Classic Motorsports

• 

  June 19, 2009 10:17 p.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  While I suffer from automotive ADD pretty heavily (other than that 23 year obsession with Fiats), one car I can't seem to shake a desire to own is a 1960s Mustang. I mean, I know they are just a fancy Falcon and don't drive like any kind of sports car. But are they nice 'usable' cars? I find myself wanting something comfortable for longer, multi-state trips. What are the seats like? Driving position? I can do a couple hours in my Mini (with non-original seats) and not be bothered by it. I was weary of the Fiat 124's factory buckets though.

  Are the six cylinders THAT bad, especially with a stick?

  I wouldn't want a project. I'd want something someone else dumped foolish amounts of money into and then put up for sale for $6-$9 grand.

• 

  June 20, 2009 9:25 a.m. David S. Wallens Editorial Director

  My wife and I once briefly considered a '66 Mustang convertible--289, 2V, auto, Pony interior, Tahoe Turquoise with blue interior. The car was clean, and the asking price was $12,500. Looking back, we probably should have bought it.

  I see a '60s Mustang as a good, usable classic. Plus you could easily add a/c, which is nice down here.

• 

  June 21, 2009 5:27 a.m. aeronca65t HalfDork

  I remember seeing the original '64 Mustang show car at the NY World's Fair. I alway liked the way they looked but the early ones (in stock form) were pretty "Falcon-ish" to drive (as you alluded to). One of my old girlfriends had a 2-year old '66 notch that I used to drive. It always felt like a truck to me.

  But during the time I was in college I would borrow my aunt's '61 Falcon when my TR3 or Mini was dead (often- )

  I always thought that little Falcon was a very "honest" car and it seemed much lighter than the old Mustangs. Also, from that experience I started noticing Falcons. One year during a college summer job I worked with an engineer that had a '62 Falcon that was set up like the works Monte Carlo racers. It was a two door with a roll bar, disk brakes, fat steel rims, etc. He did car rallys with it. Ever since then, I've always thought it would be neat to built a similar Falcon "Q-ship". I much-prefer the early "rounded" Falcons to the later versions or early Mustangs. The little six is a decent engine but no real "hot up" options due to the manifold (cast as one with the head, so you're stuck with it). Those sixes (144, 170, 200) were the first Ford "thin-cast" iron engines. Much lighter than earlier iron engines. They used the same technology to built the 221, 260 and 289 V8 engines.

  I didn't exactly answer your question about Mustangs, but I just wanted to throw in a vote for early Falcons.....same basic nuts and bolts as a 'Stang, more room, and less common without getting into "orphan" cars.

• 

  June 21, 2009 9:12 a.m. BrettM Reader

  Ahh, Mustangs...I have an old 68 fastback and a new 05 GT. Even though these cars are years apart, they still have a similar character. The new one is obviously a much better car in every way but it is STILL a Stang. I think that is something that the new Camaro is lacking, the viseral tie with the old one.

• 

  June 21, 2009 10:23 a.m. Shinsen774 Reader

  My first car was a '65 Mustang convertible, 4 speed, 289 V-8. Great car to have in high school.

• 

  June 21, 2009 6:07 p.m. Coupefan Reader

  In reply to ddavidv:

  The first generation Mustangs were what, 2400 or 2500 lbs or so? Even an early 60's spec six cylinder will motivate a vehicle of that weight. The drag race crowd will dissent.

• 

  June 21, 2009 9:13 p.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  Weights: 1965 Mustang (cpe) 2465, 1967 Mustang (cpe) 2635, 1969 Mustang (cpe) 2690, 1962 Falcon (2dr) 2262, 1964 Falcon (2dr) 2400

  No HP numbers in my book. Assume basic models with sixes for the various weights. All these cars are extremely light for their size by today's standards.

• 

  June 22, 2009 7:55 a.m. Ian F HalfDork

  I've had similar thoughts... plus the four 60's rustangs that are sitting in various states within a mile of my house (fortunately, none for sale...)... plus a '71 "grande" a couple of miles down the road...

  Honestly, if you're looking for a wonderful long-distance highway cruiser, look at Volvo 1800's. Especially a later EFI model with a/c... those cars can gobble up miles of interstate without breathing hard. And your posted price-range can net you a really nice one right now.

• 

  June 22, 2009 8:07 a.m. Tim Baxter Online Editor

  I had a '65 or '66 around for awhile. Never really cared for it. Vague steering, iffy handling. Looked cool, but that's about all I thought it had going for it. I definitely think there are better gobble-the-miles cruisers out there.

  On the other hand, it's hard to fight "always wanted one", so you may as well just get one. Drive it for awhile, and if you get tired of it you'll almost certainly get at least what you paid for it.

• 

  June 22, 2009 12:09 p.m. rconlon Reader

  The six cylinder Mustang coupe is a good choice for a cruiser. I think the sixes are simply ignored or replaced with an 8 and "sadly" I might add. So a six should be a good buy if you get something from the no-rust states like Oklahoma. Finding a manual six might be a difficult thing but they are out there. Installing modern A/C makes it comfortable. I would llike a Chevy II or Fox Body or Mustang 2.

  Cheers Ron

• 

  June 22, 2009 1:43 p.m. Sownman New Reader

  Mustang is one car I've never had the slightest interest in. Can't really say why, maybe its the fact that they are so common.

  Another car site I visit did a poll. "Whats the most girlie car ?" The three choices.

  New Beatle Miata 6cyl Mustang

  New Beatle clearly won.

• 

  June 22, 2009 1:47 p.m. BrettM Reader

  Don't forget the Volkswagen Cabrio, major girl car.

• 

  June 22, 2009 2:38 p.m. GSCReno New Reader

  1962 144 c.i. - 85 hp, 134 ft-lbs... 1962 170 c.i. - 101 hp, 156 ft-lbs... 1964 200 c.i. - 120 hp, 185 ft-lbs... as you can plainly see, I have no life. Cheers, Scott

• 

  June 22, 2009 5:00 p.m. VClassics New Reader

  I spent a lot of time in the '70s driving my folks' '66 289 convertible, which was dealer-maintained and probably pretty representative of the breed in stock form.

  It went fairly well in a straight line. It did not turn well, and the brakes were the quickest to fade I have yet to encounter. The bucket seats were flat and hard, offering no lateral support whatsoever and not much comfort. The front end felt like it was floating at 70 MPH. It needed suspension bushings every two or three years.

  I have no doubt old Mustangs can be made to be excellent road cars, but in stock form, they leave a lot to be desired.

• 

  June 22, 2009 5:22 p.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  So Scott, nice job on the numbers...but you didn't give me V8 ones to compare with.

  Yeah, I don't know why I feel such a pull to these. Looking at the stock seats in the early cars, they sure don't look like they'd be comfy for several hours. Maybe a bench seat in a Falcon would be better?

  I like Volvo Amazons but probably not as high on the short list as several other cars.

  62-65 Chevy II's are sort of neat but I just am not a GM guy other than a few Pontiacs and, yes, Corvairs.

  But, this isn't really about alternatives, it's about scratching that itch that has the Mustang so high up on the short list with not much to back it up.

• 

  June 22, 2009 7:51 p.m. aeronca65t HalfDork

  Ah, if you like Chevy IIs (even just a little bit), Here's something different.

  A Canadian-spec Acadian Canso (this is a '67 and as you can see, it ran the Targa Newfoundland)

  
• 

  June 23, 2009 12:59 a.m. Buicktr7 New Reader

  Pull as many triggers as you possibly can. I love the Mustang in all of its variants. My 68 GT is just awesome. My dad's 64 1/2 is just subtle coolness, and his old 73 Mach 1 was plain killer.

  I would not mind a six as a cruiser, but I would probably build a Carb Box and twin turbo it.

• 

  June 23, 2009 3:09 a.m. GSCReno New Reader

  Sorry, David... 1962 221 c.i. - 145 hp, 216 ft-lbs... 1963 260c.i.-164 hp, 258 ft-lbs... 1964 289c.i. C code ( 2 barrel ) - 195 hp, 282 ft-lbs... 1965 289c.i. A code ( 4 barrel ) - 225 hp, 305 ft-lbs... 1965 289c.i. K code ( Hi-Po ) - 271 hp, 312 ft-lbs. I hope that this will rectify any previous omissions... Cheers, Scott

• 

  June 23, 2009 8:20 a.m. gjz30075 New Reader

  All that '60s Falcon stuff, like the seats, suspension, flexible unibody, etc, is easily fixable with tons of aftermarket support. I've got a '66 GT fastback with roller spring perches, Shelby drop, Koni shocks, adjustable strut rods and it easily rides like a new, solid axle Mustang. All that stuff (other than the Koni's) is relatively cheap and easily done. I've got power steering and its pretty light to the touch, almost too light and it does leak, but makes slow manuvers easy.

  I've done 5 hour trips with the stock seats and although I wish I had modern seats (which 98% of the later Mustangs do bolt right in), my trip did NOT leave me exhausted.

  A 5 speed is literally a bolt in job and with a 3.55 diff, the 5th OD gear is great.

  Many people have done these mods so it shouldn't be too hard to find what you want.

• 

  June 23, 2009 8:10 p.m. CLynn85 New Reader

  My Father has a 65 Coupe and a 68 Fastback that he's currently restoring. The coupe he's had for about 10 years and was a semi-rolling resto for the first 4 or so. It's now a comfortable cruiser that's really close to stock specs. The suspsension is all stock-replacement and the interior is mostly original. It has a 289 with a holley 4bbl, c4 trans, and ac. This car is the most relaxing to drive classic I've ever been in. It has power steer and is effortless around town, on the highway it floats nicely and although it could use an extra gear, it sails along at 70mph with a beautiful mixture of flowmaster delta 40's and trumpet exhaust tips, who needs a radio??? My 83 5.0 is waaay more work to drive and no where near as relaxing as the 65. I'll have to dig up a photo for inspiration.

  There's many reasons why Ford sold over a million right off the bat...

• 

  June 24, 2009 4:11 p.m. spitfirebill Dork

  In 1976 my wife bought a one-owner 1966 hardtop, A code with four speed for $1,100. It looked really nice but wasn't a great car. 17mpg no matter how you drove it. Manual Steering, no AC, AM radio, drum brakes that faded instantly. And it had that Ford smoking engine thing going. I wish we still had it, as now that I work on cars, I could update it and have a nice cool car.

• 

  June 24, 2009 10:41 p.m. GSCReno New Reader

  I remember that car, SpitfireBill, or one very nearly like it. My best friend had a '65 C code Mustang with a C-4 trans. The factory drum brakes were truly scary. That said, I drove that car from Long Beach to Las Vegas one Friday evening, and at 70 MPH when you'd mat the throttle it'd kick down and push you back in the seat. Bottom line, in my opinion, with all the aftermarket support that these cars enjoy these days, these cars make great tourers. Cheers, Scott

• 

  June 25, 2009 9:28 a.m. foxtrapper SuperDork

  ddavidv wrote: ...I can't seem to shake a desire to own is a 1960s Mustang.

  Then go get one.

  I mean, I know they are just a fancy Falcon and don't drive like any kind of sports car. But are they nice 'usable' cars? I find myself wanting something comfortable for longer, multi-state trips. What are the seats like? Driving position? I can do a couple hours in my Mini (with non-original seats) and not be bothered by it. I was weary of the Fiat 124's factory buckets though.

  They are fine older car. Eminently driveable, perfectly comfortable. The only thing about the seats I don't care for is the lack of a headrest. Rear endings are not nice as a result.

  Are the six cylinders THAT bad, especially with a stick?

  Yes. Especially to someone used to the cars you are used to.
  

  FWIW I had a Falcon with a 170 six. I drag raced a friend with a moped. He gave me a handycap start. I still lost.

  I wish I could have taken a picture of his face as he found himself overtaking my Falcon with his moped. His look as he passed me and found himself in front was priceless.

  Yes, they are that bad.
  

  I wouldn't want a project. I'd want something someone else dumped foolish amounts of money into and then put up for sale for $6-$9 grand.

  That's the best way to get one. Certain years are much less valued than others. 64.5 is genuflected to for oem stock. 65 is hotrodded. 66 is kinda ignored and frequently worth less than an identical 65. 67 has been discovered, the 68's have not.

• 

  June 25, 2009 5:21 p.m. ddavidv UltraDork

  64.5...who cares. I like the unloved 66. 67/68 seem like the exact same car to me . My wife wouldn't mind a '69 to match her birth year but the coupes aren't very sexy.

  I wouldn't be opposed to buying a six and yanking the engine for a proper small block. That kind of work I enjoy. Welding on quarters and painting, notsomuch. Yes, I know they are 4 lug, etc. All easily corrected, but the price would have to reflect the undesirables.

  The downside is I'd have to sell the Mini to buy one. The Mini will, in a few years, be pretty much in need of a paint job (some delamination issues, not rust problems), needs carpet, etc. Not exactly the car for road trips, though it isn't bad. I guess I need to find someone willing to let me drive one.

• 

  June 26, 2009 7:09 a.m. foxtrapper SuperDork

  Well, sellers of Mustangs are usually willing to let folks take test drives.
  

  You're sorta nearby. My father is in Greencastle with his modified 66 coupe. He'd probably be quite game to spend some time with you driving the car and pontificating the various pro's and cons of them.
  

  You might even find yourself astonished at stopping the car. His still has 4 drums, and stops darn well. It's just a matter of setting it up right, and he can.

  Make sure you show up with the Mini. He's always loved them.

  PM me if you want about it.

You'll need to log in to post.

• Latest Topics
• Top Rated

Birthdays

• 4g63t
• broken_cynic

Featured Readers' Ride