66 Mustang - Inspection Photos

[PaulyWally]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm considering purchasing a Mustang this guy has near me. A friend asked me to upload all the inspection photos, so I thought I would post them here as well. If anyone has a few minutes to take a look and comment, that would be much appreciated. The photos are in no particular order.

 

I'm assuming there is one question that will arise. The answer is, "Yes, that is a 302 with a 2bbl carb someone put in there". The car was originally a "T" (200ci 6cyl 1bbl carb) with a 3-speed manual. It still has a 3-speed manual, but not sure if it is original. Original axle is 3.20 (not sure if the original is still in there). It came out of the San Jose assembly plant, and shipped to the San Jose sales district. Interior and exterior have been redone in their original colors. Current owner has had it 2-3 years and says he bought it out of Idaho.

 

Also, what might you put for a price on this (assuming the tranny and axle is original)?

 

Click here for photos

Edited August 3, 2021 by PaulyWally (see edit history)

[m-mman]

Looks Ok, but what suspension is it using?

It looks like it still is operating with the 6 cylinder brakes, rear axle etc.  Is it still on 4 bolt wheels?  (those 5 bolt things are wheel covers not actual wheels) Did they change the front springs to V-8 specs?

 

What 3 speed trans is it using?  (the 6 or the V-8?)

Changing a Mustang from a 6 to an 8 is an easy bolt in swap, BUT it should be made 100% 8 cylinder specifications. 

Edited August 3, 2021 by m-mman (see edit history)

[plymouthcranbrook]

It does look pretty nice although I never owned a Mustang of that era I did have a fiend who had two both six cylinder automatics. I would look very carefully at the rust areas even though they appear to be surface in the photos. The other thing that might or might not drive you a little nuts is the dual exhaust dumping out in front of the rear wheels. If the engine is loud it can really be annoying on anything but short trips. Another ask me how I know question. It all comes down to price and desire.  If you really want this car it is easy to rationalize away any problems or potential issues. Another ask me how I know thing. Taking into account what m-mman has said(and the fact that if you drive carefully some of that can be lived with like the transmission) and if the price for a modified vehicle is reasonable enough to give you some leeway for what will need to be fixed you could certainly do worse.

[alsancle]

A car designed for an economy 6 that now has a V8 will twist apart under load.

 

I’m away from my computer but will look at the pictures later.

[JACK M]

Get rid of that cheesy air filter.

I agree that the Falcon based Mustangs that came with six cylinders leave a bit to be desired in the suspension. So if it has only four lug wheels I would pass. This is common knowledge in the Ford camps.

If it is still the six cyl transmission you may be wanting to replace it with something more substantial.

[joe_padavano]

3 hours ago, alsancle said:

A car designed for an economy 6 that now has a V8 will twist apart under load.

 

I’m away from my computer but will look at the pictures later.

 

There is no structural difference in the Mustang body shell between six cylinder and V8 models that year. Your statement is false. Sure, brakes and rear axle are lighter duty, but the car will not "twist apart under load".

[plymouthcranbrook]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

 

There is no structural difference in the Mustang body shell between six cylinder and V8 models that year. Your statement is false. Sure, brakes and rear axle are lighter duty, but the car will not "twist apart under load".

Well maybe with a 390…

[joe_padavano]

50 minutes ago, plymouthcranbrook said:

Well maybe with a 390…

Which wasn't an option for 1966...

[plymouthcranbrook]

52 minutes ago, joe_padavano said:

Which wasn't an option for 1966...

And the point is? 😀

Edited August 3, 2021 by plymouthcranbrook (see edit history)

[alsancle]

3 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

There is no structural difference in the Mustang body shell between six cylinder and V8 models that year. Your statement is false. Sure, brakes and rear axle are lighter duty, but the car will not "twist apart under load".

 

My mistake.  I'm familiar with the structural reinforcement on the 69/70 and I shouldn't have said that.

[alsancle]

Looking at the pictures it doesn't look like a bad car.   Just some random thoughts:

 

1.  Replacement quarters?

 

2.  Trunk drop offs look punky.

 

3. Floors don't look bad.  

 

4.  Cosmetically attractive.

 

A six banger coupe with a replacement motor has a limited market value so I would not get carried away.  If the car is 15k and you like it,  no harm no foul.

 

If it is 25k.  No.

[joe_padavano]

12 hours ago, plymouthcranbrook said:

And the point is? 😀

 

The point is that this thread is talking about a 1966 Mustang. I pointed out that there was no structural difference between the six cylinder and V8 cars FOR THAT YEAR. Your 390 comment was not relevant to that, since there was no 390 option in 1966. I stand by my original statement.

Edited August 4, 2021 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[trimacar]

I’ve owned a lot of early Mustangs, 65-66, was fooling with them in the 70s on.  I’ve also inspected a lot of unrestored cars.

 

The thing that was funny to me was that a lot of them had a “dent”, or deformation, to the left of the gas cap as viewed from the back.  Finally figured out that it was the torque from the engine stressing the unibody.

 

Yes, every difference on 65-66 between 6 and 8 is bolt on components, except for VIN of course.

 

The six cylinder standard trans was something that would be perfect to run an erector set Ferris wheel, it was so small and light.  There was a four speed available for the six, those are sweet.

[plymouthcranbrook]

3 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

 

The point is that this thread is talking about a 1966 Mustang. I pointed out that there was no structural difference between the six cylinder and V8 cars FOR THAT YEAR. Your 390 comment was not relevant to that, since there was no 390 option in 1966. I stand by my original statement.

I understand you joe. I was being factious with my remark.  Not advocating someone actually do it.  

Edited August 4, 2021 by plymouthcranbrook (see edit history)

[stakeside]

On 8/3/2021 at 8:40 AM, PaulyWally said:

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm considering purchasing a Mustang this guy has near me. A friend asked me to upload all the inspection photos, so I thought I would post them here as well. If anyone has a few minutes to take a look and comment, that would be much appreciated. The photos are in no particular order.

 

I'm assuming there is one question that will arise. The answer is, "Yes, that is a 302 with a 2bbl carb someone put in there". The car was originally a "T" (200ci 6cyl 1bbl carb) with a 3-speed manual. It still has a 3-speed manual, but not sure if it is original. Original axle is 3.20 (not sure if the original is still in there). It came out of the San Jose assembly plant, and shipped to the San Jose sales district. Interior and exterior have been redone in their original colors. Current owner has had it 2-3 years and says he bought it out of Idaho.

 

Also, what might you put for a price on this (assuming the tranny and axle is original)?

 

Click here for photos

Check carefully for rust. I have seen a problem where the vents under wipers collect a lot of debris. They then get plugged and body cancer occurs. This was a major repair. Other wise car looks good.

[1957Birdman]

If the cowl area is rusted out it is a major repair, including drilling out over 300 spot welds to get at the area that needs to be replaced.

For me personally I would not touch this car if it has 4 lug wheels. Just dropping a V8 in a 6 cyl car isn't satisfactory. There is a reason the Ford engineers changed the drive train and suspension components for the Mustang V8. There are better cars out there that are as they left the factory with the correct suspension and drive train. 

Lew Bachman

former 1966 Mustang V8 Hardtop and 1966 Mustang 6 cyl Convertible Owner

[28 Chrysler]

The rear end was marginal with the 200 cid cylinder,. With the 302 the rear end will fail at some time.

[joe_padavano]

23 minutes ago, 28 Chrysler said:

The rear end was marginal with the 200 cid cylinder,. With the 302 the rear end will fail at some time.

 

The 8" Ford axle isn't any more "marginal" than the 8.2" axle that GM used in their original musclecars in the 1960s, especially in light of the fact that a Mustang will break the tires loose long before it breaks the rear axle.

[Matt Harwood]

Did the 6-cylinder Mustangs use the 8-inch axles? I thought they used something lighter duty.

[Bloo]

The sixes used something that looks like a toy. Not a Ford 8".

[joe_padavano]

My friend's 67 coupe with 200 I6 has an 8". I realize that's not a 65-66.

 

Edited August 10, 2021 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[28 Chrysler]

The 6 cylinder Falcons / Rancheros used the same axle and failed soon after a small V8 was installed. 

With "Big Meats" and a heavy foot they soon sounded like a siren blaring behind you.

If it has 4 lug drums change it out, it is a simple swap.

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, 28 Chrysler said:

The 6 cylinder Falcons / Rancheros used the same axle and failed soon after a small V8 was installed. 

With "Big Meats" and a heavy foot they soon sounded like a siren blaring behind you.

If it has 4 lug drums change it out, it is a simple swap.

 

Well, as I said, my friend's 67 coupe with I6 came with a C4, 8" rear, and four lug wheels.

[Bloo]

My comment pertained to 65-66. If I remember correctly the 67 Mustang is a Fairlane underneath, not a Falcon like the 65-66. There was probably a lot different.

[joe_padavano]

1 hour ago, Bloo said:

My comment pertained to 65-66. If I remember correctly the 67 Mustang is a Fairlane underneath, not a Falcon like the 65-66. There was probably a lot different.

 

That may be, which is why I pointed out that my comment may not apply to the 65-66 cars.

[1957Birdman]

The six cylinder 65-66 Mustangs used the light duty integral carrier. That is what this car has. The six cylinder cars also had lighter-duty brakes, springs, wheels, steering linkage and transmissions. Like Trimacar says, all of these items can be sourced, at a price. I don't see the point when there are plenty 289 cars out there that have original parts and are already sorted out.

Lew Bachman 

1957 Thunderbird

1966 Mustang Convertible (sold 1996)

1966 Mustang Bench Seat Hardtop (sold 1980) 

[Rivguy]

The original 4 lug drum brakes were barely satisfactory with the lighter six. The V8s had five lug larger brakes, that were barely satisfactory. Overall these old drum systems are marginal if you are used to only driving modern cars. Remember we were taught to leave one car length distance for every ten miles an hour of speed. Have you seen any cars on the freeway staying six car lengths behind you? 

I had a '70 coupe with the 250 cid six and that came with the same 10 inch (manual) brakes as the small V8. I didn't feel too comfortable in heavy freeway traffic. 

I agree with Birdman, find a better car, there are lots out there, maybe add some discs up front.