Real 65 GT?

[65acode]

I just recently purchased a second 65 coupe to enjoy while I finish the restoration of my other 65 coupe. I'm interested to see if anyone can help me determine if this is in fact a genuine GT. Here's a little about the car, acode, 4-speed, bench seat, standard black crinkle interior, 3:1 open, vintage burgandy.

Here's what I can confirm that the car has:

A code car
Correct GT front swaybar
Correct GT light wiring hole location (seems to be punched, not drilled)
GT light wiring integral with front wiring loom
Correct GT steering box (HCC-AX)
KH 4 piston calipers
Correct master cylinder
GT light switch is correct, and is in correct lower dash location
Dash relief for GT guage package is in place (folded over sheet metal, not cut to reproduce)
Correct rally pac
Correct instrument cluster bezel (seems to be original to car)
Correct glove box (also seems to be original to car)
Frame rail exhaust supports or dual exhaust
Correct rear valance and stainless trim rings
Badging, lettering and stripes all appear to be correct (car was repainted)
4 leaf rear springs seem to be correct

The one item that the car does not have is the reinforced floor and exhaust hangers. There is no evidence that the car has had any sheet metal repair at all, all floor sheet metal appears to be original. Has anyone else experienced this? Could this still be an original GT without the reinforced floor and exhaust hangers?

As a side note, my other 65 coupe is also an A code, 4-speed bench seat car that was built 2 days apart in the same factory that this car was. I've only seen a few bench seat 4-speed cars in my lifetime, now I own two and they're 2 days apart out of the same factory!

 

[LastDeadLast]

From my understanding, all GTs and K-codes had the pan reinforcements for the exhaust. (and this backed up by several website searches).

You probably have a very well done clone.

-Shannon

 

[mustangstofear]

The floor should be reinforced for the hangers and you should have extra brackets in the rear frame rail for the tail pipe hangers.

 

[737IP]

This is one of the few things that had to be done at the factory and could not be reproduced aftermarket.

 

[Ponyman66]

Arrrrggghhhh. I get really tired of seeing this fallacy repeated. The rear floor pan reinforcement is not found on all GT's. It is indeed common, but not an accurate way to determine or disqualify a true GT. Don't believe me?

This the left side rear floor pan of my early '66 GT fastback. Notice the exhaust hangars but NO reinforced pan. The car is a Metuchen built car with the buck tag, build sheet and radiator support markings which all confirm a factory GT.

In the case of a '65 the proper dash notch (cut out) is a good indicator of a GT. The wiring harness is also GT unique. I'm sure Midlife could provide more specifics as to what to check for in the harness. AFAIK there was nothing unique about a GT and non-GT glovebox (unless you meant to say glove box door). The lack of exhaust hangars in the floor is a problem. I have never found any dual exhaust cars without them. Another item you didn't mention is the rear brake line bracket. It's different (and mounted differently) than a single exhaust car.

BTW, the brake line bracket, crush tubes for the rear frame rail AND floor pan reinforcements ARE now available from aftermarket suppliers. It's a blessing and a curse. A blessing for those with true GT or K code cars which need replacements. A curse because it's now easier than ever for unscrupulous people to fake a GT.

 

[Midlife]

The 65 GT wiring harness is identical to the 65 Pony Car (Deluxe Interior) Mustang; it cannot be used to prove a car was a GT.

 

[copasspupil]

I seem to remember Charles turner saying that the radiator support is one of the few sheet metal pieces that can't be faked. On the passenger side the wiring hole is punched not drilled so it is easy to judge whether a car is a real gt or fake

 

[DEL65]

All I can offer is that I assume you confirmed the build date is after the GT model was introduced. I hope you found a true GT. Cool!

 

[Ponyman66]

I seem to remember Charles turner saying that the radiator support is one of the few sheet metal pieces that can't be faked. On the passenger side the wiring hole is punched not drilled so it is easy to judge whether a car is a real gt or fake

I believe that has changed and Charles is now saying they were drilled instead of punched. :confu

 

[65acode]

Thanks for the feedback.

DEL65, the build date is June 1, that should put me in the date range for GT's.

Ponyman66, I meant glove box door, not the glovebox itself. Good catch. The rear brake line is up higher like it should be for a Dual exhaust car, I didn't mention that earlier. The car also has the rear frame rail inserts for dual exhaust.

I guess without a build sheet it's tough to say, but it looks as if there's more pointing to it being a GT than not.

 

[Coupe]

Can you see the metal tab that the rear brake line transitions into a flexible hose? On a dual exhaust car that tab was moved over away from the tunnel.

Obviously they can be moved, but that may show where the old spot weld was etc...


Here is the location for the dual exhaust cars. (Sorry, you probably already knew this)

 

[65acode]

Coupe,

Yes, the metal tab is relocated higher than the single exhaust version was. I don't see any sign that the bracket was anywhere else previously. Also, the pinion snubber plate that the rubber piece attaches to has very square corners, not rounded. It sounds as if that's also indicative of a GT or K-code type.

 

[65acode]

Good news, someone suggested that I look to see if there was any indication that there were ever any holes for the small 65 chrome pieces below the rear quarter windows. I pulled the back seat tonight, and there is no sign that there were ever any holes present. The factory textured undercoating (or whatever that is) was still in place and looked undisturbed. Also, as I pulled the back seat I found under some seam sealer and sound deadener that the exhaust plates WERE there! I guess all the car is lacking is the rear pan reinforcement, but as Ponyman66 said, that is possible and has been documented before. :beer

 

[caspian65]

Probably been more than 10 years since I suggested the fog light wiring holes were punched and not drilled. I've found very convincing evidence that they were indeed drilled out with a hole saw... as well as other holes in the firewall that were for optional equipment.

In regards to verifying a factory 65-66 GT, the first thing I always look for is the square corner snubber plate on A code cars (K codes always had them). Dual exhaust are squared at the top, single exhaust round. Of course there might be a couple oddball cars here and there that might not have received the proper rear floor reinforcement, but I can assure you that was a mistake and not how Ford intended the car to be made.

After the snubber plate, on a '65 with standard interior, the dash should have the dip under the middle of the cluster. This would be darn near impossible to replicate other than replacing the entire dash metal or maybe patching in a section. Even then, I'd guess only a handful of folks in the world are good enough to do the job so that it couldn't be detected.

Most all of the other items are bolt-on, but the absence of unique items may or may not help during verification. Some items like quarter and rocker moldings could have been added by a previous owner or maybe a quarter panel was replaced. Lots of factors that come into play.

The hardest car I think to verify as a factory GT would be a '65 K code with deluxe interior. A K code would already have all the dual exhaust reinforcements and also the dash dip. Looking at the fog light installation and disc brake installation might be the only clues.

 

[Ponyman66]

Of course there might be a couple oddball cars here and there that might not have received the proper rear floor reinforcement, but I can assure you that was a mistake and not how Ford intended the car to be made.

Charles I think you missed my point. That being, it's not a 100% way to disregard a factory GT (dual exhaust), car simply because the floor pan reinforcement isn't there. Quit frankly I think it's misleading to state it's a "mistake" or found in a "couple oddball cars here and there", and serves to perpetuate the incorrect claims of "MUST be there". I'd say it's uncommon (as I stated in my post), but I'd be willing to wager it's more than just "a couple". Simply put, should it be there? Yes. Is it ALWAYS there? NO!

While I greatly respect your immense level of knowledge, your claim that you can assure it was a mistake is a pretty bold statement for a car that was produced (in volume!), almost 50 years ago. As far as Ford not intending the car to be made that way, I guess the Metuchen line workers that assembled my car, never got that memo!

 

[Ponyman66]

The 65 GT wiring harness is identical to the 65 Pony Car (Deluxe Interior) Mustang; it cannot be used to prove a car was a GT.

Thanks Randy. I knew you could shed some light on it! I was thinking along the lines of the fog light wiring and wasn't sure if it was integral to the '65 harness.

 

[caspian65]

Charles I think you missed my point. That being, it's not a 100% way to disregard a factory GT (dual exhaust), car simply because the floor pan reinforcement isn't there. Quit frankly I think it's misleading to state it's a "mistake" or found in a "couple oddball cars here and there", and serves to perpetuate the incorrect claims of "MUST be there". I'd say it's uncommon (as I stated in my post), but I'd be willing to wager it's more than just "a couple". Simply put, should it be there? Yes. Is it ALWAYS there? NO!

While I greatly respect your immense level of knowledge, your claim that you can assure it was a mistake is a pretty bold statement for a car that was produced (in volume!), almost 50 years ago. As far as Ford not intending the car to be made that way, I guess the Metuchen line workers that assembled my car, never got that memo!

It absolutely was a mistake, there is no other explanation. I've mainly seen oddities in this area on very early production '65 GT's, which I would attribute to being a new build process.

Not sure why you want to perpetuate to the hobby that something like this was normal. I can accept production oddities that hold solid proof of being original. Most claims usually can be disproved with little effort.

 

[Ponyman66]

Not sure why you want to perpetuate to the hobby that something like this was normal. I can accept production oddities that hold solid proof of being original. Most claims usually can be disproved with little effort.

In no way, at anytime have I even alluded to the fact this was a normal situation. I really don't know where you read that Charles. I thought I'd been very clear in ALL of my posts regarding this matter. I do believe it'd be more accurate to label it as "uncommon", than to label it as a mistake (unless you can prove otherwise).

Is there something in the photo you feel was altered or doctored? The car is still sitting right now as it was photographed (and I can gladly take more!). It has been in my possession since 1984. It's a complete car that I drove for the first several years of ownership before it was disassembled for restoration (unfortunately other things got in the way, kids, moving, etc.). I welcome inspection to disprove any claims I've made, or is it only "certain people" can provide photographic evidence that is acceptable, while all others require "seen it in person" to be accepted?

Bottom line is, if you wish to continue to perpetuate this as a one off mistake, fine. I always thought you were more given to accuracy than ego. Guess I was mistaken.

 

[caspian65]

Not sure what has happened here and why you're getting so defensive, I never said your car was a "one off mistake". All I did was point out that your car was an exception to the rule and not how Ford intended GT's to be built. I am comfortable calling it a mistake as it would be under normal production, but I don't see why it needs to be used as an asterisk for every other 65-66 GT made. I get that you just wanted to point out that the plates weren't always there, but I just wanted to point out that it was not normal for a regular production GT to be missing them. Has nothing to do with ego's, I'm not mad about anything, just providing input.

As far as your car goes, there could be more to the story than you think. Maybe it was some type of special build or test vehicle. It's very hard to tell in the picture, but it appears that the hanger mount plate was installed previous to the car being painted as there is no contrast between the part and surrounding primer/paint. I'm sure you know these plates are typically natural and installed after paint. It doesn't follow normal assembly line procedure for these to be installed prior to paint. Probably worthy of a separate post here or on another forum to discuss the details of your car. I'm sure we have done it in the past, but always willing to learn something new and help if I can.

 

[Anonymous]

There are oddities throughout the factory built cars. "People" built these cars and people do make mistakes. Dual VIN numbers stamped into fenders, coffee cups under the carpet, holes not drilled or drilled by mistake, 65 parts on a 66 car are very common and so on. As Charles indicated these are not done the normal process and the concour judges need a standard to go by. The line worker very well could have made a mistake and not added or added the bracket while the car was traveling down the line. I think the concour judges will give you some leeway when you present your case. Also I would assume Ford had a quality control inspector at the end of the line. What was the procedure if they found a mistake on the car that didn't match the "buck" tag? Personally I wouldn't want a Concour Judges job, it's way too much headache for me to handle. I salute these guys for doing it.