as a 64 1/2 2+2 because there is a ad i the local
> > paper for a 64 1/2 2+2, but i have been told that the 64 1/2 was only
> > available in the coupe and caonvertible style.
> >
>
> A number of good comments have been made to this thread....jsut a
> couple of things to add. To be a "real 64 1/2" we would expect the
> ORGINAL door tag to have the following information
>
> Projected build date before Aug 1st or 17 1964
>
>
>
>
> VIN number to proceed
> (if Dearborn built) 220310
> (if San Jose built) 104363
>
>
> There were a few prototypes built as early as June 64 but these would
> have prototype information on their door tags
>
> As a side note the first Mustang fastback purchased by our family (by my
> brother in the mid 70's was so early that it came with the cloth insert
> seats (an option that was thought to never have been installed in a
> fastback) Still have one of the seat covers which we use in judging
> seminars as a visual aid since few owners have ever seen the option. In
> fact I don't remember ever seeing a car at a show with this option.
> Jeff Speegle
> MCA ANHJ

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

Once again, for newcomers:

The "64-1/2 or 65?" identification is oh, so simple! There was a GAP in
the VIN's issued at both Dearborn and San Jose, where the sequential unit
numbers JUMPED at the start of '65 production. So don't worry about build
dates, hood lips, generators or any of the other 64-1/2 "oddities" -- JUST
CHECK THE VIN:

For Dearborn *anything* below 5Fxxx250000
or for San Jose anything below 5Rxxx125000
is a "64-1/2".

If your "64-1/2" Mustang is from Metuchen, go hunt down the person who sold
it to you and get your money back.

There is NO SUCH THING as a 64-1/2 2+2, GT, or "Pony Interior".

The earliest 2+2 recorded by "In Search of Mustangs" is 5F09K250009 with a
"scheduled" build date of 1 August 1964.

San Jose appears to have been a bit slow to start 2+2 production -- their
earliest recorded Fastback is 5R09C130711, scheduled for assembly *around*
22 August.

And a "J" on a door tag would be fairly easy to confuse for a "U", wouldn't
it??
-- Dave H.
aloha.net/~djhamma

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

Bob Thomason wrote:
>
> Hi,
> My 65 fb according to the VIN was built in Oct 64. My interior has the clip
> on handles and the carpet did not cover the entire floor. From the sill
> plate to floor level was covered with a vinyl like material. I've heard
> this was done on the early cars. Is this true? Also I have one speed wipers
> and 2 speed fan. Again I believe an early indicator. Tell me if I'm right
> or wrong. Thanks
>

Bob your description seems correct for what some refer to as a early 65
or a carry-over car. In either event, only 64 items that were used up to
the stock was gone were those that require a number of different items
to make work. Items such as handles, hood bumpers, carpet and so on were
used in the 65's until the stock was gone. Items such as the carpet
sometimes lasted into 1965 especially if they were of a less common
color (black early style carpet for coupes seemed to disappear quickly
where fastback in blue would last on the shelf longer.


Jeff Speegle
MCA ANHJ