I enjoy hitting up our local thrift stores, and as the previous entries in this series have indicated, an occasional real find can be made when you least expect it. But you’d better know your details, lest you end up with a cheap knockoff instead of that really valuable item you thought you could turn on eBay for 100x the thrift store price.
So you can imagine how excited I was to see this ’66 Mustang GT350 sitting in the lot when I pulled in the other day. Now, my high school best friend had a ’65 notchback, so I know a little about what early Mustang details to look for. But in this case, I quickly realized I’m not that familiar with the GT350, other than Carrol Shelby was involved and you could rent them from Hertz.
Soooo, after a little self-education, it turns out this is only a nicely-done GT350 tribute, not the real thing. Tip-offs were the white interior (would have been black), factory fastback vents (which were replaced with a plexiglas window on the real GT350s) and missing side scoops.
But kudos to whoever did the car. Even though it’s not ‘the real thing,’ I bet it still turns a lot of heads, and at a fraction the price of the real thing, too.
Related Reading:
CC Capsule: Thrift Store Fords No. 1 – 1971 Ford LTD in “Resale Red”
CC Outtake: Thrift Store Fords No. 2 – 1975-78 Mercury Bobcat Villager
CC Capsule: Thrift Store Fords No. 3 – 1977 Ford Maverick
CC Outtake: Thrift Store Ford Rerun – 1969 Ford Falcon
CC Outtake: Thrift Store Fords No. 4 – 1982 Ford LTD Crown Victoria
A lot of people hate tributes and replicas, but that’s probably what I’d do rather than the real thing. I don’t care so much about the authenticity, I just want to enjoy it…and that doesn’t include trailering it between car shows and a garage and fretting over every mile on the odometer.
This is nicely done IMO.
I’m generally not a big fan of “tributes” especially when the owner finishes it and then thinks they can sell it for the same coin as a true version. I especially don’t like it when you need to basically destroy a car to make a tribute. Case in point ripping a 440 out of a C body New Yorker to put into a 318 B body.
*VERY* pretty !@ .
I’d rather have the notch back with it’s trunk and in any color than resale red but this is still a nice Mustang any way you look at it .
? Was the Thrift Store selling it ? .
-Nate
Sadly (or actually, thankfully for my savings account), no.
It’s rarer to see a non Shelby 65-66 fastback at this point.
I don’t hate the idea of clones and tributes, but either be full on authentic about it, truly making the same car Shelby made, or go full on restomod, making it look like you souped up a Shelby without nosediving the immense value. Adding a scoop and stripes to a standard fastback however, no. Someone who doesn’t know any better will see it, thinking they saw a real one, and then get into an argument with people who do know better about whether or not GT350s had vents in 66 and white interiors, or spread misinformation. Any young car guy, at least to the extent I was as a kid, will attest that attaining accurate knowledge can be ridiculously challenging, and cars like this really muddy the waters if there isn’t an honest owner to claiify what you’re actually looking at.
But it would take a heck of a lot more money and effort to make this a true replica. Who cares of people you don’t know argue about it.
Because it invariably makes it back to me to argue, even if it’s “well my friend’s uncle said he saw a red 66 without plexi quarter glass”. You’ve never had to dispel false statements based on the foundation of someone’s anecdotes?
I’m not saying to build it using rare and vintage parts, but reproduction is widely available to do it more authentically. It’s already 90% of the way there as is. As far as cost goes, the few parts that would make it more authentic wouldn’t come close to the paint job and bodywork it already underwent. If you’re going to present it as something it’s not, do it justice.
@ XR7: I once had a neighbor who SWORE that a guy at his garage had a “Lamborghini”. The fact that it was a reskinned Fiero was lost upon him. NOTHING I could say could dissuade him, so yes, I can emphathize with your point of view! 🙂
Early Mustang fastbacks were the best looking Mustangs, in my opinion, until the ’05 remake. The asking prices reflect that now. These just look good with those stripes. The original ’65 Shelby cars were really racing cars on the street and unpleasant to daily drive, the reason they were toned down over the years. I was glad when Ford brought out the ’05 fastback as the base coupe, now everyone that wanted a fastback can have the opportunity to own one. I bought an ’07, still have it. I like the roof line on the newest Mustangs even more. The early cars are now priced way above my means, but even a couple of years after my ’70 coupe has been gone, I’ve got some ideas I’d like to try out on a ’71-73 coupe. These are still affordable.
I think the fastback came into it’s own more in 67 and 69. To me the 65-66 fastback design looks kind of tacked on, I find the hardtop coupe more pure. The 05-current Mustangs do very little for me because there isn’t a notchback coupe option.
On the flip side, I hated the Fox notchbacks. I know some people liked them but to me they looked like cheap economy cars.
I do agree that for this generation the notchback looks better….though I certainly wouldn’t kick this one out of the garage.
I think the 4 eye foxbodies looked better as hatches, but the aero 87-93s looked better as notchbacks to me, in a very similar way I like the 65-66 coupes.
I would actually prefer this to the real thing. You can take this car out, drive it and get some enjoyment from it and not worry so much. (I’m not a Ford guy but I really like this car – good job!)
I have reached the point where I would almost not walk across the parking lot to look at an early Mustang/Camaro/etc. The exception is something that from 50 feet looks really stock and original. These cars modded in any way are just so overly represented everywhere you see old cars gather that I am just bored with them.
I think I vote with XR-7 Matt that the hardtop and convertible are the best bodystyle on these early Stangs. Although I remember a weekend where my father borrowed a dark green 65 or 66 fastback from the son of his boss in a swap for the company station wagon. That was a fun weekend for a kid of maybe 7.
You’d love the biweekly Cars and Coffee Richmond. Four different guys show up with 6 cylinder first generation Camaros (I seem to remember they’re all ’67’s), two of which have Powerglides on the column.
Two others show up with first generation Mustangs with the six.
All six have been vehemently vocal about being unwilling to either hop the cars up, or turn them into a “tribute” (FAKE!!!!) anything else.
I really appreciate these guys. And have told them so.
@Syke :
SWEET .
Those are to me, the best ones being light and fun to drive Pony Cars not race cars .
Why I loved MoPar’s smaller (? A?) cars too ~ wonderful drivers and great tourers/rally cars when left mostly stock .
-Nate
Yep. If a car has survived 50 years ‘unmolested’, let it be.
That’s a nice car, but something seems amiss with the dash. It ‘looks’ like a 1966 dash but, unless I’m seeing it wrong, there are two large center binnacles, where the original ’66 dash only had one (speedometer). If you wanted a factory tach in a 1966 Mustang, you got what was called a ‘Rally Pac’ which were two smaller binnacles containing a tachometer and clock, attached to the steering column. Frankly, it’s not a bad aftermarket modification, either, looking quite stock. But it does coincide with XR7Matt’s earlier comment that someone would see it and ‘think’ it’s factory, when it’s not.
Another feature this one seems to deviate from are the rear brake scoops and ‘maybe’ the plexiglass quarter windows (but I’m not positive about the latter).
All things considered, though, it’s still a very good tribute, what with a decent Shelby ‘clone’ steering wheel and period-correct Magnum 500 wheels. In fact, as far as tributes go, I don’t mind them so long as they’re done well, and this one certainly qualifies.
In that regard, I recently saw what at first appeared to be a very nice, stock 1970 Duster 340. However, upon closer examination, it turned out to be a clone which seemed to originally have been a normal 1970 Duster. But from the way it was equipped, it was likely one of those ‘Twister’ cars and, really, the only way I knew it was a clone was the dash. 1970-71 A-body 340 cars had a different dash taken from the earlier 1967-69 A-body Barracuda. This one had the Valiant dash that non-340 (and 1972 and later 340) cars came with. But, like the Mustang feature car, it was still done very well.
The gauge cluster is a reproduction of the 1965 GT350 R-model. The Rally Pac was an offering for non-Shelby mustangs, and I don’t believe were offered on the ’65 GT350. Shelby offered the “eyebrow” tach/oil pressure pod that fit on the center of the dashpad above the radio.
I don’t know if that’s an exact reproduction of what was fitted to a 1965 GT-350R. From what I can gather of the real GT-350R, those gauges were Shelby-style and much more like something strictly for racing. This car’s dash looks way too ‘clean’ with gauges more like factory style. Honestly, it’s the dash ‘all’ 1966 Mustangs should have had.
Theres an identical Mustang fastback roaming my suburb minus the fake stripe kit its a nice looking car one of my favourite Mustangs.
I once owned a truly cringe-worthy, unforgivably ugly “rustomod” 66 GT fastback during my unaware redneck youth, with all manner of fiberglass scoop nonsense tacked onto the body. In comparison, this is practically a stone stocker. With the exception of the rims (which I like) and the hood and grille, I see no exterior mods. No side scoops, no R-model front valence; no exhaust trumpets through the rear valence. Red with the Shelby stripes isn’t my bag, and I don’t get the need for the GT 350 call-outs, but it’s reversible. It may not be the bread and butter for this website, but I give the owner credit for knowing when to quit. I wish I’d had that much sense.
Based on the interior trim, glovebox door and dashpad, this is a ’65 Mustang. The instrument binnacle is definitely aftermarket. Also, I can’t quite see but it appears that it has a GM tilt column. I wonder how he did those 3-point belts because there were no factory anchor points in the roof until ’67. FWIW, the ’65 true Shelbys didn’t have the quarter windows or the scoops, except for a small number of late models which were actually passed off as ’66s.
These early 66’s also had 1965-style relocated upper front control arm pivots, Detroit Locker rears, no back seat and over-ride rear control arms. These were auxilliary control arms that pivoted from a point
under the rear seat area. The bean counters nixed those when the true ’66 models showed up.
Also, Shelbys were never equipped with Rally-Pacs. The dash in a ’65 looks like this.
The true ’66s reverted to a simple dash-mounted tach. The oil pressure gauge was no longer necessary since the ’66 style dash included one.
Trunk mounted battery and override traction bars got nixed too on the true 66s IIRC. Overall i would guess between the color and wheels the intent for this car was to look like a 66, even though it started life as a 65.
Also, Shelbys were never equipped with Rally-Pacs
Not strictly true. The 1967s actually used the 65-66 Rally-Pac gauge assembly to house an auxiliary oil pressure and amp gauge upside down and under the dash, rather than the steering column.
I don’t think much remains of the original Rally-pac. That mounting bracket is different as obviously the gauges themselves. Maybe the circular trim rings are the same, but that’s it. It does resemble a ’66 Rally Pac, but it’s sure not the same part.
The bracket isn’t visible in that pic, the flat piece in between the two pods is simply a cover, which hides the true rally pack origins for column mounting. I made no bones about the Stewart-Warner gauges used in it being different, but Shelby most definitely raided the parts bin for the unaltered Rally Pac housing.
Overall i would guess between the color and wheels the intent for this car was to look like a 66, even though it started life as a 65.
It was obviously good enough to fool me!
‘Tribute’ cars are to the motoring world as’ tribute bands’ are to the rock `n roll world. Isn`t imitation the sincerest form of flattery?
The key difference is you know from the getgo when you’re seeing a tribute band. If I printed tributes of $100 bills on an inkjet do you think the treasury department would be flattered?
I see a hell of a lot more fiberglass street rods at shows versus metal clone cars.
Beautiful car with the red/white stripes and wheels! Everything I see in those photos states ” Well maintained, tastefully modified, well loved machine owned by a dedicated enthusiast” but the inclusion of ‘G.T.350’ shouts “POSEUR.”
My ’68 notchback had a red rocker stripe over a glossy black paint job but the previous owner put ‘Mustang’ in it instead of GT350. I was of a mind to change it to ‘GT200’ for the Six that was in it but never had an opportunity to do that.
I deplore the socalled tribute-mobile myself. Taking a basic model pony car and slapping on stripes, a repaint in the proverbial resale red and adding other visual bits is so unoriginal and dull. I’d rather have a decent classic, unmolested, standard model pony car than one of those overly embellished tribute-mobiles with all of the cartoon art applied it.
I could be wrong, but I believe this is a real one. From a car show this morning…
Besides the wheels(which is understandable, modern rubber on bigger wider wheels hugely improves the handling, braking and traction on these old beasts, and does zero harm to originality) the aftermarket radiator and electric fan, as well as the air cleaner assembly are red flags to me. The exterior and interior looks the part, complete with the autographed glove box, but I’d be surprised that someone would modify such a valuable car in these areas in this day and age.