Topic: Early San Jose Built FB - 9/11/64

[ChrisV289]

Came across an early built fastback out of San Jose.  Build date was 11J.  A code car.  Had some interesting pieces on it.  It has been in the family since new.  Both sides of the headlight bezels were slanted and had 64.5 hood.  Also had the A on the fresh air vent.  Carpet had been changed though as the carpet went under the sill plate and had a toe pad.  Had the early end caps on the metal trim on the fastback portion.  What was interesting though is the trunk lid.  It had an extra metal piece welded to the hinge and the bar looks like it is going the opposite direction towards the passenger side.  It had been repainted at least once and the carb was changed out.  Also aftermarket AC was added but had the regular eaton pump.  Jeff, if you need the full vin or dataplate, let me know. 

[jwc66k]

From the search feature - http://www.concoursmustang.com/forum/index.php?topic=11812.msg71551#msg71551
Jim

[ChrisV289]

Looking through some pics I have, found another example of a car with a build date of 29J that had that same setup, VIN was 5R09C142

[J_Speegle]

Yes the trunk arm reinforcement was something they tried for a period of time then dropped. Done for a short period of time

Apparently it didn't fix what ever they were trying to address - possibly the trunk spring becoming disengaged. Have not seen any reference to the running change then dump in any Ford documents that I can recall but may have been the reason workers at San Jose started to add the extra "donut" insulator to the end of the spring there.

.........  Jeff, if you need the full vin or dataplate, let me know.

Thanks - when you find time PM it over so I can label and file what you posted

Thanks for posting the pictures and info

[Hipo giddyup]

 Wasn't the turned down corners on the hood phased out early on??   

[jwc66k]

Wasn't the turned down corners on the hood phased out early on??   

The design changed for the 65 model year, but old stock was required to be used first. I know of several September 64 builds that used the 64 headlight buckets and that applied to Fastbacks as well. I think Charles found some 64 sheet metal on new October cars.
Jim

[markb0729]

+1 on clearing old stock.

My Dearborn built 65 Fastback with an approximate build date of 9/2/64 had one of the older 64 1/2 headlight buckets and one newer 65 headlight bucket with the old style 64 1/2 hood.  I did a little research and found some other examples of cars similar to mine.  There was even a Mustang Monthy article about this with a car configured as mine.  I also have alot of other 64 1/2 parts on my car.

[PraireBronze]

Mine had the early hood and the DS bucket was beveled.  The PS bucket had been replaced, so it's unknown.

[Hipo giddyup]

 Interesting... I was actually only referring to the turned down edges of the hood, where it would meet the angled portion of the headlight buckets. But my understanding is that this was a poor design that they ended up fixing early in production, say April of 64'? And the way they were producing Mustangs, gone out of production by the time my car was assembled. Obviously I have so much to learn..
If you ever bump your head of the corner of the hood like I have you would believe that the hood would have been corrected early on.  I had a few people comment on my early style hood at local shows as not being correct for my June 64' built coupe so I am glad to hear this. I obtained this hood from a gentleman in NY who hung onto it because it was an early stamping and if my memory serves me correctly , VERY early so I'll try and get a pic of the stamp. He had told me it was pre-production, of course wrong for my car but at least not past it's build date. 

[CharlesTurner]

When production started, the hoods did not have turned down edges, although the headlight assemblies had beveled edges.  Starting in late April/early May '64, the hoods were changed to have the turned down edges to fit more flush with the beveled headlight assemblies.  This hood/headlight combo continued in production into Fall of '64 and phased out around October/November.  It was replaced with the normal '65 style hood with front edges flat and non-beveled headlight assemblies.

Most would say, then, that the first hood was just a '65 hood, but the underside structure is different, mainly at the front bottom.  The main difference is the first hood is missing the small dimples across the area where the hood pin attaches.

[Hipo giddyup]

That is what my hood has but also with the turned down edges?  So I suspect they retained the "frame" of the hood without dimples, and left the turned down edge appearance, (not flattening these edges and spot welding them), where it meets the bezels?

[65Ford]

Looking through some pics I have, found another example of a car with a build date of 29J that had that same setup, VIN was 5R09C142

This is interesting as I have an 02K 5R09A142 Mustang.  I believe its spring is not like this. It would be interesting to see where the cut off actually was.

Hope no one minds me digging up an older post.  I'm rummaging the older posts to answer some of my gazillion questions I have of my Mustang.

[J_Speegle]

This is interesting as I have an 02K 5R09A142 Mustang.  I believe its spring is not like this. It would be interesting to see where the cut off actually was.

Different in what way?  Got a picture since we can't see what your referring to.

As far as the change over date we'll never be able to pen it down to a week or day since we don't know when each example/car was really built   Door tag date we know can be off by up to three weeks and in odd examples a lot, lot more but those examples are rare

[65Ford]

Whoops.  Never rely on memory when you're over the hill. My 02K 5R09A142 trunk spring set up is the same as 29J 5R09C142.

Note the left side of the spring has a small clip to retain the spring.  In the last picture it is hard to see but the end is retained by a washer and a cotter pin.  It does not look stock (cotter pin is rather bright).  Trunk lid frame date is 8 18  3C

[jwc66k]

Your trunk tension rod setup is normal for an early 65 Fastback.
Jim