• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Crazy 67 fastback prices

  • Thread starter Thread starter Edbert
  • Start date Start date Feb 4, 2006
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
48
Cleveland, OH
home.comcast.net
Feb 7, 2006
#41
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #41
67's are ugly I have always preferred the 68 myself.
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
62
North Carolina
Feb 7, 2006
#42
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #42
68' are ugly; the fake side vents make the 67 better.:SNSign:
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
62
North Carolina
Feb 7, 2006
#43
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #43
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

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
www.edbert.net
Feb 7, 2006
#44
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #44
mustangdave said:
68' are ugly; the fake side vents make the 67 better.:SNSign:
Click to expand...
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

Founding Member
Aug 25, 2001
3,415
63
109
64
Rogue River, Oregon
Feb 7, 2006
#45
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #45
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

Member
Oct 27, 2004
515
0
17
Minneapolis, MN
Feb 7, 2006
#46
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #46
mustangdave said:
Let them get all they can for their crap. It makes ours more valuable.
Click to expand...


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.
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
62
North Carolina
Feb 7, 2006
#47
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #47
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

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
48
Cleveland, OH
home.comcast.net
Feb 7, 2006
#48
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #48
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

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
48
Cleveland, OH
home.comcast.net
Feb 7, 2006
#49
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #49
mustangdave said:
The quarter panels were also different from 67-68 which most people don't know.
Click to expand...

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

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
62
North Carolina
Feb 7, 2006
#50
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #50
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

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
www.edbert.net
Feb 7, 2006
#51
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #51
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
 

Attachments

  • steer1.webp
    102.5 KB · Views: 127

68rustang

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
48
Cleveland, OH
home.comcast.net
Feb 7, 2006
#52
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #52
I see, so the 67 scoop has a more pronounced "ridge"?
 

t_chelle16

Keeper of the closet key
Founding Member
May 8, 2002
3,610
0
0
46
Knob Noster, Mo.
chelle.mine.nu
Feb 7, 2006
#53
  • Feb 7, 2006
  • #53
mustangdave said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

Founding Member
Jan 14, 2002
171
2
19
CA
Feb 16, 2006
#54
  • Feb 16, 2006
  • #54
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

Member
Sep 21, 2004
908
1
18
TN
Feb 16, 2006
#55
  • Feb 16, 2006
  • #55
67
Accept no substitute
 

Mustangmaker67

New Member
Apr 16, 2004
49
0
0
60
Indiana
www.mustangmaker.com
Feb 16, 2006
#56
  • Feb 16, 2006
  • #56
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

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
www.edbert.net
Feb 16, 2006
#57
  • Feb 16, 2006
  • #57
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

Member
Feb 22, 2003
318
0
16
www.stangonline.com
Mar 7, 2006
#58
  • Mar 7, 2006
  • #58
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

Active Member
Jan 17, 2003
1,537
0
36
48
Cleveland, OH
home.comcast.net
Mar 7, 2006
#59
  • Mar 7, 2006
  • #59
Resto-modding was alive and well before the Gone in 60 Seconds movie came out.
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
www.edbert.net
Mar 7, 2006
#60
  • Mar 7, 2006
  • #60
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.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Progress Thread Shelby's Mustang - project revived after 7 years...
  • racer_dave
  • Jul 31, 2023
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
13
Views
3K
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech May 3, 2025
racer_dave
R
5
What's it Worth? 1990 Notchback 5.0
  • 50notch90
  • Apr 14, 2024
  • What is it Worth?!?!?
Replies
4
Views
2K
What is it Worth?!?!? Apr 23, 2024
50notch90
5
R
1965 mustang body work, Complete Floor Pan Assembly install questions
  • runawayabc123
  • Jun 1, 2022
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
12
Views
7K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Sep 14, 2025
GOvert
G
Progress Thread 91 GT - 5 lug swap, suspension upgrade, restoration...
  • Andrews24
  • Mar 31, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
13
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 10, 2021
Andrews24
Questionable Trade for 67- How crazy am I?
  • swooshdave
  • Aug 2, 2019
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • 2 3
Replies
53
Views
8K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Aug 29, 2019
Olivethefet
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?