From the moment I saw this barn-find Mustang, I knew I had a duty to share it with you. It’s well known that the Mustang had so many configurations to choose from that the chances of finding two that were identical was very slim. And that’s before the modding community got involved of course. Unmolested Mustangs are getting rarer by the day and there’s nothing we can do about it but buy and preserve the unmolested ones we want. And I think a lot of you are going to enjoy this particular one.
The reason I say that is simple: This is the polar opposite of an overly powerful restomod with a million-horsepower twincharged V8 painted in some overly bright pearlescent paint. This is just a good, honest unmolested 1965 Mustang hardtop in Springtime Yellow with a black interior. It has a vinyl roof, which is its only attempt at being something it really isn’t, and an indicated (and believable) 23,716 miles.
Things only get better when you open the hood, there to greet you is the 200 c.i. Thriftpower straight six developing a little less than the 120 horsepower that it did when it left the factory, and delivering it through a slushy three-speed automatic.
The seller seems to either be incredibly stoic in his advertising, limiting himself to assuring us that it’s a “Barn find”, and “1 owner, little old lady, Only drove to church on Sunday.”, which personally strikes me as terms that are somewhat mutually exclusive, unless the little old lady bought it back in the ‘60s and the inheritors of her estate just kinda forgot about the yellow hardtop in her garage.
The seller has done a tuneup, installed a new radiator and a battery, among other things. The great thing about it however is that it’s a great example of the Mustangs people actually bought in the ‘60s. It’s all well and good with trying to make every mustang a GT/Shelby/Whathaveyou but that doesn’t mean that all of them must go through that process.
If you want to save this particular Mustang from such a fate, take $8,200 of your hard-earned dollars and click here. Then go to Eugene and park it on the street for a while; it’s not like it’ll look out of place.
Somebody tell me why the valve cover is so nice, but the air cleaner is so ratty. Smells fishy to me.
Yeah, I’d be interested in hearing whatever tale is behind that clean valve cover, too. It’s one of those things that would have been much better if they’d left it in the original, grungy condition (like the air cleaner).
I wonder if that’s a ‘64.5 or a ‘real’ 1965. Regardless, if its provenance can be verified, seems like a very nice Mustang of the everyday sort which is what mostly prowled the highways when they were new.
It’s a 1965; the 200ci I6 was introduced as a replacement for the 170ci I6 at that point.
The 200 wasn’t available as an option in the 1964 1/2’s? It was the 170 or a V8, with nothing in between?
Right. The 200 wasn’t available on the “1964.5”, presumably because it didn’t exist yet. It arrived in the fall of 1964.
The first step V8 was the two-barrel 260 V8, then a 210 hp 4v 289, and of course the 271 hp 289. That line-up got shuffled in the fall too, when the 260 was dropped.
I would have thought that the 200 was optional right from the beginning. I never knew that it wasn’t, or if I ever did I had forgotten.
The 200 existed in 1964; it was first introduced for the ’62 Fairlane. The Encyclopedia of American Cars shows it to be a Fairlane exclusive in 1962-63, though, then available on Falcons starting in ’64. The Encyclopedia agrees that the 200 didn’t become available in Mustangs until the 1965 model year. I don’t understand why it would have been available in Falcons but not Mustangs in ’64, though. Were there production restraints? Did the ’64 1/2 Mustang just have a cobbled-together engine lineup that was thrown together quickly? Is the Encyclopedia wrong about the 200 being available in 1964 Falcons?
MCT: You (mostly) got me on this one. I’d forgotten that the 200 was available before MY 1965. But it was not available on the ’62 Fairlane; it started in 1963. And on the Falcon, in 1964.
Can’t answer your question regarding the Mustang not getting it right off the bat. Maybe the 200 was production constrained, which seems odd. But it’s hard to come up with any other reason. The 200 block was a fair bit different from the 170, since it had seven main bearings.
Maybe Ford had spare capacity on the 170 and 260 engines, and was able to ramp up the 200 and 289 for MY 1965. It’s my best guess.
Because of those extra bearings, the 200 was a lot smoother than the 170. The 170 wasn’t known for its longevity, either. Then again, neither did the first generation Falcon do well in Canada. They were terrible rusters.
“But [the 200] was not available on the ’62 Fairlane; it started in 1963. ”
You are right once again. I’m having a tough couple of days here in these ’60s engine availability discussions. This time I actually took a minute to crack open a book to confirm what I thought I knew, and still managed to get it wrong.
I see an alternator , so that makes it a , as you say, “real” ’65. That was one of the main differences between the two. Of course, all are titled as a ’65.
All have a 65 serial number but not all are titled as a 65. There was no official model year definition at that time and many clerks/states weren’t prepared for a car to be introduced that early in year previous to the official stated year. So they ended up titled as 1964s in some cases.
Looking closely you will see all the hoses have worm clamps instead of tower clamps. At 23,000 miles the coolant wouldn’t have even been changed out once. The radiator is new? The alternator is definitely much newer to the car and still incorrect for a 1965 as it has the squared off boss seen in 1969 I believe. The battery cables are cheap ones from Auto Zone where you unbolt the clamp and thread your cable in before bolting back up. Also incorrect color combination. All that, and whatever else I can’t see, would still be old, correct and on the car if it HAD 23,000 miles.
So still a nice car even without the over done embellishment by the seller. Being a six and manual steering will work against it but still clearly representative of what I saw in 1965. Top value in my book would be 6K because few want a lowly 200 six. In a show this car would get more attention from me than buggered Mustangs. The real shame would be someone buying the car to swap out the engine, drive train and suspension for an V8.
Well even if it truly had 23,000 miles on it, which I do not believe that still wouldn’t meant that someone wouldn’t have changed the hoses and belts and some other when they succumbed to age, say 30 years ago. So seeing some replacement parts on a car with that low of miles that was not sitting since it was two years old does not surprise me.
Don’t get me wrong I do not for a second beleive that this car has not had at least one trip around the clock.
I agree that the asking price is too high. I see examples in similar or better shape for $5-6K around here.
If that’s a non-original color, and being from New York, there’s a good chance there’s some bondo in the body. Call me cynical, but that engine probably needs a valve job and/or rings, as well as the tired C4 needing a rebuild, too (not to mention what kind of work the brakes or carburetor might require).
With all that, and being a typical hardtop with a six which were produced by the hundreds of thousands in that year, yeah, $6k, tops, sounds about right. I’ll say this for the guy – he was smart enough to go with original equipment whitewall tires and wheel covers.
Freakin’ eBay cars…
If you’d leave the same coolant in a car for FIFTY YEARS because it hadn’t yet reached a certain mileage interval, remind me not to buy a used car from you.
The carpet and pedal rubbers have more than 23,000 miles on them. If the seller would lie about that, what else is wrong?
Valve covers and air cleaners are easy to remove to repaint. Seen it lots of times back in the day.
The question is why the air cleaner was left as is when they went to the greater trouble of spiffing up the valve cover. The decal is available and only $6. https://www.cal-mustang.com/AIR-CLEANER-DECALS-1965-68-200-CI-Air-Cleaner-Decal-P12531C6581.aspx
Nice! As likely as someone is to butcher this Mustang, however, it would be even more inevitable if a Camaro. If you do a Google image search for “1967 base model Camaro”, very few results will actually show such a thing. Most will just show faux-SS cars.
Put a 1 in front of the 23,716 miles and you will have the truth. This habit of flippers saying that is what the speedometer says, knowing full well, it is only measures in five numerals is getting old. Then again I have heard that before Socrates became the philosopher we know he pedaled used chariots with misleading milion. So maybe the practice is an ancient as the Greeks?
Awesome find! I like that. I like cars that are as stock as possible. Whatever engine it came with from the factory should be the engine that should be powering the car. Any restomods made to the car (I believe) should be made to improve the cars performance and driveability. Think about it: what good is acceleration if you cannot decelerate? What good is power if the car isn’t made to withstand it? Whoever said “I built these cars to go, not to stop” had no concept whatsoever with safety. While it’s fun to be able to accelerate up to 100+mph, sooner or later, you’re going to need to be able to slow down to a safer, more controllable speed, and eventually stop. It’s just the way it is with driving a motorised vehicle.
leave the brakes alone
People drove cars that way back then, they can drive them that way now.
People also smoked in the doctor’s office back then too, but you don’t see that now.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-tradition/
Do whatever you feel is prudent with the brakes, Jason.
Rack and pinion steering and at at bare minimum front disks are absolute must haves for any restomod. Want original? Well, keep the old parts.
The 200, during the smoggy, go-go 1960s, developed only a little more HP than the Fox Mustang’s smaller Köln V6, and developed less than the one tuned for Europe. So it’s hard for me to wax nostalgic about these ?s.
And compounding frustration, the 200 superseded the Köln in the Fox for want of supply, because the latter was too popular an option! Only Ford’s small trucks offered the Köln consistently.
But a 1965 Mustang only tips the scales at not much more than 2500lbs.
Nice to see an unmolested one , they used to be every where .
In New York , I’d be wanting to see under carriage photos before believing the no rust statement .
I’d rock this thing in a heartbeat but $5 + K ? wow .
-Nate
THAT’s a “new radiator?”
I had one with this same powertrain. A very pleasant, smooth, if somewhat slow, weekend driver.
When I realized that I was driving my Grandpa’s 1961 Falcon underneath the car’s appeal faded somewhat.
That’s always been my problem with the first-generation Mustangs, right from the start I’ve seen them as overpriced overhyped Falcons. Remember that I was one day away from buying a new 1963 Falcon Sprint hardtop with 4-speed….
She’ll go from Barn FInd to Garage Queen in 60 seconds! I suspect every system is teetering on the edge of failure.
My 66 coupe with a 6 was a very pleasant car to drive, fingertip power steering and Cruise-o -matic made it so. Don’t forget to check the torque boxes for rust and remember the fireball that most likely will result in a rear end collision. When Lee the Creator was interviewed concerning this, his response was something like “get a modern car to drive”
Man does that interior pic bring back high school memories!
In the early 1970’s first gen Mustangs were nothing all that special, just semi-worn out 8, 9, or 10 year old used cars, used and abused, “rode hard and put away wet” by lead footed, ham fisted high school/college kids.
That car is 40-50K all day long here a definite rarity as nobody wanted a 6 out here and since every Mustang in the country was privately imported V8s were all that arrived, a collector would be all over it the mileage is irrelevant its the condition that counts.
It’s got the 200 inch six, so it’s a 1965. The 1964 1/2 models used the 170 inch six.
The 200 wasn’t available as an option in the 1964 1/2’s? It was the 170 or a V8, with nothing in between?
There was a 260 V8 in the 64.5 versions. At that time it was the only 2-barrel V8 available, the 289 was 4-barrel or Hi-Po only. But even a 164 hp 260 was 100 times better than that boat anchor six!
Without working factory A/C, power steering and the “Pony” interior package; IMO it’s worth about half the amount.
Ook oook, put a 350/350 in that thing./ sarc.
I despise these clattery, farty sounding Ford sixes. My mom had a ’66 so equipped for 21 years, and every time I got behind the wheel I cussed out the old man for his cheapness.
Real world economy on the 289 wasn’t that much worse, and you actually got bearings, suspension components and a rear axle that was durable, unlike the spindly 4-lug Falcon chassis parts.
Just because it standard in the base price didn’t mean you were supposed to order it that way.
You were supposed to cough up for the V8.
If I was dictator of the world, I would give owners of these six versions an ultimatum. Have it properly converted to 289 power (all 5-lug items) or it gets crushed. 🙂
Every thing I would want in a classic cruiser. But something tells me to run…..
Why so much hate? These were low priced transportation cars. They gave good, if not exciting service. Many still do. These are the last affordable early Mustangs. These are not high performance cars, Most early models weren’t ,even with the base 260 and 289 two barrel V8s.The brakes if working properly are adequate. You have to adjust your mindset to the capabilities of the car. A contemporary test by Consumers Guide found that the base six Mustang stopped slightly quicker than it’s V8 powered disc brake brother. The only thing exciting about these cars was the styling.I think that the Falcon six is actually a pretty remarkable engine. It started out at 140 CID then grew to 170 cubes. Picked up two more main bearings as it grew to 200 cubes and finally was stroked to 250 CID. It only weighs 385 lbs, which gives great weight distribution. It’s main problem is the cast in log intake manifold. It never could breath well enough to develop any real power in stock form. AK Miller loved these motors and tried triple carbs and finally turbo charging on his Pikes Peak racer.
My dad bought my mom a ’68 convertible in 1973 with a 6/automatic.
EASILY the slowest car I EVER drove…including VW Beetles.
Dangerously. Slow. And incapable of going over 70 MPH. At least the Beetle my dad once had could do 74 – and maintain it.
Something must have been wrong with it, my mom’s would do around 100 when it was new.
My older brother did that quite a bit, which might explain why the motor was toast at 26,000 miles.
Nah, a 1974 Pinto wagon with the 2300cc 4 banger and automatic transmission will lose hands down.
I was thinking it wasn’t a 1965 because it didn’t have back up lights.
When you get into the nebulous world of 64.5 spotting, the most important thing to consider is that these cars were being built in at least 2 assembly plants, there was also Metuchen, NJ later. At any rate, these factories ran out of specific parts at different times, so there’s no hard and fast rule other than the alternator versus generator. There’s a very narrow production window, June or July ’64, where they threw what they had together.
Frankenstangs!
Back up lights were optional until 1966, when they became standard equipment.
I recall most Mustangs of the era were more or less equipped this way. The take rate on V-8’s was less than 50 percent. 200 c.i. sixes with cruise-o-matic was a popular combo. The early Stangs had a mile long option list and most seemed to go out the door with minimal options- am radio, auto, whitewalls. The base car was quite nice with buckets seats, vinyl upholstery and wheel covers standard. Of course when you sell 600,000 the first year there were no doubt plenty in numbers that were quite loaded.
To me, this is a reminder why these early Mustangs looked like tarted up Falcons back then. Not much has changed. Pass.
Nice, but a V8 for me. The upgraded suspension/drivetrain that come with it makes it the way to go. Probably only 3-4 MPG difference.
I’ve never really been a fan of the Mustangs, Camaros, Corvettes, etc…just too common of an interest car, i.e. “everyone” likes these.
That said, I do kind of like a base model-as an oddity if nothing else. In a trailer queen world of faux-SS Camaros and Shelby Stangs an unrestored base model with an I6 and an automatic is a breath of fresh air.
Looks like a good candidate for driving on a daily basis. Save the rusty hulks to resto mod. Like the 66 Mustang my brother and I built. It is now an 8 sec street car, passed emissions and safety inspections. 0 to 60 in 1 sec as shown by the timing lights at Maple Grove. When we started, it was a $50 hulk.