Beater Mustangs were once such a common sight; no more. So it’s a trip back in time to see one like this still wild on the streets. And it does evokes a few thoughts and musings.
Having just steeped myself in the Continental Mark II, the first thing that comes to mind are the obvious similarities between these two, especially in the middle section and their hips. And of course the long hood. It was a styling theme that would become a Ford trademark for several decades.
We should really add the second step of that transition, as the ’58 Thunderbird was a critical link between these two. Isn’t fair to say that the Thunderbird was just a cheaper Mark II, and the Mustang a cheaper Thunderbird? It makes the Mustang seem a lot more obvious and rather less innovative or daring, as is often portrayed.
And just like the Mark would undoubtedly have withered even more when the ’58 T-Bird came along, so the Mustang obviously took a lot of thunder out of the ‘Bird, in its incarnation at the time. It had to come back as a much cheaper car in 1977 in order to revive its spirits.
In 1967, when the second generation Mustang came out, it looked…so different! The changes were what the eye gravitated to; the new chunkier, more deeply sculpted and exaggerated front end.
And the same went for the rear end, which had all the same things done to it. And of course, the fastback did have a new roof line. No one back then would ever mistake a ’67 or ’68 for a ’65 or ’66.
Nowadays? All I can see is the similarities. And those are mighty obvious.
The ’67 used a whole lot of the gen1 one body; stating with the floor pans, which were actually used all the way through 1973. The whole coupe and convertible body center sections are obviously the same, except for the changes to the door outer stampings.
Only the front and rears were a bit wider, and track on both axles went up some; 3″ on the front, 2.5″ on the rear. It can be deceptive seeing just how Ford integrated that extra width unto the same main body. The rear fender clearly bulges out quite a bit more, and so does the front, if not quite as obviously. Why am I stating the obvious? Maybe because it was a puzzle I couldn’t quite unravel when I was thirteen.
Sitting in a ’67 Mustang should have made it clear how little had changed, if one avoided the new dash and steering wheel. Which was easier said than done, with that odd elongated safety hub. But everything else was practically identical except for the door trim details. That carpeted tunnel sure does look a bit bare without a console. Yes, it was optional, along with just about every other amenity.
At least it’s got the 289, backed by the C4 automatic. Enough to peel some rubber, with the right technique. As every kid who had access to one learned. Does it have power steering? I give it about 50-50 odds.
Despite all of Ford’s efforts to keep the Mustang freshened up some, sales were in serious decline, although starting from very lofty numbers. 681k were sold in the very long 1965 MY; 608k in ’66. That dropped to 472k in ’67. That would still be enough to be the best selling passenger car today. By 1968, sales were down to 317. And so on, until they melted away to 125 k in 1972.
This survivor looks like a tired old trail horse. But it’s reasonably intact, and quite rust-free, at least from the outside.
What does the future hold for this one? Maybe to soldier on as is. Or maybe to fall into the loving hands of someone who will spend money and time on it. On a plain-Jane coupe? Is Mustang fever still going?
I know you know how I roll, so you know I’d miss seeing this beater Mustang if it were to get gussied up and become a Sunday driver. There’s plenty of shiny ’67 Mustangs corralled away in garages. This one is still free; a rare wild Mustang. Beat it, before you get caught too!
There’s a guy that works near where I do in Columbia Maryland that has a brown one of these in just about the same shape. I still see it occasionally, but I think he’s driving it less and less. I did not know about CC when I talked to the guy a few years ago, if I had, I would’ve gotten some pictures of the car to share. When I did talk to him though, he said (at the time) that it was his daily driver. What surprised me at the time was how much smaller it is than my 2007 Mustang, which was inspired in its design by this car for the most part. Like his Mustang, mine has been retired from DD service, although I did take it down there yesterday. And that long hood? Yeah, you get used to that. It still throws me off when I drive my new CIvic and pull into a space, leaving about 2 feet or more between the front of the new car and the curb. ;o)
Yes I used to see that Mustang driving about. It was sort of a chocolate milkshake brown. Columbia MD and Laurel MD have a lot of curbside classics. If you go to the Columbia Boston Market there is a 1960’s Lincoln Continental Sedan that frequently parks there. It is faded gold with regular tags(non historic) and looks to be a semi daily driver.
It is interesting to point to the similarities to the Mark II and Tbird. From your article the other day, we see the Mark II as almost a gift from the Ford family to their rich friends, as the business case for it wasn’t there.
On the other hand, at least as told by Iacocca’s book, the Mustang has to be gotten past Henry III. This was Iacocca’s genius, in getting a price point right so it could really take off. Repackaging the image of a rich man’s toy into something obtainable by the common man.
Its a miracle if that is the original Mustang gas cap.
They had a tendency to walk away for mysterious reasons;-)
Great find and excellent post. My main thought is that though I realize there’s a big difference between the two cars, I hope this Mustang is never subjected to the “custom” / taggable paint job of yesterday’s Rambler. 🙂
I’m not entirely impartial here (because my wife had a ’67 Mustang for many years), but to me the sculpted front and rear ends are a huge improvement over the earlier Mustangs. Despite their near-ubiquity, I never tire of looking at the details of these cars, but until now I never concentrated on the similarities between the Mustang and the Continental/Thunderbird.
Whenever I see beater Mustangs like this I always think of a man who owned one near where I grew up. I remember him pulling into parking spaces and swinging the driver’s door open at full force, whether a car was parked next to him or not. That sharp door edge would leave quite a dent. From that I learned my lesson never to park next to old Mustangs — better safe than sorry.
Agree about the 67 being an improvement over earlier models.
The 67 was the first Mustang I thought looked great and I still feel that way, whereas I’m still not attracted to the earlier ones. The fastback models look fantastic.
And, I don’t know why, but I always loved the steering wheels Ford used in the late 60’s.
The ’67 Mustang has always been my favorite. Subtle and elegant changes that made the iconic original even better. Loved the concave taillight treatment and the redesigned instrument panel looked so much better. Major improvements this year was the availability of the 390 and real factory A/C, with outlets in the dash. The optional turn signal indicators imbedded in the top of the hood were also cool.
The option sheet on these was a mile long and stripper versions were quite plain. But check the right boxes and you got a nice package. This year was the high water mark for at least the next 20 years.
Several Gen 1 and 2 Mustangs in beater condition graced my high school lot 20 years ago, and it’s true that you don’t see them as commonly anymore – but you know which car has replaced it as a beloved beater for today’s youth?
The 5.0! 5.0s from the 80s and 90s had all but disappeared and are now in vogue again for budding enthusiasts – at least where I live in CA.
This is from ’68…so same generation, just with a really catchy jingle.
And it must be remembered that starting in ’67, there was Camaro (and in mid-year, Firebird) to further divvy up the sports compact pie…
How well I remember that catchy jingle, it was on TV a lot in 1968, I just loved it. I can still sing the words today. One of Ford’s best ad ideas.
I like this one even better – the woman can overcome the handicap of holding a Ph.D. degree by driving a Mustang!
This is hilarious! “How much fizz there was in Liz…” “The PhD. was pure TNT!” How did we ever keep a straight face and fall for this stuff? But that jingle, I just love it to this day. I replayed it several times, singing along, it sucks you in! Thanks for posting, I hadn’t thought of it in years.
I recall that Ford had a whole series of ads for the Mustang secretary specials with the provocative title “Six and the Single Girl.” It was a riff on the title of Helen Gurley Brown’s book and the movie inspired by it, “Sex and the Single Girl.”
Is that the Johnny Mann singers doing that jingle? They’re probably best known for their radio work (KHJ and many others) but they probably did commercial jingles and such as well
I’m not certain, but starting with their 1969 model year advertising Ford had a group of wholesome young Americans known as “The Going Thing” perform in their commercials. If this works right it should take you to a YouTube video of a commercial featuring them followed by a TV special that they performed in.
I’ve heard that the Carpenters, Karen and Richard, had signed onto be members of “The Going Thing,” and as part of their compensation they each got new Mustangs, but they ended up backing out at the last minute and had to give the cars back to Ford.
The only thing wrong with this car as a beater is that a car in this condition always had huge rust holes all over the quarter panels and at various points in the doors and front fenders. (At least in my northern climate. And let’s just forget about the torque boxes and floors.) I still look at a car like this and think “$400”. I guess I’m showing my age.
I will agree with Eric703 that the 67-68 was a big improvement. At the time, I had never perceived the increase in width in the second generation, but now that I know about it the changes are obvious. That added width makes it look so much more substantial.
$400? In 1975 my brother acquired a 66 Mustang 289, 4 speed. He got it in trade for a rug! The rug new was worth $35. He drove it for a year, crunched the right front fender and traded it even for a Milwaukee worm drive circular saw. Different times.
In California there wasn’t much rust, but by ’74-75, I recall that early Mustang 6’s could be found for $500, nicer V8’s or even GT’s for $1000. Pretty common as a first or second car (succeeding a $200 beater) for high school or college students. I still see a few in this condition, on the roads today. But almost always notch backs, a few fastback, never convertibles. Thanks Paul for the astute comments about the similarities between the ’67-68 and the earlier style; as a 10 year old I though the new ’67 looked fat and bloated compared to the iconic first body style. But now, it looks like a pretty subtle refresh to me.
Very interesting how a certain Ford DNA flows through these cars. Quite different, yet quite the same.
The rear quarter side glass in the ’58 Bird looks like it might have come from the Mark II parts bin. I never thought of it before that the ’58 Bird might just be Ford thinking we can sell a high style luxury coupe to American, but we overshot the price point.
I’m very mixed about the ’58 Bird. As a kid on a bike ride around 1972, I could spot a beater version parked beside a house. Scariest looking car I’d ever seen. While it was black with a white top, Paul’s photo still takes me back to the moment quite vividly.
To me, the ’65 – ’68 Mustangs seem heavily influenced by the ’64-’66 “Flair” Thunderbirds of the times. The details are fairly removed from the Mark II, but the car did play a big part in America’s love with the upscale coupe was being ever refined until GM seemed to get it just right in terms of size and price with the upscale versions of the ’73-’77 Colonnade cars.
Two things about the interior that make it look so familiar: early Mustangs rarely had the optional console and within a few years the carpeting, regardless of original color, often faded to that greenish hue seen here.
My teen-aged cousin with a first job got a new Mustang 200-six coupe in Frost Turquoise in 67 and it seemed a bit tighter and more substantial than the original. Her girlfriend got a new fastback in light blue metallic at the same time – this nice restyle was in good demand in the fall of 66. Too bad her younger brother totaled the coupe within months. Nice that it was later replaced by the handsome new 68 Javelin with black vinyl top on red with the V8 – a really sweet car.
The Squarebird’s styling elements very influential at the time and the Mustang was viewed as an affordable way for the masses to capture some of that glamour. The fact that all 65s came standard as pillarless hardtops with full carpeting, full wheelcovers, floor shifts, etc. for $2368 (do we all remember those ads and billboards?) and that for a few additional bucks you could glam them up even more – what a great formula. Thanks for this morning treat.
I’ve always liked these kind of cars, cars that are original, never been restored, that are still driven today.
67 was the point where you could tell the hardtop began to take a backseat in design to the fastback with each subsequent update, with the exception to the side sculpting it’s pure carryover, and at certain angles the more fast and angular front and rear ends end up clashing with the more upright 50s inspired roofline. The 65 looked better balanced as the hardtop, the 67, while it’s hard to fault it just doesn’t strike a chord like the new fastback roof does, and with the Camaro’s sleek take on the Mustang’s hardtop shape, it looks dowdy by comparison.
Having said that Ford never got the hardtop right on the Mustang after 67-68, I may consider it too blocky on those years but it was still attractive, 69 it looked misproportioned and in 71 even more so. The shared structures with the Cougar probably played a big role in that, as the shapes both seemed better suited to the Mercury cousin.
I always knew the junior Tbird style connection but never thought of the Mark II comparison, the greenhouse is practically copy/paste!
The ’67 used a whole lot of the gen1 one body; stating with the floor pans, which were actually used all the way through 1970.
Through 73 actually, just with big bulging doors
I knew that, thanks to you, but I typoed the wrong number. Fixed now.
I just completed a restoration of a 1968 coupe. It was a three-year father-son project.
We started with a beater. Unlike this 1967 car, it had been monkeyed with by a succession of careless and/or underfinanced owners. As a CA car however, it was mostly free of rust, and was a good foundation for a project.
Yes, coupes like this are restored all the time. They are a great project–simple and sturdy, parts availability is excellent. Though I spent about $25k to make a $20k car, with some careful planning and willingness to use cheaper materials, it could have been a break-even proposition. In the world of restoring cars, that is a pretty good deal.
Though I have posted it before, here is a brief clip illustrating the restoration process:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ChYeV-bWjk
As a daily driver, my son loves it. For me, I find the interior ridiculously cramped, the lack of overdrive gearing (3000 rpm at 70mph) almost intolerable, and the sound of the 302 V8 intoxicating.
Wow, nice job! I noticed from those early shots that your car started out the same light metallic green color as the 68 coupe I owned in 1979. Mine with the six/3 speed was undoubtedly not nearly as much fun to drive as the one you have now. 🙂
Yes, it was light green metallic (Lime Gold in Ford marketing speak). As one who most appreciates stock cars, I tried to convince my son to put it back to original, but he would have none of that! Since it’s his car, I didn’t fight it! What teenager doesn’t want Shelby stripes after all?
That color was also on my 67 Galaxie convertible. I lived with it on two cars for 3 years. I hated it then. It would still not be my choice of all the colors offered, but it has at least moved into slightly positive territory with me in recent years.
Yep, Lime Gold. My best friend’s parents, from high school in 1968-1971, had a basic Lime Gold 68 with no console. Didn’t care for the color then and still don’t. Today I have a Pebble Beige 68, uncommon color, along with the console and hood mounted turn signals. Didn’t spend anywhere close to $25K to restore though.
Lime gold, how I hated that puke green color. My father’s ’67 was that color, with a matching interior. It cast a sickly pallor on everything. Still can’t stand it.
A car very similar to this was my parents choice for a good safe car for a teenager to drive as his first. Little did they know. It was a ’68 model in burgundy over white vinyl.
It had a high compression 302/ 4bbl and automatic. There was no power steering and manual four wheel drum brakes. I drove it with my ultra long legs wrapped around a great big steering wheel and parallel parked it at school every day. It was quite a scary beast to drive in rain or snow. I drove this used car into the ground in the Washington DC suburbs way before anyone called it special!
I remember my 68 as being one of the only cars that 6 foot tall averagely proportioned me could not drive with the seat all the way back. It had a much longer seat travel than most other cars I have driven. I suppose that someone could have mounted the track farther back than stock. But without the seat a few notches forward from full back, I couldn’t get the clutch to the floor.
Yes the track must have been modified. I am 5’11” and would VERY MUCH appreciate some more legroom. I wouldn’t mind about 2-3 inches more headroom either.
I always thought the I st generation Mustang looked the best, especially in fastback trim.
Since patina seems to be all the rage right now, a quick clear coat job would put this CC it in style.
All Fords in 1967 used that foam crash pad in the steering wheel. As I recall it was a one year only design that was supposed to make up for the lack of collapsable columns in all 67 Fords. I was messing around in the family’s ’67 Mercury and discovered that it comes right off with a 1/4 turn and twists back on, like removing the cover of a blank DVD storage container.
How I disliked those steering wheel hub pads, my father had a basic ’67 Mustang, seemed your arms were always getting caught on the thing. I remember seeing them referred to as “flower pots,” an apt description. You’re right, they were one year only, they became elongated and flattened out for ’68.
Wow that’s a helluva find! ‘Stangs of this vintage and in this condition were commonplace when I was in HS (late 80s/early 90s) and if something like this was your first car, you could do FAR worse. In TN tho, you’d be fighting at least some rust. Beneath that patina crust, this looks straight and cancer-free.
I wouldn’t touch that paint outside of resolving any decay issues and clearing it. The interior needs help, specifically that broken dash pad. The biggest eyesore is the wheels/tires. As that blue ‘stang shows, even a set of aged cragars and RWLs gives a worn car an appealing look, vs something that could be sitting in a scrapyard.
It wouldn’t take much freshening to make this car a driver that you could enjoy on a regular basis.
Testing the comment notification system again. I prefer the ’65-66, myself – cleaner styling.
Comment reply test.
There was a white ’67 coupe in similar shape to this in my previous neighborhood. The paint was a little less crusty and it still had its hubcaps, but it had a huge dent in one front fender, looked like it rarely if ever got washed, and had a general aura of grunginess about it. Honest grunginess though. I have photos of it somewhere…
Always interesting to see a survivor version of a car that would have, in most cases, been restored, or resto-modded, or straight up hot rodded.
I’ve been seeing a 1968 coupe here in the Witch City the past few months. It’s red w/wire wheel hubcaps & looks very nice. I hope that the owner puts it away for the winter instead of subjecting it to the weather.
Also, I remember one of the reasons why my father bought a Barracuda instead of a Mustang for his first ever car in 1968, despite the fact that we had a relative working for Ford; he didn’t like bucket seats & the Barracuda had a bit more room in back.
I’ve read that the story about the Mustang being a mini-Thunderbird goes directly to Henry Ford II, and while he got his small Mustang-Bird mostly in 1967, it was really the Cougar. Supposedly, while the Mustang was Iacocca, the Cougar was all Henry. It makes sense since performance was still the biggest seller in the sixties. But Henry would win out in the end when performance died and brougham took over completely in the seventies.
Regardless, it’s nice to see a throwback beater sixties’ Mustang. Those cars were everywhere in the seventies, in pretty much the same shape. Did anyone else notice the rather cheap looking (but new) seat upholstery? At least the guy tried to use original pattern material which indicates he’s trying to keep the original vibe going. Usually, with beaters, monetary considerations override originality, and maybe the owner actually intends to do a full restoration when his money situation improves.
Great catch indeed Paul and thank you for the photos showing the differences in model years. I wonder where the front plate went to and I like the 1990 San Francisco Parking Permit which tells us a bit, but not all about this vehicle. So, is this the original paint and how Fords from this era usually weather on the West Coast?
Makes me think of my ’67 Cougar, electric blue with Starsky and Hutch stripe, 189 3 speed stick.
The sales decline in 1967 wouldn’t necessarily be attributed to the Mustang, itself…..that year, the Camaro and Firebird would cut into its sales. To me, the Camaro really sort of positioned itself as a more brawny, manly sort of car (maybe to separate itself somewhat from the base Mustang’s rep as a secretary’s or chick’s car), and the Firebird/ Trans Am really went for the more macho image (perhaps most evident in the metalhead/ mullethead/ meathead stereotype that the 70’s iterations seemed to bear out).
I always wondered why GM didn’t position the f-bodies closer to the single woman’s secretary special focus of the Mustang. That’s really where the meat of the ponycar sales went, even in the go-go, macho-musclecar sixties. Frankly, those low-performance Mustangs were a lot easier to drive than the GM products. OTOH, the Barracuda was even more driver-friendly, and it was always dragging up the rear in sales.
Everyone rags on the Pinto-based Mustang II, but it really hit the female target dead center (Farrah’s Cobra II in Charlie’s Angels certainly helped) and was quite a good seller, at least for a while.
Nice to see a survivor out there, being used as it was meant to be .
-Nate
Good looking car – its neglected appearance gives it a nice rebel vibe.
I think the 67 Mustang styling was a real improvement over the first generation. I remember seeing a 64/65 Mustang for the first time close up, and although I had no idea at the time just how closely based on the Falcon it was (and our family had owned a Falcon), that’s pretty much the aura it gave off. I remember feeling immediately disillusioned with all the hype that suggested Mustang was a sports car – it looked flimsy, cheap, and ‘domestic’ in the worst sense of the word to my cynical teenage eyes. The ’66 fastback looked great, but it took the ’67 restyle to give the base hardtop at least a little styling attitude.
Would be nice to completely upgrade the car under the skin but leave the exterior “patina” as is. Make one unique “resto-mod”
My wife’s 1967 Mustang…bought new by her parents…was given to her sister when several years old. It is probably the same color as the featured car was, originally. It has a Six and automatic.
It has been parked in a Pennsylvania barn for decades. “It was running when it was parked.” Having been thoroughly inoculated with the legendary Eastern road salt, it has been steadily devoured by the tin worm, even as it has been sitting immobile in that barn. When I last looked it over in the 1980s, the drum brakes weren’t holding any pedal pressure. Rotted out brake cylinders, or rusted-out brake lines? Does it even MATTER?
The same people who claim they’ll restore it have neglected it to its current condition. Sad…
There is an old guy driving a beater 65 coupe around the east side of San Jose. Filled with a clutter of all kinds of stuff. Saw it a few times in my locale. At work there’s a guy with a beater, “Frankenstein” style, you know different color doors, deck lid, etc., ’65 convertible.These were part of the inspiration of me getting my beater ’70 coupe. Two years later I spent a lot of time, some money on my coupe. Drove it around for a year, found out how uninspired these cars really were and sold it. The two other beaters I mentioned are still around, I saw them last week! My first ’66 Mustang coupe, a V8, four speed cost me 300.00 in 1975. My build up of my ’70 was detailed in my blog.
I had a dark blue metallic ’67 coupe as my daily driver from ’79-”80. It was very sharp in that color, but the 289’s torque made it a handful on curves and in rain or snow. Also, it would stall in wet weather and be hard to start, and I never could fix it. Early on, it needed thick plates welded in stress points under the floor, gratis northeast winters.
For me, ’67 redo made the early body look a bit awkward, and I still feel that way. the original was lighter looking and had the general proportions down, but not the details. It looked slightly pinched and tight. Recent models hearken back to the second gen version in my eyes.
Something I noticed is that there was a change to the roofline – it has been extended to created a recessed rear window. It looks like the window itself is in the same position however.