Читать книгу Steve Magnante's 1001 Mustang Facts - Steve Magnante - Страница 10
Оглавление1964½–1966 Falcon Births a Pony
1 There is no such thing as a 1964½ Mustang. Every one of the 680,989 first-year Mustangs built carries a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) formally designating it as a 1965 model year product (5 stamped into the first position of the VIN sequence). The 1964½ myth stems from the fact that Ford (wisely) began building ’65 Mustangs in March 1964 to get a running start and ensure availability on the official April 17, 1964, launch date. Better informed Mustang enthusiasts refer to these cars as early 1965s instead of 1964½s, something I’ll do throughout this book. So what’s up with the cover of this book (“Covers All Mustangs 1964½ to Present”)? Er, well, if you leave the 1964½ off the cover, many people who have not learned this fact yet will think I have omitted the early 1965s. So, it’s there, just this once. I promise.
2 Ford product planners expected to sell 100,000 1965 Mustangs. The number was surpassed a mere three months after introduction. By the end of the 1965 model run, the sales target had been exceeded nearly sevenfold (680,989). For some perspective, Ford’s iconic 1955–1957 two-seat Thunderbird (Mustang’s thematic precursor) only sold 53,166 units (16,155 in 1955, 15,631 in 1956, and 21,380 in 1957) over its three-year model run. That Ford was able to expand Mustang output to meet demand without curbing production of Falcon, Fairlane, Galaxie, Thunderbird, and truck models speaks to the expertise of its plant managers.
3 Where is the very first Mustang? Did it survive? Sold new to a Canadian airline pilot named Stanley Tucker by George Parsons Ford of St. John’s, Newfoundland, the world’s first privately-owned pony car is a Wimbledon White 260 V-8 convertible bearing VIN 5F08F1000001. Fortunately, it is alive and well and currently on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan. Tucker bought the car on April 14, three days before official introduction, and put around 10,000 miles on the car before trading it back to Ford on March 2, 1966. It seems that Ford president Lee Iacocca wanted Number One back and actively sought out Mr. Tucker. So, what did the owner of the world’s first retail Mustang take in trade? He took the one millionth Mustang, a loaded Silver Frost 1966 V-8 convertible.
4 With the understanding that all first-year Mustangs bear a 1965 VIN tag, cars built before July 31, 1964, have a large number of unique features that differ from cars built on August 1, 1964 and later. This is where the 1964½ mythos arises. Although functionally similar, early-build 1965 cars (March 9 to July 31, 1964) were assembled with unique parts in the braking system, electrical system, horns, interior, and engine. The differences are highlighted throughout this chapter.
5 Before settling on the Mustang name, the Ford marketing group responsible for naming the car initially considered numerous alternates. Among them were Allegro, Torino, Turino, T-5, Thunderbird II, T-Bird II, Colt, Bronco, Maverick, Pinto, and even Cougar. One initial name that saw limited use in production was T-5. Mustangs sold in Germany were badged T-5s from 1965 through 1979 because Krupp Heavy Industries owned the rights to the Mustang name in that country.
6 The only retail-available Mustang two-seaters built by Ford (so far) were the 1965 Shelby GT350s. But did you know that early plans considered the possibility of making all Mustangs two-seaters? After watching imports of post–World War II British sports cars mushroom, Ford product planners constructed the 1962 Mustang I, a potential vision of mass-produced future offerings. With its Targa band half roof, mid-mounted V-4 engine, and two-seat layout, the Mustang I was Ford’s first true sports car. Decision makers deemed the experimental prototype too exotic for the huge sales numbers they demanded. A running Mustang I is on display at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan.
7 Because the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) initially rejected Ford’s request to declare the new 1965 Mustang 2+2 a “sports car” (crucial for competition eligibility), Ford turned to popular SCCA Cobra racer Carroll Shelby to serve as a negotiator and messenger. Stepping back, Ford let Shelby work with SCCA to determine the steps needed to get the Mustang accepted for sanctioned SCCA race events. One sticking point was its back seat. Proper sports cars simply didn’t have them. As plans for the 1965 GT350 solidified, the elimination of the back seat was a primary detail. Thus, each of the 562 1965 Mustang GT350s was delivered to the retail customer as a two-seater with a textured black plastic package shelf replacing the stock 2+2 folding rear seat. For 1966, the SCCA loosened its standards and approved Ford’s desire to offer an optional back seat in ’66 GT350 Mustangs. As a result, approximately 100 ’66 GT350s were built as two-seaters. The remaining 2,274 had normal Mustang back seats.
This floor panel helped overcome SCCA concerns about Mustang’s status as a sports car.
8 Before that Mustang II (Ford’s controversial Pinto-based 1974 model), the name was used a decade earlier on an experimental show car that debuted in October 1963. Although it featured an exaggerated sloping nose, extended rear quarter panels, and other never-made-it-to-production touches, the Mustang II served to fan the flames of public anticipation for the real Mustang during the six months before its first public showing on April 17, 1964. IMC released a highly detailed 1/25-scale plastic model kit of the 1963 Mustang II show car was shortly after. The kit is still available today from Lindberg.
9 Did Ford really hang a new Mustang from the Empire State Building? Yes, but unlike the famed 1933 movie primate clutching a Fay Wray doll, the car wasn’t clinging to the spire, but was instead carefully positioned atop the outdoor observation deck, 1,472 feet above the sidewalk. Most folks today assume the stunt was part of the initial 1965 Mustang launch, but it happened on October 20, 1965, as part of the hoopla surrounding the 1966 model rollout, Mustang’s second year of production.
10 The October 1966 Empire State Building Mustang publicity stunt centered on a new 1966 convertible. Rather than attempt a lift using a helicopter, Ford’s Experimental Garage took a stock vehicle, removed the engine and transmission, and then sliced it into four sections. The stunt car was shipped to NYC and unloaded on the street in front of the Empire State Building at 10:30 p.m. Then the car was disassembled for loading into passenger elevators to the observation deck. By 4:30 a.m., the car was reassembled and ready to be photographed by waiting news helicopters. At 11:00 a.m. the car was disassembled and brought inside the observation tower, where it remained to greet more than 14,000 visitors in the months that followed.
11 Timed and priced perfectly to appeal to baby boomers, Mustang’s success was so newsworthy it caught the attention of the traditionally non-automotive press. Time, and Newsweek ran simultaneous cover stories on the Mustang phenomenon. It was not the last time Iacocca appeared on Time’s cover. Two decades later, the March 21, 1983, issue featured Lee’s illustrated mug sprouting from the grille of a Chrysler Town & Country convertible. The headline read “Detroit’s Comeback Kid.” By then, Iacocca was Chrysler’s chairman and savior.
12 Wilson Pickett’s 1966 hit R&B single “Mustang Sally” isn’t one of the great car guy songs (packed with meaningful gearhead tech lyrics), but its infectious backbeat and stylized keyboards more than make up for it. But did you know Pickett’s version was actually a cover of a song originally written and performed by Mack Rice in 1965? According to music historian Tom Shannon, the song was initially titled “Mustang Mama,” but Aretha Franklin suggested the name change. Although Pickett seemed fine singing the lyric, “I bought you a brand-new Mustang, a 1965 h’uh!” when the subject car would have been last year’s edition, the Young Rascals updated the model year to “1966” in their same-year cover of the tune. Years before Mack Rice wrote and sang the first version of “Mustang Sally,” he was part of an R&B group called The Falcons (1957–1960). That’s ironic when you remember the fact that Ford based the Mustang on its compact Falcon economy car platform.
13 The Kingston Trio’s Bob Shane may be well known for his role in re-popularizing folk music, but he also holds a very special place in Mustang history. In 1966, Carroll Shelby wanted to evaluate what a GT350 convertible might be like, so his company built four of them, an Ivy Green car with an automatic transmission (6S2375), a Spring Yellow 4-speed (6S2376), a Candy Apple Red 4-speed (6S2377), and a Sapphire Blue automatic (6S2378). They were used for testing and PR duties in Los Angeles and Detroit. Eventually, the quartet broke up and the Candy Apple Red 4-speed was sold to Bob Shane. Today the car exists in pristine, restored condition (see Fact No. 125).
14 The Falcon (Mustang’s platform donor) was Ford’s answer to growing public demand for compact cars in the late 1950s. Spurred by successful imports such as the VW Beetle and Renault Dauphine as well as existing domestics including the Rambler American and Studebaker Lark, the Falcon joined the Plymouth Valiant and Chevrolet Corvair for a 1960 model year rollout. Falcon’s most popular 1960 models were the two-door sedan (193,470 built) and four-door sedan (167,896 built), followed by station wagons with two doors (27,552 built) and four doors (46,758 built). So, with the Falcon platform’s ability to accept a station wagon body, did Ford ever make a Mustang station wagon? Yes and no. Although Ford stylists rendered numerous long-roof design proposals in-house, each was quickly shot down by Ford styling chief Eugene Bordinat, who saw Mustang as a sporty personal car and nothing else. By the way, Falcon convertibles were not offered until the 1963 model year.
15 Car and Driver magazine started the Mustang station wagon rumor mill churning with its October 1966 cover shot depicting a dark green Mustang station wagon. Looking very much like a teaser for the real thing, the car was actually built in Italy by Intermeccanica, a Turin-based custom vehicle outfit. A collaboration between automotive journalist Barney Clark, Detroit stylist Robert Cumberford, and car enthusiast Jim Licata, the wagon began life as an early 1965 coupe (289/C4 automatic) to which a steel roof extension was added. Looking very stock and fully detailed, the carpeted cargo space measured 44 inches wide and 36 inches deep with the rear seat folded down.
16 Sadly, Clark and Cumberford were rebuffed by Ford, which turned a blind eye to their Mustang station wagon project. Undeterred, the Car and Driver story published Cumberford’s mailing address, should interested parties elect to have Intermeccanica build one for them. It is not known whether any orders were taken. Today, Robert Cumberford’s written design critiques can be seen every month in Automobile magazine. The informative column is called “Cumberford by Design.”
17 Were any four-door Mustangs built by Ford? The idea was certainly tossed around, and a photo of a full-size styling buck, dated January 7, 1963, depicts the passenger’s side of a very austere-looking Mustang coupe with four doors, 13-inch whitewall tires, base Falcon hubcaps, and a front license plate marked “Falcon SP 9C 03.” A look through the clear windows reveals that the driver’s side of the body has the standard Mustang two-door configuration. Likely built to allow decision makers to easily see how two- and four-door treatments worked on the same model, the four-door was probably nixed for fear it would cannibalize Falcon sales.
18 The secrecy surrounding Mustang’s launch was so tight, even Motor Trend magazine wasn’t given the whole story when it awarded its coveted 1964 “Car of the Year” trophy to the entire Ford lineup. That’s why the cover image on the February 1964 issue of MT depicts a Galaxie, a Falcon, a Fairlane, a Thunderbird, and no Mustang. In those pre-Internet days, as many as three months passed between the words on the reporter’s typewriter and their arrival at the local magazine stand. When editor Charles Nerpel visited Ford to photograph and write the Car of the Year story, he did so in November 1963, nearly a half-year before Mustang’s Friday, April 17, 1964, launch date.
19 It very likely pained Ford’s PR team deeply to have to keep quiet about Mustang as Motor Trend’s Nerpel conducted his many interviews with Ford design and engineering staffers while writing the 1964 Car of the Year story. But they did throw him a bone in the form of a two-page story (pages 34 and 35) titled “Future Total Performance.” The story correctly predicts an April launch at the 1964 New York World’s Fair and that the offering was a four-seater priced below $3,000. That much he got right. In hindsight, the misinformation Ford allowed the magazine to publish was stunning.
20 Among the many incorrect predictions found in Nerpel’s Motor Trend story are that the new Ford personal sporty car would be called Turino and that it would have a Corvette-like fiberglass body riding on a separate steel frame. The story made numerous references to Ford precursor show cars including the Allegro, Cougar II, Mustang I, and Mustang II but remained steadfast in its assertion that the car was going to be called the Turino. In the auto industry, misinformation can be a vital tool in spurring public interest (and throwing off the competition), even if it does cause temporary embarrassment for journalists.
21 Was the Fairlane Group responsible for the Mustang? Yes, but I must explain. I’m not referring to the design and engineering team behind Ford’s various Fairlane-badged production cars, but rather a group of 8 to 10 executives who met weekly at the Fairlane Inn Motel, located on Michigan Avenue in Dearborn, Michigan. Formed in 1960, the Fairlane Group (a.k.a., the Fairlane Committee) met off-campus and was thus free to brainstorm fresh, new ideas, such as Mustang, in secret. This was only five years after the Edsel fiasco, a car with unprecedented levels of “think tank.” Iacocca was wise to do his free-thinking away from the risk-averse, conservative post-Edsel atmosphere taking hold in Dearborn.
22 The Fairlane Group included Ford vice president Lee Iacocca, product planning manager Donald Frey, special projects manager Hal Sperlich, marketing manager Frank Zimmerman, public relations manager Walter Murphy, market research manager Robert Eggert, and executives from J. Walter Thompson, Ford’s advertising agency. With powerful representatives from every facet of the automaking and marketing process in one room, the stage was set to answer Iacocca’s 1960 query, “There must be a market out there looking for a car.”
23 Is it true that one of the Fairlane Group’s dead-end ideas was a revival of the two-seat Thunderbird? Yes, indeed. The project was called the Falcon XT-Bird and was supported by the Budd Body Co., one of Ford’s major body suppliers. The idea was to revive the 1957 baby ’Bird’s external appearance but trim it to fit atop the Falcon’s suspension and floorpan. Conceived before the tube-framed, mid-engine Mustang I, the Falcon XT-Bird went no further than the drawing board. The Fairlane Group agreed that mass market success would only come from a car capable of seating four. This same edict killed the two-seat Mustang I’s chances of becoming reality.
24 Fairlane Committee member Hal Sperlich came up with the idea of using the Falcon chassis underneath the Mustang. Without this cost-saving idea, historians agree that there was no way Mustang could have come to fruition with the meager $75 million budget allotted by Henry Ford II. A decade later, Sperlich approached Henry Ford II with the idea of a compact, front-wheel-drive family van, but overly conservative decision makers snuffed the project. By 1977, Sperlich was working at Chrysler, where his minivan idea was approved. Production started in 1983 and multiple millions have been built since. Historians agree, had Henry Ford II accepted Sperlich’s front-drive Ford minivan, Chrysler wouldn’t have survived the 1980s.
25 Although Mustang’s official public debut was set for Friday, April 17, 1964, more than a month earlier, on March 11, Henry Ford II’s nephew Walter Buehl Ford drove an undisguised convertible to a downtown Detroit restaurant and parked it outside in full public view. As young Walt enjoyed his meal, a photographer from the Detroit Free Press snapped away and published the pictures the very next day. So, did heads roll? Not exactly, it was just one of the many well-orchestrated publicity stunts in what is still one of motor history’s most successful new-car launches.
26 To restore torsional rigidity, Mustang convertibles were built on fortified floor pans with flat steel plates to bolster the connections between the front subframe stubs and lower rocker boxes. A second reinforcement plate connected the floor under the front bucket seat mounts. Because the second plate trapped the driveshaft and exhaust head pipe(s), Ford designed it to be removable via six bolts to ease service. The other plating was welded in place permanently.
Simple yet effective, these under-car reinforcement plates restored torsional rigidity on convertible models.
27 The decision to eliminate the Mustang’s standard rectangular horse-in-corral grille emblem from the 1965 Shelby GT350 revealed an unsightly gap at the bottom-center of the stock grille surround trim. To avoid an Alfred E. Neuman-esque gap-tooth blemish (MAD magazine’s long-serving mascot), Shelby whipped up a polished cast aluminum filler button. Every one of the 561 1965 Mustangs Shelby’s shop transformed wore this little bit of unique trim.
28 Shelby’s grille plug was no longer needed in 1966, thanks to Ford’s grille redesign. The rectangular horse-in-corral central grille emblem was retained, but the quartet of stylized outriggers was eliminated to give the corral a floating effect. Because Ford retained the same 1965-spec chrome trim surrounding the sunken grille, it plugged the gap (at the six o’clock position) with a pressed aluminum filler plate of a flatter design than the peaked item used by Shelby in 1966. The now-standard plug suited Shelby’s corral-less grille treatment just fine; it allowed him to retire the 1965-only peaked plug and save a few bucks per car at the same time.
Inspired by Shelby’s 1965 “stop-gap” filler plug, all 1966 Mustang grille surrounds received this filler plug. Fact No. 28 tells why.
29 If your early 1965 Mustang’s horns malfunction, you must remember that late 1965 and 1966 steering wheels, horn rings, and horn switches are not interchangeable with the parts installed in cars built before August 18, 1964. You’ll need to find the correct early 1965 parts to make the repair. That’s because the early horn actuator plate has a single post; the later (alternator style) plate was changed to two posts. The related parts must be used together. Happily, the aftermarket restoration industry has parts for both applications.
30 When you remove the steering wheel center cap (it’s marked “Ford Mustang”), don’t be surprised when you see the “Falcon Sprint” lettering cast into the tri-bar horn ring. Yep, the parts were shared between both models to control costs. Later 1965-up horn bars lack the Falcon Sprint nomenclature.
31 While many areas of the 1966 GT350 Mustang were somewhat stripped down compared to the 1965 version, the addition of functional rear brake cooling scoops was not one of them. Bolted atop the sculpted bodyside coves, flexible hoses routed air from inside each scoop to openings cut into the wheelhouses and then toward the rear brakes. The only non-functional examples were installed on the four experimental 1966 GT350 convertibles. Their folding top mechanisms prevented fitment of the brake cooling system.
The first of many scoops were added to Mustangs through the years. Were the 1966 GT350’s side scoops functional? See Fact No. 31 for the answer.
32 Mustangs built after August 17, 1964, have a different charging system warning lamp lens than earlier cars. If the battery is discharging or nearly dead, the lamps on early cars display the illuminated signal “GEN” to indicate possible problems with the generator. Later cars were equipped with more modern alternators. Their charging system warning lamp lenses read “ALT.” Alternators keep the battery charging even at low engine speeds. By contrast, a generator’s more limited charging ability can lead to a dead battery after prolonged periods of idling with the lights, heater blower motor, radio, and windshield wipers operating simultaneously.
33 The nifty gas cap used on early 1965 Mustangs was a big hit with the scoundrels at Midnight Auto Supply. To prevent pilferage, a rugged braided steel tether cable was introduced as a no-cost running change.
Why did Ford add a tough braided steel retaining ring to Mustang’s sculpted gas cap? Fact No. 33 reveals the klepto-thwarting reason.
34 Standard front bucket seats were a core ingredient in bolstering Mustang’s sporty image. But knowing that a certain segment of the market would balk at the reduced passenger capacity, Ford offered an optional front bench seat on convertibles and coupes. Priced at $24.42, the bench featured an uninterrupted bottom cushion and a fold-down center armrest. Roughly 2 percent of customers went for the bench.
What’s different about this 1965 Mustang’s front seat? See Fact No. 34 or get benched!
35 The driver-side front bucket seat of early 1965 Mustangs mounted to a sliding track with 4½ inches of travel. Unfortunately, the passenger-side bucket seat simply bolted to the floor in a fixed “best average” location. Lanky rear seat passengers were relieved when Ford added the adjustable seat track to the shotgun seat for cars built after August 18, 1964.
36 When Mustang was introduced, a certain percentage of the population hadn’t yet been sold on the desirability of seat belts. These diehards (perhaps not the best choice of wording) were offered a seatbelt delete credit of $10.76. Although the lap-only belts of the day could cause spinal cord separation, the greater issue of vehicle ejection was reduced by their presence.
37 Early 1965 Mustangs used simple eyebolts and hinged clasps to anchor the seat belts to the floor. Similar to the Life Guard (the two-point, quick release seat belt option first seen in 1956 Ford), the anchors were designed for easy installation with a drill. Knowing that federally mandated seat belt laws were coming into play for 1966, Ford standardized the Mustang’s seat belt anchor points to accept stronger hex-head machine bolts. Safer three-point shoulder harnesses weren’t available until the 1968 model year.
38 Carroll Shelby knew buyers of his GT350 Mustangs needed better protection than the stock 2-inch-wide seatbelts could provide. Thus, each of the 561 fastbacks shipped from Ford’s San Jose plant to Shelby’s Venice modification center were ordered with the seatbelt delete credit. Shelby used the Mustang’s federally mandated anchor points to install 3-inch racing belts made by Ray Brown Automotive (RBA). Late in the 1966 GT350 production run (2,378 built), Shelby switched from RBA belts to similar 3-inch units made by Impact. Each supplier stitched specific manufacturer identification labels into the webbing. Impact metal attachment hooks are slightly longer than those provided by RBA.
39 Early 1965 Mustang hoods differ from later 1965 and 1966 stampings. They have a sharp flange near the headlamp edge that could cut skin if fingers groped for the latch release mechanism. Adding a small amount of metal to the pre-stamped hood skin so the area could be rolled under during manufacture eliminated this hazard.
40 The special scooped hood used on the 1965 and 1966 GT350 was a constant headache for Shelby’s conversion team. The earliest hoods were all fiberglass with an 8-inch-diameter circular air-inlet hole that trapped pebbles precariously close to the carburetor inlet area. Within months, the air passage hole was enlarged to match the footprint of the centrally located scoop to eliminate the debris trap. Both of these fiberglass hoods were prone to warping. So, a third hood design replaced the fiberglass underhood brace with a standard Mustang steel brace. Fiberglass mat and resin held the dissimilar materials together. These hoods cost Shelby a hefty $65 each.
This fiberglass-on-steel GT350 hood was one of several configurations Shelby used as he battled quality control problems. Fact No. 40 has the full scoop.
41 Another move intended to prevent warped hood skins was the elimination of the hood hinge lift-assist springs on the later 1965 and most 1966 GT350s. A simple metal prop rod held the hood open for service. Ironically, the “kinder, gentler” 1966 models were the largest recipients of this decidedly race-only touch.
42 The first Mustang’s compact and sporty automatic transmission floor shift unit enjoyed a production run that lasted well into the 1980s aboard such varied Blue Oval machinery as the Pinto, Fairmont, Granada, and Bronco. Although Ford shuffled the material and color, the same basic ratchet mechanism and button-release T-handle has become a common sight atop the transmission tunnel. Precise and efficient, early Ford Mustang Funny Car drivers even used the unit to control their C6 automatics at race speeds nearing 200 mph.
43 Ford took some lumps from magazine critics who noticed the poor fitment of Mustang’s grille and headlamp components. Exposed screw heads, misaligned panel intersections, and uneven gaps were the result of cost-cutting measures. Ford solved the issue by making the headlamp surround a simpler, one-piece item starting in 1967.
44 As a mass-produced car, Mustang factory paint jobs often contained some runs, surface grit, and other blemishes. Sure, quality control inspectors did their best to sidetrack glaring offenses, but it’s a fact that a trained eye could pick out a flaw within a minute of looking. To get an idea of the conditions in the Ford spray booths that churned out nearly 700,000 1965 ’Stangs, Google the Martha Reeves and the Vandellas’ “Nowhere to Run” music video. Watch (stunned) as the trio dances through an active spray booth. The stunning detail is that none of the workers wears any sort of breathing protection whatsoever.
45 Ford came very close to reviving the 1957–1959 retractable hardtop roof as a Mustang option for 1966. Styling studio archive photos depict a fully functional prototype built with company resources by Ford’s Ben Smith (the man behind the original Fairlane 500/Galaxie 500 Skyliner program). A disagreement between Smith and Ford terminated the project. Smith wanted the articulated steel roof panels and trunk cover to be manually operated while the Ford marketing team demanded a more elaborate electro-hydraulic lift apparatus. A total of 48,394 full-size Skyliners were built (20,766 in 1957, 14,713 in 1958, and 12,915 in 1959). The whereabouts of the 1966 Mustang retractable hardtop prototype are unknown, although it was quite probably crushed, as were most dead-end styling exercises of the day.
46 Had Ford green-lit the 1966 retractable hardtop roof program, Mustang would have been the only pony car offered with four body configurations (standard coupe, fastback 2+2, soft top convertible, and retractable steel hardtop convertible). By contrast, Mustang’s chief competitor, the 1967–1969 Camaro/Firebird was offered in only two body styles (hardtop and convertible). The 1967–1969 Plymouth Barracuda matched Mustang’s coupe-fastback-convertible menu; the 1967–1968 Mercury Cougar and 1968–1974 AMC Javelin/AMX were single body style propositions. The Cougar was capped with a single fixed hardtop roof (a convertible was added for 1969), while the AMC pony offering was fastback only from start to finish.
47 To accommodate the folded steel roof within its trunk compartment, the rear quarter panels of the Ben Smith/Ford 1966 Mustang retractable prototype were stretched 6 inches longer than stock. Even though the 108-inch wheelbase was unaltered, the lengthened tail compromised the Mustang’s long-hood/short-deck formula with mixed results. The rear-hinged clamshell trunk panel (similar to the configuration employed on the 1957–1959 Skyliner) forced the relocation of the gas cap from the taillight panel to a spot above the driver-side rear tire. Had it reached production, the retractable hardtop Mustang would have likely earned a reputation for being tail-heavy and prone to oversteering because of the added mass concentrated behind the rear axle.
48 Ford did Mustang collectors a great favor by stamping the so-called “warranty plate” with information describing body configuration, color, trim level, vehicle assembly date, dealer location, engine type, transmission type, rear axle type, and the full VIN. It’s all very helpful in verifying how a Mustang was originally built. The downside is that while the plate is permanently affixed to the driver’s door with rivets, if the bolt-on door is lost to an accident or rust repair, so is the warranty plate, unless care is taken to retain it. The availability of reproduction warranty plates further complicates matters for today’s collectors.
49 Early and late 1965 Mustang warranty plates measured approximately 2×3 inches. For 1966, the 3-inch length was retained but the height of the tag was cut in half. Both tag configurations shared the same amount of data (see above) and rivet mounting-hole spacing. Ford stamped the tags from aluminum to prevent rust although severe climate exposure can still trigger corrosion. The aluminum tags were used until the 1970 model year when a more vulnerable adhesive-backed sticker was substituted.
50 Speaking of identification badges, the subtly elegant die-cast metal Mustang logos affixed to the front fenders of all non-GT models came in two sizes. Early 1965 emblems are smaller (4⅜ inches long) than late 1965 and 1966 units (4¾ inches). The two emblems share the same font, but the later design pulls the letters a bit taller. There is no record of why this subtle change was made.
When it comes to front fender emblems, one size fits all, right? Not so fast. Fact No. 50 tells the tale.
51 The quartet of 1966 Shelby GT350 convertibles (see Fact No. 13) stands as the only Hi-Po 289 Mustangs built with factory installed air conditioning. Although Ford engineering had not certified the Hi-Po cooling system for the added burden of A/C, Carroll Shelby worked with Ray Geddes, head of Ford’s Special Vehicles department, to successfully sway the San Jose plant manager into filling the order for four A/C equipped K-code ragtops. To deflect heat, each GT350 convertible had a white top. One of the four GT350 convertibles (6S2378, Sapphire Blue with an automatic transmission) was shipped to Geddes in Dearborn when it was new; it served as his employee car.
52 Contrary to popular belief, the 271-hp 289 Hi-Po (K-code) engine blocks did not feature four-bolt main bearing caps. Yes, the Hi-Po caps were slightly wider for improved bearing stability but otherwise there was no difference between the blocks used in 200 (C-code), 225 (A-code), and the K-code 271-hp 289 engines.
53 Another Hi-Po myth claims they inhaled through Holley 4-barrel carburetors. The only 289 Hi-Pos issued with Holley jugs (715 cfm) were found in 1965–1967 Shelby GT350 Mustangs with 4-speed transmissions. By contrast, all 1963–1967 289 Hi-Po 289s (and most 1966 and 1967 automatic equipped GT350s) inhaled through Autolite 4100 series 4-barrel carburetors rated at 460 cfm. Often referred to as the “shoe box” carburetor, the Autolite 4100 debuted in 1957 and was last used on the 1969 Thunderbird 429 engine (not to be confused with the Boss 429).
54 Hi-Po 289-equipped Mustangs all featured a black push/pull knob mounted to the underside of the dashboard below the headlamp switch. It was there to activate the Autolite 4100 series carburetor’s manual choke. A similar Autolite 4100 was used on 225-hp 289 Mustangs (different jetting and accelerator pump settings) but with an automatic (heat controlled) choke assembly, so the manual “choke” knob was absent.
55 To survive the vertical lurch-load imposed by high-RPM clutch dumps, Ford equipped all 289 Hi-Pos with unique cast-iron engine mounts. Much stronger than the stamped steel units used on less potent 289-4 (A-code) and 289/260 2-barrel V-8s, the fortified mount counteracted the violent load induced during dragstrip launches.
56 The early 1965 Mustang option sheet included three engines that were discontinued on August 1, 1964. They were the 101-hp 170-ci 6 (U-code), 164-hp 260 2-barrel V-8 (F-code), and 210-hp 289 4-barrel V-8 (D-code). These engine codes often confuse Mustang newbies. To stir up things further, Ford later revived these Mustang engine codes with the 1967 200-ci 6 (U-code), 1968 302 2-barrel (F-code), and 1980 255 2-barrel (D-code).
57 If the thought of a 101-hp, 170-ci 6 in a ’64½ Mustang coupe sounds lethargic, it could have been worse. The 170 engine family also included a 144-inch version with 90-hp, which (mercifully) was never offered in Mustangs. In fact, the 170 proved to be so tame that Ford made the 200 Mustang’s base engine from August 1, 1964, through 1970. The 200 6 returned as the mid-power engine offering in the 1979 Fox-based Mustang, slotted between the 2.3-liter 4, 2.8-liter V-6, and 5.0-liter V-8.
58 The Ford 144, 170, 200-ci 6-cylinder engine family first appeared in 1960 to motivate Ford’s first post war compact offering (and Mustang’s platform sibling), the Falcon. The block initially used four-main-bearing architecture but thanks to foresight, an upgrade to seven main bearings was easily made for the 1965 model run. Four-bearing 200s appeared in 1963 but were never installed in Mustangs. The seven-main-bearing 200 (and 170) engines are identified by the presence of five core plugs on the side of the block. Four-bearing blocks have three.
59 Today, every new Mustang that Ford builds features overhead cam (OHC) engine architecture. The very first Mustangs with OHC technology were built in the fall of 1964 for sanctioned drag race competition in the NHRA’s 1965 A/Factory Experimental class. Packing Ford’s 600-plus-hp 427 SOHC “Cammer” V-8, only five of these exotic Mustangs were built by Ford’s go-to NASCAR job shop, Holman & Moody in Charlotte, North Carolina. These cars were campaigned by a team of hand-picked drag racers including Gas Ronda, Bill Lawton, Dick Brannan, Les Ritchey, and Jerry Harvey. Another five lightweight Mustangs were constructed at the same time but with 427 wedge power (cam-in-block) due to an initial shortage of the exotic Cammer engines.
Decades before the Modular 4.6 and later Coyote OHC V-8s invaded Mustang engine bays, Ford Factory Experimental drag racers struck fear into the hearts of Mopar 426 Race Hemi drivers with the mighty 427 SOHC Cammer. Fact No. 59 tells more.
60 Ford began its long-running policy of painting Mustang engines Ford Corporate Blue in 1966. The lone exception was seen under the hoods of 252 Shelby GT350s, which retained the 1965 basic black engine paint scheme. That’s because those 252 Shelbys were based on leftover 1965 Mustang platforms. After those 252 cars were completed, all subsequent 1966 Shelby engine blocks and heads were dressed in blue.
If Ford switched to all-blue Mustang engines in 1966, why did 252 1966 GT350 engines still wear all-black paintwork? See Fact No. 60 for the story.
61 Offered initially with only a 4-speed manual transmission, the 271-hp 289 Hi-Po (K-code) was finally made available with an automatic transmission for 1966, much to the satisfaction of would-be customers who wanted the K-code’s 6,500-rpm capability but didn’t want (or know how) to operate a clutch. The K-code High-performance 289 was first offered in 1963 on Fairlane models but never made its way to the Falcon option sheet, despite rumors to the contrary.
62 To ensure reliability when teamed with the rowdy K-code Hi-Po 289, Ford upgraded the C4 Cruise-O-Matic automatic transmission with larger bands and clutches and higher shift-point settings. The heavy-duty C4 also received different gear ratios than the unit installed behind 6s and regular 2- and 4-barrel 289s. Standard C4 ratios were; 2.46, 1.46, 1.0, and 2.20:1 (First, Second, Drive, Reverse). The heavy-duty C4’s ratios were slightly tweaked: 2.40, 1.47, 1.0, and 2.00:1.
63 Those 1966 Hi-Po K-code 289 Mustangers who didn’t want to hassle with a clutch pedal and shifting their own gears paid an extra $216.27 for the privilege. To Ford’s credit, the extra-duty 9-inch rear axle housing and differential remained part of the Hi-Po 289 package, regardless of whether the 4-speed stick or automatic transmission was chosen. Truth be told, the cushioning effect of the C4 automatic transmission’s torque converter would have muted the Hi-Po 289’s 271 hp and 312 ft-lbs of torque, allowing safe use of the standard V-8 rear axle and its smaller 8-inch ring gear.
64 Even though Ford “softened” the Hi-Po 289’s image slightly with the 1966 addition of the C4 automatic, customers who sought the comfort of air conditioning were still out of luck. The Hi-Po’s solid lifters, stiff valvesprings, and superior breathing conspired to allow crankshaft speeds higher than the A/C compressors of the day could handle.
65 Ever wonder how long it took to install Mustang engines on the Dearborn/River Rouge assembly line? Once again, the Martha and the Vandellas 1965 music video “Nowhere to Run” provides the answer: 20 seconds. If you watch frames 104 through 124, you’ll see a fresh A-code 289 4-barrel and 4-speed manual transmission being loaded (by one man) into the engine bay of a Mustang convertible. Watch it on YouTube today.
66 Regardless of engine choice, Ford upsized radiator capacity throughout the 1966 Mustang line. The 6-cylinder cars were increased to 9.5 quarts (from 8.5) and V-8 cars were upgraded to 14.5 quarts (from 14.0).
67 To shed critical nose weight on the 1965 and 1966 A/FX Mustang 427 drag race package cars, lightweight all-aluminum radiators were installed at the Holman & Moody Charlotte, North Carolina, build center. When painted, these units are indistinguishable from standard copper and brass radiators but reveal their dull aluminum finish from top to bottom when stripped. Also offered as over-the-counter service parts, these rare radiators have been seen on vintage Shelby Mustang road racers as well, although Shelby never included them as standard equipment.
68 In 1965 Ford changed the number of bellhousing-to-block attachment bolts from five to six during the 1965 model run. The extra fastener was added to improve structural integrity and reduce NVH factors. Mating 1963, 1964, and certain 1965 289 engine blocks to later 1965 transmissions can be frustrating. All 260 V-8s had the five-bolt configuration.
69 Carroll Shelby must have quietly cursed his initial decision to up-fit each 1965 GT350 with a cast aluminum, deep-sump oil pan bearing the Cobra logos on each side of the sump. Because his conversion plans didn’t include actual engine removal, the pans had to be installed with the engines still in the chassis. This was facilitated by work pits sliced into the floor of Shelby’s 6501 Imperial Highway LAX airport hangar/assembly line where laborers stood in 7-foot-deep troughs under the cars. A messy job, the Cobra oil pan swap involved removing the steering link and engine crossmember and caused much grumbling among employees. By 1967, the aluminum oil pan was dropped entirely. Modern Shelby Mustang restorers freely add the exotic pans to later (1967–1970) cars, creating the false impression Shelby continued their use after 1966.
Iconic yet problematic, the GT350’s sump kick-outs added capacity and build time.
70 The deepened, cast-aluminum oil pans were designed by Shelby’s Peter Brock with sidesaddle sump “kick outs” on each side of the aluminum casting. These boosted capacity (from 5 to 6.5 quarts) without compromising ground clearance. Inside, Brock incorporated spring-loaded trap doors to keep oil concentrated around the pickup screen during high-speed cornering. The stock K-code oil pans were made of stamped steel and featured fixed baffles that were lacking on base 289 pan stampings. While efforts were made to sell off the new take-off units, most of the 561 factory-fresh oil pans were simply thrown out with the trash.
71 Lacking his own aluminum foundry, Shelby sourced many of his special aluminum engine parts (oil pans, valvecovers, intake manifolds) from the Buddy Bar Casting Company of South Gate, California. Still active today, Buddy Bar was founded in 1951 and was named whimsically by its founder, Bud Barksdale. Shelby wasn’t Barksdale’s only automotive customer. Ford collaborated with Buddy Bar Castings on countless projects/products including items for the 1960s LeMans and NASCAR Boss 429 programs.
72 Buddy Bar wasn’t the only supplier of Shelby’s bolt-on aluminum engine parts. Offenhauser cast the majority of the dual-plane, single 4-barrel GT350 intake manifolds used in 1965; Dearborn Steel Tubing provided the finished machine work. Research is still active in pinpointing exactly where the intake manifold conversions were performed: on Ford’s Cleveland, Ohio, engine assembly line or by Shelby’s minions at the LAX facility. Such “open-heart surgery” on any engine is a highly warranty-sensitive topic (dirt entry, oil leak issues, etc.). Most automakers prefer not to have their engines opened up by pre-retail-sale mechanics.
73 Another headache-inducing modification made to 1965 and 1966 GT350s was the substitution of the free-flowing 289 cast-iron Hi-Po exhaust manifolds with (even better) steel tube headers. Supplied by Cyclone, they helped boost output from 271 to 306 hp and had to be installed from underneath each car by the same pit workers in charge of the oil pan. Like the labor-intensive aluminum oil pans, the headers were dropped after 1966. Incidentally, Cyclone’s adroitness with precision-bent steel tubing resulted in a contract to supply four-point roll bars for the 1965 GT350-R Competition Model. At $5,995, only 36 R-Models were built. Records show the last one was sold during the 1967 model year.
Shelby tried to find homes for the 2,939 sets of Hi-Po 289 exhaust manifolds removed from 1965 and 1966 GT350’s but in the end, the vast majority was scrapped. Fact No. 73 tells the exhausting story.
74 After May 2, 1966, 289 small-blocks received a revised rocker arm with “side rails” added to center the rocker arm atop the valves-tem. Previous Ford small-block rocker arms relied on narrow, rectangular guide slots cast into the cylinder heads that maintained rocker-to-valve alignment via pushrod contact. The redesigned rocker arms, cylinder heads, and pushrods are not interchangeable. Taller rocker covers were needed to clear the revised rocker arms, giving late 1966 and 1967 289s a wider overall appearance than earlier engines.
75 The Hi-Po 289 escaped the May 1966 switch to rail-style rocker arms. Because of its solid lifters, the Hi-Po was fitted with threaded rocker arm studs and locking nuts to allow for valve lash. (The hydraulic lifters used on the 200- and 225-hp 289s provide the lash and didn’t require this adjustability.) Thus, Hi-Po 289s built through the end of 1967 do not share their rocker arms, pushrods or cylinder head castings with lesser 289s.
76 The SOHC 427 engines fitted to Ford’s mini-fleet of ’65 Mustang A/FX drag cars were too wide to fit between the Mustang’s stock front spring towers. To make room, Holman & Moody removed the towers entirely and filled the gaps with flat metal panels. The stock coils and towers were replaced with a Ford-designed horizontally arranged torsion-leaf setup. Great for drag racing in a straight line, the torsion-leafs imposed drastic positive camber changes on hard acceleration, and street use was strictly forbidden by Ford. Engine bay space was so limited that the steering boxes had to be relocated outside of the frame rails, which disturbed steering geometry. The geometry issue was solved by sourcing Australian right-hand drive (RHD) steering boxes from Fords built Down Under.
77 Ever wonder why the 1966 Shelby GT350 went from 15- to 14-inch-diameter rims? It wasn’t a move to decrease vehicle height or drop the center of gravity in search of even better handling, although it did those things. Rather, after specifying 7.75-15 Goodyear Blue Dot race tires in 1965, Shelby and his workers found they had to spend a lot of time trimming the stock Mustang wheel lips to clear the larger diameter tires. By switching to 14-inch Goodyears for 1966, more than an hour of handwork per car was saved and the tire-rub problem was cured.
78 Pre-production GT350 track testing revealed the stock upper shock absorber mounts (a.k.a. “beehives”) were too thin and needed fortification to maximize the effectiveness of the Koni shock absorbers at the front of the car. The simple remedy was the addition of two 3/4-inch flat washers atop each beehive to distribute localized stress better. Each washer was tack welded in position to prevent loss during assembly and service. Interestingly, these reinforced mounts were installed at the San Jose Mustang plant rather than at Shelby’s 6501 Imperial Highway conversion facility.
79 The Mustang’s Falcon economy car roots are closer to the surface on 6-cylinder models than on V-8 cars. While V-8–powered ’Stangs were factory equipped with 10-inch drum brakes and five-lug hubs/wheels, base models with the 170- or 200-ci 6 rolled on the Falcon’s four-lug hubs and wheels. Early 1965 V-8 Mustangs came standard with 13-inch rims. These five-lug, 13 × 4½–inch-diameter hoops are very rare today because 14-inch rims and tires were optional for as little as $15.67 (black sidewall, nylon).
80 Mustang spotters in the 1964–1966 time frame knew to give extra respect to anything rolling on redline tires. That’s because Ford specified beefy 6.95×14 Firestone dual red-band tires any time the 271-hp Hi-Po 289 was ordered. Buyers who wanted a little more anonymity could revert to same-size whitewalls or blackwalls at no extra charge. I’ll take the redlines!
81 The 15-inch rims were typically found on full-size Ford models such as the Galaxie and LTD, but early in the Mustang production run, it was possible to order 5.70 or 5.90×15 tires and rims as part of the handling package on V-8 cars. Because of tight clearance, they were canceled in September 1964. After that, the next (non-Shelby) 15-inch Mustang wheel offering didn’t become available until 1969.
82 Part of the 1965 GT350’s reputation as a brutal, no-compromise beast stems from the replacement of the K-code Mustang’s Traction-Lok 9-inch rear axle with a ratcheting differential sourced from Detroit Automotive. The so-called Detroit Locker replaced the Traction-Lok’s conventional spring-loaded friction clutches (also available in the smaller 8-inch Hotchkiss-style rear axle) with a ratcheting differential. Free from clutch slippage, the locking differential delivered full power, equally, to both rear tires. The downside was its on/off nature and aggressive engagement characteristics. When cornering, the unit tended to (either) emit loud clicking sounds as the ratcheting gears rode past each other, or turn the inside tire at the same speed as the outside tire with the attendant chirping sound of tires squealing in protest. But in a straight line, the added stability of equal tire thrust was its virtue. Shelby made the Detroit Locker an extra-cost option for 1966.
This original 1965 GT350 Detroit Locker displays the “dog gear” ratchet assembly that made it lurch, and work so well. See Fact No. 82 to learn why Ol’ Shel made it an option for 1966 and beyond.
83 Carroll Shelby went to extreme measures in 1965 to cure Mustang’s penchant for violent axle hop on full-throttle acceleration. A pair of tubular-steel traction bars was welded to brackets atop the outboard ends of the rear axle housing. The rear floor was cut open and the bars entered the car; the bars were then bolted to beefy steel mounts welded to the floorpan. Because they are located above the axle and leaf springs, this arrangement has come to be known as the “overrider” traction bar. Thanks to the GT350’s no-back-seat mandate (the SCCA didn’t accept the Mustang with its standard back seat as a sports car), conflict with rear-seat passenger’s feet was a non-issue. What was an issue were the many man-hours required to fabricate and install these complex traction bars (see Fact No. 7 for more).
84 Although all 561 of the 1965 GT350s received the time-consuming overrider traction bar conversion, Shelby reconsidered his traction bar strategy for 1966. Instead, more conventional under-rider–style traction bars were sourced from the Traction Master Company of nearby Burbank, California. A pioneer in bolt-on traction aids since the mid-1950s, Traction Master bars were also factory installed on the Sunbeam Tiger and certain high-performance Studebakers. Mounted entirely under the chassis, the only welding involved a single mounting bracket (per side). Even though the first 252 1966 GT350s retained the elaborate overrider bars, the Traction Master bars were phased in as a running change and the vast majority of the 1966 GT350s (2,378 built) used them.
85 Getting back to the complexity of the 1965 overrider traction bar program: The necessary pass-through slots cut into the Mustang’s rear floorpan had to be patched with a flexible cover in order to meet Ford Minimum Standards Regulations for road noise and cabin sealing while also allowing 6 inches of up-down suspension travel. No fewer than three strategies were employed. The first involved simple flat sheets of rubber; the second called for specially formed fiberglass boxes (the most time-consuming and costly); and the third, a pair of molded rectangular rubber boots sourced from a Ford heavy-truck application. Because of their tall, rectangular form, the truck-sourced boots gave the steel tubes the look of much larger Fairlane Thunderbolt traction bars when viewed from inside the car. The switch to Traction Masters in 1966 was well timed with the SCCA’s easement of its prior (back seat) restriction. The 1965 overrider bars interfered with the bottom cushion.
86 As evidence of Shelby’s new-found (1966) focus on manufacturing efficiency and simplification, the cast-iron bracket locating the axle end of the Traction Master tube to the shock absorber/spring plate and U-bolts was cast with three ears instead of four. This allowed installation of the traction bar without dropping the leaf spring plate and, subsequently, the rear axle, thus saving time. Uneducated Shelby swap meet shoppers often assume the missing ear signifies a broken part. In succeeding years, the Shelby Mustang’s add-on traction aids were simplified further as Ford evolved Mustang’s rear suspension for better axle control at the factory level. I explore this in the next chapter.
87 Even though the 1984 Mustang SVO hosted the showroom debut of four-wheel disc brakes, Ford is known to have experimented with the superior stoppers on first-generation Mustangs. The only disc-equipped survivor from the 1960s is the 1968 Shelby “Green Hornet.” Unique because of its hardtop body style, the 428 test car (born an S-code 390) also served as a development mule for throttle body-style electronic fuel injection and independent rear suspension. Overseen by Shelby American chief engineer Fred Goodell, each of its innovations saw production, albeit years later (EFI in 1983, IRS in 1999). The Green Hornet has been fully restored and occasionally appears at major Mustang shows.
What sets early 1965 brake master cylinders apart from late 1965 units? Fact No. 88 reveals all.
88 Early 1965 Mustangs were fitted with a very unique brake master cylinder with the brake light trigger switch and wiring built into its body. Surprisingly, buyers who wanted power assist (a $58 upgrade) were restricted to drum brakes. The first power-boosted Mustang front disc brakes didn’t arrive until 1967.
89 The lone exception to the manual disc-only rule came from Shelby. Standard GT350s were built with manual front disc brakes (upgraded with metallic pads). When Shelby won a lucrative contract for 1,000 Hertz GT350-H rental cars (1,001 were actually built), Ford hadn’t finalized its power-boosted disc brake testing (to be released for 1967). Shelby was on his own to find the needed brake booster and install it. The solution came from a compact two-stage master cylinder made by the Minnesota Automotive Company (MICO). Unfortunately, the unit’s piston-within-a-piston design delivered a non-linear (hard-soft-hard) pedal feel that confused many rental customers. About 400 MICO-equipped cars were delivered before all parties agreed to return to the standard Shelby manual disc brake setup. Those Hertz-spec GT350H Mustangs remain the only pre-1967 cars factory equipped with power front disc brakes.
90 Headaches plagued the GT350H brake program. Because the MICO master cylinder’s triangular mounting flange differed from the Mustang’s four-stud firewall mount, Shelby was forced to fabricate an adapter bracket from two pieces of formed sheet steel. The early units were thin and flexed visibly during firm pedal application. Shelby hastily made a thicker replacement and installed them under a recall program.
91 The MICO brake master cylinder didn’t have a separate brake booster unit. Rather, its internal dual-piston construction served as the force multiplier. This is why novices who expect to see a big vacuum booster on Hertz Mustangs are confused when they see them at shows. Aside from its square reservoir (Mustang reservoirs are round), the MICO unit resembles a basic manual brake master cylinder. One ray of light was the MICO’s cost. At $39.58 per unit ($50 less than early projections), the 400 units purchased saved the GT350H program some $20,000. Today, original MICO units are extremely rare and highly sought after among GT350H restorers.
92 After the decision was made to stop using the MICO master cylinders and return to standard manual disc brake components, the hard brake pedal pressure required to effectively activate (cold) Shelby brake pads triggered the creation of a specific foil dashboard sticker warning drivers to be cautious. It reads, “This vehicle is equipped with competition brakes. Heavier than normal brake pedal pressure may be required.” Cars built after the MICO termination received the sticker and they were also sent to Hertz rental outlets for field installation. This special gold foil sticker has become a key element of the GT350H mystique.
93 The brake drums fitted to 6-cylinder Mustangs were 9 inches in diameter and offered 131 square inches of lining area. V-8 cars received an upgrade to 10-inch drums with 154.2 square inches of area. When the vacuum-assisted power booster was ordered, the drums remained unchanged, although pedal pressure was reduced about 30 percent for less strenuous application.
94 The Mustang’s optional front disc brakes were made by Kelsey-Hayes and featured 9½-inch-diameter rotors and four-piston cast-iron calipers. Although their lining area measured only 114.3 square inches, the exposed braking surface rejected heat far better than did shoes trapped inside conventional drums. The swept area was 212 square inches. A January 1965 Motor Trend road test of a 1965 2+2 with the optional manual discs went from 60 to 0 mph in 150 feet. A drum brake test car covered 172 feet in the same test, “the difference between having an accident and avoiding one,” according to story author Bob McVay.
95 The stock Mustang steering ratio was either 27:1 (manual) or 22:1 (power assist, $84.47). For $30.64, Ford offered a Special Handling Package, part of which was the faster-ratio 22:1 power steering box, installed minus the hydraulic-assist ram and its pump. To speed things up even more for the GT350, Shelby’s team added longer (by 1 inch) steering and idler arms. The effect was an increase in tire movement for the same amount of steering wheel rotation.
96 Another 1965 Shelby GT350 handling trick was the relocation of the upper suspension A-arms to 1 inch higher on the frame rail/spring tower surface. This lowered the nose of the car (and the center of gravity) while also improving the roll center. This modification was time-consuming: it necessitated suspension disassembly and a total re-alignment. It was no longer performed on 1966 Shelby Mustangs after the first 252 cars were completed (they were built on leftover 1965 bodies).
97 The firm Koni adjustable shock absorbers selected by Shelby caused their share of complications. Because they lacked internal extension stops, extreme suspension rebound could pull them apart. At the front end, mechanical limits imposed by control arm geometry prevented the threat. But the rear leaf springs could exceed their safe extension range. To prevent rear shock absorber failure, all 1965 GT350s were fitted with a pair of eyebolts above each end of the rear axle housing near the leaf springs. A steel cable was looped around each axle tube and aluminum crimp connectors finished the job. The rough riding Koni shocks were phased out as part of the GT350’s gentrification in 1966 and replaced with Gabriel-made adjustable shocks with internal jounce and rebound safety stops.
98 The wheels installed on the vast majority of 1965 Shelby GT350s were plain pressed steel items measuring 15 × 6 inches. Not to be confused with the base Mustang V-8 14 × 4.5–inch rims (that differed in many respects), the GT350 rims were made by Kelsey-Hayes and came painted a very light champagne color. Notable features included three hubcap retainer bumps and non-rolled spider slot edges. Similar (if not identical) rims were also installed on 1962–1965 full-size Fords with the 406/427 engine option. So scarce are correct 1965 GT350 rims that many restorers “take the easy way out” and install 1966-spec cast-aluminum Shelby 10-spoke rims, despite their smaller 14 × 6–inch size.
What did the GT350 have in common with a 427 Galaxie? See Fact No. 98 for the answer.
99 I have heard numerous reports that Kelsey-Hayes also supplied its 15×6 steel wheels (as used on the 1965 GT350) to manufacturers of industrial trailers. One rumor holds that older Lincoln welding trailers rolled on these desirable rims. Although I haven’t run into any on mobile welding rigs, a 2014 summer visit to Bandimere Speedway revealed their presence on a track-owned soda-vending trailer. With 1965 GT350 restorers paying a reported $1,000 per wheel, I was tempted to leave with more than a Coke that day!
NUMBER CRUNCHING AND PRESS COMMENTARY
100 The 1965 Mustang’s instant popularity broke numerous records and shocked the industry. Ford had hoped for 100,000 first-year sales, but nearly seven times that amount were purchased (680,989). With an average base sticker price of $2,470.60 (excluding any optional equipment), Mustang added $1,682,451,423.40 to corporate coffers. By contrast, the Mustang’s spiritual successor, the two-seat 1955–1957 Thunderbird “Baby Bird” sold 53,166 units in its three-year run. With an average base sticker price of $3,167, the Baby Bird brought in a “paltry” $168,376,722. Put another way, first-year Mustang sales brought in more than 10 times the revenue of the Baby Bird’s entire three-season existence.
101 Iacocca’s “foot-long option list” strategy for Mustang paid off. The modest 1965 base retail price ($2,320.96 hardtop, $2,557.64 convertible, $2,533.19 fastback 2+2) pulled prospective buyers through the door. The real profits came from adding optional equipment. On average, every 1965 Mustang left the dealer with just slightly more than $400 in optional equipment, depositing another $272,395,600 in the Blue Oval bank.
102 The logistical problem of modifying and storing 561 GT350 Mustangs in 1965 forced Carroll Shelby to move from a tiny shop in Venice, California, to a 12½-acre facility on Imperial Highway adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport. Even so, when 1966 output more than quadrupled (2,378 GT350s of all varieties were built that year), even the LAX spot was stretched to capacity. To ease the strain, rather than have the San Jose, California, Mustang feeder plant crank out 2,000-plus cars in a row, roughly two dozen 100-car runs were made, weeks apart, to give everybody some time to settle down.
103 Mustang’s uniqueness attracted buyers who might have otherwise ignored it out of sheer brand loyalty. A full 53 percent of the vehicles traded in for new ’65 Mustangs were non-Ford products. Carmakers love these so-called “conquest” sales. The hope was that buyers would replace their Mustang with another Ford offering when it wore out. Without that first “conquest,” the relationship couldn’t occur.
104 “Long awaited as ‘Ford’s sports car,’ the new model, which goes by the generic code of T-5 (although the specific name may be something like ‘Torino’), may be aimed to fill the void created when the Thunderbird went to four-passenger size for 1958. It may also be a 4-passenger vehicle, but on the ‘two-plus-two’ basis popularized by certain European Gran Turismo cars.” That prediction appeared in the March 1964 issue of Car Life magazine and accompanied a four-page story reviewing the many Ford experimental and show cars that preceded the actual Mustang. The Torino nameplate predicted here didn’t see use on a Ford passenger car until 1968. The alternate spelling (Turino) hadn’t been used yet.
105 The Mustang sales success story was obvious within weeks of its Friday, April 17, 1964, introduction. Practically overnight, the word mustang went from the name of a legendary World War II fighter plane to a synonym for marketing brilliance. Restaurant owners got onto the bus with quips such as, “Our hotcakes are selling like Mustangs.”
106 To clarify some of the confusion surrounding important dates in the Mustang timeline, here’s a review of milestone moments: March 9, 1964: The Dearborn Assembly Plant (DAP) begins Mustang production in Michigan. July 13, 1964: To help meet West Coast demand, Ford’s San Jose, California, plant begins Mustang production. July 14, 1964: Author Steve Magnante is born. (HA! You caught it!) February 1, 1965: Yet another Ford plant assumes Mustang production as the Metuchen, New Jersey, plant goes online to bolster East Coast supply. To learn which plant assembled your 1965–1966 Mustang, read the second character in the VIN: F = Dearborn; R = San Jose; T = Metuchen.
107 The night before its Friday, April 17, introduction, the world’s first Mustang TV ad appeared simultaneously on all three major television networks at the top of the 9:00 p.m. time slot. The 60-second spot featured a snazzy red 260 V-8 convertible shown in a series of static and action settings. Ford paid NBC, CBS, and ABC dearly for the blanket exposure, but was rewarded with more than four million showroom visitors by the end of that weekend.
108 At the time of the Mustang’s television debut on the evening of April 16, 1964, only 8,160 had been built. The number was calculated to ensure that every U.S. Ford dealer had at least one Mustang to display in his showroom. Tales of impromptu bidding wars breaking out among showroom visitors are based in fact. One Garland, Texas, Ford dealer basked in the once-in-a-lifetime experience of having 15 would-be customers bidding on his one and only Mustang demonstrator. The winning bidder slept in the car until his check cleared.
109 More than 6.9 million vehicles rolled off the end of Ford’s Metuchen, New Jersey, assembly plant between 1948 and 2004. That’s a huge accomplishment for a factory that, technically, doesn’t exist! Here’s the deal. When it first opened in 1948 as part of Ford’s massive post–World War II expansion, Edison Township, New Jersey, was so small that it lacked a post office. Ford traditionally named its assembly plants after the municipality of their mailing addresses, so the company named the 100-acre factory after the closest town that did have a post office, Metuchen, New Jersey. The Metuchen plant built Mustangs through the 1971 model year.
110 Traditionally relegated to second place (after Chevrolet) in total market share among domestic carmakers, Ford had cause for celebration when Mustang sales pushed Ford into first place in 1966. With 2,426,617 1966 Fords built (607,568 of them Mustangs), Chevrolet lost its lead with “only” 2,142,035 1966 domestic passenger car sales. The release of the Camaro in 1967 slowed the Mustang’s charge and sent Ford back to second place in 1967 (1,948,416 Chevys sold versus 1,731,227 Fords).
111 Lee Iacocca’s initial estimate that 100,000 Mustangs would sell in its first year was pushed up to 240,000 units as the April 17, 1964 release date approached. Even that proved to be uncharacteristically off target. By September 1, 1964, the 100,000 unit marker was surpassed and by mid-September of the following year (as the 1965 model year closed), the now-legendary 680,989 sales total was achieved. It was an all-time auto industry record for first-year sales.
112 As you marvel at Mustang’s sales success, it is important to remember that Ford worked with a somewhat stacked deck. By starting production in March 1964, yet identifying (and numbering) the cars as 1965 models, Ford enjoyed a 17-month model year. Regardless, there is no question that Mustang’s long-hood/short-deck configuration was a hit with buyers of all ages.
113 To see if there was any question that racing improved the breed and that performance sold cars, in the early 1960s Ford monitored a group of Ford dealers in the Southwest (NASCAR country). In 1962, sales from January through May totaled 52,000 cars. A year later, and with Ford’s Total Performance marketing campaign in full force, the same group of dealers sold 65,500 cars in the same time frame.
114 The September 1964 issue of Car Life featured a 1965 Mustang coupe road test. Equipped with the 271-hp 289 Hi-Po and Ford’s new Toploader 4-speed manual transmission, the results were favorable. “Indeed, while the HP packages (the stiffer suspension can be purchased with any engine) add upwards of $450 onto the base price of the car, it is still possible to get a rip-snorting, big-muscled go-pony for right around $3,000, a real bargain in performance.” Of the 680,989 1965 Mustangs built, (sadly) only 7,273 were equipped with the K-code 289 Hi-Po (561 of which were converted into Shelby Mustangs).
115 Taking the previous fact further, it is often overlooked that all Shelby Mustangs received a normal Ford VIN during initial assembly at Ford’s San Jose, California (1965–1967), or Metuchen, New Jersey, plant (1968–1970). You must remember to subtract the Shelbys from annual Mustang vehicle and option production totals so they are not counted twice.
116 “Present planning calls for a production run of 200 cars a month. These will be handled by Cobra dealers across the country. The competition models will be available directly from Shelby’s Venice, California, plant on a special-order basis only.” Well, Car Life staffer Jim Wright sure got it wrong! That’s the GT350 build and distribution strategy he spelled out in the April 1965 issue of the magazine. A mixed bag to be sure, the idea of 2,400 ’65 GT350s sounds great today (200 per month) even though the idea of numerous Shelby-authorized modification facilities spanning the nation seems like a recipe for inconsistent build content and quality. History has shown that Shelby stepped up and rented an aircraft hangar from North American Airlines, where he directly oversaw GT350 and GT500 conversion work through the end of the 1967 model run.
117 No doubt wanting to avoid a repeat of Studebaker’s disastrous Avanti launch in 1962 (a youth oriented sporty car similar in theme to Mustang), Ford made sure that the dealer pipeline was well stocked with fresh Mustangs when the April 17 launch date arrived. But despite building Mustangs at the rate of 530 units per day for a full six weeks before launch date, by midnight of the first selling day, every one of them was sold and deposits had been taken for another 6,000 (unbuilt) units. Studebaker president Sherwood Egbert had publicly predicted the exciting, new Avanti sports car would sell 1,000 units per month. But, when the Avanti’s official April 26, 1962, launch date came, dealers had no cars to sell. Persistent quality control problems with the fiberglass body forced repeated delays and massive frustration among would-be customers. Egbert’s lofty goal of 1,000 cars per month never had a chance to be tested. In total, a mere 4,643 Avantis were sold before Studebaker ceased domestic auto production in December 1963.
118 Just 571. That’s the number of days that passed between the final selection of the long hood/short trunk Mustang rendering and the first Mustang that rolled off the Dearborn, Michigan, assembly line on March 9, 1964. Readily accessible (but once top secret) photographs today show clearly recognizable Mustang styling models with dates as early as September 10, 1962. We now know that at least seven distinctly unique design proposals were in the running before the final choice was made. The mind boggles at what might have been.
119 Time magazine was granted an exclusive interview with Lee Iacocca that appeared in its April 17, 1964, issue. Here are some of his words: “By next year, 40 percent of the U.S. population will be under 20 years of age, and the 16 to 24 group is growing faster than any other segment. Not only are there more young people, they are settling down at an earlier age, marrying, and having families. We have designed the Mustang with young America in mind.” The Baby Boomers were growing up and Ford had the right cars to make their dreams reality.
120 With its artificially long 17-month manufacturing span, the 1965 model year was an impossible act to follow. Study of comparable 12-month time periods reveals that 1966 Mustang sales ran ahead by 50,000 units when viewed in motion. Total sales (again) were 680,989 for 1965 and 607,558 for 1966.
121 Despite Iacocca’s “foot-long” option sheet, Mustang’s success led to a form of burnout in some circles. The April 1965 issue of Car Life sums it up, “Mustang has everything going for it except exclusivity. It’s impossible to drive more than a few miles without spotting one or more. They’ve grown so commonplace that Mustangs don’t bother to wave at each other. Not that they could expect recognition from those who remember the precise art of waving, but some sort of camaraderie might have been hoped for. Anyway, it didn’t happen and now there’s discouragement in numbers.” In my view, there is no such thing as too many Mustangs!
122 “The future of the Mustang is not yet certain. Although built as an exercise, it is no secret that Ford is going to show it very widely and it is not inconceivable that, should public acceptance demand it, a limited production version could be developed around this working prototype.” So wrote Car Life’s J. G. Anthony in a December 1962 review of the two-seat, mid-engine Mustang sports car (that shared nothing but its name with the eventual 1965 production offering). Hindsight being 20/20, the 1962 Mustang had more in common with Pontiac’s 1984–1988 Fiero than anything from Dearborn.
123 “Aptly named, the 2+2 is designed for two people plus an occasional extra two passengers. We tried those rear seats and found them all right for short hops across town, but we wouldn’t want to ride back there for any distance.” That’s how Motor Trend described the rear seat accommodations of a factory fresh 1965 Hi-Po 289 Mustang 2+2 in its January 1965 issue. The interior dimensions chart listed rear seat legroom at 28.8 inches and headroom at 35.6 inches. To see how things have progressed since then, let’s turn to a road test of a 2015 Mustang GT published in the December 2014 issue of Motor Trend. In the half century since, rear seat legroom grew almost 2 inches (to 30.6 inches) while headroom shrank .8 to 34.8 inches.
124 A 1965 Plymouth Barracuda Formula S fastback was also evaluated in the same January 1965 issue of Motor Trend. Mustang’s only pony car competition until the 1967 arrival of the Camaro and Firebird, the Barracuda’s wider rear seat cushion could accommodate three people, making the Plymouth a five-passenger proposition. By contrast, the Mustang 2+2’s thicker B-pillars reduced rear seat capacity to two (the Mustang hardtop could take three). Motor Trend called Barracuda’s luggage space “tremendous,” thanks to the standard fold-down seat, which gave access to the under-glass cargo area.
125 It pays to be alert when scanning vintage photographs. You never know what’ll turn up. On page 21 of the May 1966 issue of Super Stock & Drag Illustrated there’s a black and white picture of the Adams & Wayre Top Fuel dragster taken at the 1966 AHRA Winter Nationals drag race at Irwindale, California. Sitting motionless in the background is one of the four 1966 Shelby GT350 convertibles. Putting it in context, the AHRA Winter Nationals was the big season opening event at which Ford debuted the new Holman & Moody–built stretch-nose A/FX Mustangs and Mercury Comet Cyclone flip-top funny cars. Ford factory drag team director Charlie Gray was there along with a dozen brand managers and engineers. It is likely that the special drop-top Shelby was loaned out for their use.
