[JLHarper]

Good story thanks for posting.

Found this interesting:

"We'll have to sit down one day and get input from the kids and get an up to date appraisal,"

Selling it a possibility? Wonder if they are thinking big BIG $?

Sharing a car with memories and emotional attachment may be difficult. I hope the kids can figure out a way to share it, and keep it in the family, even if all across the US one day.

Of course if it brings "stupid" money from a collector, that's a tough decision too.

[gtoric]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

I've always called the 64-1/2 Mustangs 64's, the same way we call the 70-1/2 Firebirds 70's.

Yes, but the Mustangs were released a half year early, in April of 1964, with a '65 VIN. The Firebirds were released a half year late, in February (?) of 1970, with a '70 VIN.

I wonder what Ford is going to call the new 50th anniversary Mustang to be released in April of next year? A 2014 1/2 or a 2015? I bet it's going to be the later.

[MikeNoun]

Yes, probably a pride thing to have one of the original 64-1/2's verses one of the true 65's. I asked this guy down the street about that, and he said the Mustang guys never call the original 64-1/2's (which is what he has) a 65 Mustang, it's a 64-1/2.

Several changes were made at the traditional opening of the new model year (beginning August 1964), including the addition of back-up lights on some models, the introduction of alternators to replace generators, and an upgrade of the V8 engine from 260 cu in to 289 cu in displacement. These characteristics made enough difference to warrant designation of the 121,538 earlier ones as "1964½" model-year Mustangs, a distinction that has endured with purists.

They shut down the plant in August 1964 to tool up for the new 1965 Mustangs, and produced new sales literature advertising the "1965 Mustang". So a 64 Mustang is a 64 Mustang, a 65 Mustang is a 65 Mustang.

In the Pontiac world, I've never heard anyone call a 70 Trans Am a 70-1/2 Trans Am, unless of course it's from a book or magazine article. It's just a 70 Trans Am.

It's strange how some manufacturers market their cars. I think they've introduced some cars in November and jumped the entire year, such as a car being on the market in Nov 2010, but the manufacturer calls it a 2012! I guess it's all in the marketing.

[Keith Seymore]

Originally Posted by MikeNoun

It's strange how some manufacturers market their cars. I think they've introduced some cars in November and jumped the entire year, such as a car being on the market in Nov 2010, but the manufacturer calls it a 2012! I guess it's all in the marketing.

Yes -

When we introduced the GMT820C (GMT800 Cadillac Escalade) we brought it out in January of 2001 as a 2002 model year vehicle.

The only (federal) requirement was that we could not encompass two "January 1sts" within the same model year.

K

[mike nixon]

Originally Posted by JLHarper

Good story thanks for posting.

Found this interesting:

"We'll have to sit down one day and get input from the kids and get an up to date appraisal,"

Selling it a possibility? Wonder if they are thinking big BIG $?

Sharing a car with memories and emotional attachment may be difficult. I hope the kids can figure out a way to share it, and keep it in the family, even if all across the US one day.

Of course if it brings "stupid" money from a collector, that's a tough decision too.

It may be like a local guy's 69 fastback stang. The kids had NO interest and the parents weren't going to restore a [ almost rustfree] car that they had no interest in. So it was sold out of the family. A buddy can now see it where it sits torn apart under a tarp outside while the new owner practices bodywork on late 70's Ford trucks until he feels confident enough to tackle the stang.

Copper over white interior. pretty car.

[John V.]

Originally Posted by Keith Seymore

Yes -

When we introduced the GMT820C (GMT800 Cadillac Escalade) we brought it out in January of 2001 as a 2002 model year vehicle.

The only (federal) requirement was that we could not encompass two "January 1sts" within the same model year.

K

Keith, didn't it also have to meet any new for 2002 standards such as for emissions, safety, etc.?

From what I've ever seen, the Mustang guys only refer to the 64-1/2 as a way to distinguish the early '65 builds from the later ones. Seems to me, the later ones essentially had running changes, just like all car models did (some of the Mustang changes may be viewed as a little more significant than the typical running changes).

Just the same, they were all '65 Mustangs. Ford was trying to make it seem that the car was so radically "new", it was next year's model, introduced early rather than have it come out as a late '64 introduction where it would have immediately seemed more dated.

IIRC, Pontiac introduced the '04 Grand Prix in April '03, jumping the gun on the '04 Model Year, same as the Mustang. GM put the fwd X body models out in April '79 as 1980 models.

Some of you guys seemed to miss the reason why this was a "first" Mustang sale.

Even though the Mustang was introduced at mid year, they still planned for an "opening day" when the Dealers were first allowed to sell them.

Just like what typically happened in Sept or Oct every Model Year, dealers began taking delivery of the new models but were forbidden from selling them until the "opening day" distated by the automaker. This was to level the playing field for all dealers. Gave the manufacturer time to supply inventory to all dealers before any of them were allowed to sell one. Otherwise, a dealer could complain that he lost a sale because a rival dealer got his supply first. It also had the effect of building pent up demand as buyers anxiously awaited the chance to be the first on their block with a brand new model.

Same for the Mustang. Opening day was April 17, 1964. NOBODY was supposed to sell one before that date.

What the story made clear, Johnson Ford (same dealership where my dad bought a new '65 Country Squire wagon, but I digress) cheated, showed this lady a Mustang they had in the back and sold it to her before they were officially allowed to do so. It was in the back rather than on display in the showroom, because they knew the rules.

The dealer that sold the one on April 16 also jumped the gun. I'd bet this was more common than one might think every model year introduction. If 2 Mustangs were sold before the official opening day, I bet several others were. Who jumped first, how would anybody know, unless they got caught? But consider that the first deliveries were made weeks before opening day. So it took some discipline for a dealer NOT to sell them and probably the strong threat of penalties for breaking the rules also kept dealers in line.

I always think one owner cars are cool. Even though I hated the first Mustang I ever saw (pure jealousy, saw a 4th grade classmate getting dropped off spring '64, my memory says it was most likely poppy red) and they never grew on me, the story of this one is pretty neat.

[MikeNoun]

Originally Posted by John V.

Just the same, they were all '65 Mustangs. Ford was trying to make it seem that the car was so radically "new", it was next year's model, introduced early rather than have it come out as a late '64 introduction where it would have immediately seemed more dated.

John, I agree, they were all 1965 Mustangs according to their VIN. My point is that the owners of those first 120,000 or so 1964-1/2 Mustangs, that were produced between April 64 up until the plant shutdown in August 64, have always referred to them as 64 or 64-1/2 Mustangs. And Ford has always referred to and acknowledged that the 1964-1/2 Mustang is a 1964 Mustang.

As for anniversary cars, reports are that the 50th Anniversary Mustang will be a 2014 model, not a 2015, which wouldn't make any sense according to Ford history.

In 1984, Ford released the 20th Anniversary Mustang, a GT-350.

In 1989, the 25th Anniversary, they added the "25 years" on the dashboard of the 1989 Mustangs.

In 1999, they produced a special 35th Anniversary Mustang.

In 2004, they produced a 40th Anniversary Edition.

In 2009, they produced a 45th Anniversary Mustang.

So Ford, and Mustang owners, have always called the 64-1/2 Mustang a 1964 Mustang.

[John V.]

Mike, are you sure about that? I know the '64-1/2 designation to be common among Mustang fans, but it was hobbyists that coined the phrase. When the cars were new, nobody called it a '64 or '64-1/2 model, certainly not Ford.

I have never heard any serious Mustang hobbyist refer to it as a '64 model and I don't believe Ford has either.

Ford has acknowledged the Mustang anniversary in a confused way precisely because the car was brought out at mid year as a '65 model.

The 20th anniversary edition was brought out in the middle of the '84 Model Year. Since they were not going to introduce the '85 model early, they simply offered a limited edition '84 at mid year to commemorate the calendar date 20th anniversary of Mustang.

Same thing happened again in '89. This time, they badged ALL '89 Mustangs at mid year with the 25 years dash badge, nothing really special. And they CONTINUED to use the 25 years dash badge on the '90 Mustangs. Early '89s did not get badged.

They repeated this for the 35th anniversary, bringing out a special anniversary edition, unveiling it on April 17, 1999. Again, there was no mid year introduction of a 2000 model so they made due by using the 1999 model but waiting until April to introduce it.

The 2004 was the goofiest, as if they forgot when the original Mustang was introduced, they added commemorative 40th anniversary badging to all 2004 Mustangs.

It IS of course all about sales and marketing, so Ford can do what they want to commemorate the anniversary of the Mustang.

The Mustang 50th anniversary occurs April 17, 2014. They can commemorate it with a special edition introduced that day, they can commemorate it with badging on any 2014 Mustang, or they can commemorate it with badging on any 2015 Mustang.

Ford has done each of those things to commemorate the Mustang anniversary in the past.

But I disagree on one point. I've never heard a knowledgeable Mustang hobbyist or Ford ever refer to the earliest Mustangs as a 1964.

I believe Ford has picked up on the use of '64-1/2 but they did not originate it and did not make use of it until many years after the cars were built. Sorry for picking nits over a car I don't really even like.

[MikeNoun]

John, I said that they refer to it as a "1964-1/2 Mustang". It's also referred to as a "1964" at car shows as the "1/2" designation is redundant. Everyone knows the 1964-1/2 model is separate from the 1965 model. They never list a class for "1964-1/2 to 1966", they simply say "1964-1966". It was the plant shutdown in Aug 1964 when Ford changed over to the 1965 models is where the separation is.

I suggest you look at the Mustang Club Of America, or the hundreds of articles written about the Ford Mustang, before making a statement like " I've never heard a knowledgeable Mustang hobbyist or Ford ever refer to the earliest Mustangs as a 1964."

The owners of those first 125,000 1964-1/2 Mustangs are pretty proud of their cars. That's why Ford produced an anniversary car on the 20th, 25th, 30th, 35th, 40th, and 45th year based on their 1964 debut, not 1965. I think Ford knows their own history, don't you?

What's next, shall we argue that because the 1969 Trans Am was a mid-year addition, that the 1979 10th Anniversary, 1984 15th Anniversary, 1989 20th Anniversary, 1994 25th Anniversary, and 1999 30th Anniversary Trans Am's are all wrong too?

I love ya dude, but sometimes you remind me of Vinny from "My Cousin Vinny" when he argues with his girlfriend about the proper torque applied to a leaky faucet handle to stop it from dripping.

[MikeNoun]

This is the poster that my local Ford dealer (which just moved to a larger location) has in their showroom. I test drove a 2013 Mustang about 2 weeks ago.

[MikeNoun]

And straight from Ford's own website : corporate.ford.com/vehicles/ford-mustang-story

Note that it's listed in their history index under 1964, not 1965.

[John V.]

Okay Mike, I stand corrected!

I still think it's revisionist history but if Ford wants to call it a '64 and Mustang owners want to call it a '64, they don't need my okey dokey.

I only wish I could have been Joe Pesci in that movie.

[Don57]

Mustang #0001 has been the talk around these parts for many years. I first learned about it in the late 70's when I bought a 65 Mustang fastback. I heard about the first Mustang made was sold here in Newfoundland..........by mistake. It was only suppose to be on display......but Captain Tucker, an EPA pilot spotted it and bought it from the dealer at night..........and the next day. Ooops! That was the story I heard 35 years ago. Being into Mustangs, I signed up for "Mustang Monthly". Back around 1983 or 1984, one of the magazines had a story about the car, and how it took Ford two years to get it back, and it was at the time assigned to the Henry Ford Museum still wearing the Newfoundland license plates. I think the emphasis all these years was that this car was Mustang #1............it was never questioned if this was the first one ever sold. I guess it was assumed. By the way, I'm pretty sure I still got that mag. BTW, my Mustang was Rangoon Red/red interior/289-4v/4-speed. Restored the car in the early eighties and sold it to build my house.

[400 4spd.]

FWIW (very little I'm sure), there were some very minor structural differences made in the '65 models. The one most people know is the slight flange on the front edge of the 64 1/2 model's hood. Another is the shape stamped into the right side core support. The pot metal quarter extension at the tail light is also formed different along the edge.
There are others, all very subtle things distinctive to the two releases.