Topic: Interesting early '64 1/2 for sale

[Skyway65]

Doesn't the ad say "Pre-Introduction."   Not "Pre-production?"  It was built before the April introduction day. 

[kutzoh]

Doesn't the ad say "Pre-Introduction." 

Add that to the list of meaningless descriptions which include:
"Rare"
"Highly sought after" and
"Barn Find"

Greg

[Skyway65]

Well it does have a low VIN....where is the original tag?  That's what I would like to see.

[JeffD]

Believe that someone must have changed out the stamped steel pulley's, thinking they were not correct for a 260.  I'm not sure if all 260's had stamped steel pulley's, but most I have seen did.  Not sure why 289's would have cast iron, maybe an engine assembly plant thing.

Charles - my dearborn 64 1/2 d code 289 has that pulley - though ive only seen it with a/c & p/s cars with a generator having 2 belts

[DM_1964]

If Mustang production started on March 9th, and this car was built on March 25th; how would this qualify as "pre-production"?  Early production. I think this guy is full of it.

My convertible has a date of 24C and is Number 103616 whilst this one is 25C and 102212, strange to be out 1400 units and minus a production day but I may be wrong... perhaps the VIN tag was missing and they've guessimated the date...

However a very neat car!

[jwc66k]

My convertible has a date of 24C and is Number 103616 whilst this one is 25C and 102212, strange to be out 1400 units and minus a production day but I may be wrong... perhaps the VIN tag was missing and they've guessimated the date...

However a very neat car!

Dom,
 It's "scheduled build date", and any number of factors come into play - parts availability, similar body styles, colors, etc. which might cause delays or groupings. For any Mustang built before the 1967 models, anything is possible.
Jim

[DM_1964]

Yeah I'm with you on that Jim, just sounds a bit odd but understand it's possible.

[Smokey 15]

 I just know that, if I were in the market for an early convertible, I'd pass on that one.  I sold cars, for a living for years, and this guy just seems like a huckster. He claims to have dealt with quite a few vehicles (a pro), so there should be no ambiguities in any of his statements.  His research should be more thorough when making the claims and exclamations in his pitch. I'd just post a wanted ad on here and buy from knowledgeable people I could trust.

[mikelj5S230]

I'd just post a wanted ad on here and buy from knowledgeable people I could trust.

Easier said than done IMO.  I spent over 2 years searching for a '64 1/2 convertible F code car for my daughter.  They are few and far between, with most in very rough, rusted, beat-up, most rare parts missing,  shape.  And of course thinking you can easily find someone you trust when you run a want ad anywhere is also a real long shot crap shoot.

[GT500KR]

One thing that he didn't point out is that it does have the tiny early 64.5 shifter handle. Very hard to find. Most "restored" cars have shiny new large ones.

[Smokey 15]

Easier said than done IMO.  I spent over 2 years searching for a '64 1/2 convertible F code car for my daughter.  They are few and far between, with most in very rough, rusted, beat-up, most rare parts missing,  shape.  And of course thinking you can easily find someone you trust when you run a want ad anywhere is also a real long shot crap shoot.

  Very true /\/\/\  I do know what I'm looking at as far as condition, etc. I have owned around 500 vehicles in my life (no joke, I used to flip cars)  That said, if it came down to originality, I'd consult a member here who knows much better than I do. I know when to "phone a friend".

[Hawkeye]

There's a few factual inaccuracies in his description.
First build day was March 5 (05C on the data plate).
And his data plate build date just can't be right, based on the info found here:
http://www.early-mustang.com/index.php/64-66-mustang-registry
I found listings for 102205, with a build of 16C (March 16), and 102244, built 17C.  Those are the closest to his VIN in the database.
I found the database when I was looking for info on my '64 1/2 D-code coupe with a VIN of 5F07D103219, and based on numbers before and after, it should have a build of March 23.  Mine's missing the dataplate cuz one of the previous 2 owners took it off during one of the several repaints it had before I got it in Oct 1986.  After being garaged and needed an engine for 10 years, I finally got it back on the road last year.  And it was way more of a restoration project in the 16 months the restorer had it than originally planned, but I like how it came out.  Needs a fresh coat of paint, but the rest is sweet.

[J_Speegle]

.....First build day was March 5 (05C on the data plate).
And his data plate build date just can't be right, based on the info found here:
http://www.early-mustang.com/index.php/64-66-mustang-registry
I found listings for 102205, with a build of 16C (March 16), and 102244, built 17C.  Those are the closest to his VIN in the database.
I found the database when I was looking for info on my '64 1/2 D-code coupe with a VIN of 5F07D103219, and based on numbers before and after, it should have a build of March 23.

You mean that Ford would have likely guessed that they would have been built on the 23rd since the VINs and the projected date were assigned when the order came into the plant which could be week or months before they even started building.

Longest span I've seen has been 8 months between when Ford guessed the car would be built and when it was. But very unusual case

Of course VIN order has little to do with actual build order

Would agree that some one was making their own guess when they had the door tag reproduced