What advice can anyone give a first time buyer of a 69 or 70 mustang? Not a boss or mach just a regular V8. Certain things to look for, rust, consistent damage on these cars, engine problems at high miles? Any comments at all would be great.

 

Rust is your worst enemy. Pour water in the cowl vent and see what comes out on the floorboards...cowl rust is troublesome and expensive to repair. Frame-rail rust is a no-no as well, unless the car is unusually rare. Floorboards are pretty commonly repaired, as are 1/4 panel patches and the like. Look at the radiator support for evidence of crash damage (wavy or repaired).
I know of no particular engine issues to be aware of otherwise.
________
Web Shows

 

Also be aware that is MUCH more costly to restore a 69-70 than it is an earlier Mustang. Aftermarket and reproduction parts are not as plentiful, and the price reflects that. If I were in the market for a 69-70, I would try to buy one that was finished. Don't fool yourself into thinking you can "fix it up" for less. You can't. Not a 69-70.

 

Hmmm, I disagree. I think aftermarket and repro parts are just as plentiful. I see just about every part available in the catalogs. I think it would cost just as much to fix a comparable 66 fastback as it would a 69 fastback. B)

 

Hmmm, I disagree. I think aftermarket and repro parts are just as plentiful. I see just about every part available in the catalogs. I think it would cost just as much to fix a comparable 66 fastback as it would a 69 fastback. B) [/b][/quote]
That really isn't the case. 65-66 cars are much more plentiful, and everything from major panels to trim is generally cheaper for the earlier cars.

 

Best to look for rust in the frame rails and torque boxes. Most likely the floors will have some rust. Just look to see that its nothing major and widespread. If so, I'd walk away from it.

 

I'm sure that there are items that are substantailly more expensive, like the dash pad and the quarter window trim, but overall, the cost to restore it will not be 'substanially' more. It will be expensive no matter what, but if someone is spending $20K, its not going to cost, say $4-5K more to restore a plain jane model.

 

How about a few examples:

66 Pony seat upholstery: $82.50 for one seat
69 Mach1 seat upholstery: $124.95 for one seat

66 Dashpad: $154.95
70 Dashpad: $469.00

66 Pony Door Panels: $129.95
70 Deluxe Door Panels: $349.95

66 Carpet: $104.95
69 Mach1 Carpet: $159.95

All prices from current NPD catalog. This also does not account for the many parts that are not even available for the 69-70 in reproduction. It is a widely known fact that the 65-66 is the easiest/cheapest to restore.

 

Yes you can. You just cant hire someone else to do it.

 

Look for a solid car. If one isnt available, look for a car that needs as few structural repairs as possible. Frame rails and torque boxes are both a) widely available, and B) easy to repair, if you can weld (I am an accountant, I just did driver's frame rail and torque box).

More of the work you can do yourself, the more you will save. Some parts are more expensive (dash pads) but there are alternatives that look good as well (molded dash covers).

If you have a desire to do it, do it. Don't listen to these pessimists.

 

I'm sure that there are items that are substantailly more expensive, like the dash pad and the quarter window trim, but overall, the cost to restore it will not be 'substanially' more. It will be expensive no matter what, but if someone is spending $20K, its not going to cost, say $4-5K more to restore a plain jane model. [/b][/quote]
Dude, seriously. You need to go ahead and concede this point. It does in fact, cost "substantially" more to restore a 69-70 than a 65-66 in comparable shape. That's just the way it is.

That doesn't mean that they aren't worth it, but that is indeed the case.

 

Actually, with the ****'s that are MCA changing the rules to disallow reproduction parts, there is little point in restoring a concours car anymore, so it would cost that much less to do a 69-70 now that I am not hunting down bolts with the right markings.

LONG LIVE MODIFIED!!

 

 

Actually, with the ****'s that are MCA changing the rules to disallow reproduction parts, there is little point in restoring a concours car anymore, so it would cost that much less to do a 69-70 now that I am not hunting down bolts with the right markings.

LONG LIVE MODIFIED!! [/b][/quote]
Did you know that your use of an apostrophe in '****'s' (sic) is incorrect, and that this word should be capitalized (proper noun)?
________
Roll a joint

 

Where do you think I came up with the term Dairy Queen Concours?

LONG LIVE DQC!

 

Prices from NPD.

Front Bumper 65-66 $84.95
Front Bumper 69-70 $89.95

Rear Bumper 65-66 $89.95
Rear Bumper 69-70 $89.95

Quarter Panel 65-66 $59.95
Quarter Panel 69-70 $79.95

I'll say this and then I'm through. I said that that it doesn't cost substantially more. When you figure the thousands of dollars spent on a restoration, the difference is minimal when looking at the big picture.

That being said, I leave you guys and your 'click' to yourselves.

 

Prices from NPD.

Front Bumper 65-66 $84.95
Front Bumper 69-70 $89.95

Rear Bumper 65-66 $89.95
Rear Bumper 69-70 $89.95

Quarter Panel 65-66 $59.95
Quarter Panel 69-70 $79.95

I'll say this and then I'm through. I said that that it doesn't cost substantially more. When you figure the thousands of dollars spent on a restoration, the difference is minimal when looking at the big picture.

That being said, I leave you guys and your 'click' to yourselves. [/b][/quote]
There's nothing "click" about it. These are experienced people who know what they are talking about. There is alot the NPD isn't going to tell you.

I'm not beating this dead horse because I need to be right, or like to argue. I just don't want anyone who is about to get eye-***** deep in a project like this to be mislead into thinking something that is simply not true. No, it doesn't cost double what it would to restore a different years, but the difference can be thousands of dollars, and I would call that substantial.

 

I agree with Blake. One man's "substantial" is not necessarily the same as another man's.

 

Come on guys. Let's go. We don't talk to his kind anyway. We're too good for that. :stubborn:

Sorry, just got a kick out of the "click" reference. It's actually clique, but we don't need to argue that.

 

Gutentag! Grammar ****!