I always liked the look of the original rid height. I think they got it right the first time they made them. Here is a pic of my stang. It has new rear leafs (standard) and new rear shocks (standard). The front is all original too but It has no body so you cant really tell.

[IMG]local://upfiles/38538/DF2694A314BE470C811D2B73AF5F9C9D.jpg[/IMG]

Edit: My signature picture is before I replaced the rear suspension. It was sagging an inch or 2 and one side was sagging more than the other

 

Stock all the way around, added a slight cant in the rear from air shocks... my height is subtly changed by the size of tires...

 

Gee, I thought my more original stance looked like a ski boat trying to plane out. Maybe my butt was just saggin'.

[IMG]local://upfiles/58088/5EF0667D84134FA284DB8412F2D4BE90.jpg[/IMG]

 

scouttrooper... Your picture does seen like the rear is lower than the front but It also seems like the car is on an incline. My rear is pretty raised in the 69. Maybe the whole convertible assembly causes the rear to sag a little?

 

The front is a little high in this one....

 

Ol' Yeller is stock. I put new standard eye leaf springs on the back last year because the butt was sagging, but she's back to stock now.

 

Conv. shouldn't make a difference.

 

DAMN! i like noroof66's stance too.
what type of suspension do you have?

 

That's not sagging. All of the 65 and 66's appear to be slightly sagging becaue of the contour of the top of the rear quarter panel. It actually slopes downward toward the rear. Look at mine and compare it to other 65's. If the leaf springs are new or at least not 40 years old, they will all appear to be sagging slightly.