1964 1/2 starter

conradf

New Member
Oct 23, 2009
4
0
0
mustang starter 026.jpg

mustang starter 032.jpg I recently purchased a 1964 1/2 289 4bbl, 4 speed coupe (all stock) and the starter went out. I thought this would be an easy fix so I did not keep the original starter. Now each replacement starter is too large to fit into the starter cavity. the hole is 4 1/16 and all the starters I have gotten from parts stores are 4 1/8....any advise on what to do?
 
  • Sponsors (?)


There are no 64.5 Mustangs. Vin-Tags state year as 1965 model. Maybe you can make a better claim as to an early '65 versus late '65 but there are truly no "64.5" Mustangs anywhere.

The "64 1/2" has become a commonly accepted term, due to the major differences between the Mustangs built before and after August 1964. The earlier cars had generators with other very significant electrical differences. The V8 engines were different, and are not even interchangeable with later V8s, due to the 5-bolt bellhousings, and other such distinctions, such as external trim.

It's true, though, that Ford titled them all as "1965" models.
 
I'm aware of the differences. I just find it annoying to hear people call it a 64 1/2 when such a thing never actually existed. I might as well say I have a '66 3/4 cause my car was a later production date.

I guess it's one of my pet peeves of us so called "enthusiasts" who can't get it right. Ok thread hijack over. Sorry guys.
 
I'm aware of the differences. I just find it annoying to hear people call it a 64 1/2 when such a thing never actually existed. I might as well say I have a '66 3/4 cause my car was a later production date.

I guess it's one of my pet peeves of us so called "enthusiasts" who can't get it right. Ok thread hijack over. Sorry guys.

I guess you don't cotton to the "68 1/2" label applied to the 68 CobraJet, either. :D

I remember in the 80's one of the car magazine editors was always going on about how "wrong" it was that Ford called their performance engine the "5.0", when it was really a mere 4.9423 liters. I think he finally gave up trying to get Ford to get honest and use a "4.9423" fender emblem.

Somehow, I just don't think this would look cool on the fender:

View attachment 236376

You're gonna have to get used to it, because when somebody needs, say, a "MUSTANG" fender emblem, they're not gonna ask for a "fender emblem for a Mustang built before August 1964", they're gonna ask for a "64 1/2 fender emblem". :nice:

dif-b20a.jpg


How to Identify a 1964-1/2 Mustang - Mustang Monthly Magazine
 
I have had this issue as well with my 1965. I even went so far as to dremel the plate to get mine to "flush" up. I thought at first it was because of a "shift" in the plate between the tranny and the bellhousing.....I finally said to heck with advance auto and went to autozone. Unfortunately, it is hard to keep skilled people working for what they get paid. I have the "fix" starter in the floor of my office right now. Will let you know how it goes.....
 
Finally solved the problem. I used a starter from a 64 Falcon automatic from NAPA.
I dont know why, but it fits and works great. I understand there is no 64.5 mustangs, sorry to offend, things are occasionally easier when I say this up front.


Thanks,
 
well I am glad you got the right one. I always found it easier to ask for 64 falcon electrical and parts for my 260. It reduced arguments at parts stores.

The argument continues on the existence of 64.5. All I will say to add to this argument. The enthusiasts yes label early 65 as 64.5. Ford actually called them 1964 falcon specials on their build sheets. Yes I have several orginal copies.
 
If you still haven't resolved the issue, try part number 3980 from advance auto.....
it fixed my situation...although they couldn't tell me what the part was for other than a Ford...which narrowed it down :) Basically, the starter has a longer shaft...