tigers
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Originality

To: JHef101@aol.com, dondaves@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Originality
From: Bob Palmer <rpalmer@ames.ucsd.edu>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 21:11:06 -0700
Jeff, Dave, et Guys,

Ok, so I had to look into this myself. If you hie yourself down to:

http://www.fordheritage.com/mustang/media/1960shock.html

(You need to download ShockWave)

you can check out Ford's official Mustang Heritage site. Regarding the 
early Mustang, Fords official statement is:

"For purposes of clarity, it is useful to note that Ford never referred to 
Mustangs as "64" or "64 1/2" models. These designations are the work of 
collectors who seek to differentiate an early'65 from a late '65. That 
said, Ford made midstream changes throughout the model year."

So there you have it. The official Ford position on this subject.

TTFN,

Bob

At 10:51 PM 10/10/99 -0400, JHef101@aol.com wrote:
>     For what its worth,
>As a newly minted driver in 1970 I owned a 1965 Mustang 260 coupe which was
>titled as a 1965, but was presented by the seller as a 64 1/2 . I also
>remember Ford advertising them at that time as 64 1/2 autos during all the
>hoopla. It's been 35  years , many miles, and many brain cells but I am
>pretty sure that Ford did market and introduce the Mustang as a 64 1/2 .
>
>
>Jeff Hefner
>B9470028

Robert L. Palmer
UCSD, Dept. of AMES
619-822-1037 (o)
760-599-9927 (h)
rpalmer@ucsd.edu
rpalmer@cts.com

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>