[natejennmichel1984]

OK how would I figure that out My thing is I need to sell this car for an emergency but I But I want to make sure I'm not telling somebody something that it's not

 

[natejennmichel1984]

That kind of complicates thing further. I like the idea Of it's one of a kind Lol

 

[awhtx]

Dec 30, 1964 is your proposed build date according to the door tag. That was long after the D code 289 was out of production. I say you have a fictitious door tag.

 

[natejennmichel1984]

The DMV would have caught it if it was fake right? I guess that's where I can start to find some more answers.

 

[kenash]

It does look like a Poppy Red which is a early paint code. I'm not sure when in '65, they discontinued it. I see on of the rivets (door tag) is a "pop"? I'm not sure from the firewall back what the frame tell-tale signs are for a early '65. Maybe the lack of gaskets on the taillights and the gas filler cap, which didn't have the "bailing" cable.

 

[redman1962]

Looking the vin up in the Mustang Production Guide by Jim Smart, 5F07D171123 would have been built on or about 18 June 1964 (18F) in Dearborn. Something on the data plate appears to be mis-stamped...

 

[BlakeTX]

This is quite the mystery. I’m still not clear about the vin(s) in the engine bay.

I think a little research on the defining characteristics of an early 65 would help a lot. My SWAG is that it’s an early car with the wrong date stamped on it, either by accident in the factory (it happened) or perhaps a replacement door tag?

Edit: I re-read the post about the front clip being replaced. That does complicate things as far as resale goes. As others have said, the door tag isn’t the official VIN. Regardless of this date weirdness, I expect you’re going to take a hit on value based on the lack of/wrong official VIN. Unless you find a buyer that doesn’t know old Fords, you’re going to have a limited market. I would only consider a car like this if it were cheap. Sorry, I know that’s not what you want to hear.

 

[natejennmichel1984]

OK I think I noticed that too but I never thought too much about it so that makes the most sense if somebody just stamp a different number in the plate so I got a 64 and a 1/2 d code Mustang It' sound fair enough To me. Thank you again helped a bunch

 

[natejennmichel1984]

OK I think I noticed that too but I never thought too much about it so that makes the most sense if somebody just stamp a different number in the plate so I got a 64 and a 1/2 d code Mustang It' sound fair enough To me. Thank you again helped a bunch

Just read your message after I sent this Are we considering this a 64 and a 1/2 since it's a d
code

 

[MustangGrande302]

Just read your message after I sent this Are we considering this a 64 and a 1/2 since it's a d
code

The person you are replying to does not know what year mustang this is. As said before, you have a conflicting VIN which doesn't appear to be stamped correctly. That being said, you may not know the VIN of the car with all the conflicting information from your VINs on the front clip of the car. There is no definite answer to if this is a 64 1/2 Mustang.

 

[natejennmichel1984]

Well that's great I don't know now And when I bought it it was stripped like ready to Rebuild Add missing things. But he was like a cop or some kind of officer so I wouldn't have thoughtAnything Bad going on and he said he bought it the way I did. But I'm just gonna sell it like I got it

 

[natejennmichel1984]

I didn't want to sell it at all now I'm not gonna get much less Thanks for the help at least I was confused for a reason

 

[GradyStang]

I'm confused here... so you're saying there's a 1966 mustang "clip" on the front end of the car and that it doesn't have a VIN on the inner fender? Not having a VIN on the inner fender, especially dependent upon which state you live in isn't a good sign and is pretty unnerving. The door tag, as stated above, isn't an official VIN and can be reproduced to say anything you want on it. I wonder if maybe the door tag was reproduced or replaced and instead of putting a "C" for the engine code that it was accidentally put as a "D" engine code? Because yes, the 30M would be a December 30th, 1964 build date. That being said, on the website linked below there's a VIN that comes after the OP's that does show a 19F date on it, so it seems like something has definitely been changed up.

ISOMustangs Profile - 5F07D173062

www.isomustangs.org

 

[1stLove]

The door tag you photographed is a reproduction, that is absolutely not the original font that was used to stamp them and it has some incorrect info on it.

So yes, the tag and title correspond to a D-code 1964.5 model, but the date code of 30M is incorrect. As mentioned, it should be xxF, for June 1964 with that sequence number. I wouldn't count on the other information on the tag being 100% accurate without corroboration from other evidence on the car.

However, my concern about this car is different. I think there is a strong possibility that your car was not born with the 5F07D VIN, and that somebody had a 1966 Mustang without a title (possibly stolen), and also had the 5F07D title laying around, then stamped a new data plate and made the switch. I would be extremely nervous about selling (or owning) this car. Whatever numbers are stamped on the fender aprons are probably the originals to the car, and that's what the car is.

 

[Mustangerbob1]

There is a lot of expertise on this forum, and you are not the 1st person who has asked questions.

Ignore the door tag, it is clearly a reproduction, and anything can be stamped on it, no matter how wrong it is.

After that, what is the STAMPED VIN on the inner aprons. For this car, I would pull back both fenders and see what is stamped on all 3 places. Exactly what are they? You are deep diving into scary territory.

The picture of the parts explosion is telling as there are a lot of NON D code parts showing. What is the date code on the heads?

So, if I understand, you have a title to a car that does not have the VIN of the title stamped on the car in the "legal" places, but only on a fake door tag. How about a picture of the engine compartment and the dash area from about 5' away. For a $100, you can get a Mustang title and a fake door tag matching the title, but that means nothing about legal ownership of a car.

You have opened the proverbial worm can, and the VIN shown 5F07D171123 will show up on a decent internet search about the title information.

You need to get this cleared up before you sell the car.

 

[kenash]

The DMV would have caught it if it was fake right? I guess that's where I can start to find some more answers.

I'm no sure the DMV will take the trouble to dissect it.

 

[stephanorf]

I think the build date for that VIN would be later in 1965. My Sept 1965 VIN ends with 149xxx, so I'm thinking 171xxx would be Oct or Nov or 1965?

 

[BlakeTX]

With the suspicion that the tag is not original, I too have to wonder if it’s a 66 that’s been retitled, rather than a front clip swap. Plenty of things to look for to confirm this suspicion. You should post pics of the car.

 

[kenash]

The DMV would have caught it if it was fake right? I guess that's where I can start to find some more answers.

I'm not sure the DMV will take the trouble to dissect it.

 

[AZ_Ryan]

Yep that door tag is a reproduction. Post pics of the car. Eagle eye members can spot a 64 vs a 66. As mentioned you need to check the hidden inner fender stamps ASAP.