• Hello there guest and Welcome to The #1 Classic Mustang forum!
    To gain full access you must Register. Registration is free and it takes only a few moments to complete.
    Already a member? Login here then!

$125k? WTF!

Unless I'm missing something, the price does not seen out of whack for a nice, genuine GT500.
 
Kinda what i thought too... weren't they getting 150K-175K a 5-7 years ago?

I gotta ask though, looking at the rear valence I'm guessing it's been restored some. I was under the impression that the '67s had the standard valence with 2 half moons cut for tailpipe clearance and the openings dressed with cut down 65-66 exhaust bezels... This car has a traditional deluxe tail panel which doesn't look right IMO...
 
There's a guy in the Mustang club out in Oregon that has a 67 GT500, all original with side pipes. While we were at a car show in Redmond back in 05 or 06, a guy offered him $250,000. The Mustang owner declined.


Sent from my iPhone using Crapatalk
 
"stangg" said:
I gotta ask though, looking at the rear valence I'm guessing it's been restored some. I was under the impression that the '67s had the standard valence with 2 half moons cut for tailpipe clearance and the openings dressed with cut down 65-66 exhaust bezels... This car has a traditional deluxe tail panel which doesn't look right IMO...
Click to expand...

There were a bunch of running changes, in '67 as well as the other years '65-'70. One of them on the '67 was eliminating the "fancier" rear valance you described. It was replaced with the "stock" dual exhaust valance, IIRC, on the mid to late production cars.
 
"stangg" said:
I gotta ask though, looking at the rear valence I'm guessing it's been restored some. I was under the impression that the '67s had the standard valence with 2 half moons cut for tailpipe clearance and the openings dressed with cut down 65-66 exhaust bezels... This car has a traditional deluxe tail panel which doesn't look right IMO...
Click to expand...

What I just noticed being "off" is the inboard mounted highbeams, I thought early cars had them but due to cooling issues they were moved outboard at some point. As this is a late VIN, I would have expected them to be outboard. I'm not trying to pick apart this nice car, just noting a possible inconsistency.
 
"silverblueBP" said:
There's a guy in the Mustang club out in Oregon that has a 67 GT500, all original with side pipes. While we were at a car show in Redmond back in 05 or 06, a guy offered him $250,000. The Mustang owner declined.


Sent from my iPhone using Crapatalk
Click to expand...
If the economy hadn't taken the tubes that car would be worth an easy $250K. They're still getting around $50K for 69 428 CJ Mach 1s. I too picked up on the early 67 driving light configuration on a late vin. One of those bothersome issues that makes you wonder how authentic this car really is. I thought the lights were relocated because CA DMV said their location was illegal in CA and Shelby was allowed to build out his on-hand stock of grilles and then moved the lights outboard. Knowing they are Mustangs, it could have been a cooling issue though. Ford used radiators that were barely adequate for their engines in Mustangs, even if the BB cars and A/C cars did have those 24" models. My SB 302 had a stock 2 row 20" radiator when I bought it. Even now, with a three row core, 160* thermostat, a shroud and running Water Wetter and distilled water, it doesn't like to sit in traffic very long without getting all hot and bothered.
 
"SAC69" said:
"stangg" said:
I gotta ask though, looking at the rear valence I'm guessing it's been restored some. I was under the impression that the '67s had the standard valence with 2 half moons cut for tailpipe clearance and the openings dressed with cut down 65-66 exhaust bezels... This car has a traditional deluxe tail panel which doesn't look right IMO...
Click to expand...

What I just noticed being "off" is the inboard mounted highbeams, I thought early cars had them but due to cooling issues they were moved outboard at some point. As this is a late VIN, I would have expected them to be outboard. I'm not trying to pick apart this nice car, just noting a possible inconsistency.
Click to expand...


inconsistency is the middle name of the Shelby American car company. :jerk

My GT500 was in the first third and it had the outboard lights and the standard GT rear valence.

125K- I see that as a fair asking price.

fd
 
the inboard high beams were changed to outboard because they weren't 50 state legal. I've not heard about cooling issues...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top