Corvette vs Mustang - Corvette Forum

Go Back   Corvette Forum > C1 & C2 Corvettes, 1953 - 1967 > C1 & C2 Corvettes
Log In 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Vendor Directory
Search

C1 & C2 Corvettes
General C1 Corvette & C2 Corvette Discussion, Technical Info, Performance Upgrades, Project Builds, Restorations Sponsored by
Flaming River
Industries

Corvette vs Mustang

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-30-2010, 09:09 PM   #1
saraholt61
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jun 2008
Posts: 144
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 19,951
Location: cookeville tennessee
Thanked 76 Times in 71 Posts
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
Posts: 2,395
Location: Sunrise FL
Thanked 14 Times in 14 Posts
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
Posts: 2,492
Location: Menomonie Wisconsin
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
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
Posts: 927
Location: Delta BC
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 25,884
Location: Winter Garden Florida
Thanked 107 Times in 95 Posts
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
Posts: 2,492
Location: Menomonie Wisconsin
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
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
Posts: 5,694
Location: columbus oh
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 6,219
Location: Puget Sound Wa.
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
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
Posts: 3,044
Location: Orange Ct
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 794
Location: Georgetown Texas
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 452
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 2,558
Location: Melbourne victoria
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 3,388
Location: Location, Location QC,NY
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
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
Posts: 3,722
Location: On the bank of the Columbia River..... Washington State
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
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
Posts: 11,979
Location: Taylor Michigan
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
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
Posts: 794
Location: Georgetown Texas
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 2,558
Location: Melbourne victoria
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
Posts: 279
Location: Elizabeth City NC
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
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
Posts: 3,079
Location: New Jersey. The deer ate my Garden State.
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
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
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
Not impressed with 2015 Mustang GT OLD_GOAT Other Cars 24 10-07-2015 09:36 PM
FS: Various new C1&C2 parts rjmonty C1 & C2 Parts 11 02-23-2015 05:57 PM
FS: Various new C1&C2 parts (part 2) rjmonty C1 & C2 Parts 1 11-23-2014 11:42 PM
Anbody in Myrtle Beach Week of July 13? JAsVette C6 Corvette General Discussion 4 07-29-2014 04:39 PM
63-67 parts for sale RPO687 C1 & C2 Parts 21 06-15-2014 09:29 AM


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 03:28 AM.