the mustang years need to be narrowed down. the 65 and 73 mustang aren't even close to the same car.

65-66 fastback does it for me

 

i know, its just anywhere in that era...

 

how about a 1925 model t touring?



a '27 model t roadster pickup?



a '27 t coupe?



or the famous 1902 ford "999" racer? the grandaddy to 'em all!

why has no one gave any respect to the cars that led to the classics and modern cars we enjoy today? without them we'd still be walking or riding horses, not that i would mind riding a horse, just as long as it's a mustang!

 

I like all vintage mustangs,,,,,,but a 69 fastback is a notch above the rest for me!

 

+1. I think the '64 Lincoln Continental should count as a Ford. That might actually be my next project car. I voted Mustang because I don't like simplicity which the GT40's lacked with the racing paint (numbers, sponsorships, etc)

 

Cougars never had Thunderbird tail lights.

I think you may be confusing them with what Shelby used. 1967 Shelbys had '67 Cougar tail lights; and 1968/69/70 Shelbys had 1965 Thunderbid tail lights.

 

no, check them out

shelby's had 3 slats, t-birds had a bunch of slats

 

And, where is your research, and your pics to prove that youngun'?

 

I think they ALL had a bunch of slats if you look at the right years. I'll find some pics in a second

 

Here are some pics if no one has posted them yet...

67 Cougar
65 T-Bird
69 Shelby



[IMG]local://upfiles/32228/D10583667A1E4DD3B5C6595EE01E9A4D.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]local://upfiles/32228/7BE9B05FB07249C3A22D21F2C61C97AC.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]local://upfiles/32228/B00EFDF06E3444AEAC957A19222BD507.jpg[/IMG]