Well without some kind of documentation or provenance this would be hard to pass off..I can't imagine the test mules having VIN numbers on them
__________________
"Goose, Hollywood's fine, I want Viper"
1995 Mustang GT Cnv 347(427 stroker being built!) almost done!
1996 Cobra with Kenne Bell 2.1 Supercharger and every other conceivable part you can bolt on it...650hp upgrade in the works
2003 Infiniti M45 V8 340 hp...a methadone treatment for reformed Mustang drivers
Last edited by 2Manystangs; 08-29-2009 at 07:26 PM.
Reason: edit
They say they guarantee that the vin numbers are real, lol. Why would the number be 345,000, I am pretty sure there are not 245,000 mustangs with a #4 starting in the vin. And the date on the car is 10 22 D3 which is October 22nd.
hmm very intersting. it seems legitimate but when ford and marti say that they have no records that seems sketchy. I don't think i'd ever buy because if they can't prove it's really a 1964 fastback, not many people are going to believe it really is. Would be cool though!
Hello. Ford doesn't have any records on the 65/66 Mustangs, but I've got a pretty hefty load of stuff on those cars. The stamping of october 22 on that inner fender panel is what one would expect to see on a car with a scheduled production date in early november, and, I do have the data on four different Dearborn cars with sequentional numbers within a spread of about a hundred to that car, all of which have scheduled production dates from november 4th to november 6th. A car built in november of 64 is a 65 model car. It can't be november of 63 because they didn't start stamping Mustang sheet metal until january of 64. That car came originally with an alternator, not a generator, and it has the brake light switch mounted on the brake pedal, both of which indicate a car built after mid-august of 64. There's actually a pretty long list of stuff on that car which jump up and say " I'm a 65 model car." No Mustang had a 64 model VIN. The first Mustang had a 65 VIN, as did every Mustang built after it up until the beginning of the 66 model year. It's not a test mule, it's not a factory program car, it's a 65 model, regular production, 6 cyl fastback.
Veronica is right. First series Mustangs (so called 1964 1/2) were also only hardtop and convertibles. Fastbacks came after porduction for the revised 1965 (alternator version) in the summer of 1964 and this has a much higher VIN. All models were 1965 VIN dated. This car looks like a salvage title reject that someone grabbed for quick money and altered the VIN date. And Marti reports start only at 1967.
This car was discussed twice over at the VMF and the current owner (seller) of the car posted there too. He ignored the advice and still is bent on selling the car like it is a preproduction test mule when the info and pics he gave us simply points to a VIN mis-stamp, not uncommon. The pics I saw the VIN appeared legit and unmolested/modified and just a factory error.
He is being tricky saying that Ford and Marti have no records on this car and not mentioning that no records exist going back that far in his ad. He also never brings up the possibility of the VIN mistamp from the factory. He WANTS people to believe this car is a special test car that has survived and WANTS the MONEY it could command from the unknowledgable and unresearched buyer.
I second Dodgestang's comment
__________________
1968 Mustang coupe, Acapulco Blue, 289 2v, C-4, Power Steering.
Hopefully a 1969 convertible or Sportsroof (non Mach or Boss) for next Mustang project
Trying to find my father's 1973 Mustang Grande he bought brand new. 3F04F126773 last known registration and title was in New Jersey, 1982.
This car was discussed twice over at the VMF and the current owner (seller) of the car posted there too. He ignored the advice and still is bent on selling the car like it is a preproduction test mule when the info and pics he gave us simply points to a VIN mis-stamp, not uncommon. The pics I saw the VIN appeared legit and unmolested/modified and just a factory error.
Hi again. When the car was discussed over at VMF did he say anything about the radiator core support that car has which didn't even exist until mid july of 64? An early car would have been a generator car and would have had the gills on the passenger side of the radiator core support. That car has the slots of an alternator car. I should probably go to ebay and ask the seller a couple of awkward questions.
I sort of already did Veronica. LOL I asked about the radiator support because I noticed that too and the date stamp and for a close up picture of the warning lamps on the instrument cluster. Lets find out what happens shall we?
I read the thread on Vmf and some people were talking about how they could have mis-stamped it with a 4 because they were building other 1964 models like Fairlane on the same assembly line at the same time...
Hi again. If you go to the ebay ad and click on the picture that I copied here and zoom in on it and really take a look at it, it has obviously been re-stamped as a 4. Compare it first to the other four in the vin The first four has a bit of a curve down the upper left-hand area and the other one is laser straight, and if you look closely, you can see minor remnants of the original five that used to be there. Both of the stars look to be falling away from the vin itself as if the number had been pushed upward a little bit from below. Which it has. You have to but upward pressure on the bottom of the vin to re-stamp a new number there or it dent the whole area downward. That's not a mis-stamp, it's a do-over.
Good observation! I didn't pay that close attention to the VIN, I don't think anyone scrutinized it that thoroughly. I see now the the 4s don't match. He may not have any knowledge of that but it seems someone went to the trouble to change the digit, possibly stolen or having some other "gray past".
__________________
1968 Mustang coupe, Acapulco Blue, 289 2v, C-4, Power Steering.
Hopefully a 1969 convertible or Sportsroof (non Mach or Boss) for next Mustang project
Trying to find my father's 1973 Mustang Grande he bought brand new. 3F04F126773 last known registration and title was in New Jersey, 1982.
Hi again. If the car had been stolen and the VIN was changed for that reason, the thieves would not have used a number that couldn't possibly be right. They would have used a real number. This was done to try to create the impression that the car is something extremely rare and special and, therefore, very valuable.
1964 Mustang fastback? LOL 
Ford doesn't have any records on the 65/66 Mustangs, but I've got a pretty hefty load of stuff on those cars. 
The stamping of october 22 on that inner fender panel is what one would expect to see on a car with a scheduled production date in early november, and, I do have the data on four different Dearborn cars with sequentional numbers within a spread of about a hundred to that car, all of which have scheduled production dates from november 4th to november 6th. A car built in november of 64 is a 65 model car. It can't be november of 63 because they didn't start stamping Mustang sheet metal until january of 64. That car came originally with an alternator, not a generator, and it has the brake light switch mounted on the brake pedal, both of which indicate a car built after mid-august of 64. There's actually a pretty long list of stuff on that car which jump up and say " I'm a 65 model car." No Mustang had a 64 model VIN. The first Mustang had a 65 VIN, as did every Mustang built after it up until the beginning of the 66 model year. It's not a test mule, it's not a factory program car, it's a 65 model, regular production, 6 cyl fastback. 
They would have used a real number. This was done to try to create the impression that the car is something extremely rare and special and, therefore, very valuable. 
