'64 or '65
Hey, I'm writing for a friend, he just found a mustang in great shape,, he has paperwork that states the car was made in July of 1964, the old registration states that the car is a '65?, is this car a '64 or '65??,, it's a one owner car,,,, appreciate your help......
johnnie
johnnie
It is a 1965 Mustang.
People refer to cars built around that time as 64.5 because they came out in 1964....just like how in August/September of this year you can run down to the dealership and buy a 2006 car even though it is still 2005 the mustang is a 1965.
People refer to cars built around that time as 64.5 because they came out in 1964....just like how in August/September of this year you can run down to the dealership and buy a 2006 car even though it is still 2005 the mustang is a 1965.
ORIGINAL: dodgestang
It is a 1965 Mustang.
People refer to cars built around that time as 64.5 because they came out in 1964....just like how in August/September of this year you can run down to the dealership and buy a 2006 car even though it is still 2005 the mustang is a 1965.
It is a 1965 Mustang.
People refer to cars built around that time as 64.5 because they came out in 1964....just like how in August/September of this year you can run down to the dealership and buy a 2006 car even though it is still 2005 the mustang is a 1965.
As much as I freely admit it when I am wrong...I am not in this instance.
Here are some sites detailing the differences between cars enthusiast name 64 1/2 and 65 mustangs:
http://www.vintage-mustang.com/topic...64-65diff.html
http://www.karmustang.com/unique64.html
http://www.midcomustang.com/1964half.html
There are quite a few very obvious distinctions between early 65s available in the calendar year 1964 and later ones so the nomenclature grew to refer to them as 64 1/2. The defining facts are that all mustangs bought between April 1964 and when they stopped making 1965 models were TITLED as 1965 mustangs.
Have you ever seen a mustang titled as a 64.5 anywhere?
Have you ever seen a mustang title as a 64 for that matter?
Here is a site that supports the information I provided
http://www.ariakristen.com/mustang/history/1964.htm (no references of course)
Here is a nice little article:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...istory-1.shtml
This site likes to stand on the fence and just muddy up the issue by not providing a definitive answer one way or the other
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010827.html
And as you can see...many people have opinions on this. Did you know that many historians now accept them as 1964 model cars? Gosh have you ever heard that before? Must have been written by a chevy guy
http://vintagecars.about.com/od/grea...le_64stang.htm
I have actually read articles about the introduction of the 1963 Mustang...I just can't find one right now
The facts of the matter are that Ford lost their records prior to 1967 so finding out the official line from Ford back in the day is all but impossible. There will always be disagreement on this issue among hobbyists. I often refer to a generator equipped mustang with a 260 as a 64.5 for simplicity and because that is how our hobby has chosen to refer to them. It is still a 1965 mustang legally though because the only binding information available is what is on the title. All the VINS say 1965.
http://www.vintage-mustang.com/topic...de/decode.html
But to make it even more fun, Ford did use different codes on the door tags to denote interior groups between early models and later models.
Here are some sites detailing the differences between cars enthusiast name 64 1/2 and 65 mustangs:
http://www.vintage-mustang.com/topic...64-65diff.html
http://www.karmustang.com/unique64.html
http://www.midcomustang.com/1964half.html
There are quite a few very obvious distinctions between early 65s available in the calendar year 1964 and later ones so the nomenclature grew to refer to them as 64 1/2. The defining facts are that all mustangs bought between April 1964 and when they stopped making 1965 models were TITLED as 1965 mustangs.
Have you ever seen a mustang titled as a 64.5 anywhere?
Have you ever seen a mustang title as a 64 for that matter?
Here is a site that supports the information I provided
http://www.ariakristen.com/mustang/history/1964.htm (no references of course)
Here is a nice little article:
http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...istory-1.shtml
the Ford Mustang was introduced as a 1965 model
http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010827.html
And as you can see...many people have opinions on this. Did you know that many historians now accept them as 1964 model cars? Gosh have you ever heard that before? Must have been written by a chevy guy

http://vintagecars.about.com/od/grea...le_64stang.htm
I have actually read articles about the introduction of the 1963 Mustang...I just can't find one right now

The facts of the matter are that Ford lost their records prior to 1967 so finding out the official line from Ford back in the day is all but impossible. There will always be disagreement on this issue among hobbyists. I often refer to a generator equipped mustang with a 260 as a 64.5 for simplicity and because that is how our hobby has chosen to refer to them. It is still a 1965 mustang legally though because the only binding information available is what is on the title. All the VINS say 1965.
http://www.vintage-mustang.com/topic...de/decode.html
But to make it even more fun, Ford did use different codes on the door tags to denote interior groups between early models and later models.
You old dog you! Of course, you are technically correct. There aren't any 1964 registered Mustangs. But, as you have pointed out with your extended research, there are many differences in the ones built from April until August of 1964. So, now the original poster has all the information he can muster for deciding for himself if he has a 1964 1/2 or a 65. Me.......? I have a 65. It was built in September of 1964.
They are all 65's, the early 65 models have been come to known as 64-1/2. There are alot of cars built after Aug. 64 with early 65 parts, as Ford used up there inventory. (These could be called 64-3/4? Ha!)


