Thoughts on first Mustang purchase please

Floor and trunk pan replacement is a major undertaking and expensive...

Floor and trunk pans are MAJOR rust problems, on a unibody car, they can involve structural issues too.

Good Luck

How do I tell if this is a unibody car; I'm not familiar with the term.

It is.

If it's a unibody car (I don't know), you are looking at some very expensive work that may grow worse as the body shop starts to tear into things. IOW, problems that are not obvious may be uncovered.

Engage the services of a competent body shop to give the car a good going over before you purchase it and then add another 20 percent to whatever they tell you because surprises are bound to surface.

Whenever I feel like buying a "REAL fixer-upper" I calculate all costs that will be needed for the repair and after it's all figured up......double that figure. Now is it worth it? That's up to you to decide. If I buy a "one-of-a-kind" type of project where the costs of what it's worth to me really can't be figured, that's one thing. But when you buy a Mustang that isn't a one-of-a-kind project, that's another. If I were you, (and remember that I'm not) I'd probably pass on this project, especially a unibody car that needs serious rust/rot repair.

"Kruse" wrote

DEFINITELY PASS! Besides the fact that the 71-73, imho, is the ugliest of all the mustangs ( yes, including the Mustang II) it's near impossible to find parts for them. There's almost nothing made in the aftermarket when it comes to the body, and that seems to be the WORST part of the build in your case. Rust repair is extremely expensive when done correctly.

Keep your cash in your pocket and keep looking for something better.

Kruse is right. It will take you twice as much time and money as you think to finish the project. It may not take as much time, but that comes at an even HIGHER price in $$$'s.

Although as time marches on, they are producing more and more parts for the 71-73s, and even starting on Mustang IIs. It's the same problem people had with the earlier models.

Personally, after owning a 72 for a number of years, I was quite happy with it. Beat the heck out of Mustang IIs for looks, ran like a champ with power to spare according to the cop who clocked me :0) and wrote me :0(.

But, mine was only 2 years old when I got it and it was in excellent shape.

This one I would pass on. There are too many better ones available that others have already put the money into.

://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg

Definately pass on this one, Unless your good at body work, its expensive and hard to find parts. There are much better deals out there. I am afraid this being your first, your will be disappointed and disgusted if you buy it. Good deals can be had at car shows, ask around etc. Dont take on someone elses headache. .

I've decided to pass on it, I started doing the math after I got the stars out of my eyes and it's too much work and money for what it is. I live in upstate South Carolina if anyone knows of any 1971-73 for sale at a decent price. These, for me, are the only years I would consider. Thanks to all who responded both on the message board and privately.

You missed on a Boss (may have been a clone... I couldn't see the VIN due to glare) here for $4800 right down the street from me in northern California. It needed some work on the interior, paint, and one dent. No idea about the engine or trans, but suspension looked to be in good shape. Now, it . But, still, for $4800? No pans to replace... California car.... Don't know if you would have liked the orange color.... :0) And I see similar deals a lot. So, I think you made a wise move in deciding to pass.

You can go online and check listings in "Deals on Wheels", "The Nickel", local and regional newspapers, etc, to see if there is anything near you. You might even find what you are looking at a decent price for through a search in

I have a 72 mach 1. I paid $1500. Interior was in good shape with a brand new dash and headliner. The car hasn't been wrecked and the rust wasn't that bad (except for the trunk floor). I replaced the floors, left and right and under the back seat. I replaced the trunk pan. The metal cast me a little more than $200 and I paid a couple of welders I know $1000 to come to my house to weld them in. It took 2 and a half days to complete. They also fabbed and welded in some subframe connectors, made the unibody strong as heck!!! This was done a month ago.

It was all worth it to me.

In the past two years, tons of 71-73 aftermarket parts have become available. I've purchased a new grille, tailpanel, sportlamps, and many other things that were previously only avalable used.

I wholeheartedly disagree with "Blue Mesteno". Other than the '69 mach 1, I feel the '71 and '72 mach 1's are still some of the meanest looking muscle cars that were ever built, I've received a lot of comments on the lines on my '72.

Dave

A '68 Ranchero 500 (imho) is one of the ugliest, boring, rolling boxes I've ever seen. I used to have a 73 Ranchero GT, now that was a sexy ride.

So at what point did I ever brag on the styling of the '68 Ranchero's? I didn't buy it because it looked cool. I bought it because it got the job done. I agree they're ugly. I think ALL the Ranchero's were ugly, especially the '73 and that whole body style. The hood looked longer than the truck bed!! But they did their job and they are the original car/truck. The El Camino ALWAYS looked better and will always be more desirable to collector's.

Besides, the 500 was an option package based on the Fairlane 500, not the vehicle itself dumbass. It could be had with the most badass Ram-Air 428CJ. Blow the doors off the best option '73 even with the 460. The styling (specifically in '73) was hindered by the HUGE ugly ass mandated safety bumper. Oh, and it was especially pleasing cosmetically with the fake vinyl decal woodgrain appliqué's down the entire side of the vehicle. Now THAT's stylin'. NOT!

A "sexy" '73 Ranchero? Maybe to the 4H girls. If you like your women smelling like cow turds or chickenshit! Whatever floats your boat dude.

Why is it that some people find it so necessary to get downright mean, nasty and ugly, and start in with the name calling and insults simply because someone does not happen to agree with a point of view? Observations regarding style are subjective. Eye of the beholder and all that.

I was a little appalled at the fact that Blue Mesteno called 71-73 mustangs the ugliest ever, and he lists in his signature that he owns one of the ugliest cars ford ever built (68 ranchero). "Hello, Pot? You're black"

The 71& 72 mustang (stylewise) were only 2nd to the 69 mustang (imho).

At least I don't call people I don't know names like Blue Mesteno does. That shows what kind of person he is.

Dave

By the way Spike, nice job on the 65!!! It looks awesome!

Personally, when they first came out, I thought the 71-73 mustang body was hideous. After a few years it has (at least the '71 fastback) grown on me, maybe somewhat due to the drivetrain options available, at least in '71, being the panicle of FoMoCo's performance offerings for nearly 3 decades to follow (If you have never driven a 429CJ car, you don't know what you are missing.). That and the '71 being pre plastic bumpers. Having a 1971 sport roof ram air, staggered shock, Cleveland car with a '71 429 CJ in it sure did not hurt my bonding process. :-) I still think the '71-73 coupe / notchback bodies look horrible.

I think the 1974-1978 bodies are about as ugly as it got, about as ugly as a pinto, or damn near an AMC pacer for that matter. The fox bodies were not much better, then they got even worse from there, till 2005.

All the 1964/5-1970 mustang fastback/sportsroofs look allot better then anything since, till the gorgeous new 2005 body style.