1968 Ford Mustang Coupe 200 cu in from North America
Summary:
An attractive classic daily driver
Faults:
When I purchased this car, it had been the victim of a shady used car dealer who covered up a lot of abuse.
- The rear brakes metal lines were missing.
- A cheap quarter panel had been attached poorly.
- A gallon of bondo had been used to cover up damage and/or rust around one of the headlight bezels.
- The ignition key differed from the door locks, in fact there was no key for the door locks.
- Paint was peeling off the cowl area.
As I drove the car, I fixed things that began to wear out. At the time I was driving it regularly to college about 150 miles a week. All things considered, it was a very dependable car. It had a tendency to use oil and I never fixed the problem, I just kept buying oil.
General Comments:
At the time I had three other cars, one of the which was another 68 Mustang, so I couldn't spend as much repairing one particular car as I would have liked. I tried to restore and repair as much as I could afford with this particular car.
The interior was in great condition, but a lot of routine service had been ignored, so that is where the bulk of my money had been spent.
Six cylinder mustangs were not as desirable at the time as their V-8 counterparts; many of these were driven daily rather than being restored and garaged.
It took awhile for people to notice the 67-68 Mustangs as far as classics, but I found them to be every bit as classic. I eventually sold it locally and saw it occasionally.
Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes
Review Date: 30th March, 2008
1st Apr 2008, 16:53
Unless you don't drive it in the winter! My '73 Charger has been my daily driver off and on since 1988, including a few Wisconsin and Colorado winters (which I paid for in rust that had to be repaired in later years). When I could afford it, I parked the Charger in the Fall and drove my beater truck through the winter. Back in the 1960's, there were surely people driving 1968 Mustangs in the winter in Canada because they were "just" cars back then, and people have to drive whatever they have.
17th Jul 2008, 02:31
When I was a junior in high school in 1967, I had a 66 Mustang Sprint 3 speed stick coupe in a color everyone called Sparkling Burgundy. I loved the car but it was absolutely terrifying to drive on slick surfaces.
It got t-boned in June of 1968 and was replaced with a used 67 200 CID 3 speed stick coupe in Frost Aqua. The first thing I noticed was the 67 was much better built than the 66, with heavier components and better brakes--an opinion that was validated by our family mechanic. The other thing was that unlike the 66, it went just fine in snow and ice. I just started it in second gear and the Mustang had no problems. I was told the balance of weight in the 67 was much better than on the earlier models.
I still wish I had that car, but at the time I was very excited to trade it in for a 1969 Plymouth Fury III convertible with a 383, automatic, power everything and air conditioning. I would have never imagined that all three of these cars would wind up being collector's items!
17th Jul 2008, 12:10
With regards to comment 02:31, the '64, '65 and '66 Mustangs were basically Falcons with different sheet metal, and the rear ends were very light. Driving on slick surfaces was a nightmare.
The '67 was heavier, better built and had better front/rear weight distribution, especially in the fast-back configuration. I owned a '66 and it was wrecked due to the rear end breaking loose on a slick road. Even the newer ones are prone to rear end break-away (I own a 2007), and need to be driven carefully on slippery surfaces.
31st Mar 2008, 23:39
A great daily driver if you live in a Southern State... Not the best option for winter driving in Canada :)