Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Recommended Posts

Posted

Oh and the 4 speed was a T-10. The top loader didn't come until the later cars in 65. They are hard to come by. I still currently have a 65 fastback getting the full gt350 cloning and a 66 gt fastback and a 66 convertible. A factory red 289 auto car at that

Posted

One of the major differences between the 64 1/2's & the 65's are the early Mustangs were 4 lug bolt patterns, & the later ones were all 5 lug.

Posted

I'm not up on Mustang knowledge, But didn't some early 641/2's have a Falcon inst. cluster? I thought I read that somewhere before.

Posted (edited)

I'm not up on Mustang knowledge, But didn't some early 641/2's have a Falcon inst. cluster? I thought I read that somewhere before.

The base cluster through '65 was a Falcon part (horizontal speedometer) I believe...

Edited by Rob Hall
Posted

The horizontal cluster was used on non gt cars until 66. The gt got the round dial cluster and then it became standard in 66. Camera black finish on standard cars and wood grain on gt's

Posted

I've never seen a pre-1967 Mustang with a big block . :P

Actually,Ford built some 65 Mustangs with 427's.Dick Brannan drove a 65 Mustang with a 427 S.O.H.C.

Posted

The Mustang was introduced at the '64 Worlds Fair. Really is a '65 since it almost missed the 64 production. I agree, about the only difference is the 64 1/2 had a generator.

Posted

I listed all the differences. There are several. Many the average joe will not even notice. And no ford did not build the 427 sohc cars. The racers backed by ford did. Ford never installed a 427 sohc in anything. You bought them in crates.

Posted (edited)

Love 'em or lump 'em, that 1/16's gonna need work. A-pillars is just all kinds of wrong 'n the front fascia's pretty cocked-up too.

64116mstg_zps5eec316e.jpg

Holding the 1/16 body at arms length with a 1/25 held in front to check proportions, the rear end doesn't look bad but the roof could be a little short. This shows in the 30 degree windshield post instead the proper 40 degree A pillar angle.

mike

Edited by mk11
Posted

64116mstg_zps5eec316e.jpg

Holding the 1/16 body at arms length with a 1/25 held in front to check proportions, the rear end doesn't look bad but the roof could be a little short. This shows in the 30 degree windshield post instead the proper 40 degree A pillar angle.

mike

MIKE, HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE 40DEGS? THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME, PULL THE ROOF FORWARD AT THE SAME HEIGHT?

DOES THE FRONT WHEEL WELLS LOOK A LITTLE SMALL AS WELL?

Posted

Speaking of Mustangs, I came upon this scene a few days ago while out on my bike ride in the hills of Griffith Park:

815Mustangcommercial-vi.jpg

The helipad - located on a section of closed road - is a popular location for all kinds of Hollywood productions. Looks like this commercial is going to feature several generations of Mustangs, including a '65 convertible, a '65 Shelby and an Eleanor clone. This is the only photo I managed without feeling like I was getting in the way - the people and equipment in the shot represent only a very tiny fraction of the crowd it apparently takes to make these things!

Look for it on your TV soon . . .

Posted (edited)

The 40 deg. A pillar angle is found by laying a protractor from ye olde geometry set over 1:1 pics. The 1/25 coupes are right on. I thought maybe the door opening was too long, pushing the cowl forward but the wheelbase is pretty close at 6.75". Have to get some more 1:1 measurements...

Great pic, Steve

mike

Edited by mk11
Posted

Last time I actually tried this, I was mistaken. The irony was delicious.

13?

Missing vent wings and an A-pillar slant that's off ten degrees are consequential enough to make this comparison a little silly, btw...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...