Corvette vs Mustang
09-30-2010, 08:09 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Member Since: Jun 2008
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 08:11 PM. Reason: spelling
09-30-2010, 08:38 PM
#2
Team Owner
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: cookeville tennessee
Posts: 28,846
Received 1,762 Likes
on
1,529 Posts
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..
09-30-2010, 08:52 PM
#3
Melting Slicks
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!!!
So if 90% of the stangs are history, there you go!!!
09-30-2010, 09:11 PM
#4
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,064
Received 1,720 Likes
on
805 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
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.
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 09:55 PM.
09-30-2010, 09:30 PM
#5
Burning Brakes
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..........
09-30-2010, 09:58 PM
#6
Team Owner
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.
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.
Last edited by Frankie the Fink; 09-30-2010 at 10:18 PM.
09-30-2010, 10:03 PM
#7
Le Mans Master
Member Since: Sep 2008
Location: Lake Minnetonka, Mn
Posts: 5,064
Received 1,720 Likes
on
805 Posts
2018 C1 of Year Finalist
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 10:40 PM.
09-30-2010, 10:19 PM
#8
Le Mans Master
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.
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....
09-30-2010, 10:21 PM
#9
Le Mans Master
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.
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.
Jim
09-30-2010, 10:39 PM
#10
Melting Slicks
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.
09-30-2010, 11:26 PM
#12
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
10-01-2010, 04:42 AM
#13
Melting Slicks
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
10-01-2010, 09:39 AM
#14
Safety Car
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
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
10-01-2010, 09:50 AM
#15
Safety Car
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
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
10-01-2010, 12:11 PM
#17
Burning Brakes
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?
Obviously the Mustang was produced earlier, but I wonder how the 67-69 versions compare for what's still around?
10-01-2010, 08:32 PM
#18
Melting Slicks
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
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
10-01-2010, 08:56 PM
#19
Racer
10-01-2010, 09:22 PM
#20
Melting Slicks
Member Since: Oct 2005
Location: New Jersey. The deer ate my Garden State.
Posts: 3,073
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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. 