5F09K362491 NIR

66tiger_old · February 8, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Reserve not met @ $39,999.99

E-Bay Listing: 65 K GT FB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This fastback is a K-coded 289 V8 Hipo Mustang and has a 3x2 intake/carb. It has new paint and interior, the engine has been rebuilt and the car runs and drives perfect. It has fog lights, a/c, tach, clock. The rear axle has 3.50:1 gears.

5F09K362491

5= 1965

F=Dearborn, Mi

09= 2+2 Fastback

K= 289 4v V8 HiPo

362491= Unit number

Vehicle Data Plate: 63B P 69 15R 84 5 5

63B= 2+2 Fastback, Pony interior

P= Prairie Bronze Metallic

69= Palomino Crinkle Vinyl, Pony Interior

15R= April 15, 1965

84= Home office reserve

5= 3.50:1

5= 4speed manual

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/196…1QQcmdZViewItem

Edited by - 66tiger on 02/08/2007 23:25:44

Edited by - 66tiger on 03/04/2007 13:46:09

MR.FORD49_old · February 9, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Looks like another early model was made into a GT. It was built before Jan. of 1965. It does not mention if the engine is the correct HIPO unit.

RalphJr · February 9, 2007 at 9:10 AM

NO WAY this car was built on April 15th - I'll bet $100 the door tag has been replaced.

MY car was built that same week and the consecutive numbers are about 300,000 off - you do the math.

Plus look at the registry.

Looks like someone sent a lot of time colleting parts to build this car - on the surface it looks nice, but I'd check out the details VERY carefully.

C6ZZKGT · February 9, 2007 at 10:55 AM Official Post

I agree with Ralph on this. I have one that is 16,000 units in front of this one and mine is November 7, 1964.

-Fred-

66Paxtang_old · February 9, 2007 at 4:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I agree with Ralph on this. I have one that is 16,000 units in front of this one and mine is November 7, 1964.

-Fred-

I'm 10K in front with a December 64 build. Does it matter that mine is a convertible?

Any comments on the aircon? Was it a dealer option or could you get order it with air?

66Paxtang_old · February 9, 2007 at 4:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I agree with Ralph on this. I have one that is 16,000 units in front of this one and mine is November 7, 1964.

-Fred-

I'm 10K in front with a December 64 build. Does it matter that mine is a convertible?

Any comments on the aircon? Was it a dealer option or could you get order it with air?

Scratch that last comment. I'm 10K AFTER and have a December 64 build!

5F8K375XXX

Michael

RalphJr · February 9, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Undocumented story is that the factory would not install the AC - instead they put it in the trunk and left it up to the dealer to install. BUT HiPo's did not come from the factory with AC or Power steering installed.

My car was built in April - has an early June date stamp on the back of the AC box - and sold new at the end of July 1965.

AC was in place when I bought the car in '79 - and the owner in '74 confirmed it was there and working.

I have the special cast pulley (not made by Ford) that fits the HiPo damper - BUT due to car's value and I'm having all the AC holes repaired (patched back like factory) and not re-installing the AC during the restoration.

Anyone else out there have an AC story?

66Paxtang_old · February 9, 2007 at 8:14 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Anyone else out there have an AC story?

My car has AC, but the balancer was changed to use a standard ford pulley either during the last restoration or in the very beginning when the AC was installed. Whom ever did the job whether dealer or not did a really nice job. I had planed on keeping it in but after reading your thoughts might take it out.

Edited by - 66Paxtang on 02/09/2007 20:15:48

SixT5HiPo · February 10, 2007 at 2:13 AM

We've seen this car for sale a few years ago: CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

66tiger_old · March 4, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Back again...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/…em=140090982273

J_Speegle_old · March 5, 2007 at 4:04 AM

"Anyone else out there have an AC story?

You bet, plenty of stories (like the guy who swore his Boss 302 originally had AC - even had some paperwork he claimed proved it). But I leave it just there... stories

b9folk_old · March 5, 2007 at 10:11 AM

Nice to see an color other than black, blue, or resale red. Gold isn't as flashy, but gives it a clean "classic car" look.

raccol · March 5, 2007 at 10:26 AM

What's up with the seal along the top of the radiator support?

fastdriver_old · March 8, 2007 at 4:49 AM

Anyone knows if it is a real "GT" ?

Belmont_old · March 8, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Salut Rick

As stated above, the consecutive number of this car places its production date well before the GT package made its appearance.

The door tag reads april 15th 65 as scheduled build date, which cannot be right, so chances are it is not the original tag.

Surely this car is not a factory GT, but it is not represented in the ad as being one, even if it now looks like one.

RalphJr · March 8, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Belmont is correct.

The Car's consecutive numbers puts it in the Nov-Dec 1964 time frame.

It is neither a "factory" GT or Deluxe interior car - both of these options were NOT availble until the early spring (late FEB - early March) of 1965 to correspond with the 1st year anniversary of the Mustang. They have been added to this car by a previous owner or restoration shop.

I have to say they did it right from what I see in the pictures - all the right stuff appears to be there.

Someone possibly changed the door tag - unknown at this point - but very likely from the date given - possibly to hide the fact that it is not a "factory" GT or Deluxe car - possibly to enhance the re-sale value.

MAYBE they just made a mistake.

They will probably want top $$$ for the car with all the options, but it actually lowers the value IMHO.

The tri-power is nice - but the AC and other options kills it for me.

Nice to see a different color combo though.

fastdriver_old · March 11, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Thank you,guys, for your acuteness;I like this car, may be the nice colour of Prairie bronze.<img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Am i wrong to say that a GT should be equipped with an "export brace" instead of the two bars, under the hood?

Cheerio !

SixT5HiPo · March 11, 2007 at 7:40 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Am I wrong to say that a GT should be equipped with an "export brace" instead of the two bars, under the hood?

Yes, it is wrong to say that all GT Mustangs came with export braces installed by the factory. Export braces were found on any Mustangs that were exported from the US...

fastdriver_old · March 12, 2007 at 3:55 AM

Therefore, I am disappointed to learn that a GT can be "seen" without Export Brace, although Fomoco claimed to provide a stiffened suspension as a GT option<img src=images/icon_smile_angry.gif border=0 align=middle>

RalphJr · March 12, 2007 at 5:40 PM

The GT and any HiPo HAD a stiffer susspension - IE bigger front sway bar and heavy springs. However, this package did not include the export brace.

Only GT350s and Export cars received the brace instead of the weld in/bolt in shock tower braces - at least as far as I've seen documented.

5F09K362491 NIR

Participate now!

Users Viewing This Thread