hiboostwoody

It should also be a 5 bolt bellhousing block if I'm not mistaken. Either way, if there isn't a bunch of rust that we can't see in the pics I would be all over it if i had the money.

MetalEd

The instrument panel is not from a 64.5. The 64.5 instrument panel is 3 gauges, not the 5 that are shown. Also, the horns appear to be mounted in front of the radiator. Mine are mounted down and behind it, almost on the frame (are they different on the conv or diff. engine size?).. I can't really tell from the pictures, is the hood a 64?
I don't think it would be a 64.5... My guess would be a 65-66. But even at that, if there is nothing seriously wrong with the engine, and there is no rust in the floor pan (check the floor under the pedals), cowl or frame rails (also might want to check the trunk). It might be a really good buy at that. only if there is no rust and the engine is not seriously damaged.
Check the VIN, inside the door (warranty plate) and on the fender under the hood, that will give you all the info about what year and what type of motor it is supposed to have. Almost everyone here can help you decode it.
If it's all you say (even a 65 or 66), then she won't have a problem getting that price! But if there is rust or a bad motor, negotiate the price accordingly.

67t5ponycoupe

I don't think that car is a 64 1/2. It doesn't have the generator, the inside door handles screw on instead of clip on. It looks like a 65 but the instrument bezel is from a 66. Also the convertible bracing under the hood is missing. I would check the floorbards and frame rails for rust and run the numbers on the data plate before you make a decision. It could be a pretty good deal.

kalli

it has the 641/2 rear valance without the reversing lights though
check the VIN, might be original 6 cylinder car now converted to V8
the cluster is defiently wrong and someone stole the eybrows ...
can you post the VIN of the car? you can leave out the last 3 digits if you are afraid of privacy issues

Kalli

eleanor_350

At first glance I thought $10,000 was way high. But factor in the metal work that a convertible under $5k is going to need and this car doesn't look as bad at $10k if it is as solid as it appears. If it's solid, I think 10K is an OK deal but I wouldn't call it a steal. If I'm going to ask that much for a car I'm at least going to wash it off and clean the interior up.

I agree with others that the window cranks and door handles are the later style. The instrument panel is definitely wrong for the year. The passenger seat also appears to be adjustable. It could have been changed out over the years but it should be stationary on a 64 1/2. There's a lot of other little tell-tale signs of a true 64 1/2. Do a google search and you should be able to find several informative articles on the subject.

I wouldn't worry too much if it's a 64 1/2 or 65 if the car is in good shape. However, if they're jacking their asking price just because it's supposedly a 64 1/2 you might point out some of the inaccuracies that indicate that it's really a 65. That could provide some room for negotiation. It seems like some people put a lot of stock in Mustang being a 64 1/2. While they are unique, to me they're not really any more valuable than a 65.

2+2GT

There is little, if any, difference in the value of a 64 vs. 65.

The clip/screw door handles were a running change during 65 production, so that implies late 65. Or a 64 with replacement doors, most collision shops would have left the "wrong" handles on to save a little time.

The convertible bracing under the hood was a mid-65 change, 64 and early 65 didn't have it.

Back-up lights were optional in 64 and 65, many did not have them.

The 64 could have several engines, which varied in color scheme. All engines were gloss black, but the valve covers and air cleaner were colored based on engine type. The 170 had red valve covers and air cleaner, while the 260 had baby blue (the snorkle was black). The 289 had gold (the snorkle was black), and the 289 High Performance had chrome valve covers and a chrome lid on the air cleaner, with a gold base.

MetalEd

It is nice being able to say you have one of the first 500 Mustangs off the production line, but I don't think it would be worth it to pay a premium just to be able to say it.
if it is a 64.5 and there are so many changes... and you would like to restore it back to an original 64.5. Then there is a lot of room to negotiate since it will cost a bunch to get all the original parts to change it back.
If it's a 65-66, it'll be a lot less work to restore. A lot less research and availability/searching for parts.
An example, the 64.5/65 wiring diagram was useless to me. The 64 ONLY wiring diagram by the same publisher was spot on. I've bought multiples of 64.5/65 part/items only to return them and have to search for 64 ONLY items. Mechanics doing work as a 65 when specifically told to use 64.5 parts. Even the arm-rests cups are different, but you won't find new 64 ones.
Don't buy it is a true 64.5 and think it will be easy to turn into a concourse quality car. A daily driver or 65 or 66.. that is a winner in my book conditional on the motor cond. and possible rust.
I know timing might be key, but if the motor is blown, rust problems or if all the parts have been replaced with those of a later year, it would be worth a lot less to me. I would take someone knowledgeable in the early years and Mustang mechanics to look at it. Clear up the few questions and you might have a real gem there (especially if you enjoy restoring it yourself). From the pictures, it shows real promise, but I do have questions.

JoeMustang

I would definitely NOT buy that car........please send me their contact info...........