$114,000 "NEW" 64-66 Mustang - Crackpipe... nice price???

Knurled wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The thing that gets me is the engine. Based on the spec, it's just a pushrod 5.0. Not that it's a bad engine, but there are better choices for this kind of coin. There are four 5.0 aluminum engines that you can get in a crate, from $7400 up to $16,500. And they would be very appropriate. But that's just me. Once the baby boomer pass, the market for this kind of car will go away.

Are they Windsor all aluminum engines? Because "way" is spelled W-A-Y. There is no F in Way that a Coyote or any other DOHC V8 is going to fit in a '64-66 without losing the shock (now strut) towers. A 289/302 barely fits in there and a 351W is a negative-clearance shoehorn fit.

So? For that kind of price, the car should be pretty solidly be re-engineered.

Otherwise it's just a Falcon with a fancy body on it. If the idea is to be like Eagle's updated Jags, it must be updated.

I don't disagree.

The only way that I can see this being viable price-wise, is that if they were Shelby continuation '66 GT 350 convertibles.

I think there's a market for these. A small one, but it's there. I'm not sure these cars are the ones to fill that market though. Singer, ICON and a couple of others are producing truly special cars. When you see one you know it's special. From the pictures it doesn't look like these Mustangs are playing the same game.
My wife loves these cars and many hours have been spent trying to sort out a build we could be happy with.

In reply to mazdeuce: First gen Mustangs are horrible to drive in stock condition. The struts probably make a big improvement, but to build a Mustang like Singer builds a 911, it should have one of the new aftermarket full frames under it, Coyote power, and IRS. IOWA, it should look like a vintage Mustang, but drive as well or better than a 2015 Mustang.

In reply to bravenrace:

I agree and I think there is a market for the car you're describing.

alfadriver wrote:

Knurled wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The thing that gets me is the engine. Based on the spec, it's just a pushrod 5.0. Not that it's a bad engine, but there are better choices for this kind of coin. There are four 5.0 aluminum engines that you can get in a crate, from $7400 up to $16,500. And they would be very appropriate. But that's just me. Once the baby boomer pass, the market for this kind of car will go away.

Are they Windsor all aluminum engines? Because "way" is spelled W-A-Y. There is no F in Way that a Coyote or any other DOHC V8 is going to fit in a '64-66 without losing the shock (now strut) towers. A 289/302 barely fits in there and a 351W is a negative-clearance shoehorn fit.

So? For that kind of price, the car should be pretty solidly be re-engineered. Otherwise it's just a Falcon with a fancy body on it. If the idea is to be like Eagle's updated Jags, it must be updated.

You have to look at all the parts they are using to build it....I'll bet they are making $5-10k after paying all their labor and all the parts expenses from using NEW reproduction parts. That stuff isn't cheap. Hell, the unibody shell alone is $17,500.

yamaha wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Duke:WELL SAID! 1964-66 Mustang owners would.

This!!! Its going to drive alot better than the original. I'm somewhat digging it.....but I'd rather build one myself with an I6 from germany or japan in it.

In reply to yamaha:

See, to me, that doesn't matter. If you are going to be in the $100k range, the difference between $100k and $120 is a lot, but not to 99% of the market.

So IMHO, you need to make that cost of recreation much, much, much better than the original. To the point that comparing it with the modern one is feasable- much like how Top Gear compares the Eagle E-Type Aero recreation. Or how a Singer is a great car like a modern 911.

If you are going to charge that kind of money, you need to make that kind of car.

And a old Ford 5.0 isn't that kind of engine.

D2W wrote: Price is laughable when a nice original is much less, and will be worth more in the long run.

Maybe. But the original didn't come with Bluetooth & USB Ports. Those are really important!?

Rupert wrote:

D2W wrote: Price is laughable when a nice original is much less, and will be worth more in the long run.

Maybe. But the original didn't come with Bluetooth & USB Ports. Those are really important!?

...I know people who have made car buying decisions based solely on that stuff.

Remember that if you were super-wealthy and wanted something along these lines but more of a performance car there is the Equus Bass at about $250k. That one comes with a supercharged LSx, Corvette transaxle, aluminum body, etc. They try not to call it a Mustang, but that's clearly what it is.

Getting back to the car in the OP, if it was my company we would be building 69/70 fastbacks instead of 64 1/2 notches, but it is not my company.

In reply to SEADave:

They're not building 64.5 notches.....they're building 64.5-66 generation fastbacks and convertibles. Dynacorn doesn't make a notchback coupe. They do however make 67, 68, 69, and 70 mustang fastback unibodies.......so if there is a market for the current ones they are building, expect the others to join in later.

" blue LED lighting and LCD message center "

the world's most ricey dash for your mega-buck classic car!

In reply to JohnyHachi6:

It makes as much sense as a tachometer that goes up to eleven.

mazdeuce wrote: In reply to bravenrace: I agree and I think there is a market for the car you're describing.

Thing is, that car already exists. The car in my avatar is pretty close to what we are talking about and is available for just a little more than this car, IIRC.