Guess the vehicle!!!! - Page 74

ranger024x4 · #**1096** 10-13-2013, 07:03 AM

im gonna guess a 67 tbird

Ordinary Biker · #**1097** 10-13-2013, 07:03 AM

Well, the Mustang did exist in '64 1/2, but for purposes of titleing they were considered '65's. Looks like 289 badges on the fender which would make it a '65, not a '64 1/2. Amazingly clean, awesome straight body lines, amazing paint. So jealous of that rag top, even though I never liked the red interiors...

djfllmn · #**1098** 10-13-2013, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger024x4

im gonna guess a 67 tbird

right

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ordinary Biker

Well, the Mustang did exist in '64 1/2, but for purposes of titleing they were considered '65's. Looks like 289 badges on the fender which would make it a '65, not a '64 1/2. Amazingly clean, awesome straight body lines, amazing paint. So jealous of that rag top, even though I never liked the red interiors...

actually it was a 64.5...with a factory 289

i didnt think they existed but its a 100% factory correct nut and bolt restoration

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger024x4

64.5 mustang

yep

Ordinary Biker · #**1099** 10-13-2013, 07:06 AM

One of a kind car. Everything I have every read says Ford did not offer the 289 until the full '65.

Still beautiful, the effort to do that is amazing

djfllmn · #**1100** 10-13-2013, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ordinary Biker

One of a kind car. Everything I have every read says Ford did not offer the 289 until the full '65.

Still beautiful, the effort to do that is amazing

that car was a 10 year labor of love

ranger024x4 · #**1101** 10-13-2013, 07:09 AM

everyone knows what this is.. can anyone guess the correct year?

djfllmn · #**1102** 10-13-2013, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger024x4

everyone knows what this is.. can anyone guess the correct year?

68

----------

ranger024x4 · #**1103** 10-13-2013, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djfllmn

68

----------

damn, very few people know that the 68 was the only year of the c3's that didn't have the reverse light built into the taillight.

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by djfllmn

68

----------

54 ford

djfllmn · #**1104** 10-13-2013, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger024x4

damn, very few people know that the 68 was the only year of the c3's that didn't have the reverse light built into the taillight.

----------

54 ford

nope

ranger024x4 · #**1105** 10-13-2013, 07:12 AM

55 ford lol

johnday · #**1106** 10-13-2013, 07:12 AM

They also came with a 260CI V8, and an inline 6, but I can't remember the size on that one. 242 maybe? The Mustang that is. Wow, you guys got way ahead of me!

djfllmn · #**1107** 10-13-2013, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnday

They also came with a 260CI V8, and an inline 6, but I can't remember the size on that one. 242 maybe?

i think it was a 170

----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by ranger024x4

55 ford lol

nope

ranger024x4 · #**1108** 10-13-2013, 07:14 AM

another year specific one

johnday · #**1109** 10-13-2013, 07:18 AM

'63 Split window?

ranger024x4 · #**1110** 10-13-2013, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnday

'63 Split window?

close