At 04:24 PM 10/10/1999 -0700, you wrote:
>Just my two cents worth on the "1964 1/2" Mustang.
>
>I was vacationing in Coranado Island in the summer of '64, when Ford announced
>their new Mustang.
>
>As I recall, the ads, and commentary, definitely called it a "64 1/2", as
the "65"
>Ford line had not yet been introduced (Fall), and they wanted the public to
know
>this was a NEW offering. Nobody used to a car intro in summer, although in San
>Diego there is not much difference when fall and winter pass through.
>
>I went to the local dealer to see the new car, with that off-red tomato soup
>color. Sure looked good.
>
>As I recall, the first ones had 14" wheels, and the later versions were 15" in
>1965. Don't know what other differences there might have been, but the "64
1/2"
>designation certainly wasn't started during the "classic car" collector's
period,
>but was called that at intro.
>
>Any other old sports fans remember that intro????
>
>Steve
> Yes, I was going to the University of Oklahoma ( Aerospace Engineering)
at the time and also paying my own way by working at an autoparts store.
I delivered parts to the local Ford dealer and they had the NEW Mustang.
First thing I looked at was the front suspension. With no lower A Arm I could
see that this piece of crap was a Red Pinto with a different body. I swore
that I
would never have such a piece of crap. However, I did finally buy a used 83
Mustang
for my daughter. Of course if I had bought the 64 1/2, and kept it up for
30 or so years it's value would equal the initial cost. Ignoring inflation.
James Barrett Tiger II 351C and others
|