Topic: Who wants to start on this 65 K Convertible

[hopeto]

The last discussion on the white 66 K was informative. Who wants to start on this 65 K Convertible?
Here's the starting quote from the seller: "This is an excellent example of original numbers K Code 65 Mustang Convertible"
http://www.ebay.com/itm/151510057631?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

[krelboyne]

Axle tag is from a 1970 9 inch.

[PraireBronze]

I like the color! 

[5F08KGT]

"Forerunner to the GT"  Either its a GT or not.....

[hopeto]

I like the color! 

The color's great!
Repop door plate. No K code ever came with axle "1" and when you check the picture of the tag it is the wrong year (as previously mentioned).
Holley Carb.
Having a C5AE6015E casting does not make it a K Code block. It's an indication that it "could" be.
Please show me the date code and the VIN number on the block (if present).
I'd prefer to see a picture with the pan off showing the main caps but I understand not everyone has that.
An HEH-T transmission is way too early for this build date car. Should be HEH-BX.
Etc., etc.

[sgl66]

"Other verification Engine Block #C5AE6015E (65 HIPO Block)"

Now I know why nearly every 289 these days is a Hipo

The white out treatment of the casting number is a new one but what about the date code? 

I'm no expert on interior color combo's...is a black dash tan upholstry something that would have come from the factory?

It looks like a nice driver but cant see enough detail to tell how real or not it may be.

[hopeto]

and what are those horns off of ?

[67gtasanjose]

+1 on nearly every comment so far...though I thought I knew a lot about 65-73 Mustangs, yet  I never claimed to be an expert for ANY year Mustang,... let alone a 65 K.

This forum has taught me in less than a year way more than I thought I already knew about these cars. Kudos to all who participate openly to help us to learn more. Learning 1 day at a time, that we can avoid perhaps purchasing a "less than correct" vehicle or even more likely, a "less than correct" PART for our needs or wants.

My take on this particular car? I feel like somebody paid a lot of money and/or invested a lot of time & $$$$ to get it RIGHT (by their own definition), only afterwards to take it somewhere, say for example, somewhere such as a national MCA event to have it judged, only to fall FAR short of what they thought or believed it would do at that event. It sure fits the scenario at least.

Though my 67 project I am working on will likely never be any sort of Thoroughbred Champion, I know by being a regular at this forum it will far surpass my expectations, that is given the limits and scopes I have placed on the project. At least I feel certain aspects should rise to around the "90% all original looking" factor I have hoped to achieve.

Thanks again all who participate at Concours Mustang Forum!

Richard

[drummingrocks]

I was surprised to see the black dash, steering column/wheel, and console.  If that's a legit color combo with Palomino, then I've never seen it.  It also has carpeted kick panels, but isn't a deluxe interior car. 

And if it's not a GT, then why does it have the 5-dial instrument cluster; shouldn't it have the long Falcon-style '65 speedometer?  As someone else said, it's either a GT or it isn't.  That "forerunner to the GT" line is...well, you can imagine what I think.   

Also, one of the convertible reinforcement braces (engine bay) is on upside down.

[CharlesTurner]

An HEH-T transmission is way too early for this build date car. Should be HEH-BX.

No, that trans is right for the car.  The MPC is wrong on the transition date.

[hopeto]

Thanks, I appreciate the info. When was the approximate changeover date?

[CharlesTurner]

The car looks decent, but from the pictures, potentially a large amount of sheet metal replacement, maybe even including inner fenders in the engine bay.  The repro door tag is a red light and then the other mistakes made on interior and misc other areas.  K codes get some of the same scrutiny as Shelby's now, so the expectations are higher... and the drive-train scrutinized in great detail.

My recommendation on this car is if someone is interested, take the time to get it inspected closely.  It may be legit, but might be some problems lingering, which could be a big $$ mistake if not discovered.

[CharlesTurner]

Thanks, I appreciate the info. When was the approximate changeover date?

It was later in the year, believe after '66 model year started.

[67gtasanjose]

The repro door tag is a red light ...

...  K codes get some of the same scrutiny as Shelby's now, so the expectations are higher... and the drive-train scrutinized in great detail.

I suppose then, changing on the data tag, the VIN's 5th digit to a "K", plus adding a manual choke onto an Autolite 4100 and putting chrome valve covers and HiPo A/C assembly is not enough to qualify it as a K-code these days....How Rude!   

This is exactly what I like so much about this site! The unscrupulous cannot anymore easily do the unthinkable and get away with it as they did so easily only a few years back. I like that we do these kind of expose' s here.

Richard

[hopeto]

I think the car started life as a K. If you look at the last picture (engine shot) and run your curser over the image to get the enlarged shot you can see the VIN on the inner fender. It does look legit. I just think, like a lot of early Mustangs, several things have been changed including a lot of the unique K Code items.