Go Back   Corvette Forum > C1 & C2 Corvettes, 1953 - 1967 > C1 & C2 Corvettes
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ Vendor Directory
Search
C1 & C2 Corvettes
General C1 Corvette & C2 Corvette Discussion, Technical Info, Performance Upgrades, Project Builds, Restorations Sponsored by
Flaming River
Industries

Welcome to Corvetteforum.com!
Welcome to Corvetteforum.com.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join Corvetteforum.com today!


Corvette Store
 
 
C7 Parts & Accessories
C6 Parts & Accessories
C5 Parts & Accessories
C4 Parts & Accessories
C3 Parts & Accessories
C2 Parts & Accessories
C1 Parts & Accessories
Wheels & Tires
Sponsored Ads
 
 
Vendor Directory
  
Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-30-2010, 09:09 PM   #1
saraholt61
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Default Corvette vs Mustang

If you check the classic car websites(Ebay,Carsonline,Autabuy etc.) you will find approx. the same number of 1964-66 Mustangs for sale as Mid-Year vettes(63-67).The total production of all 64-66 Mustangs was aprox. 1 1/2 million cars and the Corvette 63-67 was only approx.125,000 cars. So why are there proportionately more Vettes for sale than Mustangs??? I believe the reason is that the vettes have appreciated so much that most owners who bought their cars years ago for about $15-$20,000 are now taking their profit and cashing out while they can and getting anywhere from $50-$100,000.The Mustangs are worth considerably less so owners tend to hold onto to them for longer periods. Or have most of the 64-66 Mustangs just rotted away and there are about the same number of Mustangs around now as Vettes.Who knows.

Last edited by saraholt61; 09-30-2010 at 09:11 PM. Reason: spelling
saraholt61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 09:38 PM   #2
robert miller
CF Senior Member
 
robert miller's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: cookeville tennessee
Default ttt

I am thinking you are corret on both parts. But on the last If you do the law of numbers much higher% of Mustangs will be gone from rust and wrecks than the vette. Plus more guys that had vette just took better care of them than guys with the Mustangs..
robert miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 09:52 PM   #3
mikem350
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Feb 2006
Location: Sunrise FL
Default

Interesting....the numbers you show indicate about 10 times more stangs were built...yes most were beat, rusted and junked, where as most C2's were more valuable, very rarely scrapped, and are still around!! Even vin numbers from junkers keep being reborn

So if 90% of the stangs are history, there you go!!!
mikem350 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 10:11 PM   #4
Dan Hampton
CF Senior Member
 
Dan Hampton's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Menomonie Wisconsin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saraholt61 View Post
If you check the classic car websites(Ebay,Carsonline,Autabuy etc.) you will find approx. the same number of 1964-66 Mustangs for sale as Mid-Year vettes(63-67).The total production of all 64-66 Mustangs was aprox. 1 1/2 million cars and the Corvette 63-67 was only approx.125,000 cars. So why are there proportionately more Vettes for sale than Mustangs??? I believe the reason is that the vettes have appreciated so much that most owners who bought their cars years ago for about $15-$20,000 are now taking their profit and cashing out while they can and getting anywhere from $50-$100,000.The Mustangs are worth considerably less so owners tend to hold onto to them for longer periods. Or have most of the 64-66 Mustangs just rotted away and there are about the same number of Mustangs around now as Vettes.Who knows.
Actually, it was closer to 1.75 million cars produced. Survivial rate for Mustangs has to be considerably less than that of the mid-year Corvette but it would only taken a 7% survival rate to equal the number of mid-years produced.

Car & Driver did a survival analysis years ago and stated that, for non specialty cars, (read: grocery getters not sports cars) and the survival rate after 25 yrs. is around 1%.

Although we tend to look at the Mustang as a sporty type car, the rank and file were non performance, inexpensive compacts based on a Falcon platform. They were cheap, had broad appeal and they rank as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, segment cars of all time.

But they were cheap, made out of metal, and only the rare performance optioned cars bring any kind of premium today.

Last edited by Dan Hampton; 09-30-2010 at 10:55 PM.
Dan Hampton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 10:30 PM   #5
Glasshole
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Delta BC
Default

Mustangs seem to be getting prices that are far and above what they should be IMO. I have a friend who just paid $175,000 for a 65 Shelby GT350. I mean it's a cool car but its still a Mustang..........
Glasshole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 10:58 PM   #6
Frankie the Fink
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Frankie the Fink's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: Winter Garden Florida
Default

I don't think a '65 Shelby GT350 is considered in the same realm as the run of the mill Mustang by a long stretch. People who thought that on the race track got trounced by them.

I had several '66 Mustangs before my vette came along and they have the typical rust problems of cars from that era....just like the back windows on Camaros and the rocker panels on Dusters. I think they get a bad wrap on the rust issue simply because there were just so many more of them to observe as they deteriorated. And yes, these were the cars you bought your teen to get them to high school (my best friend had one in '68) and the wife used to go get the victuals on payday. They were abused and uncared for in droves and I'm not surprised that many of them are probably gone..

At one point 6-cylinder Stangs needing some TLC were considered throwaways because the classic car buffs would rather have the plentiful V-8s but lately many are being resurrected and converted to V-8s....I'm sure that fact helped to reduce the numbers too.
Attached Images
  

Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 09-30-2010 at 11:18 PM.
Frankie the Fink is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 11:03 PM   #7
Dan Hampton
CF Senior Member
 
Dan Hampton's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Menomonie Wisconsin
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gl******* View Post
Mustangs seem to be getting prices that are far and above what they should be IMO. I have a friend who just paid $175,000 for a 65 Shelby GT350. I mean it's a cool car but its still a Mustang..........
Well....not quite. The '65 GT-350 was a SCCA National Champion and there were only 562 ('65) units built. These were competitive race cars that won B/Production for three years straight. A lot of Corvettes saw the rear tail of that Shelby.

Last edited by Dan Hampton; 09-30-2010 at 11:40 PM.
Dan Hampton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 11:19 PM   #8
midyearvette
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
midyearvette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2008
Location: columbus oh
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hampton View Post
Actually, it was closer to 1.75 million cars produced.

Although we tend to look at the Mustang as a sporty type car, the rank and file were non performance, inexpensive compacts based on a Falcon platform. They were cheap, had broad appeal and they rank as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, segment cars of all time.

But they were cheap, made out of metal, and only the rare performance optioned cars bring any kind of premium today.
...that says it all....a lot of them had the front fender inner panels rust through and the wheels literally fall off....
midyearvette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 11:21 PM   #9
1snake
CF Senior Member
 
1snake's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2007
Location: Puget Sound Wa.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hampton View Post
Actually, it was closer to 1.75 million cars produced. Survivial rate for Mustangs has to be considerably less than that of the mid-year Corvette but it would only taken a 7% survival rate to equal the number of mid-years produced.

Car & Driver did a survival analysis years ago and stated that, for non specialty cars, (read: grocery getters not sports cars) and the survival rate after 25 yrs. is around 1%.

Although we tend to look at the Mustang as a sporty type car, the rank and file were non performance, inexpensive compacts based on a Falcon platform. They were cheap, had broad appeal and they rank as one of the greatest, if not the greatest, segment cars of all time.

But they were cheap, made out of metal, and only the rare performance optioned cars bring any kind of premium today.
Like the 55-57 T-Birds, they came from the factory half rusted out.

Jim
1snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-2010, 11:39 PM   #10
w1ctc
CF Senior Member
 
w1ctc's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2003
Location: Orange Ct
Default

I was reading a 1976 issue of Car Craft and in the letters column the question was asked if a 1965 Mustang would be worth restoring. The answer was no, they will never be of interest to collectors. Too many were made and parts are just not available or ridiculously expensive.
w1ctc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 12:18 AM   #11
ktchir
CF Senior Member
 
ktchir's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Georgetown Texas
Default

ktchir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 12:26 AM   #12
mkh
CF Senior Member
 
mkh's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2007
Default

I have a completly restored 64 1/2 mustang V-8 D code car and a 65 44,000 original mile unrestored corvette. I can tell you from my point of view the corvette is ten times the car as the mustang. From fit and finish to drivability the corvette is a lot better car. You have heard people complain about reproduction parts for their corvettes you should buy the reproduction parts for mustangs they are total junk. I cant tell you how many reproduction parts I have had to replace on the mustang. I have friends who are into mustangs and have 20-30 cars at any given time and all are rusted out from floor pans to fenders. Mike
mkh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 05:42 AM   #13
Stewart Allison
CF Senior Member
 
Stewart Allison's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne victoria
Default

Hey we have a 990,000 65- 66 Mustangs over here. A little story I have a mate that use to go to the states find half a dozen rust bucket 65's on the side of the road offer the guy a couple of hundred bucks and take them back to Australia and sell them for 5k a pop. That was 30 years ago ! Money for Jam back then. Most car guys in Australia have at least one 65 in the shed. Mine is red and love it like it's my bro ! Stewy
Stewart Allison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 10:39 AM   #14
Fawndeuce
CF Senior Member
 
Fawndeuce's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Location, Location QC,NY
Default

As many of the regs know, I have a '65 GT fastback that I've owned for about 10 years. All original and unmolested sheet metal, including the floors, one of the very first GT's off the line from the Metuchen NJ plant.
I absolutely love that old car, of all the cars that I've owned it's the one that I hope I never have to sell. It's a blast to drive, light, agile, peppy rock solid with no rattles or squeaks. I also love the way it looks, clean and uncluttered, they nailed it.
It was obviously never intended to be a competitor with the much more expensive Vette (except maybe on the track ), but I can't imagine that you could have made a better choice for the buck back in '65.



Paul

Click the image to open in full size.
Fawndeuce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 10:50 AM   #15
OldKarz
CF Senior Member
 
OldKarz's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Location: On the bank of the Columbia River..... Washington State
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fawndeuce View Post
As many of the regs know, I have a '65 GT fastback that I've owned for about 10 years. All original and unmolested sheet metal, including the floors, one of the very first GT's off the line from the Metuchen NJ plant.
I absolutely love that old car, of all the cars that I've owned it's the one that I hope I never have to sell. It's a blast to drive, light, agile, peppy rock solid with no rattles or squeaks. I also love the way it looks, clean and uncluttered, they nailed it.
It was obviously never intended to be a competitor with the much more expensive Vette (except maybe on the track ), but I can't imagine that you could have made a better choice for the buck back in '65.



Paul

Click the image to open in full size.
Nice looking car!
OldKarz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 01:03 PM   #16
Ironcross
CF Senior Member
 
Ironcross's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2002
Location: Taylor Michigan
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1snake View Post
Like the 55-57 T-Birds, they came from the factory half rusted out.

Jim
you missed one........

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Ironcross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 01:11 PM   #17
ktchir
CF Senior Member
 
ktchir's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2009
Location: Georgetown Texas
Default

Wouldn't a better comparison be between the Camaro and the Mustang?

Obviously the Mustang was produced earlier, but I wonder how the 67-69 versions compare for what's still around?
ktchir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 09:32 PM   #18
Stewart Allison
CF Senior Member
 
Stewart Allison's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne victoria
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fawndeuce View Post
As many of the regs know, I have a '65 GT fastback that I've owned for about 10 years. All original and unmolested sheet metal, including the floors, one of the very first GT's off the line from the Metuchen NJ plant.
I absolutely love that old car, of all the cars that I've owned it's the one that I hope I never have to sell. It's a blast to drive, light, agile, peppy rock solid with no rattles or squeaks. I also love the way it looks, clean and uncluttered, they nailed it.
It was obviously never intended to be a competitor with the much more expensive Vette (except maybe on the track ), but I can't imagine that you could have made a better choice for the buck back in '65.



Paul

Click the image to open in full size.
Give me any car in the world I keep coming back to my Pony. It has the original Ram steering and a kick **** donk I have travelled the Australian out back in this car. I guess I will never sell it I love the looks and fun handling FORD just Nailed it your spot on ! Stewy
Stewart Allison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 09:56 PM   #19
futura
CF Senior Member
 
futura's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2002
Location: Elizabeth City NC
Send a message via AIM to futura
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktchir View Post
Wouldn't a better comparison be between the Camaro and the Mustang?

Obviously the Mustang was produced earlier, but I wonder how the 67-69 versions compare for what's still around?
Like Corvettes, condition, originality and documentation can influence values. Owned these 67's forever, 390 and 396 cars that are as different as night and day.

Click the image to open in full size.
futura is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 10:22 PM   #20
Trophy Blue
CF Senior Member
 
Trophy Blue's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey. The deer ate my Garden State.
Default

Before I got into corvettes, I owned 48 mustangs from 1981 to 1998. The best ones that I owned were the '65 to '68 fastbacks. They were the best looking by far.
Trophy Blue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-01-2010, 10:22 PM
 
Go Back   Corvette Forum > C1 & C2 Corvettes, 1953 - 1967 > C1 & C2 Corvettes
Reload this Page Corvette vs Mustang
 
 
 
Reply

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
63-67 parts for sale RPO687 C1 & C2 Parts 21 06-15-2014 09:29 AM
FS '64,'65,'66 Steering wheel vettelawyer67 C1 & C2 Parts 2 04-15-2009 07:51 AM
Are 64-66 seat frames the same? jprop C1 & C2 Corvettes 2 03-26-2007 07:03 PM
Clutch Fork Push rod six-T-six Factory Correct Resto 4 09-15-2003 12:18 PM
WTS-'63-67 Corvette Parts vette_addict C1 & C2 Parts 2 02-26-2003 07:49 PM


Tags
corvette, covetts, mustang, mustangs, numbers, sales, vintage


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Click for Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:51 PM.


Emails & Password Backup