1966 Mustang Technical Help

Cool_Man_128 · 02-27-2003, 03:45 PM

For some time now I have been looking for an old 1967 or 68' Fastback to either buy or restore because I just love their classic look. I have recently found a 66' fastback without an engine or transmission but the body is in pretty good condition. I was have a few different questions I would like to ask. First, what are the differences between the bodies of the 67+68 as compared to the 66'? Next, I hear that cheap classic mustangs needing to be restored are hard to come by and a rare comodity. Should I get this 66' because my chances of finding a 67' or 68' are bad? If I fix up the 66' what kind of engine should I put in? (If it is hard or to expensive to go original, then I just want power. Is it hard and/or expensive to go with the original trans and engine, or should I go with a newer more powerful engine? Finally, this is probably just a matter of opinion, but... is the 66' fastback a prized mustang like the 67 or 68? As I said I was hoping for a 67 or 68, but from the pictures I have seen of the 66, I think I could just as easily settle for it. Any information would be helpful. Thanks.
Jim

Technick · 02-28-2003, 01:17 AM

Just my opinion, I like the 67-68 fastbacks myself. The major difference between the 66 and 67 is the size of the car. The 67 is a physcially bigger car. Not by a huge amount, but defently bigger. 1st example, 1967 the big block 390 is introduced into the Mustang lineup. NO way you stick a 390 into the stock engine compartment of a 66. just can not happen. So that means the 67-68 has more room to work on the engine if you are sticking to the smallblock equation. The 67-68 is a heavier car because it is bigger, bit only by 150-200 lbs if both have small blocks. I personally like the instrumentation of the 67-68. The 65-66 had Falcon instrumentation, which if you like the Falcon is no big deal, but it was the 67 that gave the Mustang the dash and instruments that are "classic" Mustang. Again my opinion. Also you can fit a bigger tire under the fenderwells of the 67-68 than will fit in the 66.
I could go on and on but you get the idea. I am obviously biased to the 67.
One of my best friends has a 66 fastback that we drag race and is a beuitiful car and I would not have it any other way. ( Look at RFedd's posts scattered about these pages. I built the engine ect for that car)

Frankenstang65 · 02-28-2003, 02:19 AM

Personally, I like the 65-66 fastbacks more than the 67-68's but it really comes down to a matter of preference as both are great cars. You asked if the 66 fastback is a prized mustang, and the answer is yes, it definitely is! I'm not sure how they compare to the 67-8s as far as production numbers, but I do know that ford made and sold considerably less 66 fastbacks then they did 65's...and fastback cars in general are getting tougher and tougher to find.

Since the car is is missing a drivetrain, chances are you'll score a pretty good deal on it, just make sure you inpect thouroughlyy for rust (floors, wheel wells, door corners, trunk lid, etc) and previous accident damage before buying. This is a serious problem in classic stang, or any classic for that matter.

As far as originality is concerned, you can pretty much do anything you want with it. If power is what you want, you can have it, or you could just as easily restore it back to original specs, what ever you're into (as long as its tasteful..lol). Either way you'll have a fun car that turns heads wherever you go and will always be going up in value...not bad.

Good luck!

Frankenstang65 · 02-28-2003, 02:27 AM

Hey Technick, you built the motor for Rfedd's car?! Thats the red fastback right? out of vancouver wa?...running 10's? or is it faster?...lol..awesome work man! I read an article on that car online somewhere...looks like a killer!! I'm sure one of these days I'll get to see it in person.

Ron1 · 02-28-2003, 01:40 PM

Pretty consistant 9.70's now. The 347 came in at 604.6 HP at 7400 RPM with NO power adders. That was before the CNC'd TEA's and Super Victor. And who is Technick? I think I know, since it as a Seattle location and was registered in Feb. of 03.

Ron

mustangman65_79 · 03-01-2003, 02:27 PM

Personally, I'd get the '66, they are hard to come by, not like the coupe. Plus I love the look of them when they are restored.

Rev · 03-01-2003, 05:15 PM

Hey, don't bash the coupes. Some of us like them too. Just kidding, no offense taken.

Rev

mustangman65_79 · 03-02-2003, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rev
Hey, don't bash the coupes. Some of us like them too. Just kidding, no offense taken.

Rev

No bashing here, Remember, I used to own one.

02-27-2003, 03:45 PM	#1
Cool_Man_128 Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, Washington Posts: 1	1966 Mustang Technical Help For some time now I have been looking for an old 1967 or 68' Fastback to either buy or restore because I just love their classic look. I have recently found a 66' fastback without an engine or transmission but the body is in pretty good condition. I was have a few different questions I would like to ask. First, what are the differences between the bodies of the 67+68 as compared to the 66'? Next, I hear that cheap classic mustangs needing to be restored are hard to come by and a rare comodity. Should I get this 66' because my chances of finding a 67' or 68' are bad? If I fix up the 66' what kind of engine should I put in? (If it is hard or to expensive to go original, then I just want power. Is it hard and/or expensive to go with the original trans and engine, or should I go with a newer more powerful engine? Finally, this is probably just a matter of opinion, but... is the 66' fastback a prized mustang like the 67 or 68? As I said I was hoping for a 67 or 68, but from the pictures I have seen of the 66, I think I could just as easily settle for it. Any information would be helpful. Thanks. Jim

02-28-2003, 01:17 AM	#2
Technick Registered Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Seattle, Wa. Posts: 175	Just my opinion, I like the 67-68 fastbacks myself. The major difference between the 66 and 67 is the size of the car. The 67 is a physcially bigger car. Not by a huge amount, but defently bigger. 1st example, 1967 the big block 390 is introduced into the Mustang lineup. NO way you stick a 390 into the stock engine compartment of a 66. just can not happen. So that means the 67-68 has more room to work on the engine if you are sticking to the smallblock equation. The 67-68 is a heavier car because it is bigger, bit only by 150-200 lbs if both have small blocks. I personally like the instrumentation of the 67-68. The 65-66 had Falcon instrumentation, which if you like the Falcon is no big deal, but it was the 67 that gave the Mustang the dash and instruments that are "classic" Mustang. Again my opinion. Also you can fit a bigger tire under the fenderwells of the 67-68 than will fit in the 66. I could go on and on but you get the idea. I am obviously biased to the 67. One of my best friends has a 66 fastback that we drag race and is a beuitiful car and I would not have it any other way. ( Look at RFedd's posts scattered about these pages. I built the engine ect for that car) __________________ No matter how much you spend, or how much you prepare, there is ALWAYS someone else faster or quicker than YOU!!!!!!!!!!

02-28-2003, 02:19 AM	#3
Frankenstang65 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 79	Personally, I like the 65-66 fastbacks more than the 67-68's but it really comes down to a matter of preference as both are great cars. You asked if the 66 fastback is a prized mustang, and the answer is yes, it definitely is! I'm not sure how they compare to the 67-8s as far as production numbers, but I do know that ford made and sold considerably less 66 fastbacks then they did 65's...and fastback cars in general are getting tougher and tougher to find. Since the car is is missing a drivetrain, chances are you'll score a pretty good deal on it, just make sure you inpect thouroughlyy for rust (floors, wheel wells, door corners, trunk lid, etc) and previous accident damage before buying. This is a serious problem in classic stang, or any classic for that matter. As far as originality is concerned, you can pretty much do anything you want with it. If power is what you want, you can have it, or you could just as easily restore it back to original specs, what ever you're into (as long as its tasteful..lol). Either way you'll have a fun car that turns heads wherever you go and will always be going up in value...not bad. Good luck! __________________ 1965 Coupe: 351W, comp cam, Aluminum Systemax II heads (2.02/1.60), 1.7 Cobra full roller rockers, Edelbrock intake, Holley 650 double pumper, Mallory Unilite, MSD-6AL, MSD Blaster 2 coil, MSD heli-core plug wires, Hedman headers, 2 1/2" exhaust (GT style) w/ 40 series delta flows, 69 C4 w/ shift kit, shelby traction bars, 3.55:1 rear Daily Driver: 1989 GT- 5spd, K&N (no silencer), Shorty Headers, King Cobra Clutch, Flowmaster Force II Cat-back

02-28-2003, 02:27 AM	#4
Frankenstang65 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 79	Hey Technick, you built the motor for Rfedd's car?! Thats the red fastback right? out of vancouver wa?...running 10's? or is it faster?...lol..awesome work man! I read an article on that car online somewhere...looks like a killer!! I'm sure one of these days I'll get to see it in person. __________________ 1965 Coupe: 351W, comp cam, Aluminum Systemax II heads (2.02/1.60), 1.7 Cobra full roller rockers, Edelbrock intake, Holley 650 double pumper, Mallory Unilite, MSD-6AL, MSD Blaster 2 coil, MSD heli-core plug wires, Hedman headers, 2 1/2" exhaust (GT style) w/ 40 series delta flows, 69 C4 w/ shift kit, shelby traction bars, 3.55:1 rear Daily Driver: 1989 GT- 5spd, K&N (no silencer), Shorty Headers, King Cobra Clutch, Flowmaster Force II Cat-back

02-28-2003, 01:40 PM	#5
Ron1 Registered Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Vancouver, WA USA Posts: 439	Pretty consistant 9.70's now. The 347 came in at 604.6 HP at 7400 RPM with NO power adders. That was before the CNC'd TEA's and Super Victor. And who is Technick? I think I know, since it as a Seattle location and was registered in Feb. of 03. Ron __________________ 65 Mustang Fastback 347 Stroker, C4 with 4.56 10.68 @ 122 N/A 9.74 @ 137 w/ N2O www.fastspecialties.com Last edited by Ron1; 02-28-2003 at 05:45 PM..

03-01-2003, 02:27 PM	#6
mustangman65_79 My poor 79 RIP Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Suisun City, Posts: 2,320	Personally, I'd get the '66, they are hard to come by, not like the coupe. Plus I love the look of them when they are restored. __________________ '84 mustang GT turbo '85 LTD '89 Camaro Irocz z28 '94 Lightning '96 Trans am

03-01-2003, 05:15 PM	#7
Rev Registered Member Join Date: Nov 1998 Location: Houston, Tx. Posts: 3,887	Coupes Hey, don't bash the coupes. Some of us like them too. Just kidding, no offense taken. Rev __________________ '66 Coupe, 306, 350-375 HP, C-4, 13.07 e.t., 104.8 mph, 1/4 mi. O.B.C. #2 '66 coupe

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1966 mustang	jomac01	Classic Mustangs	2	05-23-2004 07:54 PM
Mw	cyberstang5.0	Blue Oval Lounge	4	08-22-2003 09:25 PM
Woodward Dream Cruise - 2003	drudis	Ford Show & Go	0	07-24-2003 08:53 AM
89-Mustang pulling trailer -vs- 2000 Mustang	Five0	Stang Stories	7	04-01-2001 02:50 AM
Salaeen, Shelby, Cobra please define these for me.	Taqus	Blue Oval Lounge	3	01-17-2001 02:39 AM