Ford is touting its newest addition to the Ford Restoration catalog as the "ultimate stocking stuffer this Christmas." A $15,995, steel-bodied stocking stuffer.
The Ford Restoration Body Shell is stronger than the original and has better fit and finish. The "new" body is also set up to hold Ford's big block motors from that era. Ford claims that 90% of the parts needed to restore the car are available as Ford licensed reproduction parts. Guys who love the idea of a matching numbers car certainly won't dig this, but anyone who just wants an old Mustang for driving should be better served going reproduction. Besides that, you know this one's never been wrecked and you know it's straight and rust free. It's the starting point I'd take and Niebuhr never, ever would.
mrjost55 says:
09:20 AM, 12/20/11
That is really cool. What other companies do that?
greenpony says:
09:42 AM, 12/20/11
1. That's cool, for those who are into this sort of thing.
2. I'd take this as a starting point over a "matching numbers" car.
3. Classics are cool and all, but for $16k (+ engine, transmission, top, interior, etc.. what, $30k?) I could buy a new or slightly used Mustang GT. And have a warranty. Sorry, but restoration is not my cup of tea.
sniperruff says:
10:43 AM, 12/20/11
@greenpony:
Personally, I think the new Mustang's design doesn't hold a candle to the classic lines of a 1967 Mustang.
greenpony says:
12:04 PM, 12/20/11
Glad to hear you'd rather spend your money on 45 year old technology. It's a free country after all.
The only thing classic cars have is style. Their functionality as an automobile is immensely overshadowed by the functionality of modern automobiles. Think of all the advances in safety, convenience, efficiency, environmental friendliness, and power that have happened in the decades since the '60s. Value-per-dollar, the modern Mustang wins hands-down.
sniperruff says:
12:22 PM, 12/20/11
@greenpony:
Oh yeah I don't doubt that. I guess my interpretation of "design" as in "style".
stoppre75 says:
12:39 PM, 12/20/11
Greenpony:
As he said, a new Mustang isn't his cup of tea...you needed to make a second comment putting down his opinion? An opinion probably shared among a good number of people who read this blog.
In response to you though, how is a new Mustang more functional than an old mustang? Both seat four with seatbelts, both have a trunk, both burn gasoline in large quantities.
Safety: Yeah, a new car will be safer, but avoiding accidents is the best remedy here. I'm sure he'll do that.
Convenience: He can make his car way more convenient because he can customize it if he wants.
Efficiency: He can make it get better gas mileage by buying a Coyote crate engine. (since his car weights a good deal less)
Environment: Better MPGs = being more green
Power: hp/lbs is > therefore its faster.
So value-per-dollar the newly constructed 1969 body is the winner hands down.
thegrocer says:
10:06 AM, 12/21/11
While Ford officially approves of the shell, it's actually made by Dynacorn...so it's not like Ford is still cranking out Mustangs in some dark corner of River Rouge. Dynyacorn also offers classic Camaro, Chevelle, Firebird, and Chevy truck cabs as well as the Mustang bodies...
http://www.dynacornclassicbodies.com/classic2.html
(They make it clear that all of them are licensed but not produced by GM or Ford on their website)
greenpony says:
12:56 PM, 12/21/11
stoppre75, I'm glad you felt compelled to address what you feel is a gross breach of internet etiquette on my part. Shame on me for expressing my opinion. I guess I should just shut up after somebody responds to what I write, eh? You shouldn't assume intention, and you shouldn't confuse dissension with a personal attack. Nowhere did I "put down" sniperruff for his opinion.
But you, you're different. I'm glad you're here to point out the solution to automobile collisions. I know automotive engineers who have struggled with auto safety their entire lives, and here comes stoppre75 with a simple and elegant solution: "avoiding accidents is the best remedy here." Now the government can cease requiring airbags, stability control, CHMSL, seat belts, turn signals, and all the other safety crap that's completely unnecessary -- thanks to you! Now we all don't need to worry about that drunk who crosses the median, or the teenager texting away while in stop and go traffic, or the parent trying to get a handle on their kids not noticing the light turned red. Whew, that's a load off my shoulders.
Do you also have a solution to classic cars missing a warranty?
church123 says:
01:52 PM, 12/21/11
Woof. Sounds like someone's pony has grown rather long legs...;)
Lighten up fellas.
BTW, if you build a resto car, you can probably fix it yourself. Voila, warranty issue solved.
roadburner says:
05:46 PM, 12/21/11
My current garage contains cars ranging in age from 36 to 4 years old. The 1975 and 1995 cars are the most fun to drive hands down. In fact, the oldest car is my teenage son's daily driver. As I've said before, I've been lectured by hand-wringing bedwetters who think I should wrap the kid in bubble-wrap and require he drive a massive FWD appliance. It's all depends on what you like. If popping the hood gives you the cold sweats, stick with the newer stuff.
That said, if you want to enjoy cars that were built before virtually all vehicle sub-systems were designed to protect the typical low-grade moron vehicle operator(most people behind the wheel can't really be called "drivers" with a straight face) there are a lot of classic and special interest cars that will provide years of smiles.