Is This A Real GT 2+2? Help Please

[NVWSSV]

I'm thinking about buying this car but can't figure out how to know if it's for sure a real GT. The thing that's tipping me off is that it doesn't have the GT emblem on the rear, it has the running horse instead. Was that a '65 thing? I've seen 66's with the GT emblem.

 

Here's part of the description -

 

"The restoration was done in southern California. The engine was professionally built by Pete Thompson out of San Diego. 306 cu-in with 291 HP. 4 Speed. Hurst Shifter. Dart Heads. Crower Camshaft-272H. Headers. 2 1/2 " dual exhaust. MSD 6AL ignition system. 1 1/8" front sway bar kit. Negative roll suspension kit. Chrome Monte Carlo Bar. Chrome Export Brace."

 

Here's some pics -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you guys think? Is it a real GT? Is there something else I can check to make sure it's not a fake?

 

Thanks for any help you can give me.

[jrichard]

For what it's worth, I did an extensive restoration on a 66 GT-K cconvertible 20 years ago. My recollection is that you cannot tell if the car was originally optioned as a GT simply by inspecting the vehicle. Front disc brakes are the hardest modification for a non-GT. Everything else is easy. So, real or not? Who knows.

 

The car sure looks nice.

[kaylan1521]

Nice to see you back Assman

[NVWSSV]

Nice to see you back Assman

 

Gracias Senior kaylan. Thought about jumping into the Shelby GT frey, looks like that might be ADM hell too. So now I'm looking at stuff like this 65 2+2.

 

For what it's worth, I did an extensive restoration on a 66 GT-K cconvertible 20 years ago. My recollection is that you cannot tell if the car was originally optioned as a GT simply by inspecting the vehicle. Front disc brakes are the hardest modification for a non-GT. Everything else is easy. So, real or not? Who knows.

 

The car sure looks nice.

 

Thanks, that's kinda what I'm figuring out after researching more. vintage-mustangs.com has some really good info.

[cugotit]

I believe that a nov. 64 build date is to early for the gt option which was available in apr. 65. the gt was built in feb. 65. the pony interior was built in jan. 65. may i suggest you purchase a mustang red book. it is a nice ride though, i have one that looks just like that. i would only trade it for a shelby. maybe.

[BadTony]

wouldn't the VIN tell us something?

[NVWSSV]

I believe that a nov. 64 build date is to early for the gt option which was available in apr. 65. the gt was built in feb. 65. the pony interior was built in jan. 65. may i suggest you purchase a mustang red book. it is a nice ride though, i have one that looks just like that. i would only trade it for a shelby. maybe.

 

Good info, I forgot all about the Red Book, gonna to swing by Borders tomorrow! Just have a sneaky suspicion this car is not a real GT.

 

wouldn't the VIN tell us something?

 

No kidding. I'm really surprised the VIN and body tag numbers don't reveal more info.

[cugotit]

There is also the Mustang Restoration Guide that can help you identify some of those pesky parts that the manuals dont. Good luck.

[cugotit]

VIN indicates year, factory, body type, engine and sequence number. The only tag that could indicate a GT would be on a buck tag which San Jose did not use. A San Jose car would have to have the original build sheet to prove that it was a GT. That is if it were built between Jan 65-Aug 65.

[shel-b001]

NVWSSV

 

Vin # indicates `a` code 289 4v 225 h.p

 

All 1965 "k" code G.Ts had manual trans. "A" codes G.Ts could have been auto or manual.

All 1966`s G.Ts could have Auto or manual.

 

All G.ts have a.) stiffer springs, b.) heavy duty shocks, c.) 13/16" Front sway bar, d) Quick ratio steering box, check tag code (HCC-AX for manual& HCC-AW for power )

 

Interior - 65 - G.t had gauges not idiot lamps .

66- All had gauges.

 

G.Ts came with front disc which required a proportioning valve.

65 G.Ts had regular Mustang gas cap No side rocker panel, or side Quater bezel.

66 - Gas had G.T raised markings .

 

Because of the dual exhaust on G.Ts the rear brake hose mounts in a higher location in the arch of the axle housing to prevent the rear hose from being burn`t. You can also pull the back seat to check for triangle pieces that were added for the dual exhaust hanger near the back of the vehicle. Check left fender for ser# & door tag for matching #s Also the G.Ts came with a 3:00; 1 rear end which was standard .Hope this helps . GOOD LUCK.

[07 GT500]

Adding disc brakes in an easy addition to make a non Gt into a GT. Finding the original proportioning valve is not real easy though.

 

One thing to check that would be real hard to duplicate is the hole that the fog light switch is mounted in. On a factory GT, the hole in the dash for the switch is "D" shaped, not round.

 

Also, under the back seat, there should be a floor board reinforcement, that supports the threaded bracket for the dual exhaust hangers. All GT's must be an "A" or "K" code, (fifth digit in the VIN) As was stated in earlier posts, the GT option came out in April or May of 1965

 

 

 

After looking at the pictures more, I see that this is definately an early car, because of the clip on inside door handles and window cranks. Obviously, I cannot be for sure, but I'd almost be willing to bet this is not a real GT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm thinking about buying this car but can't figure out how to know if it's for sure a real GT. The thing that's tipping me off is that it doesn't have the GT emblem on the rear, it has the running horse instead. Was that a '65 thing? I've seen 66's with the GT emblem.

 

Here's part of the description -

 

"The restoration was done in southern California. The engine was professionally built by Pete Thompson out of San Diego. 306 cu-in with 291 HP. 4 Speed. Hurst Shifter. Dart Heads. Crower Camshaft-272H. Headers. 2 1/2 " dual exhaust. MSD 6AL ignition system. 1 1/8" front sway bar kit. Negative roll suspension kit. Chrome Monte Carlo Bar. Chrome Export Brace."

 

Here's some pics -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what do you guys think? Is it a real GT? Is there something else I can check to make sure it's not a fake?

 

Thanks for any help you can give me.

 

[NVWSSV]

Thanks for all the help guys. I stopped by Borders today and read every section about GT’s in every book on Mustangs they had. Most all the books mentioned the April 65 date as when the GT option became available. Unless the owner can provide me with a build sheet or window sticker, I've decided that this cars’ build date is about 5-6 months too early to be a GT and that it is a clone. I’d still like to purchase it, but his asking price is going to have to change dramatically.

[shel-b001]

Another thing I noticed that w/washer motor was installed on the shock tower this is not correct . Something minor. Check rear-end tag should be 3:00:1

[NVWSSV]

What do you guys think this car is worth? His Ebay reserve was at 23.5k and the auction ended at just under 19k. It's a nice looking car and if it were a real GT I'd pay something near the 19k, but knowing it's most likely a clone should the price be closer to say 17-18k?

[Joe G]

I've bookmarked a few good sites that have the qualifications you should look for. Unfortunately, Ford didn't keep the VIN data for 65 or 66 years, so, like others have said, there's no "factory documentation" unless you find the original build sheet.

 

http://www.karmustang.com/factory_gts.php

 

http://www.kcode.net/GT65-66.htm

 

Good luck with your negotiations. Fastbacks, especially if in decent condition, are still selling pretty well.

[NVWSSV]

Good luck with your negotiations. Fastbacks, especially if in decent condition, are still selling pretty well.

 

Sweet links Joe, thanks.

 

I confronted the seller with my findings; he did some more research and then agreed that it's not a real GT. I told him no problem and that I was still interested in the car but not at the GT price. He was kind enough to knock $500 off his asking price. Ummm, thanks? So I told him I needed to do a little more research on what GT clones are selling for. I ended up watching all the 65/66 Fastbacks in good condition on eBay for a week, 28 auctions in total. GT clones, Shelby clones (tons of those), real 2+2s, and real K Code GT’s. I actually spent the time to put all the auction information into an Excel spreadsheet so it was easier to follow. And guess what? Not one single auction met the sellers’ reserve and only one car sold - because it didn't have a reserve. So I then e-mailed the seller all the info I had gathered, plus the Excel spreadsheet, and I told him I'd pay what his auction ended at, which was just under 19K. Haven't heard back from him yet.........

[Joe G]

Yeah, ebay sellers have been blinded by the good $'s that the 2+2/Fastbacks were getting even 9 months ago - which were pretty inflated. K-codes = worth every penny. A standard C-code 2+2 not worth it to me. A A-code (especially if not a GT) better than the C-codes, but not by much. I made my C-code 68 into a A-code by adding the 4v carb and intake - internals were basically the same (A-codes had flat head pistons for higher compression, but the heads were the same) - and I got it much cheaper than a "true A-code".

 

Keep searching - they're out there. What part of the country are you in?

[NVWSSV]

A A-code (especially if not a GT) better than the C-codes, but not by much.

 

Keep searching - they're out there. What part of the country are you in?

 

Check out this one I found - 1965 Fastback

 

The guy says it's an A code. He e-mailed me some more pics and said he's going to get the VIN and Data Plate code for me. Anything stand out to you guys? It sounded like it's not a numbers matching car. I'd like to go look at it but it's about a 6 hour (round trip) drive for me and want to know all I can before I decide to make the drive.

 

Engine

 

Drivers side floor pan

 

Rear

 

Trunk drain

 

Under car

 

And Joe, I'm in the Seattle area.

[Joe G]

The link you attached is dead, but here are my thoughts on the pictures:

1) hard to tell real condition through pictures. Looks ok, but rust hides well!

2) not sure what a "trunk drain" is - it wasn't there from the factory! Trunks shouldn't need a drain unless there's a hole that's letting in rain that shouldn't be there. Usual places to check - weatherstripping around trunk, weatherstripping around window and, this is a big one, rust around the window frame (this is hard to see without taking the window out usually).

 

Did he ever send you more info?

[07 GT500]

There IS a trunk drain, and that IS where it was from the factory! It's not usually called a trunk drain, but what you see in that picture is the lower part of the rear quarter panel. There are two holes, as pictured. and a rubber piece goes into one of those holes.

 

I can see that at the very least, the engine has parts on it NOT from a 1965 mustang. The thermostat housing did not come with a hole in it for that vacuum switch, and IF they were factory, those chrome valve covers aren't shaped like that in '65.

 

A code engines came with a four barrel carb. and intake, a C code came with a two barrel. Very little difference, other than that. That is the easiest visual difference, without taking the engine apart.

[Joe G]

True, there is a drain in the rear quarter. I couldn't tell where the hole was, so I assumed (my mistake) that some guy just said "I'll fix the problem with all this water in my trunk with a few holes". Bad assumption on my part.

 

Plus, you're right about the engine. Lots of aftermarket stuff. Doesn't mean that the block/heads etc aren't original, just that the owner added some catalog parts to it.