[alan_scott]

Hello All,

My first post here.

I just bought a 1965 2+2 and I'm not up to speed on what can be considered as a 1964 1/2. I've always heard that the fastbacks didn't start production until 1965 so I thought this was a bit strange. I scanned/cropped the title and hopefully I can get it to attach.

Also, I thought the 2+2 emblem on the trunk lid was a nice touch.


thx

Alan

[zippyflash]

Welcome to the site, enjoy! As far as I have ever heard and read, the 2+2 fastback began in 1965. Search the archives on the dating of 64 and 65 mustangs. There was a thread I think Veronica had started discussing when and how they are dated.

[shogun506]

Maybe they called it a 1965 and produced it in 64, like they produce 2010s already in 2009... I have no clue though.. just guessing.

[Dave]

I think the thread Zippy was talking about was this one
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forum...-64-1-2-a.html
Dave - Lots of good info in there by the expert

[thetvirus]

I thought the San Jose factory didn't even open or start producing mustangs until late July 1964...

[Veronica]

Originally Posted by thetvirus

I thought the San Jose factory didn't even open or start producing mustangs until late July 1964...

Hello. And you were right when you thought that, thetvirus. 5R09C167145 would have had a scheduled production date of 21M, which is december 21st of 64, and wouldn't actually have been built until early january of 65 because of the holidays. I don't really see a way for a car that was built in january of 65 to be registered in may of 64. They also didn't hav any C code cars in may of 64. Your choices were U, F, or D. A 170 six cylinder, a 2bbl 260 V8 or a 4bbl 289. The K codes weren't available in the Mustangs until June 1st, and, there was no overlap on the 260 2bbl and the 289 2bbl. There was no point on the timeline when you could have chosen between those two. The C code became available around july 20th.

This car was not first registered in may of 64.

[dodgestang]

I'll take typo for $2000 Alex.

[Veronica]

Hi again. I hope that it's a typo. The other option would be " What is fraud?"

[alan_scott]

Wanna see some fraud? Check out the Shelby side stripe

Colorado doesn't show the "first registered" date so that little oddity will be lost when I re-title it.

It looks like someone wanted a hot rod, it has a 9 inch and a 351 Windsor with headers.

Thx for the help!

Alan

[Veronica]

Hi again. Alan, would you mind if I added that car to my database? I guesstimated the scheduled production date, based on other cars that I have the data on. It would be nice to go ahead and add that one. It might help someone else somewhere down the line. As a side note, if you look at that 2+2 badge, you can see where they snapped off the mustang script from the left sise of it.

[alan_scott]

Sure, go ahead and include it, every little bit helps. I'll attach a pic of the door tag to verify.

I should have been a bit more verbose when I commented on the 2+2 emblem, my sarcasm was too weak

There are the usual bumps and scrapes on it, nothing major and being an Arizona car, practically no rust. The thing that has me annoyed is somebody took a sledge hammer to both rear fender wells so they could get bigger tires under it.

[Veronica]

Hi again. Thanks. I guess that they were trying to simulate that 65 Shelby look. Those had rolled fenders like that. And, truth be told, the Shelbys didn't look much better in that area.

[derfiticulum]

Hey, Veronica.

I know you collect info for your records so I thought maybe you'd like to get the info from my '65.

VIN: 5F07D112506

BODY: 65A
COLOR: Y
TRIM: 82
DATE:13D
DSO: 63
AXLE: 1
TRANS: 6