Don,
Kind of like Mk I's and Mk Ia's is guess. Thanks for setting the record
straight for me. I guess I owe Jerry an apology next time is see him. ;-)
Brgds,
Bob
At 04:09 AM 10/10/99 -0500, dondaves@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>On 10/09/99 11:48:38 Bob Palmer wrote:
> >I used to work with someone who bought one of the first Mustangs. He called
> >it a "'65". I pointed out it must have been a "64". He argued vehemently
> >that there were no "64" Mustangs. Well, OK then "64 & 1/2". Nope, he was
> >sure I was wrong.
>
>Bob,
>Ford didn't market the first Mustangs as '64 or '64 1/2. They were all '65
>models and production for that year ran about 18 months. The VIN numbers
>identified them all as '65's. The 64 1/2 designation seems to have been
>coined about the time people started collecting and restoring these gems to
>differentiate between the early and late '65 production. There were many
>small differences that make them unique.
>
>Don Daves
>sorry for the non-Tiger content
>
Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com
|