Crazy 67 fastback prices

[68rustang]

67's are ugly I have always preferred the 68 myself.

 

[mustangdave]

68' are ugly; the fake side vents make the 67 better.:SNSign:

 

[mustangdave]

My 67 has some burnt wiring, surface rust, crappy paint, drum brakes, a leaking tranny, a rusty gas tank, needs interior, holes in the engine compartment, rusted out battery tray,etc... and I have put $9,000 in it already. Let them get all they can for their crap. It makes ours more valuable.

 

[Edbert]

68' are ugly; the fake side vents make the 67 better.:SNSign:

Other things that ruin the 68s for me:
Two spoke steering wheel from the Fairlane.
Fake woodgrain stickers.
Loss of the grill "bars".
Side lights and reflectors.
Funky-arsed padding on the console.

...I could go on.

 

[zookeeper]

I'll have to throw in with Edbert on SOME of the points. I couldn't remove my side markers fast enough and I question the sanity of the bidder on ebay that paid three prices for them. While the '68 steering wheel doesn't do anything for me, the '67 wheel is hideous. The horn blob is so big it looks like an over-sized ice cream cone plastered in the center of it. Gawd. The grille on pretty much all Mustangs, from '65 to '68 is kinda cluttered in my opinion, they all look better without the horse, the corral and all the other foo-foo and painted black. Evidently the guys that built the Bullitt '68 thought so, too.
My car is a low optioned model so I was spared the lumber look on the dash, I think the '67 deluxe dash is soooooo neat and is what my car will have. Ditto for the console, I don't have one but the '67 units are nice. As for the side vents, I have an iron-clad rule for my car: there is not one piece of the car that is for decoration only. I'm a beleiver in the "form follows function" rule. I don't put anything on the car that doesn't work. I think once you start bolting bric-a-brac on your car (fake wheel spinners, non-functional scoops, extra lights that aren't hooked up, etc) then you take away from the purity of the design that attracted you to the car in the first place. But I'll probably get ripped for that by some guy that searched the world over for a set of NOS driving lights but hasn't wired them yet, so I better stop there.

 

[Pbum5]

Let them get all they can for their crap. It makes ours more valuable.

Yup!!

Glad I bought mine a long time ago.

Always been my favorite Stang (67 Fastback) and I had never even seen Bullitt (I know it’s a ‘68) before I bought mine.

Yes the current Movies have made the prices jump on 67/68 Fastbacks Gone in 60.., Dukes of Hazard, Vanilla Sky, FF3. etc..

I guess Hollywood finally caught up to what we have always known.

 

[mustangdave]

Zoo, mine was originally a 6 banger with Deluxe interior, including overhaed brushed aluminum console. The mostrosity in the middle of the wheel does not bother me; it will be the only padding (airbag) that I have when the spear-o-matic steering wheel goes through my chest. The "fake" vents on the sides of the 67 were a Ford decision, but can easily be made functional:read..dryer tube. The quarter panels were also differemt from 67-68 which most people don't know. I prefer the 67.

 

[68rustang]

I meant that more tongue-in-cheek than anything else. I would have to agree with zookepper, he pretty well sums it up. The only thing I do not like about a 67 vs a 68 is the cheese grater looking, non-functioning quarter panel "scoops."

 

[68rustang]

The quarter panels were also different from 67-68 which most people don't know.

What is different about them other than the obvious scoop vs chrome trim piece and the lack of a marker light?

 

[mustangdave]

Glad you asked. The C-scoops angles were different. I think tchelle had a hermaphrodite at one time. The door jamb was the same causing many to believe they were the same. No. On the 67, the indentation drops steeply for about 5/8" and with a sharp bend slopes forward to the jamb. On the 68 , the indentation slopes gently forward for about 2 1/2" , then a soft radius slopes forward to the jamb. If you see the two side by side, it is obvious; other wise, you would argue the point. I like the 67 design much better because I think the angle accentuates the car better, not to mention I like the scoops that can be made functional with little effort.

 

[Edbert]

I could go either way on the C-scoops between 67/68. I like the agressive look on the 67s but since they are decorative only it negates any points gained. Of course they could be made functional fairly easy, I've seen it done, but the cooling effect would be minimal.

Regarding the pad on the steering wheel, you can thank your federal government for that one. But with the "right" steering wheel it becomes a thing of beauty to me.

Ironically that picture is from my web page where I retrofitted a 68 steering column into my 67
http://www.edbert.net/column.htm
...DOH! Guess I am busted after all...LOL

 

[68rustang]

I see, so the 67 scoop has a more pronounced "ridge"?

 

[t_chelle16]

Glad you asked. The C-scoops angles were different. I think tchelle had a hermaphrodite at one time. The door jamb was the same causing many to believe they were the same. No. On the 67, the indentation drops steeply for about 5/8" and with a sharp bend slopes forward to the jamb. On the 68 , the indentation slopes gently forward for about 2 1/2" , then a soft radius slopes forward to the jamb. If you see the two side by side, it is obvious; other wise, you would argue the point. I like the 67 design much better because I think the angle accentuates the car better, not to mention I like the scoops that can be made functional with little effort.

Huh . . . never noticed that. I'll have to go out and compare them some time.

EDIT: I just went out & looked and you're right, the edge of the scoop is a lot steeper on the 67 quarter than on the 68. Learned something new.

-Chelle

 

[CochinoFilipino]

Fastback's are a dime a dozen. Here's a running 68 with a four speed for 4500. It's not too far from me. http://www.craigslist.org/sfc/car/134276806.html

If I didn't have a junker parts car littering my driveway already, I'd go look at it. I've been meaning to strip off all the parts I need and get rid of the body. Too bad I lagged on that task.

 

[Jester67]

67
Accept no substitute

 

[Mustangmaker67]

Well, I just can't help laughing while reading this thread. I couldn't stand to just set here and laugh I must put my 2 cents in. SORRY IN ADVANCE!!!!!! My love for fastbacks started with my first one in 1982 ( which I still own). No it's not for sale. Not at any price. I do have 7 67-68 fastbacks in all different conditions. Which are for sale. Are they hard to find? Yes. Are they expensive Some are. but I also bought 4 from 1 guy for $2500. all in rebuildable shape. That was after the movie. I also tried to sell mine in 1990 for $850. Had several lookers but no one thought the rusted floors & frame rails could be fixed and look right. I then restored it and it currently has over 100 best of shows. Most won when not even another fastback was shown anywhere it seemed. Now, However, Fastbacks are everywhere. they are coming out of the woodwork. Why? They are finally worth putting all the work and money into. Am I lucky I collected 67-68 fastbacks since the 1980's? Yes. Very lucky!!! I have a very good friend that collects 67-70 Cougars. He gets them for $500 to $2500. But What's he got? He's got what their worth. All but one is nice drivers but not worth restoring. He can't borrow money for them, They're not worth anything. Now then, If some Movie came along and cause a Cougar craze, all of a sudden, He's setting on a gold mine and all the other guys are crying they can't afford a neat Cougar. But How true were they when they were'nt worth anything? If All these SO CALLED Mustang Purest were truly true to the Mustang Hobby they would embrace all the Mustangs. Thank God, Carrol Shelby Thought differently, If he didn't think this way in the 60's We would have never had the ICON of Shelby's cars. Every one agrees that the Mustang is a beautiful car, Shelby wanted it to look a little different, & added a price tag for looks & performance. It wasn't for everyone, and ,I bet,some at the time, didn't like it. Now there is "Eleanor" She's here and she's different, She's a Mustang, Just like coupe, fastback, or convertible. And yes, even Shelby. Her name is "Eleanor" Like her or not, She's a Mustang. Let's let her take her rightful place along side these others in the history books. With or without us I think she's going to anyway.

 

[Edbert]

They are DEFINITELY out there, dunno about the dime-a-dozen part, but the point is valid. That was sorta where I was going with the initial post anyhow. Some idiot paid $5K for some scrap metal with no title when running cars can be had for less.

I still miss my 67 S-code GT, my friend of 25 years has it and i get to drive it a couple of times a year. My old car is on the front page of the S code registry website www.1967mustang.com

 

[stangonline]

What people don't realize is that Eleanor did more than make people want an "Eleanor". It opened peoples eyes and minds to resto-modding in general. That, combind with shows like Overhaulin' and Rides has got the gears turning. It so happens that the bigger 67-68 bodystyle always was very popuar and since it came from the factory with everything from a straight-6 to a big-block, it is a very desirable car to rest-mod.

I have a 67 FB and it's going to get either a mod-motor, or a twin turbo windsor of some kind. Griggs suspension, the works.

 

[68rustang]

Resto-modding was alive and well before the Gone in 60 Seconds movie came out.

 

[Edbert]

Look closely at the mod-motor option before you decide. In my opinion they are a waste of time/money, do whatever you want to your car of course. But the 4.6 engines are larger and heavier than a 460ci and displace fewer cubes than the tiny 289. Installing one on the classic will force you to use a Mustang-II type suspension and hack the chassis up to accomodate it while giving zero performance benefit (I'm not interested in debating that) over a pushrod motor which will cost less.