And just like that, it’s ‘60s Coupé Week in Tokyo, by T87 decree. Tyrannical, isn’t it? Well, I do have a few choice two-doors to share with the CCommunity – quite a bunch, in fact. Classic car owners here tend to appreciate that body style, it seems. Don’t we all? Hopefully, the same agreement can be reached about the 1965 Mustang Fastback.
I’ll just come right out and say it: as far as I’m concerned, this is the best-looking Ford Mustang ever made. Yes, I’m a sucker for controversy, unpopularity and all manner of contrarian opinions.
Not that one could call any 1965 Mustang unattractive. The hardtop is a model of design balance. An instant classic. The drop-top is glamorous and exciting – it actually works and looks organic, not like a mere roof-chopping job. But that Fastback is almost in a league of its own.
This is the best angle, in my eyes, to analyse the ’65 Fastback. The way they devised that roofline is nothing short of spectacular – and surprisingly complex, too. There’s not a straight line on that greenhouse, essentially. The backlight is gently curved, following the flow of the tapering C-pillar. Genius. And those vents on said C-pillar are perfect (and functional!) as well.
The Mustang hardtop and convertible were launched simultaneously in April 1964, but the Fastback was a surprise latecomer, only joining the range in August. It was a great PR move to keep the Mustang in the news with new variants. However, the claim that the Fastback had been inspired by the new Ford GT40 was a rather questionable one. The timeline just doesn’t add up.
Let’s rewind to the very birth of the Mustang, in 1962. Ford decided to use the Falcon platform to devise a sporty coupe. Already at that point, the notion of a fastback design was in the air: the Allegro show car (top picture), which sort of announced the Mustang, was among them. Most clay models of the period were notchbacks, though – apart from the (rather heavy-looking) proposal from the Lincoln-Mercury studio (bottom picture). By the end of 1962, the Mustang’s styling coalesced towards the hardtop coupé we all know, but the Ford designers, especially Joe Oros, pushed for a fastback version.
Gale Halderman, who had designed the Mustang hardtop, worked with Joe Oros in secret on the Fastback project. A full-length fastback roof was mooted, as was a short wheelbase version, but in the end (and according to Halderman, at Oros’ insistence), the roofline was made shorter. It seems the notion of a cleft backlight was given so thought, too. A little C2 Corvette influence?
Finalized and painted red, the fiberglass prototype was presented to Lee Iacocca in April 1963. It was greeted by an enthusiastic “Yes!” – if the Mustang was to be a sporty car, it needed to look like one. And this looked a lot sportier than the other variants.
What it did not look like was a Ford GT40, because the GT40 was not yet in gestation. In April 1963, Ford were trying to buy Ferrari. Said negotiations famously broke down at the last minute as Enzo Ferrari decided to walk away from the deal, leading Henry Ford II to retaliate with the GT40 program in June ‘63. But that all came after the Mustang Fastback was greenlit.
As far as engine options were concerned, the Fastback was available with the same choices, i.e. the 120hp 200ci/3.3 litre 6-cyl. and the 289ci/4.7 litre V8, available in either standard (200hp), GT (225hp) or high-performance GT (271hp) grade. Three or four-speed manuals were fitted, or the 3-speed Cruise-o-matic. Front disc brakes could be ordered for V8-powered cars.
Our feature ‘Stang has the “289” scripts on its fenders, but lacks the “GT” ones, so we can deduce it must have the 200hp motor (or the 225hp, which was optional sans GT spec). Given how twitchy these Mustangs are on imperfect, twisty or wet roads, I should think that would be plenty.
Transmission-wise, I think I’m spying the top of a T-handle here, so we’ve got an automatic. Might as well, though that sort of flies in the face of most people’s definition of a sports car. That’s ok though, as the Mustang isn’t a sports car. It’s a coupe that can be optioned to become a sporty car. Big difference. If you want a sports car, go see if you can afford a Shelby.
There’s another plus point: much as I love the 1965-66 Fastback’s looks, the wrong colour can ruin the best of designs. Red would have been fine, I suppose – but what a cliché. White is a personal no-no and black, while attractive on many cars, is a little boring on these. But you know what shade I usually don’t like yet works surprisingly well on this Mustang? Silver. Not a very common colour on Mustangs, in my experience, but it really works.
I imagine some of you may know these things by heart, but I never thought of looking up the Mustang’s production numbers for MY 1965 until today. The long and short of it is that the Fastback 2+2 tallied about 77,000 units. That’s a little better than the convertible (73k), but well below the hardtop (over 400k). It makes sense that the hardtop would win out, but I never figured it had been so dominant.
So it’s an underdog, on top of everything else? My, this Fastback is really the pony that keeps on giving. Don’t look at one of those in the mouth. The profile is so much better.
Related posts:
Cohort Capsule: 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 Fastback – A Stallion Instead Of A Gelding, by PN
CC Travelogue: 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 Fastback – Detroit’s Finest, by Joseph Dennis
COAL: 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 – Glorious Misery From The Back Seat
COAL: 1965 Ford Mustang 2+2 part 2, The View From the Driver’s Seat, by Dutch 1960
In Dec 1970 my wife had just graduated and was looking for her first car to drive to Lansdown High School for her job teaching Biology. We looked at a low mile red ’65 Mustang 2+2 coupe 289 automatic at Len Stoler Ford. This was MY first choice but not really practical compared to the 30k mile ’67 Volvo 122s 2 dr we saw the next day at Champion Ford. She went for the Volvo, good choice as she drove it for the following 10 years, only when it got wrecked on the Beltway during a snow storm did it finally get to retire at 240k miles. Great car, but the Mustang would have been more fun!
Lovely Mustang, the 2+2 has always been my favorite.
Since there’s too many silver cars in the world already, make mine Ivy Green or Wimbledon White.
Interesting touch to add driving lights to mimic the GT grill with integral lights.
Those incorrect “500” wheels look perfect on this
One of the reasons the 2+2 didn’t sell as well as the already limited rear seat room was compromised substantially by the low fastback roof, hence its name: 2+2, which really was fitting. Adults could not sit back there without serious contortions, whereas that was doable in the hardtop coupe, if not exactly comfortable.
The 2+2 was intended to push the Mustang into more genuine sports car territory than the hardtop coupe, and it worked, image-wise. The fact that there were relatively fewer of them by a large margin enhanced that quality at the time. One quickly stopped noticing the coupe, but the 2+2 could still bring the eyeballs, at least for a while.
A couple of minor details: the 170 six was dropped a long with a number of other changes in August 1965, which includes the introduction of the 2+2. The larger 200 six became standard then. And although the 225hp 289 was standard with the GT package in ’65, that engine as well as the 271 hp K-code 289 were optional on non-GT Mustangs. And the automatic was available on the 289/225, so it’s theoretically possible that this has the 225 hp engine.
This particular 2+2 has the driving lights in the grille and the twin flared chrome exhausts that exit through the rear lower valance panel, both which came with the GT package. That’s not original for this non-GT car, but these have been very popular modifications with Mustang owners.
All in all, This is a very nicely done car, not surprisingly given where it is.
Fixed the engine options bit. Apparently, the 260 V8 was also nixed by August ’64, so the Fastback never got that one either.
Were these available in silver? I’m not sure I can remember seeing any silver Mustangs until well into the 2000’s, except the SVO.
A colleague of about my age had a green ‘65 or ‘66 fastback. I rode in the back seat once. That was enough. It may have had a tiny bit more room than my Vega but felt like a dungeon with those solid sail panels. This was in about 1977 or 1978 and the Mustang was stock, a handsome dark gree, nicely optioned (V8 and 4 speed, though I don’t recall if it was a GT), but it already seemed like an old and dated car at 11 or 12 years old.
My two favorite classic Mustang models are these early fastbacks as well as the ’69-’70 models. The early car has a lighter simpler style that looks better now than it ever did. These have become quite expensive as collector cars, and I thank Ford for introducing the 2005-2009 as a fastback coupe. The styling is a blend of the early design cues, but I think that it is quite effective. It got me to buy a new one in 2007! The “05-’09s are very practical and usable cars, and are perfect with the V6. As a new car almost anyone that really wanted a retro styled Mustang fastback could afford one. Now as used cars they are really affordable and there are plenty to choose from. A person looking at acquiring a classic Mustang should be aware that they will likely find that the old Mustangs are pretty crude devices compared to the newer cars that they are familiar with. They are lacking in safety, performance, comfort, and ergonomic areas.
I was somewhat disappointed with my ’70 coupe after owning my ’07 for many years. We passed that one on to our daughter, who is still driving it. My own ’06 convertible is sitting in my garage and I have decided to hold onto it as a long term car. However, every time I see an early fastback I still can’t restrain a wistful sigh!
I have to agree with you on the 2007, Jose… Naturally.
And I too think that they’re perfect with the V6.
Yep, my wife loves the convertible top on our 07 but I would have preferred the fastback.
Same here, but she’s wanted a Mustang ‘vert since Spring of ’64 when she was just 15, and she finally got it in ’07. Perfect blend of modern function and retro style, with only 62k miles now and near mint all-original, it’s her keeper, and she is mine.
pic: her ’07
Almost bought an “08”, fastback in late “2023”. Didn’t get the price I was holing out for.
Also, didn’t like the fact that the back seat didn’t fold down.
It really rode /drove, nice though.
In the Avanti post the other day there was some discussion of the hatch on the rear package shelf. I have read that the original Loewy intent was to have no package shelf and Studebaker balked. I do not know if they were going to fold down the rear seat like the Mustang 2+2.
You look at the car here and it seems obvious, but I think Iacocca said they knew this package was a big time winner and would sell.
Terrific find, and you’re right about the color!
We had 5 in my subdivision (about 75 houses) at one time. My next door neighbor had two, one had the sticker, and the v8 and auto were 85 and 89 dollars extra.
Nice, I see one in red locally thats still as delivered.
As dman said above, I didn’t know that these came in silver either, but have to agree with everyone here that this is a great color for this car.
Silver used to be a rare color on cars. I’m not sure what the heck happened to make that color (it’s actually a shade if being pedantic here) so ubiquitous.
Maybe too many folks felt they wanted exclusivity by picking silver that it eventually became ubiquitous. I blame the Great Brougham Epoch, although other than Lincolns and Cadillacs, it was even rare then.
Does anyone remember when a silver car looked terrible in only 3 years after it was purchased? You don’t see that today, but back then, the shade was eventually a bad choice for the owner.
I tend to think of silver on older cars as being a Porsche/Mercedes thing … back when it was the national racing color for Germany. But in the modern era, we’ve had at least three silver cars (Corolla, Forester, and my current Tacoma) from 1993, 2004, and 2016 respectively. Modern silvers, as in 30 years or newer, seem fine. All of these cars lived outside and except for the Taco, lasted 10+ years without ever being waxed, and the Tacoma has barely been washed for 8 years except by winter California rains. I like it, but then I still associate it with 1930’s Auto Union grand priz cars.
In the fall of 1965, our family bought a 1966 mustang 2+2. I shared it with my mother. Any time a friend sat in the back seat, it invariably involved a head bump if entrance was not done slowly. As a result, the inside of the rear window always bore traces of hair oil, Vitalis or whatever else was in vogue at the time. It was a very attractive car, though not that well put together. We owned it less than two years.
Move a few people around in the background and your last picture is perfectly composed as the ad for Fendi’s winter leather collection. The tires are almost perfectly upright as well…
As virtually everyone has already stated, the color does work wonderfully, the slightly darker than the norm shade helps a lot. But the wheels and tires do just as much work to make it look sleek and fast, with the stock hubcaps it looks (just like the other variants) much more pedestrian, if that’s even a word that can apply to the first generation Mustang but you know what I mean.
Jimmy likes.
In the late 60’s, I carpooled to JuCo with 2 early Mustang owners: one had a coupe and the other was a fastback. We actually managed to squeeze 3 into the rear seat of the coupe, but 2 in the back of the fastback was absolutely miserable. My 58 Chevy was a limo in comparison. I always assumed that the fold down rear seat option was in response to the superior competition from the Barracuda in that area.
As a wide eyed 12-year-old, I’d walk by our small Ford dealership in my hometown of San Marino, Ca each day after Jr, High school. There would always be a gleaming ’65 then ’66 in the showroom. 1965/66 Mustangs, especially the fastback, remain my all time favorite Fords. In high school, we had a ’65 2+2 GT with I think a 3 speed manual. There was a shiny ’66 convertible GT. A girl drove that so it was a dude magnet. Then in 1970 a classmate bought (parents) a Boss 302. Ooooooo la la!
My girlfriend in college had a ’65, 289, cruise o matic, manual steering and bias ply tires. I drove it a lot . Not the easiest to drive.
Thanks for your work on this post. A very clean example albeit with add-ons. A trip down memory lane!
Just a part my OCD but I have always wondered why the.bar in the grill between the Mustang and the light always seems crooked .
Not all of them, just the ones restored by someone who obviously didn’t know what they were doing.
The silver IMHO really does work on this car. Thanks.