I used quotation marks around the “1964.5” because although they’re often referred to as that, the Mustangs built before September 24, 1964 were sold and registered as 1965 models, although there’s never any reference to their model year on the ads or brochures, unlike the 1965 models built after that date. And these early Mustangs are different in a number of ways, most notably their use of the 170 CID six and 260 CID v8. But perusing the “1964.5” brochure at oldcarbrochures.com, I came across something I’d never heard of before, and find rather odd: optional 15″ wheels and tires. Really?
There it is: “15” Super Sport Tires and Wheels”, available only with the Handling Package. Unfortunately, it doesn’t say what the tire size is. What’s rather odd about this is that this 15″ tire/wheel combo is not available on the later-production 1965 Mustang, or any subsequent models until…? I don’t think 15 inchers were available until 1969 or so, when the 60 Series tires came out. The standard wheels and tires on these gen1 Mustangs were 13″ inches for the sixes, and all V8s (including the GT) used a 14″ with rather petite 6.95×14 tires.
Even the legendary Shelby GT 350 used 14″ ten-spoke mag wheels, and the tires were still the puny little 6.95x14s. The tread on these tires was all of 4.3″ wide, as seen on this one with original spec Goodyear Blue Streaks.
So did any “1964.5” Mustangs really get delivered with these mythical “Super Sport” (a Firestone designation) 15 inch tires and wheels? Or was this a brain fart that never actually became available?
It seems this is something of a mystery in the Mustang world…
http://www.mustangandfords.com/featured-vehicles/mump-1203-1964-hi-po-mustang-road-test/
I did some googling, but didn’t come up with this article. It does explain it quite well; Ford obviously intended to make them available, but just didn’t act on it, for one reason or another.
Fun Fact: when you ordered a ’63 or ’64 Galaxie with the 427, you got 15″ wheels. The problem was that the wheelcovers for Galaxies were all 14″. The solution was that Ford re-produced 1956 Mercury 15″ wheelcovers and bolted the three prong spinner from the wire wheel covers over the Mercury emblem in the center.
’56 Mercury version
Beautiful car apart from the Continental kit,I’d love to go to a drive in cinema in it dressed in 50s clothes.
Despite many years of car shows I have never seen a 260 Mustang and never knew about the 15″ wheels.
The 260 wasn’t that rare. All V-8s with 2bbl carbs were 260s until September and all 4bbl cars were either D-Code 210 hp or K-Code 271 hp 289s.
Thanks Mark I shall keep looking.
It would have to be for racing homologation wouldnt it? I bet it is mentioned in the FIA papers.
Kind of like the 15 inch base wheels that were listed and photographed for the 1984 Corvette, but never offered.
And the black, full-vented ’86 Taurus L grille.
Interesting, never seen that. Is there a back story or is it just bad photo editing of the brochure?
There is the biggest brochure “never made it”, the 1990 Beretta convertible.
Another “never made it” featured in a brochure is the 1975 Oldsmobile Toronado hardtop we see in the circled picture. A recycled 1974 picture or some pre-production prototype? Another car mystery…
The 1970 Chevrolet accessories brochure shows a Monte Carlo convertible.
Well, I’ll be dog-goned! Indeed, it does!
Very elegant, and very Eldorado light.
The 1st gen Montes were fading due to rust by my high school years. But, a few were around in the early ’80s parking lots. The guys always removed the skirts from the skirt cars – they wanted them seen as more brawn than brougham.
Very, very Eldorado, which is why it probably was nixed if it ever came up as a real idea.
I have an old Car & Driver or Road & Track magazine with a full length article discussing the special police version of the first-generation Taurus. That grille was apparently part of the police package.
The most info I could find is in this thread:
http://www.taurusclub.com/forum/124-taurus-sable-general-discussion/213394-1986-taurus-base-ribbed-grille.html
“Okay, so in Taurus: The Making of the Car that Saved Ford, pg 243, it talks about how some marketing research showed they should put that grille in the lower models (probably to help appeal to the LTD crowd, the ones who wanted the dated look). Veraldi said they weren’t going with it, and that the research was wrong, so they didn’t go with it.
This was between February and July 1985 (shortly before Job 1), so they would have had pre-production cars out and that shot would probably have been for the research team, or just an early proof-reading brochure.”
It’s also stated that the cop versions had a bodycolor grille with the oval vent in the middle, plus extra slots on either side.
The model in the 1st pic looks way overdressed for a Baby Boomer car. I thought they were supposed to dress only a little nicer than potential customers, yet she looks like a Cadillac Courtesan.
The only problem is, as others have noted, the Mustang wasn’t really a “Baby Boomer car” in its first year.
At the time of its debut, the oldest boomers were only 18; they may have dreamed of the Mustang, but it’s likely that few had the cash to buy one.
What’s interesting is to compare the “1964.5” brochure with the later 1965 brochure; there’s already a marked transition to more youthful, casual models. The 1964.5 really does send some mixed messages, and very much reflects the consciousness pre-Beatles and all. A big change happened in a very short time.
I too am firmly in the camp of “THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 1964 1/2 MUSTANG!” They were introduced early and sold as 1965s in an extended model year.
FWIW I’d like to thank CC for doing a better job of covering 50 years of Mustang than my beloved HotRod Magazine did. Their April 2014 issue features the 50th Anniversary of the Hemi and barely mentions the Mustang.
15 in wheels on a 65? What were they supposed to have looked like? Personally I like the hubcap hanging on my office wall. One of my favorite wheel covers of all time.
The MT article shows a car with naked steelies and notes that Ford was “unsure” what hubcap would be supplied with the 15″s. I wonder if they were already chickening out…
They were all titled as ’65s, but there were dozens of minor differences and some major ones. The aforementioned 170 and 260 engines only scratch the surface.
Some of the others included, but were not limited to, non-adjustable passenger seat, 2-speed blower instead of 3, colour keyed door locks instead of bright, smaller Auto T-handle, different sized “Mustang” script on the fender, even the hood was different. Early ones had a bevel in the notched area near the headlights. The biggest differences were in ones that the had generators, as opposed to the optional and later standard alternator. The wiring harness was completely different, different and larger horns, a vented core support, brake light switch in Master Cylinder instead of inside car on brake pedal.
A horn switch from a generator car won’t fit an alternator one. The list goes on and on. And to complicate matters, there was no hard and fast cut-off date for the transition to the true ’65.
It depended on when they ran out of individual items, and in which plant, Metuchen NJ, or Dearborn, or later , San Jose.
So unofficially, the 64.5 designation is needed to differentiate these early cars.
I agree. Given the changes, they really should have called them 1964s.
Running changes during model years are not unusual. Some are major, some are minor. For example my 87 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme (307 V8) had a four speed auto BUT the shift quadrant was only marked with 3 speeds and no overdrive. My dad bought the car used and thought perhaps the original transmission had gone bad and been replaced with a four speed. The service department at the local GM dealer informed him that the overdrive auto was a running model year change that resulted when GM realized they wouldn’t meet CAFE without it.
Sure the dashboard changed (good thing, the original was hideous) sure engines changed. But I still hold that it was an extended model year.
To my reading of things, the half year designation was another way of making the Mustang launch completely standout. With models being normally designated per ‘model year’, putting the half in there added a bit of urgency or implied something extra special about this new vehicle. That’s not really news to the CC commentariat, but this marketing ploy seems to have seeped into the official model designation. Its interesting to me that they were all titled 1965.
The half-year designation wasn’t applied at the time, though. It’s something that the enthusiast community came up with after the fact.
It wasn’t a change or 2, it was dozens, there are more differences between an early and late ’65 than between ’65-’66.
No they are not all titled as 65’s at that point in time some states did not know what to do with a vehicle introduced so far before the normal new model year introduction so there are cars out there with titles that say 1964.
All they had to do was look at the VIN, it began with “5”, hence a 1965.
Well, to be fair to Hot Rod, they are all about drag racing (or at least were the last time I saw one), and the Hemi has powered every funny car and top fueler since time immemorial. Maybe the division of labor is to let Motor Trend handle the Mustang anniversary.
Despite the changes, and given the staggered nature of the changes, I’d lean toward the idea that there is no ‘64.5. As a major pioneer in moving away from strict September model year introductions, I suppose it feels more natural to recognize the ‘64.5. GM truly did away with the traditional September model launch with the X cars. They could not wait to introduce the “First Chevy of the ’80s,” I believe, in spring ’79.
Ford ran into some trouble with the FTC when they introduced the ’76 Capri II in 1974. The regs provide that a model year can only be sold after January 1 of the preceding year. That meant that ’76s could not be sold before 1/1/75.
Chrysler ran into the same issue with the “Suddenly It’s 1960” campaign for the ’57 Plymouth.
I’ve got four of those on my ’68 Mustang. Why? They look better than the ’68 hubcaps, and I found a good looking set cheap at a swap meet in 1991. Car came to me rough on steel wheels with no hubcaps.
Same reason I have ’67 window cranks in the car – look better than the ’68 and the only Mustangs I found in boneyards to pick at here in the early nineties were 1967 models.
Little details like the wheelcovers & stainless steel interior trim (’67) vs. woodgrain trim (’68) are why I slightly prefer the ’67 to the ’68.
The optional floor console in the ’67 is prettier too as it’s chrome and not padded vinyl.
The wheelcover Dan has in his office is my favorite Mustang wheelcover and comes off my favorite year Mustang at that.
Can’t help with this mystery, but it is fun to see this options list. My pop caught Mustang Fever in 1964 and bought an “early” 1965, so this brochure would have covered his car. Though he had it when I was born, I don’t remember it at all (I do vaguely remember its replacement, a 1968 Cougar). He loved that Mustang (might have been his favorite of all the cars he ever had), and I know he enjoyed the performance, price and personalization that made these so popular. Looking at the option list, I can’t help but play the guessing game on exactly how his was equipped. Some things I know for certain: his was yellow hardtop with a black interior, automatic (no console), 289 V8 (not the hi-po one), and it had the A/C and the wheel covers with the knock-off hubs. All this I know from pics I’ve seen of the car. I’m guessing that it also had tinted glass, power steering and brakes, AM radio and I’m sure some of the niceties like a lockable glove compartment. Like so many buyers of these cars, the Mustang felt like it was made just for him, even though I’m sure he just bought it right off the lot. He would have been 38 with two kids and it was his first “special” car, and it definitely made a lasting impression. My older brother and sister (who were old enough to fully remember it) still fondly recall the Mustang, and I know my mother tried to drive it instead of her Buick every chance she got.
Sounds like a nice car; I rather like the yellow, and it wasn’t very common. I wouldn’t assume he bought it off the lot, since Mustang production was running way behind demand. Most folks had to wait up to eight weeks to get theirs, so ordering them to personal preference was quite common, as it generally was back then.
Paul, you called it right! I had the chance to ask my mother if she remembered when Pop got the Mustang, and her immediate response was “oh yes, I loved that car!” Turns out he did order it, and really enjoyed picking out all the options and features for the car. She said they waited months for the car, and it finally arrived in “the height of Summer.” I also learned a family “car story” I’d never heard before: the day they took delivery of the Mustang, my mother, father, brother and sister all went cruising. They turned on the A/C AND rolled down all the windows, so they could hear the engine and wave to people. They drove all over New Orleans, visiting friends, having fun. My mother said it was like Mardi Gras in July, with people shouting, pointing, waving, smiling–and my family all had a blast. The Mustang really was a phenomenon back then!
No pun intended, but I’d like to hear more about the “studio sonic sound system.”
Surround Sound Monophonic 1.5
Googlephonic stereo with a moonrock needle? It’s okay for a *car* stereo…
+1.5 😉
It was a reverb unit.
On the same topic of “photographed but never produced”: The 1997 Ford F-250 light-duty, SuperCab with 8′ bed. (Check the 7-lug wheels.) Plenty of F-250 light-duties were made between 1997 and 2003 (after 1999 they were labeled “F-150 7700″ on the tailgate), but all had a 139″ wheelbase, meaning either Regular Cab/8′ bed or SuperCab/6.5′ bed. After 2004 (and until 2011), all F-150 SuperCab/8′ beds were HD models, but the aero/”jellybean” style only ever offered them as regular 5-lug F-150’s.
This how a 21st Century truck should look, lean trim and aero, the G1 Taurus of pickups. Those bluff-fronted, locomotive-faced abominations they make now are cringeworthy IMHO.
I could care less about how blocky the fronts are (although I do love the 97-03 Fords most, having grown up in a ’98 F-250). What I don’t care for is how much the bedsides have been raised up. Shame on Dodge for making them taller in 2002, but shame on Ford too, for continuing the trend in 2004.
CC effect! I saw one of those F-150s with the “7700” badge on Tuesday and wondered what the heck it was.
We had a ’98 F-250 light-duty from 2001 to 2012, the longest we’d ever had a vehicle. It was the first vehicle I drove, the one I got my license in, the first one I got into a fender bender, the one we took on all the road trips that involved pulling something…ah, that was great.
But more than anything, I can spot those funky 7-lug wheels, on either a 250 or a 150-7700 from 200 yards away. When the 2004 models came out, Ford went back to some boring steel rims, indistinguishable from the standard 6-lugs until you took off the bolt cover. It wasn’t until 2011, with new aluminum rims, that the HDs were noticeable again.
The lead picture (ad) is very elegant. It reminds me of some ’63 – ’65 Riviera ads. Looking at the ad and option list, they really were pushing this as a miniature Thunderbird. A decent amount of ’64 – ’66 T-Bird in the profile.
This is a fold out back cover ad from the May 1965 Reader’s Digest. A few points…
*Reader’s Digest car ads tended to follow the model year. By late in the model year (Febr – Aug) the ads tend be for options available across divisions, models, etc. Early in the model year, they are model specific – like this Mustang ad. Unusual for so late in the model year.
*I’m a little surprised to see the reference to Total Performance at the bottom of the ad. I always thought that was a 1964 slogan.
Opening the back cover for you….
That green Shelby GT 350 is pretty much the perfect car. If I had a solid 289 Fastback that needed paint I would definitely do a GT 350 clone with it.
Used 65-66 Mustangs were all over HS parking lots in the late 60s, til late 70’s. By then, they started to become collectible.
This is where the tag ‘Boomer’s car’ came from, not when it was brand new.
anomaly is spelled wrong
Thanks Typos R Us.
Spell checker, you didn’t capitalize your sentence or include a period.
The word ‘anomaly’ is spelled incorrectly. Spell checker, your grammar and syntax is lacking.