Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

1965 Mustang Value



  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,664
    Mustang was a cheap car. They cut every corner possible.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    Mustang was a cheap car. They cut every corner possible.

    So when the Mustang went to an alternator, what did they replace the GEN light with? AMPS? BATT? ALT? That's what I was getting at, that Ford would actually make the effort to CHANGE the GEN light as soon as they went to an alternator, whereas GM held onto the GEN well into the 70's!
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,664
    It says "ALT".

    I think Chrysler Corp. was first with the alternator in 1961, right? or 60? I ferget.

    The alternator was a good thing. Generators don't charge very well at slow idle, especially at night or with AC on.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 21,594
    Chrysler switched to alternators in 1961. Hey, would it be hard to convert something like my '57 DeSoto to an alternator? I've often wondered about that, but then, since I don't have to depend on it for daily transportation, it's probably not a big deal. I do remember though, how at night, especially stopped at a traffic light with the turn signal on, the needle would seem to drop precipitously low, in sync with the turn signal. Sometimes I'd drop it into neutral in such situations so it would rev a bit faster.

    Truthfully though, my '68 Dart would do the same thing, just not as bad. And sometimes, in the mornings, if I have the lights on and the heater/defrost going full blast, my '79 NYer's amp gauge will go just enough to the discharge side to make the idiot light come on. One thing that impresses me about that car is that, with all the cost cutting that went on in the late 70's, they actually went through the effort to make full gauges AND idiot lights standard on those cars. Of course, sometimes that can cause problems, like when the temp gauge reads normal but the idiot light comes on! At first I was worried about which one I should believe, until I noticed that sometimes the idiot light would come on at times when it couldn't possibly be too hot, like when first starting off. Oddly, my departed 1979 Newport occasionally did the same thing. So I guess that must make it a "feature" :P
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    Chrysler introduced the alternator on the '60 Valiant, the first model year for that car. My family owned one. Great car, by the way.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,356
    You're right. They were VERY cheap cars but they sure managed to hit the mark at the time.

    Nothing moe than a glorified Falcon!
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,356
    You are correct.

    The Falcon, Corvair and Valiants were the first of the new "Compact Cars".

    The Valiants were, by far, the best of that bunch!
  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,923
    On the electronic ignition idea...this is the kind I have in the fintail - several years later with virtually no problems, I am happy with it
  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,120
    "The Valiants were, by far, the best of that bunch!"

    I agree, because in addition to the alternator, in place of a generator, the Valiant had an excellent 3-speed automatic, versus 2-speeds for the Falcon and Corvair, handled far better and was more rugged than the other two. The Corvair was interesting and the Falcon was a decent value, but the Valiant, while priced a little higher than the others, was worth the modest additional amount that it cost. Too bad none of the three offered a decent 4-speed manual (5-speeds came later even on European cars).
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,356
    Tha alternator was no big deal but the whole car in general was much better. The slant six made the big difference along with the rugged torqueflight.

    The weakest part of those cars were the front ends. They were hard on ball joints and tie rod ends but so were the Falcons.
  • MrShift@EdmundsMrShift@Edmunds Posts: 43,664
    I agree, too. The Falcon, at least in its 6 cylinder, "three on the tree" configuration, could easily be serviced by a mechanic living in 1925. Nothing on that car would be alien to him, except perhaps the radio.

    The Corvair was the *potentially* most interesting and technically advanced car, but it was, and remained, seriously under-developed due to the usual GM habit of poking its own eyes out and complaining that it had been blinded by the government or foreigners.

    The Valiant was the first serious attempt to make a modern car in America for the world as it was then emerging--by that I mean the engineers got at least equal time with the stylists.
  • gardener3gardener3 Posts: 4
    I have a Mustang 65 I bought new, a long time ago. I had a refurbished engine put in and is in nice shape with several beige coats of paint. Often people ask if I want to sell it, but it isn't for sale.

    Don't feel bad about the price, fix it up and be happy with it, it's a great car. About the white smoke, I think it will disappear after it worms up. The engine is made for leaded gas and I don't know how much difference that makes?
    How much it is worth is hard to tell, you could pay a few thousand more or maybe less but it was set at the time of purchase. In a way it is like stocks on the market. :confuse:
  • My neighbor is giving me a 1965 mustang coupe for 500 dollars i dont really know if its worth it. The car has rust in the typical areas but pretty bad. It has the 289 and the floor pans are new. Is it worth it you think?
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    Where is the rust? The whole body on these can go, it can be very expensive unless you like to do body work - do you? Was the cause of the floor pan rust (likely clogged drains or rusted out panels behind the dash) repaired? If not, the rust will return. Are critical areas, like the spring attachment points, rusty? Finally, these cars, even when completely restored, pose a high risk of passenger compartment fire in a rear end collision because the gas tank forms the floor of the trunk. Just so you know.
  • the frame is alright. interior is in good condition (no rust) and right now i am in an auto body class learning about this stuff. i believe he said the pans were replaced because of clogged drains. the guy who previously owned it put some new parts on it like the hood and new trunk lid and some other stuff. but do you think that its worth 500 dollars for it,for a project car.
  • texasestexases Posts: 5,424
    How's the engine/trans, and the front end? If it runs and can be driven, and you think you can do the body work, then $500 seems OK, as long as you know it'll be a lot of work and some $$ to get it right.
  • yeah everything on it is fine. but the guy has not started it up for about 2 or 3 months. thank you for helping me out.
  • Sure, it's a good simple car to learn on and you can always unload it when you're done. Just stay sober about your budget as you put labor and money into it. Once you've acquired the skills to to a full restoration, you might want to start with a car that isn't rusted. A GT coupe would be nice, 289 auto.
  • Converting to disc brakes is the smartest,best investment you can make to a Mustang. They don't stop for crap with drum brakes. I changed my fronts to disc brakes and it was the safest thing I did.
  • isellhondasisellhondas Issaquah WashingtonPosts: 17,356
    Once again, I totally disagree.

    Yes, discs are better. No question about it. No argument there.

    But the drums work just fine too! I have owned at least four 1965-1966 Mustangs and a 1968. They all had drums and they all stopped just fine even under emergency situations.

    As long as things are up to snuff they are more than sufficient.
Sign In or Register to comment.