Vintage Mustang Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok, Ford didnt call it a 1964-1/2 mustang, so should we?
Who thinks we should call it a 1964 1/2 Mustang and who things we should call it a Early Production 1965 Mustang?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
I think we should call it a 64 1/2. Makes it sound special.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
I normally say an early 65, but if the other person wants to use the 64.5 term I play along.

I do find it interesting though that Ford celebrates the anniversaries (like the 35th and 40th) with the year 4 and year 9 models instead of the year 5 and year 0 models. So maybe we should just call them 1964 models and skip the half.

John Harvey
 

·
Gone but never forgetten
Joined
·
25,239 Posts
Personally, I've never seen the need for the distinction. There were so many running parts changes throughout the years that you'd have half year designations in almost every year. I've never figured out what made these first parts changes "special", other than there were probably more of them at one time than usual. Even that argument isn't real sound, though, as there's not a lot of difference between what we currently call a '64.5 and an early '65.

My son's '65 (C code so it definately was not a 64.5) had almost every one of the '64.5 parts on it, except for the generator and horns. Maybe it was a 64 3/4? ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
SixtyFour and a Half for me. There are two many differences between the two production runs to lump them both into 65's. There are fewer differences between 65's and 66's than between 64&1/2's and 65's. You could call the 64&1/2's, 65's and call the 65's, early 66's.
 

·
Gone but never forgetten
Joined
·
25,239 Posts
There are fewer differences between 65's and 66's than between 64&1/2's and 65's
If you said between a 64.5 and a LATE '65 I'd agree. I would disagree between a 64.5 and an EARLY '65, which is why I think the '64.5 designation is not nedeed. Except for very few parts (such as the generator), Ford used up the rest of the so called 64.5 parts before going to the later '65 parts.

This whole thing should make for some great arguing and flaming, so it might as well be me that throws the first gasoline on the fire! ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,013 Posts
Although many of the "early '65" parts continued well into '65 production, the change from generator to alternator, as well as a complete change in engine availability (except K-code), and a re-start to the numerical VIN sequence at the two production facilities makes a very distinct difference between '64.5 and '65 production. I call the generator cars '64 1/2, and alternator cars with many early features I call early '65 cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
To tell you the truth i think it should just be called a 1964 mustang. As long as they were produced for more than half the year in 1964 which im pretty sure they were and most people who have passed middle school know that when you have a number .5 and above you round up to the next whole number ;)
Dont call them early 1965 mustangs or 1965 mustangs when they werent made in 1965 because like one of the previous posters said the differences between 64/65/66 mustangs are few.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,312 Posts
There are many little differences between a "64.5" and a "65" model Mustang. As Johnpro stated above...many of the parts were carried over from the early cars until they ran out and started using the new stuff. I think that the early cars should get a special designation because they are special (Not Shelby GT350 special but still special on a lower level). Part of my view is biased though since I used to have a car built in the first month of production. Whatever you decide, they still are cool cars and worth the attention they receive! ::
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,656 Posts
I eagerly awaited the arrival of the production 1965 Mustang ever since following the development of the V-4 powered Mustang-I and later Mustang-II prototypes. Eventually, I was able to purchase a new 1965 Fastback. Ford made a big deal about designating the new production Mustangs as 1965 models; and I can't remember anyone from the original era calling them 64 1/2s. The models that Ford designated as "1/2" year models were typically updates of cars that already existed in that model year. Examples of these were the mid-year introduction of the 1963 1/2 "Fastback" Falcons and Galaxies. The basic 1963 models had been in production for some time (on a normal schedule) when the 1963 1/2 cars were introduced. My first exposure to the term "64 1/2" was when I returned to the Mustang ownership/hobby in the mid 80s. The early cars were beginning to be seriously "restored" and a hobby/following had developed around the interest in the early cars. I suppose the 64 1/2 term grew out of these efforts. As an original owner, my initial reaction was to correct anyone who used 64 1/2 by claiming that all were titled 65s and the cars should be called 65s. While I still cringe when I hear it, I realize that the term has grown roots in the hobby and it's useless to fight it anymore. However, I don't have to like it!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
861 Posts
Most people I talk to about cars refer to them as 64 or 64 1/2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
I too completely agree with johnpro. The differences are production changes, and there's nothing special or unusual about that. Most every car every year has production changes. My fastback has or had many of the so called 64 1/2 items on it, like beveled hood and headlight buckets, but it was built in October 64. By referring to some Mustangs as 64 1/2 or even 64 just perpetuates a myth among the masses. Ford never built a production Mustang before the 65 model. If I have to chose between 64 1/2 and Early 65, I choose Early 65.

Also, someone made the comment that Ford celebrates the years ending in 4 or 9 as milestone years instead of 5 and 0. Well... yeah! First year 1965 would make the 10th year 1974 and 1975 the 11th year. Count it out on your fingers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,897 Posts
Spent a couple years grappling with the issue. Never really believed in the 64.5. Until I learned there are subtle diffrences in the models, midyear release, and no fastback till 65. I thought the 40th anniversary of the stang was in 2005. Wrong! '04...in April was the official comemeration. So...I give in. There really is a 64 1/2 Mustang.
 

·
Moderator
1964 1/2 Convertible - 260 V8 C4 Automatic, Power Top, Console, 4 Wheel Drums
Joined
·
2,697 Posts
Generator cars are different.

Different wiring harness, different voltage regulator, different horns,
different engines, (except the Hi-po which came out right before the
alternator changeover...)

How many other mid year running changes required a plant shutdown and a
rounding up re-setting of VIN numbers?

Ford didn't call it a 64.5 because in marketing, you want things to sound
new. They called it a 65 because in April 1964, that sounded like the
distant future. Ooooh! It is so new!

The rest of us know better, and the 64.5 moniker has survived for 40 years.

By the way - anniversaries start with 1. Your first anniversary is not
on your wedding day, it is one year later. If you want to use your fingers
to count, make sure you start with your zero finger! ::

Then again, maybe I should see if the login zim65early is still available...

-Zim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
I refer to early 65's as those Mustangs that were built prior to March, 1965. These early cars all had clip-on interior door handles, 2-speed heater motors and carpeting that didn't have toe pads and which ended at the inner rocker panel.

While titled as a '65, even Ford recognized the car internally as a '64 model. Beyond the vast changes between a '64 1/2 and '65 cars, plus the different engines (with codes) and VINs, during the summer of 1964, when planning was proceeding full tilt on the '66 Mustangs, 1966 was referred to in Ford executive documents as "Mustang's third year."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Oops, you're right. I'm an idiot. :eek: In my example 1974 would be the 10th year of production, but the anniversary would not be until after 10 years, or 1975. So it looks like Ford does consider 1964 to be the first year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,978 Posts
Well my point was that it is a 1965 model. The 2005 models will be introduced in 2004 (August probably) - so the difference is only a few months. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the fortieth anniversary model of the 1965 Mustang is supposedly a 2004 model, instead of a 2005? The last time I checked 1965 + 40 = 2005, not 2004.

John Harvey
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top