They were basically Ford Falcons but WOW, did they take the market by storm! Ours didn't rust but they ate ball joints and idler arms. The bucket seats were flat and uncomfortable.
Still, slamming a 271 H.P.one through the gears was pretty exciting. I watched one smoke a GTO one night.
Yep, I had a 170 with the Dagenham (made in England) 4 speed. Made me think I was fast, but I could beat it and be doing at most 60. As for 64 1/2, I don't know if it was an official designation, but it is a convenient way to differentiate the early generator ones from the later alternator ones, along with the 170 and 260 going away...and yes, it was a rustbucket POS wrapped in the best body of its day...
My '66 Mustang I had in the late 80's/early 90's spent most of its life up north and most of the driver's and passenger's front footwell areas were gone due to rust. Being poor at the time, some nice metal sheets pop-riveted into place did the trick so that I no longer had an upside down sunroof......
Also famous in the 65-66 mustang was the ability of the the interior vent channel (made of what looked to be a coffee can) to rust out and allow water coming in through the windshield vent intake to dump on the drivers left leg. Pity the poor soul who was looking for the sloshing sound under the dash and opened the vent. It would hold a good couple of quarts of water, then dump it all when the vent was opened. It required the drilling out of over 100 spot welds to remove the vent panel and perform repairs. I did a temporary repair on mine by running a tube in from the top and injecting a whole tube of calk. It rains a lot down on the Texas coast, and the leaking was causing the carpet to rot.
in fact, everything you ever wanted to know about the buried car...and things you probably didn't want to know...websurfer beware---the Philly Chamber of Commerce has the bit in their mouths on this one!
Nope-- there is no such thing as a 64&1/2 Mustang.
Owners will beat this to death but they are wrong. Sorry.
Well there is no 1964.5 Mustang in the sense that they were all advertised and titled as 1965's. However, the batch that was produced from March through July of 1964 did have some differences from the rest of the '65's. Supposedly the later models are a bit more refined, a bit better built, and have the better engine choices. I think one notable difference was that the early models used a generator, while the later ones had an alternator.
Do value guides make a distinction in value between the "1964.5" Mustangs and the "proper" 1965's? Seems to me that proper ones would be more valuable, if they're better built and have better engine choices, but then the early models, I guess, have that "wow" factor, of being among the first examples of the ponycar craze that started sweeping America.
No there's no difference in value between early 1965s and late 1965s.....that's all it is...65s with some early features and 65s with some later features.
It's possible that a VERY low serial number might have a small cache (certainly #1 would!!) but it's still a 1965 Mustang.
If anybody finds "1964&1/2" stamped on any VIN plate, build sheet, or shred of Ford factory literature, that would be news---because nobody ever has yet.
No real difference in value between the "early" 1965's and the later ones. I don't think there was any difference in build quality. I once had the 338th one built. It had the plaque on the dash.." Original Edition Mustang" and the owner's name, Ruby Garrison. I heard those plaques went on the first 500 built. I don't recall that adding any value (at the time) to the car.
It had a generator and the 260 with an automatic.
This was in the mid-seventies. I think I paid 400.00 for it, kept it for a year and I sold it for about what I paid for it. It was in decent shape, rust free California car.
IIRC, VW actually DID market a "2001.5" Passat that was a bit different from the 1997-01 Passat. The 2001.5 was essentially an extra-early 2002 Passat. How are these things registered though...as '01's or '02's?
I kinda miss the old days when the new model year pretty much started in September. But in recent history, I remember the '00 Neon being rushed out in April of 1999, so that it could proclaim to be the first new car of the new millenium. IIRC the PT Cruiser was out awfully early as well, as was the original Neon. I also remember first seeing 2005 300's in March of 2004. And the final run of 2004 Intrepids was built out as of September 2003.
It goes by model year. If it's a 2001 and it's the last one ever built and it's version 2001/10, it's still a 2001. It's whatever it says on the Data Plate.
Didn't the Corvette skip 1983? Didn't the Miata skip '97? I thought VW skipped 2007 for the TDIs because of emissions requirements and they are badged as '06s?
that the earliest a car of any given model year can be manufactured is January 1 of the year before. So in theory, they could have started building 2008 model year cars on January 1, 2007.
is an ugly looking little thing, but somehow I find it interesting. I guess partly its because it's a hardtop, which was almost unheard of with small domestic cars, although fairly common with the Japanese. And partly just because it's something I've never seen before.
You're very close...cars built on January 2, 2007 can be officially called 2008 models (with their VINs indicating the same). In fact, the 2008 Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner are due out very soon, if not already available.
Remember that the original Citation was advertised as the "first Chevy of the 80s, Chevy Citaaaaaation!" It and the rest of the soon-to-be-infamous X-cars came out in April 1979 as I recall.
For '81 the slogan was for the Citation was "it works," which appeared in the Forrest Gump movie as a bus shelter ad, IIRC.
I know this a hotly debated subject, but my memory vaguely recalls Ford advertising the first Mustang as a 1964 1/2 (TV only maybe?). I agree though as far as VINs go, the car was a 1965 model.
I also recall the year before, the new fastback hardtop version of the Galaxie 500 being called a 1963 1/2, as it too came out in March or April of '63. Officially, this car was still a '63 model, not an early '64.
with a 2001.5 Passat, and he says that it's registered as a 2001. Although it's more closely related to the 2002+ style than the 1997-01 style. I wonder how that reflects on resale value? I'd think a 2001.5 Passat would be worth more than a similar condition/optioned 2001, but I don't think price guides make a distinction.
I almost forgot about another Ford product, the "1970.5" Falcon, which was really a strippo Torino in style and not a 1966-70 Falcon.
That may be true but you never see then registered that way of course and if you order parts it's by VIN number, not "I need a clutch for a 2005.5 Audi".
Sure some marketing person might have come up with 1964 % 1/2 Mustang but DMV doesn't think so and neither do the value guides or auction houses. So really the term is sort of a hobbyist's affectation--harmless enough I guess.
Yeah, I find it interesting too...kind of a weird Japanese take on early 70s styling themes. It's quite homely, but I couldn't help but examine it. Probably the only one left like that.
LOL, do you think Corsicas and Berettas are now "old" enough to be shown there? How about first-gen Luminas, one of the ugliest early 90s cars made, IMO?
My brother had a 93 Lumina 'Euro' sedan. It was reliable enough until the tranny died. White with the black and red (I think) 'Euro' trim...Chevy was giving BMW a run for the money! Add on the mouse fur interior and nauseating 3.1 engine note, and driving pleasure was endless.
I could see it at that show, along with a Beretta and a Pontiac Sunbird.
So I'm sure that a Beretta or Lumina would be more than welcome! :P Actually, at the brand-specific shows like the GM Nats, Mopar Nats, etc, all the car has to be is of that brand; there is no age restriction. Heck, I've put my 2000 Intrepid in the Mopar show for every year since I've had it except 2006. I remember in 2000, there were something like 4-5 2nd-gen Intrepids out on the field. Nowadays I think there's often 50+. Kinda interesting, that people would think enough of their Intrepids to put them in a car show. At the GM nats you don't really see a surplus of Impalas or Luminas, and I doubt anybody at the Ford show proudly displays their Taurus unless it's a SHO.
As for my Intrepid, the main reason I'd put it in the show is because I'm in a club, and the clubs at Carlisle get prize money, divided up according to how many cars that clubs has registered for the show. I have a buddy that usually goes up with me, and since I got my '79 NYer, I've been putting them both in the show. He'd drive the Intrepid and I'd drive the NYer, and we'd usually just leave the NYer at the show for the whole weekend, and use the Trep for driving around.
Here's a pic I took of the Intrepid row back in 2005: Almost looks like a used car lot, doesn't it?
Kill me but I don't think that those citations look that bad with the color keyed bumpers and hood bulge. It was certainly better looking than some of the stuff that Chevy put out later in the 80s.
Kill me but I don't think that those citations look that bad with the color keyed bumpers and hood bulge. It was certainly better looking than some of the stuff that Chevy put out later in the 80s.
Oh yeah, for the time I don't think they were bad looking cars at all. I think that if GM had built them correctly from the get-go, the automotive landscape would look much different today, with a much stronger GM dominance. I never really cared for the hatchback styles, but I thought the notchback sedans that Olds and Buick offered were pretty sharp, and the Pontiac Phoenix SJ coupe wasn't a bad looking car.
I think they definitely had a sportier, more youthful flair about them than Chrysler's K-cars. Or a Fairmont/Zephyr.
Whats worse is how incredibly versatile a Citation was with the hatch. It was like a Saab 9000 where it is just absolutely incredible what would fit in that car. It also gave its front half to the Pontiac Fiero. The engine cradle was Citation and the front was Chevette. I think back though and its amazing how far cars have come. The Fairmont/Zephyr and K-cars, jeez.
We owned an '81 Olds Omega Brogham 2 door with the 2.5L Iron Duke four, and a 4spd stick. Special ordered for the wife and I as we were driving 75miles a day to and from work. The first thing I noticed about the car was that it was incredibly quiet on the highway. I mean like spooky quiet. It got over 30mpg on the highway, but had a bad habit of burning out the air injection tubes. Not a bad little car, just not exceptional.
I just thought I'd add that the GM Nationals really isn't as dead as that X-body picture might suggest. The Mopar show is always a much bigger draw, but I had taken that pic of the Citations around, oh, 6:30-7 in the evening on a Friday, so most of the crowd had pulled out.
My best friend had a 1980 Chevrolet Citation that was cream-colored with green accents and a orangish interior. That car took him through high school, undergraduate school, graduate school, and into the first year of his marriage. The car had 195K+ miles on it by the time it bit the dust and looked like it had gone through a couple of wars.
At one point he had an accident and replaced the cream-colored hood with a green one that matched the accents. It made for a very strange-looking two tone car - as if he had ordered the car that way.
I borrowed it a few times and it was quite a leap from my big RWD V-8 cars to that buzzy little 4-cylinder. The FWD had such torque steer, I thought making a left turn would rip my arms off at the elbows. However, being a 5-door hatchback, the car was very versatile. Kind of like a poor man's Saab 900 as the poster above described. It was amazing how much one could fit in that little car, especially with the rear seat down.
Too bad GM's execution of the car was so poor. If the Citation was built as well as a Camry, we'd probably see the 2007 Chevrolet Citation kicking the 2007 Camry and Accord's butt!
I think the Citation might have actually been one of the first downsized cars that actually gave up nothing in interior room compared to the car it replaced. While cars like the 1977 Impala and 1978 Malibu were more space-efficient than the mastodons they replaced, you still lost something, somewhere. Shoulder room was tighter, for one thing. And while most other published dimensions, such as legroom and headroom, often came off better, that still didn't take into account things like wheel wells, transmission/driveshaft humps, or dashboards that cut into useable space. Since the downsized cars were shorter overall but had similar-sized, or even larger passenger cabins, that meant the passenger compartment often had to overlap the transmission more, creating a larger hump.
Downsizing seemed to benefit the coupes more than the sedans, as the coupes tended to pick up about 3-4 inches of legroom in back, where the sedans pretty much just maintained what they had. I remember being able to fit in the back seat of my '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass, or '86 Monte with no trouble at all, but the only way I can fit in the back of my '76 LeMans, with the seat all the way back, is sideways! And the squared-off rear decks gave them a bit more trunk room. Oddly though, wagons didn't take as well to downsizing. The '77 Impala wagon has about the same cargo volume as the '77 Malibu wagon. And the downsized '78 Malibu wagon has about the same cargo volume as wagons like the Aspen/Volare and Fairmont/Zephyr, which at the time were billed as compacts.
The Citation, however, seemed to give up nothing in interior room. They were about as wide inside, or wider, than the Nova had been. I think legroom and headroom were slightly improved as well, and even trunk volume was bumped up a bit. Those old Novas, while not exactly small on the outside, had a lot in common with the Camaro/Firebird, and I think that predicated them having a long hood, which is going to leave less room for the passenger compartment and trunk. The Citation's FWD layout also freed up a lot of interior space. They could have made these 6-passenger cars if they really wanted to, but to save a couple bucks they did away with the center seatbelts and gave it bucket-seat style seatbacks.
In a sort of way, the current Malibu fills the Citations old role. If the early models hadn't tarnished the Citation name, then what became the Corsica and then the 1997 Malibu probably would have carried on the nameplate.
I wonder, if Chevy hadn't overlapped the Malibu and Celebrity for two years (1982-83) if the Malibu name would have transferred to what ultimately became the Celebrity?
I LOVE '55 Buicks, but the 4-door really look dumpy---too bad...some 4-doors come out okay in design and some don't.
I think that '55 Super 4-door looks a bit awkward because it's really a Cadillac with Buick sheetmetal. Supers and Roadmasters used the Cadillac C-body, while Specials and Centurys used the smaller B-body, and shared their roofline with the Oldsmobiles. It's hard to find good pics online of old 4-door cars, since hardtops and convertibles are what everybody wants, but here's a drawing of a '55 Special 4-door from the sales brochure: 1955 Buick Special. Naturally, the hardtops and convertibles were more attractive looking, but I think the Special/Century sedan is a neat, tiday package. I think the problem with the C-body is that it may have been conceived as a Cadillac first, and when they tried to apply Buick sheetmetal to it, and shrunk up the wheelbase a bit, it just didn't work quite as well.
You can see the difference in rooflines with the '57-58 Buicks, as well. The more expensive C-body Super/Roadmaster/Limited had a Cadillac-like reverse-slant C-pillar, in both hardtop coupe and sedan. Did they even offer a pillared sedan in the Super/Roadmaster line for '57-58? I can't recall ever seeing one. The B-bodies had a more conventional forward-swooping C-pillar
Comments
Still, slamming a 271 H.P.one through the gears was pretty exciting. I watched one smoke a GTO one night.
Owners will beat this to death but they are wrong. Sorry.
in fact, everything you ever wanted to know about the buried car...and things you probably didn't want to know...websurfer beware---the Philly Chamber of Commerce has the bit in their mouths on this one!
http://www.buriedcar.com/
Owners will beat this to death but they are wrong. Sorry.
Well there is no 1964.5 Mustang in the sense that they were all advertised and titled as 1965's. However, the batch that was produced from March through July of 1964 did have some differences from the rest of the '65's. Supposedly the later models are a bit more refined, a bit better built, and have the better engine choices. I think one notable difference was that the early models used a generator, while the later ones had an alternator.
Do value guides make a distinction in value between the "1964.5" Mustangs and the "proper" 1965's? Seems to me that proper ones would be more valuable, if they're better built and have better engine choices, but then the early models, I guess, have that "wow" factor, of being among the first examples of the ponycar craze that started sweeping America.
It's possible that a VERY low serial number might have a small cache (certainly #1 would!!) but it's still a 1965 Mustang.
If anybody finds "1964&1/2" stamped on any VIN plate, build sheet, or shred of Ford factory literature, that would be news---because nobody ever has yet.
It had a generator and the 260 with an automatic.
This was in the mid-seventies. I think I paid 400.00 for it, kept it for a year and I sold it for about what I paid for it. It was in decent shape, rust free California car.
I kinda miss the old days when the new model year pretty much started in September. But in recent history, I remember the '00 Neon being rushed out in April of 1999, so that it could proclaim to be the first new car of the new millenium. IIRC the PT Cruiser was out awfully early as well, as was the original Neon. I also remember first seeing 2005 300's in March of 2004. And the final run of 2004 Intrepids was built out as of September 2003.
Remember that the original Citation was advertised as the "first Chevy of the 80s, Chevy Citaaaaaation!" It and the rest of the soon-to-be-infamous X-cars came out in April 1979 as I recall.
For '81 the slogan was for the Citation was "it works," which appeared in the Forrest Gump movie as a bus shelter ad, IIRC.
I also recall the year before, the new fastback hardtop version of the Galaxie 500 being called a 1963 1/2, as it too came out in March or April of '63. Officially, this car was still a '63 model, not an early '64.
I almost forgot about another Ford product, the "1970.5" Falcon, which was really a strippo Torino in style and not a 1966-70 Falcon.
Audi and VW have a tendancy to call their cars 2005.5 or some such and a lot of times I have seen the value guides reflect that.
Sure some marketing person might have come up with 1964 % 1/2 Mustang but DMV doesn't think so and neither do the value guides or auction houses. So really the term is sort of a hobbyist's affectation--harmless enough I guess.
2016 Audi A7 3.0T S Line, 2021 Subaru WRX
I could see it at that show, along with a Beretta and a Pontiac Sunbird.
So I'm sure that a Beretta or Lumina would be more than welcome! :P Actually, at the brand-specific shows like the GM Nats, Mopar Nats, etc, all the car has to be is of that brand; there is no age restriction. Heck, I've put my 2000 Intrepid in the Mopar show for every year since I've had it except 2006. I remember in 2000, there were something like 4-5 2nd-gen Intrepids out on the field. Nowadays I think there's often 50+. Kinda interesting, that people would think enough of their Intrepids to put them in a car show. At the GM nats you don't really see a surplus of Impalas or Luminas, and I doubt anybody at the Ford show proudly displays their Taurus unless it's a SHO.
As for my Intrepid, the main reason I'd put it in the show is because I'm in a club, and the clubs at Carlisle get prize money, divided up according to how many cars that clubs has registered for the show. I have a buddy that usually goes up with me, and since I got my '79 NYer, I've been putting them both in the show. He'd drive the Intrepid and I'd drive the NYer, and we'd usually just leave the NYer at the show for the whole weekend, and use the Trep for driving around.
Here's a pic I took of the Intrepid row back in 2005:
Almost looks like a used car lot, doesn't it?
Yeah, a used car lot for Avis
Kill me but I don't think that those citations look that bad with the color keyed bumpers and hood bulge. It was certainly better looking than some of the stuff that Chevy put out later in the 80s.
Oh yeah, for the time I don't think they were bad looking cars at all. I think that if GM had built them correctly from the get-go, the automotive landscape would look much different today, with a much stronger GM dominance. I never really cared for the hatchback styles, but I thought the notchback sedans that Olds and Buick offered were pretty sharp, and the Pontiac Phoenix SJ coupe wasn't a bad looking car.
I think they definitely had a sportier, more youthful flair about them than Chrysler's K-cars. Or a Fairmont/Zephyr.
It also gave its front half to the Pontiac Fiero. The engine cradle was Citation and the front was Chevette.
I think back though and its amazing how far cars have come. The Fairmont/Zephyr and K-cars, jeez.
At one point he had an accident and replaced the cream-colored hood with a green one that matched the accents. It made for a very strange-looking two tone car - as if he had ordered the car that way.
I borrowed it a few times and it was quite a leap from my big RWD V-8 cars to that buzzy little 4-cylinder. The FWD had such torque steer, I thought making a left turn would rip my arms off at the elbows. However, being a 5-door hatchback, the car was very versatile. Kind of like a poor man's Saab 900 as the poster above described. It was amazing how much one could fit in that little car, especially with the rear seat down.
Too bad GM's execution of the car was so poor. If the Citation was built as well as a Camry, we'd probably see the 2007 Chevrolet Citation kicking the 2007 Camry and Accord's butt!
Downsizing seemed to benefit the coupes more than the sedans, as the coupes tended to pick up about 3-4 inches of legroom in back, where the sedans pretty much just maintained what they had. I remember being able to fit in the back seat of my '80 Malibu, '82 Cutlass, or '86 Monte with no trouble at all, but the only way I can fit in the back of my '76 LeMans, with the seat all the way back, is sideways! And the squared-off rear decks gave them a bit more trunk room. Oddly though, wagons didn't take as well to downsizing. The '77 Impala wagon has about the same cargo volume as the '77 Malibu wagon. And the downsized '78 Malibu wagon has about the same cargo volume as wagons like the Aspen/Volare and Fairmont/Zephyr, which at the time were billed as compacts.
The Citation, however, seemed to give up nothing in interior room. They were about as wide inside, or wider, than the Nova had been. I think legroom and headroom were slightly improved as well, and even trunk volume was bumped up a bit. Those old Novas, while not exactly small on the outside, had a lot in common with the Camaro/Firebird, and I think that predicated them having a long hood, which is going to leave less room for the passenger compartment and trunk. The Citation's FWD layout also freed up a lot of interior space. They could have made these 6-passenger cars if they really wanted to, but to save a couple bucks they did away with the center seatbelts and gave it bucket-seat style seatbacks.
In a sort of way, the current Malibu fills the Citations old role. If the early models hadn't tarnished the Citation name, then what became the Corsica and then the 1997 Malibu probably would have carried on the nameplate.
I wonder, if Chevy hadn't overlapped the Malibu and Celebrity for two years (1982-83) if the Malibu name would have transferred to what ultimately became the Celebrity?
Re: Citation/Corsica/Malibu etc...those GM naming conventions are something to think about. Changing names all the time is a bad idea.
I'd definitely consider a partial restoration on a '55 Coupe or harddtop.
I think that '55 Super 4-door looks a bit awkward because it's really a Cadillac with Buick sheetmetal. Supers and Roadmasters used the Cadillac C-body, while Specials and Centurys used the smaller B-body, and shared their roofline with the Oldsmobiles. It's hard to find good pics online of old 4-door cars, since hardtops and convertibles are what everybody wants, but here's a drawing of a '55 Special 4-door from the sales brochure:
1955 Buick Special. Naturally, the hardtops and convertibles were more attractive looking, but I think the Special/Century sedan is a neat, tiday package. I think the problem with the C-body is that it may have been conceived as a Cadillac first, and when they tried to apply Buick sheetmetal to it, and shrunk up the wheelbase a bit, it just didn't work quite as well.
You can see the difference in rooflines with the '57-58 Buicks, as well. The more expensive C-body Super/Roadmaster/Limited had a Cadillac-like reverse-slant C-pillar, in both hardtop coupe and sedan. Did they even offer a pillared sedan in the Super/Roadmaster line for '57-58? I can't recall ever seeing one. The B-bodies had a more conventional forward-swooping C-pillar
Wow, I thought the first year for the Mustang was 1964 and 1/2... :P