| Author |
Message |
    
Buells Rule!
(Dyna in disguise)
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 08:19 pm: | 
|
Mine was a 4 speed but I also had a 73 notchback with a 302 in it that had a C4 tranny.
And yes I did have the driveshaft off & it was very light, it is indeed hollow also. May have been aluminum but I never checked. I do know they dented rather easily tho. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 09:08 pm: |
|
Yeah... Mine's got a small dent as well. I'll probably replace it when I put the rebuild engine in. Thanks. |
Stealthxb
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 09:21 pm: |
|
StealthXB...seedless since '96! |
Firemanjim
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 02:00 am: |
|
They need to put in the supercharged engine from the Lightning or their Australian Utes like Paul has.450 hp.
Nice Mach,M1.I like the 69 a bit better.18k seems a bit high,why do you consider it worth that much?
We stopped by the local dealer last month coming back from a call.Very nice looking car.I am seriously considering one in a couple of years--maybe a retirement present to myself?? |
M1combat
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 03:11 am: |
|
Well... Pride for at least a thousand or two...
Most of the offers I get are around 15-20K though. A lot of them aren't serious, but after having enough people poke and prod my car I've just found that a good portion of the offers in that range are serious. '72 was the rare year for Mach's and in many people's opinions the better of the three. The midrange '72s had more power than the '71s but were under rated more. People seem to be remembering why the 351C is a legendary engine (and especially the 2V for street use). It's not the power, but the balance when compared to the big blocks. Everything is original on the car and in very good shape. The body is straight and all that stuff. Basically, it's just a very fine example of a '72 mach. Certainly the most original one I've ever found. Perfectly working AM/FM with the original un-blown speakers even... I'm not certain... but the roof lining is in such good shape (perfect basically) that I kind of assume that it's been replaced. I have the spare tire and jack too... All of those little things add up. I've watched ones sell for 12K that have been repainted and don't have the original rim-blow steering wheel, rims, carpet, spare tire, jack, mirrors... Most of them have had holes drilled in the trunk for a spoiler... Many of them have splitters... A lot have been converted to disk brakes on the back... A lot of people have added rear sway bars and that requires a bit of modification.
When I bought it I had a couple appraisals done and they came out to ~8K. That was when "perfect" examples were going for 10K. The only real difference between them would be that the "perfect" ones would have original tires and well under 20K miles. I think it has 80K on it now... Also, the market for Mach's is very good right now. People have sort of fallen out of love with the 64-66 and are developing taste for the 69-70 and the 71-72 (nobody really seems to like the big "fat lip" of a lower bumper on the 73's, and the "originals" are much more smogged out than in 71 or 72.
In any case... The market for that particular car is good ATM, it's a fine example and I like it so I'll need an extra couple thousand just because I'd rather not sell it anyway  .
I have lost the damn original cigarette lighter though...
My next classic will be a '69 mach (or a handbuilt GT-40, whichever comes first). I like those too. |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 05:17 am: |
|
I drove home last night along side a 2005 Mustang...details aside, it's a GREAT looking car!
Court |
Buells Rule!
(Dyna in disguise)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 05:56 am: |
|
I wanted the Mustang this year but it came down to what I needed more, a semi-sports car or something which could haul groceries, my grandkids car seats, etc etc. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 11:07 am: |
|
You really need to see the new Stang in person. The photos don't do it justice. |
Tucsonxb9s
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:08 pm: |
|
Had a red GT pull up next to me yesterday with a pretty young blonde co-ed driving it. The sad thing is I barely noticed the girl. I was too busy checking out the car! It makes really good vroom vroom noises too! |
Firemanjim
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Did a quick search on Auto Trader and found range from 7500-18,000,so you could be in ballpark.I really liked this blue one with ram air hood for 12,500.
http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.com/10/8/7/76126987.htm |
Jeffb
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 01:07 pm: |
|
I will throw my '65 fastback in the mix. I love the '05's, but the old cars have personality.
 |
Court
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 01:38 pm: |
|
Jeff:
That is a super sweet 1965.
The 2005 is the first time, since the Shelby, that the Mustang has held any appeal to me.
Other than the 3 1995 GT's that I bought the gals in the offices as office cars.
The 2005 is KILLER in person! |
Cataract2
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 01:49 pm: |
|
Car girl car girl car girl..... Man, hard decision. |
M1combat
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 02:22 pm: |
|
That's a nice Mach FMJ. I guess I can't say as I "appreciate" the fact that someone saw fit to hack holes into the trunk lid or add the chin spoiler... That said... I have no intention of selling mine so I plan on doing the same (wrt the chin anyway, I'll not poke holes in her). I'd like to see just how original the engine is as well. I'm sure it's worth it as long as it has a Cleveland or a 427-8-9... |
Buells Rule!
(Dyna in disguise)
| | Posted on Thursday, December 23, 2004 - 04:28 pm: |
|
The front & rear spoilers were an option. Mine had the rear one but not the front. |
Court
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 07:40 am: |
|
There is a front spolier delete option on the 2005.
I admit...I am weak.
Can someone explain to me why, of 12 NYC area dealers, all the 2005's are the 4.0L and there is only ONE 4.6L in stock?
Why, in the good name of common sense, would you buy a Mustang with a 210HP engine vice a 300HP?
Enquiring minds....
Wonder if Aaron would do a Mustang for me?
Court |
Tucsonxb9s
| | Posted on Friday, December 24, 2004 - 11:17 am: |
|
Kinda like a 9 vs a 12 thingy...initial costs, insurance, V6 vs V8, blah blah blah. You still get the look and ok performance for your money. Ford sells a ton of the V6's for that reason me thinks. Personally I would not settle for anything less than the GT. Gotta have my V8! |
