What is this thing worth?

Mr_Shiftright

The top down fun of a 60s American convertible can quickly lose its charm once you hit the first set of railroad tracks or bumps in the road. If you are any kind of a serious driver, you'll have to do something serious with the convertible frame. So rather than welding up a Mustang convertible to keep the windshield from dancing, I'd rather beef up (and in a sense bastardize) a coupe.

A man can add all he wants to a base Mustang, but that doesn't make it worth the price of a real GT. The market does not subsidize an individual's personalized customization decisions.

parm

The top down fun of a 60s American convertible can quickly lose its charm once you hit the first set of railroad tracks or bumps in the road. If you are any kind of a serious driver, you'll have to do something serious with the convertible frame.

I would totally agree if we're talking about using a '66 convertible as a daily driver. Personally, I wouldn't. I'd take it out only on warm early evening cruises, or to run Saturday errands. Or to the local tasty freeze or to the occassional cruise in. I can put up with less than vault-like quirks because they would be more than offset by the fun of driving a '66 Mustang convertible.

No doubt the two cars I submitted should be worth less than a "real" GT (actually, the blue one isn't pretending to be a GT). But, I was thinking you said earlier in this forum that a real GT isn't worth that much more - but that a 4-speed would make quite a bit of difference.

Getting a modern drop top Mustang isn't a bad plan in that it sure would drive exponentially better. Unfortunately, it's value drops like a UPS truck off the Sears Tower once you drive it off the lot. A 1960's Mustang should retain most of your purchase price assuming you don't mess it up along the way. And, that retention of value may be enough to steer me away from a new one over the long haul.

Mr_Shiftright

Yes I forgot that---a 4-speed option is worth a good deal more than GT options. My friend has a '66 convertible, original 4-speed with K code engine, all restored. That car is worth about as much as a Mustang convertible can be worth--as least double those other cars.

parm

What I'm Talk'n About

Just happend to check Ebay and lo and behold here is my ultimate "affordable" 1966 Mustang convertible. The ad suggests the car is a real GT. Can anyone tell if its not? Actually, the seller had this on Ebay last month and it ended with a high bid of $25,097 which did not meet the seller's reserve. It received a total of 26 bids from what appears to be about 9 bidders.

Based on what everyone is saying, somewhere around $25K should be all the money for this car. Anyone think it's worth more? We know the seller does.

bhill2

I'm going to take the opportunity to ask a question on this car. The 12th photo, by my count, is an extreme closeup of the lower section of the far left dash. Just to the right of the handbrake (which, incidentally, I recognize from my '60 Falcon) is a black knob with a cable coming off the back. What the heck is that? It doesn't look stock, and I can't figure out what it is.

parm

Personally, a stripped down 4-speed V8 coupe with AC would be perfect for me, with some handling improvements.

Your Wish Is My Command

OK, here ya go! But, sans A/C and no mention of any handling improvements. Asking price is $26,990. Ouch!!! Better be one of the best non-GT coupes on the planet for that price, wouldn't you think? Looks to be nice, but a coupe is still just a "secretary's car" isn't it?? :P - though, with a 4-speed, there aren't too many secretaries that could handle shifting their own gears.

euphonium

It's a fake. The factory GT's had a rear end ratio of 3.00, not 2.80. The correct axle code for a factory GT is 1.

euphonium

"black knob with a cable coming off the back"

My guess it is connected to a manual choke. Original choke was a heater hose mounted next to the "automatic" choke on the passenger side of the carb.

omarman

Alrighty, same exercise, but this time we're talk'n 1966 Mustang convertibles

Re: post #611
ultimate "affordable" 1966 Mustang GT vert: $25K seems fair market price due
to not only ebay bids but also condition and presentation. Look at the dirty
engine bay. And no 4-speed but does have A/C.

Still this one seems very solid and correct but definitely not a "wedding
cake," BJ trailer queen example.

And pics alone may not guarantee that all the factory GT stuff is there. Not
saying that it isn't a GT (it sure does look like a GT survivor to me) but
some bits may have gone wrong, is all.

Example: Disc brake pedal pad is correct and the master cylinder with
clip-on cap is correct, but I think there should be a special proportioning
valve attached.

May have to inspect it in person to be sure it's there and intact. Also
verify the smog device is intact since it was detailed in the description.

Otherwise, this is the best of the three I've seen posted and definitely
looks like a real GT survivor. May ultimately pull higher bids than $25K,
but that's what I think it's worth based on condition/presentation.

Re: post #601
Blue Mustang (non GT) vert: I'd put $20K on this - No A/C, no pics under
car, automatic, not a meticulous resto but very good based on pics - except
for that blue power steering pump and whatever else may catch your eye in
person.

White Mustang (GT clone) vert: Maybe $15K (more if seller details a great
engine) - No A/C, no pics under car, automatic. Plus several personal choices (top and interior) and some ambiguity which undermine the value to me.

Example: The white Mustang has a pic which only shows a shiny air cleaner
reflecting light on a shiny hood. That pic was labeled "Engine."

Why advertise a $35K GT clone and skip over the engine like that? Strange.

omarman

It's a fake. The factory GT's had a rear end ratio of 3.00, not 2.80. The correct axle code for a factory GT is 1.

Lots of great Mustang posts in here, so just to be sure, is your post directed at the ebay 260549953660, 1966 GT vert with automatic trans?

Can you give a reference for the post regarding the correct factory GT axle ratio code? I'm just a Mustang fan curious about all that...thanks.

Mr_Shiftright

It's pretty hard to argue with 26 serious bidders that they don't know the value of your car but YOU do.

Shifty Sez: "the buyer alone determines what we call the 'market'--not the seller, not the dealers, not the club members, not the price guides, not the appraiser".

Now the buyer's decision might not be rational in all cases, but given a good size database, what he decides is probably the real world number.

omarman

Just to the right of the handbrake (which, incidentally, I recognize from my '60 Falcon) is a black knob with a cable coming off the back. What the heck is that? It doesn't look stock, and I can't figure out what it is.

Looks like the vent control. Pic below is from a '65 and '66 (on the right side).

Mr_Shiftright

How does someone manage to dent the underside of the dashboard?

Yeah, vent control, that sounds right.

parm

1966 Mustang Coupe

Yeah, it's a 4-speed in a great color combination and yeah it looks to be in pretty nice shape, but $26,990??? It's not a GT, doesn't have A/C and doesn't have any appealing performance components. What am I missing here?

Mr_Shiftright

What your missing is the middleman, who takes $5K off the top.

Uh-oh, looks like it has Armstrong steering, too. That's not good. (unless the photo is too dark to see).

parm

So $21K-$22K is market correct for this '66 coupe? Still seems high to me. I was thinking more around $15K.

euphonium

You are referred to the brochures issued by the factory back then. One issue was dedicated to just the GT Mustang and the only axle ratio listed was the 3.00, but you had to choose between the 225 and the 271 h.p. engines.

In showing my 66 GT in over 100 Mustang shows, I've looked at a lot of 66 GT's & have never seen one with an axle ratio other than 3.00 & an axle code of 1.

euphonium

If the Vent control is pulled towards the rear in the photo, it could be a Vent control knob, but the style of mounting leads me to believe it could be a manual choke.

qbrozen

you guys are confusing me with this GT vs "non-GT" talk. These are all V8s, correct? So what is it that makes a V8 a "non-GT"?

parm: $15k would be more in line with a super nice 6-cyl stang.

parm

Blue GT convert I wrote the seller and said that if his car was a real GT it should have an axle code of 1 (3.00) and not an axle code of 6 (2.80). I also said that given it's apparent non-GT status and its condition that the high bid of $25K he rejected last month is pretty much all the money for this car. Here's his reply.

Not all automatics gt's had axle code 1. A variety of conventional axle ratios were used. Last month I put car for sale did not make my reserve. I'm not holding out. Car is worth more.

Sounds like there are others who want to know how to tell if a 1966 Mustang is a "real deal" GT. Can anyone shed some light on this subject???

omarman

Sounds like there are others who want to know how to tell if a 1966 Mustang is a "real deal" GT. Can anyone shed some light on this subject???

I agree with the seller of that 1966 blue GT vert linked to ebay in your post.

Because in 1966 the GT equipment group was not a separate car line, but just an RPO (regular production option) which could be added to any body style Mustang that year.

To my knowledge, and with all due respect to other posters here, there is NO data plate code or VIN code which specifies the GT equipment option in 1966.

All that to say, YES, there were axle codes other than 1 (3.00) available on a legit 1966 Mustang GT.

Also, to my knowledge, ordering the GT equipment group required either the challenger or HiPo V-8.

So, YES, a legit 1966 Mustang GT would be V-8 powered. However, a 1966 Mustang could be ordered with an A or K code V-8, and still NOT have the GT equipment option. See what I mean?

All GT Mustangs would have had V-8 engines, but not all V-8 Mustangs (even the 289cid-4V HiPo) were GT optioned.

If you google search for: 1966 Mustang GT identification you will get a decent summary of the items included in the GT equipment group.

I still believe that blue 1966 Mustang GT vert is the real deal and worth $25K.

Any road, sorry for adding to the confusion Parm. Can someone link me to the "I spotted an obscure health care option" topic?

parm

Thanks for the links. Those were very helpful. Consequently, after reading your post and some of the GT identification links, it would appear that the blue '66 convert is a real GT. Here's why:

1. This car has the HCC-AW quick ratio steering box (at least the seller says it's "tagged" as such)
2. This car has the the dual exhaust hanger reinforcement brackets under the seat
3. The VIN has the "A" code in the 5th position (it has to be either an A or a K)

Now, the ebay ad doesn't have photos to document the first two, but the seller has gone out of his way to identify these aspects and reportedly has photos of the exhaust brackets if anyone wants to see them. I guess its conceivable the steering box might not be original, but the exhaust hangers would be more difficult to fake. So, with all due respect to the axle code and assuming the seller isn't not lying, it looks like this car is a real GT.

Shifty, were there no build sheets available for these cars back then? If not, then I wonder how the folks at Marti Report would be able to authenticate this car, other than what we've discussed? - all of which could "theoretically" have been changed after the car was born. Well, except for the A code in VIN, but that in itself wouldn't prove a 1966 Mustang is a real GT. Man! This is whole thing exhausting! :confuse: Since it is so hard to prove and given all the options a dealer could have added once the car came off the transporter, I'm beginning to understand why the GT moniker doesn't dramatically increase a Mustang's value.

texases

"and doesn't have any appealing performance components."

Well, it's an A code, 4 speed, and disc brakes. Those would be the performance components I'd be looking for. The K code cars are very rare. What other performance components are there?

I'd also want power steering and AC.

Mr_Shiftright

A really really REALLY nice coupe can bring $20K

With Mustangs of this vintage, one really has to eyeball the car because, being so common, the differentiator here is quality of the work, not rarity. Mustangs are still a dime a dozen except for a very very few rare ones. So we have to ask things like:

1. Original or repo parts?

2. how we lookin' underneath?

3. quality of paint and chrome

4. are the data plates/vin plates in order and matching?

5. is this a clipped car (rear end off another).

parm

What other performance components are there?

Well, I was referring maybe to some tastefully done engine mods or perhaps suspension upgrades like this

Mr_Shiftright

Shifty Sez: "If you want a sports car, buy a sports car."

Nice-lookin' stuff, though.

There's an inherent problem, IMO, about stiffening up primitive chassis. They end up handling GREAT on smooth flat roads, and end up beating the crap out of you on city streets, and flying wildly out of control on corduroy.

A Mustang is really not much more sophisticated underneath than a 1936 Buick.

texases

Yeah, there is NO END of neat stuff you can put on an old Mustang, Shifty be damned! :P

Mr_Shiftright

A nice mod is a Tremec 5-speed transmission and vintage AC kit. I know one guy who spent about $60,000 in mods and restoration. It's pretty trick!!

euphonium

Below are the engines the early GT carried. Source: "Mustang Monthly", October, 2002, compiled by Jeff Ford.

Engine & Code Trans Rear Axle
1965 (A) 289 4V three-speed 3.00 (stnd)
four-speed 3.00 (stnd)
automatic 3.00 (stnd)
(K) 289 4V four-speed 3.50 (stnd) 3.89 (opt)
(HiPo)
1966 (A) 289 4V three-speed 3.00 (stnd)
four-speed 3.00 (stnd)
automatic 3.00 (stnd)
(K) 289 4V four-speed 3.50 (stnd) 3.89 (opt)
(HiPo) automatic 3.50 (stnd) 3.89 (opt)

The only Standard (factory) rear axle code with the A engine is 1. Ratio 3.00.

When advertising a true '66 GT with a 2.80, look further.

parm

With all the posts, you probably missed this from earlier today (#629), but it's relevant to the discussion, so I'll ask again.

Shifty, were there no build sheets available for these cars back then? If not, then I wonder how the folks at Marti Report would be able to authenticate this car, other than what we've discussed? - all of which could "theoretically" have been changed after the car was born. Well, except for the A code in VIN, but that in itself wouldn't prove a 1966 Mustang is a real GT. Man! This is whole thing exhausting! :confuse: Since it is so hard to prove and given all the options a dealer could have added once the car came off the transporter, I'm beginning to understand why the GT moniker doesn't dramatically increase a Mustang's value.

texases

I think you're right, and there's nothing a GT has that's all that special, besides the stripes and the tailpipes through the rear valence. I actually don't think the Shelby GT350 is all that much better than a properly optioned K code fastback, mechanicals-wise.

Mr_Shiftright

I think Marti reports are from factory records, so they could tell you how the car came out of the factory, yes.

But trying to match engine #s to frame #s is really difficult on Fords. Pretty much you go by date codes and cross your fingers.

michaellno

My eyes have crossed from the past 20-30 posts.

Interestingly, every time I suggest getting a "new" Mustang convertible, my wife suggests that I get an older one instead. That I'm too "old" to drive a new model Mustang (since when is 46 considered too old?)

Now that I know more than I care to about VIN decoding, engine codes, options and rear axle ratios, I think I may just bag the whole thing.

I imagine a similar discussion could be had with Hemi 'Cudas and other "rare" 60's muscle cars.

Mr_Shiftright

Look, if the price is right and the car is decent, you don't even have to look at the numbers. It's only when the asking prices are sky high over book value that the numbers get extra scrutiny and the buyer demands escalate.

parm

Michaell, here's what I would say to your wife if I were you: "Honey, YOU were right and I was wrong. Let's go classic Mustang shopping".

Talk about your win-win! :P

texases

Just wait for the 2011's to come out, then go take a test drive with her in one, and, if possible, in a 'classic'. Classic: Neater to look at. 2011: Better everything else...

michaellno

Yeah, given that I won't be shopping for another 18 months, the 2011's will have been released with both the improved V6 and V8 engines.

Of course, if it was solely up to her, we'd be looking at the latest iteration of Thunderbirds.

This is assuming that I even want to get a RWD convertible, in Denver.

parm

Latest iteration of T-Birds? You're in the $20K to $25K range for pretty nice ones. At least, that's what I've been seeing. Those holding onto the ultra-low mile examples are wanting more.

michaellno

Latest iteration of T-Birds? You're in the $20K to $25K range for pretty nice ones.

That's what I've seen on the occasions that I've searched the net.

My issue with the T-Bird is that it's huge for only being a two seater. One of the more bizarre requirements for my next car is that it can't be much longer than my current ride - 190". Otherwise, it won't fit comfortably in my garage.

euphonium

1966 Mustang is a "real deal" GT. Can anyone shed some light on this subject???

See post 636 about GT axle codes and ratios.

parm

Yup, saw that. What you're saying makes sense. But, other GT determinant data doesn't even mention axle codes. Your source says a 3.00 axle is "standard". Isn't it theoretically possible that a 2.80 could have been optional? Likewise, given that not all plants built all cars the exact same way in the 1960's, isn't it possible that some '66 Mustangs could've rolled off the assembly line with a 2.80 axle?? Maybe there were times when the plant didn't have any 3.00 axles to install and shoved in what they had on the shelf at the time. Wouldn't happen today, but in 1966 . . . . . when Ford was making as many of these things as they possibly could . . . . . maybe???

Hard to refute what the seller is saying because those signs (exhaust hangers and steering box) point to his car being a true GT. If I owned that car and had it listed for sale, I would try to obtain some paperwork to prove it's a real GT. Anyone know how to do that for a 1966 Mustang other than getting a Marti Report? Wonder how much one of those costs?

qbrozen

Wait ... are we talking the '02-'05 tbirds? Cause I see those for DIRT cheap around here. I mean, well down into the teens.

parm

Wait ... are we talking the '02-'05 tbirds? Cause I see those for DIRT cheap around here. I mean, well down into the teens.

OK, back to T-Birds. Yeah, you'll see some in the teens, sure. But, the nicer one's I've seen are in the low to mid 20's. I was at the Fall '09 Kruse auction in Auburn, IN and there were several in the car corral asking $25K. Now, of course, we don't know if any actually "sold" at that price.

qbrozen

Now, of course, we don't know if any actually "sold" at that price.

geesh. I hope not. I mean, just a quick search in my immediate area turns up a bunch with less than 40k miles for under $20k. I guess it depends on what your requirements are. But there is even an '04 Deluxe with just 6k miles for $23,995 asking at a Ford dealer.

ghulet

T-birds are certainly not the most popular used car in Chicago, but prices range from $14k (03 with 98k miles) to $28k (04 'Anniversary Edition' with 10k miles), with the majority being right at $20k. I have the feeling that, given the market and the middle-of-winter, there are probably deals to be had.

To each their own, but I never understood the allure of these cars. They're not particularly quick, they're heavy, use lots of gas and have only two seats; plus, if I'm not mistaken, don't you actually have to remove the hardtop? No, thanks. For the $$, I'd probably get a new (or newish) Mustang convert, or maybe a few years old BMW or Corvette or or or.....I'm not too big on two-seaters in general, though. I don't have the extra money or space for a toy.

Mr_Shiftright

Now that I think of it, Marti reports don't go back to 1966. So yeah, the answer is---there's no way to definitively spot a real GT. It can all be faked. Probably most "cloners" won't go through the trouble of modifying the steering box and exhaust bracket hanger re-inforcements, since adding GT equipment probably doesn't even have a break-even payback.

michaellno

Here in Denver, the story is pretty much the same on T-Birds. Only 5 within 50 miles of my office, ranging in price from $21K ('03 with 24K) to $18K ('03 with 51K).

Two don't have prices at all, according to cars.com.

Hey, a T-Bird wouldn't be my first choice either .. this is my wife's preference if we ever get a top-down car.

I'd prefer a later model Mustang, preferably a GT, with an automatic.

(There are several close by - a black '07 GT stick with 13K for $25K, a red '05 GT auto with 41K for $20.5K, and a white '08 V6 auto with 26K for $15.5K)

I like the idea of 4 seats, even if the rears would rarely get used.

euphonium

The chart did show alternate ratios for the Shelby 350 from the factory. In that there were no alternate ratios shown for the GT it is logical to assume there were not other options.

The 3.00 ratio was reserved for the GT on a #1 priority because it was the "performance axle" & the GT was considered the more performing Stang. If economy was your goal, you would purchase the 6 cyl or maybe the 200 h.p. 2Bbl 289 that had the 2.80.

Speculation otherwise is very highly improbable.

parm

Meant to say earlier that during inventory parts shortages it might have been theorectically possible for a 2.80 axle to have been put into an A-code GT and not just any 'ol Mustang. Having said that, I certainly understand where you're coming from. It makes sense that Ford would put the more sturdy axle into A-code GT's.

parm

K.A.R. Auto Group (located in Columbus, OH) specializes in Mustangs. I've actually been there. Neat place. These guys are some of the foremost Mustang gurus in the universe. On their website, they discuss what to look for in a true 1965-66 Mustang GT. How To Identify A True 1965-66 Mustang GT

Unfortunately, there's no mention of the whole axle code issue. I found the following items from this identification guide to be most interesting:

Tip #3: Not all cars with the A or K code engines were GT’s. In fact, only about 4% were original factory GT’s.

The best way for a hobbyist to identify a “true” factory GT is to find the original Broadcast Sheet or Buck Tag and look for a P10 option (1965/66).

Where is the Buck Tag located on a 1966 Mustang??