Also, if you don't mind me asking, is '67 a "good" year? From what I've heard, the answer is 'yes', but I don't know why. Also, I've had trouble finding specs for this car (simple things such as brake type, for example) -- can someone direct me to a good site which would have all of this info.
Also, the "T" type engine is a 6cyl, and the "S" type is the 390. I think the "C" is the 2bbl 289, but I can't tell the difference between the "A" and "K". What is the difference and what type should I be looking for (I don't think I want the 390 -- it's going to be a daily driver after all).
Both my '67 Galaxie 500 (289 + FMX + 2.80:1) and my '68 Galaxie 500 (302 + FMX + 2.80:1) got 14-16 MPG during normal driving for me... That was a good amount of city driving (almost all of it), which I got closer to 14 and when I did more highway driving when I cahnged jobs I got closer to 16 MPG on average. I have seen as high as a bit over 17 MPG with the '68 with 90% highway cruising at 70-80 MPH.
I've heard 6 cyl Mustangs can get 24+ MPG, and 289 Mustangs can get 20+ MPG. Those numbers are for highway cruising, so I've been told. I have no firsthand experience owning/driving a Mustang though, so take it for what it's worth. In any case a Mustang ought to get reasonably better mileage than my Galaxies.
Pretty much any classic car is a 'good' year. They built cars well back then. Any faults typical of a model year are probably nothing you will be able to tell is a fault of a particular year 35+ years later. The onyl things to watch out for in particular models/years are rust and rott locations. That's an area I don't know anything about Mustangs in, thought if you ever want a '66-'68 Galaxie/Custom watch out for the bottom of the frame rails under the doors.
The A code 289 is the 225HP / 305ft/lbs engien and the K code is the Hi-Po
289 rated at 271HP / 312ft/lbs. For more information check out...
formatting link
If you are looking for a daily driver a K code car is not the way to go as it is worth a pretty penny. No sense paying all the extra money for a rare car which will need more maintenance with it's solid lifters. I'd imagine with the more radical solid lifter cam it would get worse mileage and be less practical for driving in the snow.
Speaking of '67 Mustangs... Let me tell you about my '68. My '68 Galaxie was originally my great grandmothers car. She gave it to me last January for my birthday as my '67 was giving me lots of trouble and I just needed a car to reliably get me to school and work. I've got all the original papers and such. My great grandparents traded in their '67 Mustang Fastback to get the '68 Galaxie 500... So I *almost* could have had a '67 Mustang Fastback. I don't know anything about what engine the car had but I'd imagine it at least had the 'lo-po' 289. It woulda been cool to have on of those, but I think I like the Galaxie better. I've got a thing for full-size cars. :)
Cory