VIN date decode question

Randy'65 · Dec 9, 2003

My '65 has a date code of 24B which translates to (using The Mustang Shop's online decoder) to February 24th (1st year). What exactly does that mean? I would think that the 1st year of production would be 1964, and February would be early enough that it might be considered a '64 1/2. It does have some late production '64 1/2 features like the hood snubbers with exposed screw head, aluminum water pump on an early build 289 (I'm pretty sure it's a 5 bolt bellhousing), but also mainly '65 features like the C code 289, alternator, etc. I know in the changeover they used the remaining 64 1/2 parts until they ran out, but it seems like February '64 would be solidly in the '64 1/2 production run, and February '65 would have been far enough into the '65 production run that all the '64 1/2 parts stockpiles would have been gone. Anybody know for sure?

2nd question, VIN # ends in 136200. What number did they start with, 100,000? I believe I remember Ford mixing the VIN #'s of all their models, so one number below or above your number may be a non Mustang model. True? If so, I guess there is no way to determine what # Mustang mine was off the assembly line.

65fastback2+2 · Dec 10, 2003

i didnt think mustangs started production run until like april 64. i could be wrong i guess. seems to me you got yourself a 65.

Ozsum67 · Dec 10, 2003

They didn't make any 64.5's. They made early 65s and late 65s. Also, the early ones had a V8 alright, but it was a 260. You have a late 65.

390Fe · Dec 10, 2003

Ozsum67 said:
They didn't make any 64.5's. They made early 65s and late 65s. Also, the early ones had a V8 alright, but it was a 260. You have a late 65.

Ozsum67, please don't take this the wrong way... most Mustanger's know that all early mustangs are '65 models - we just use the 64.5 convention to differentiate the first production models from the later... they did have enough variation that a distintive title is warranted - but you are right - the title will read 1965. I just think you were being a bit blunt.... and wrong too

The 64.5 had a 170 six a 260 v-8 AND a "D" code 289 available to them.

Final analysis though - yeah definately a "later" '65 model - the "c" engine code if nothing else gives it away. I had a '65 that had some of the variations associated with the 64.5 (early '65) - but it is the build date and engine options that determine such things.

Edbert · Dec 10, 2003

Randy'65 said:
My '65 has a date code of 24B which translates to (using The Mustang Shop's online decoder) to February 24th (1st year). What exactly does that mean? I would think that the 1st year of production would be 1964, and February would be early enough that it might be considered a '64 1/2.

1st year of production for a 1965 was approximately Aug64 thru Jul65. Since yours was Feb65 you are right about in the middle of the production year but in the second half. My '67 was manufactured in October 1966 making it an early '67.

I never heard why car manufacturers use strange calendar years but the new models traditionally come out in September of the preceeding year. They did it then, and still do today. If the new model does not come out until the following calendar year (the ACTUAL year) then it is often given the "1/2" designation. That explains the 64.5 Mustangs. They were too late to be called '64s but too early to be called '65s.

Ozsum67 · Dec 10, 2003

The magical date was April 17, 1964. The stangs original base engine was the 170 six or the 260 V8. In the fall of 1964, the 200 six and the 289 V8 became the standard engines. So, this makes a 1965 with a 289 a LATE 1965.

Ozsum67 · Dec 10, 2003

390Fe said:
Ozsum67, please don't take this the wrong way... most Mustanger's know that all early mustangs are '65 models - we just use the 64.5 convention to differentiate the first production models from the later... they did have enough variation that a distintive title is warranted - but you are right - the title will read 1965. I just think you were being a bit blunt.... and wrong too

The 64.5 had a 170 six a 260 v-8 AND a "D" code 289 available to them.

Final analysis though - yeah definately a "later" '65 model - the "c" engine code if nothing else gives it away. I had a '65 that had some of the variations associated with the 64.5 (early '65) - but it is the build date and engine options that determine such things.

No problem. I know what you are talking about, only that some do not know the difference. They think a so called 64.5 is exactlly that.

I wouldn't have called it blunt, but that's your opinion. I only stated the facts as they are. Can't really go wrong if you stick with the facts.

Randy'65 · Dec 10, 2003

Edbert said:
1st year of production for a 1965 was approximately Aug64 thru Jul65. Since yours was Feb65 you are right about in the middle of the production year but in the second half.

Now that's the kind of response I was looking for. Thank you.

Oz,

Sorry I wasn't being factual enough for you. I figured that most people would know that when someone refers to a 64.5, they would be talking about an early 65. But thanks for the respectful response. It's much appreciated.

Still a little cloudy, though. Mustang's Plus catalog says "For production year over 12 month's, refer to 2nd year column, ie 1964-65", in which the first year code is a B, and the 2nd year code is a P. Was August'64 thru Jul '65 the first year, and if so, what was the second year that Mustangs Plus is referring to?Can you understand why this could get a little confusing? I am well aware that my Mustang is NOT a 64.5 or 'early '65' as some call it, although it is early enough in the production year to get caught in the changeover.

Edbert · Dec 11, 2003

Randy'65 said:
Still a little cloudy, though. Mustang's Plus catalog says "For production year over 12 month's, refer to 2nd year column, ie 1964-65", in which the first year code is a B, and the 2nd year code is a P. Was August'64 thru Jul '65 the first year, and if so, what was the second year that Mustangs Plus is referring to?Can you understand why this could get a little confusing? I am well aware that my Mustang is NOT a 64.5 or 'early '65' as some call it, although it is early enough in the production year to get caught in the changeover.

The "second year" term applies to the overlap. a car made in July 64 and a car made in July 65 were both (technically) part of the 65 production run. The August 65 is therefore a second year. Since yours was in February 65 and there were none made (to my knowledge at least) in February 64 you are not really part of the second year overlap.

Confused yet? I am.

Ozsum67 · Dec 11, 2003

Edbert said:
The "second year" term applies to the overlap. a car made in July 64 and a car made in July 65 were both (technically) part of the 65 production run. The August 65 is therefore a second year. Since yours was in February 65 and there were none made (to my knowledge at least) in February 64 you are not really part of the second year overlap.

Confused yet? I am.

I think that the one that Henry Ford III drove around in on March 11, 1964 may have been built in February, but it was a pre-production black vert.

Randy'65 · Dec 11, 2003

Edbert said:
Confused yet? I am.

Very. No doubt about it my car wasn't built in Feb '64. I'm just trying to get a handle on this date code thing. Maybe that's why I have never gotten a good answer on this date code deal in the 16 years I've owned my Stang, because nobody really understands it.

I'm thinking that to know exactly, say, if your date code was July which could go either way, is to know exactly when the production year began and ended, so lets say for giggles that the first year of production started in April of '64, then the first year code would apply to cars made from April '64 to March '65. From there they would have the 2nd year code. Sound right?

Randy'65 · Dec 11, 2003

Found the following web page:

http://www.mustangownersofca.org/Members_ponies/bobf/1st_mustang_story_page1.html

Seems first mustang off the line was March of '64, so mine must have caught the tail end of the first year of production. It also answers my second question, the first's VIN number was '100001', seems to indicate my Stang was number 36,200 to roll off the line.

This page shows production numbers of all '65 Stangs:

http://www.carmemories.com/cgi-bin/viewexperience.cgi?experience_id=374

Seems like since almost 681,000 Stangs were produced in the '65 production run, they would have been past number 36,200 over halfway through the production run. Wouldn't you agree?

I know the codes on the VIN plate are accurate to this car. VIN number matches what is stamped into the firewall, and also matches build sheets that I have found behind the door panel and taped to the dash support behind instrument cluster, so it's not like the door was salvaged off another car.

Yep, still a mystery.

VIN date decode question

Randy'65

65fastback2+2

New Member

Ozsum67

Too much thin air

390Fe

Edbert

Ozsum67

Too much thin air

Ozsum67

Too much thin air

Randy'65

Edbert

Ozsum67

Too much thin air

Randy'65

Randy'65

Similar threads

VIN date decode question

New Member

Too much thin air

Too much thin air

Too much thin air

Too much thin air

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency