ConcoursMustang Forums
1st Generation 1964 1/2 - 1973 - Questions & general discussions that apply to a specific year => 1964 1/2 - 1965 => Topic started by: drummingrocks on August 23, 2016, 09:00:57 AM
-
We recently got an interesting '65 fastback in the shop. The original door tag is missing, but the buck tag is installed on the passenger's side rear fender apron in the engine bay. The car is dressed up like a GT. I always assumed it was a clone, but it is an A-code, so I suppose it could be the real thing.
For a factory GT with a buck tag, I'm always used to seeing the GT package as "PIO" (performance image option) on the buck tag. This car was built in Metuchen, and the tag has "PI" instead of "PIO". Is that a factory option code? I have no guarantee that the car has its original buck tag; this could be a reproduction that someone messed up. Just curious.
-
Hi There,
I have typically seen PIO from the Metuchen plant for GT in 1965 as well. However, the Marti Tag book indicates that PI and PIO were both used. Do you have a photo of the tag you could post? If it's a reproduction the inspector "punch-outs " on the tag would be missing. I've attached an example of a buck tag with the inspector punch-outs. In addition, I did find an example on-line of a 1965 Metuchen tag marked PI (I've attached it to this post as well). One of the challenges with validating this particular car is the door tag is missing. However, provided that the VIN stamping in the front fender aprons matches the buck tag and the buck tag appears to be original then that would at least open the possibility the car is a GT.
Does the car have the other typical factory GT indicators? In this case, since it's an "A" code, it would have come from the factory with single exhaust unless it was a factory GT. As a result, if this car is a GT it should contain the reinforcements to the rear floor pans under the rear seats to accommodate the dual exhaust hangers. If those floor pan reinforcements for the dual exhaust are not present, then it is not possible to be a factory GT.
Regards,
Ron
-
My buck tag. Oct '65 build (66 GT) for reference...
Allen
-
Both codes were used, they mean the same.
-
If it's a reproduction the inspector "punch-outs " on the tag would be missing.
Mine is known original to the car and marked PIO with no inspector punch outs. It also looks like the example picture above held in hand is missing them as well.
There was a recent thread on here about NJ A code GT's having the 9" pinion snubber bracket welded to the floor with rubber bolted to it.
-
Most Metuchen buck tags that I've seen (mostly 1966's) were on the driver's side rear apron, not on the passenger side as the original poster stated.
-
Most Metuchen buck tags that I've seen (mostly 1966's) were on the driver's side rear apron, not on the passenger side as the original poster stated.
My late July 65 Built Metuchen GT has the buck tag on the passenger side (the information matches the door plate, VIN, and the build sheet). The buck tag was completely undisturbed and not painted on the backside. I've actually only seen the '65 buck tags on that side (at least in the sample size of cars I've viewed).
Ron
-
Mine is on passenger side also
-
There are lots of examples of buck tags with no punch outs. Either is fine.
-
There are lots of examples of buck tags with no punch outs. Either is fine.
That's not exactly true in this circumstance (in my experience). While it is true some buck tags do not have inspector punch-out,s I didn't want to mention that point in this thread since we are discussing a potential factory GT car and didn't want to complicate this discussion. I have found that most (but not all) 65 buck tags in particular that contain options that would require an inspectors validation (e.g. appropriate cut outs or structural modifications for a GT) would have an inspector's punch-out on the buck tag. If the buck tag didn't denote anything that required non-standard changes to the body (e.g a vinyl top) it seems to be more common that they remain "un-punched". I'm sure there are exceptions to this given Ford manufactured thousands of cars and mistakes were made on the line.
In my experience, '65 NJ factory GT cars normally have buck tags with punched inspector marks. I have seen example of '66 NJ factory GT buck tags without the punch marks. The lack of inspectors marks on a '65 GT buck tag would't be a "red" flag but it would make me look closer at the car purported to be a factory GT (since I have personally only seen a 2 or 3 NJ '65 GT buck without the inspection marks).
Having said that - given the car under discussion is a 1965 model and it is much more difficult to fake / clone than a 1966 there are other things to investigate than just the originality of the buck tag to help determine if it's a real GT.
Regards,
Ron
-
... if this car is a GT it should contain the reinforcements to the rear floor pans under the rear seats to accommodate the dual exhaust hangers. If those floor pan reinforcements for the dual exhaust are not present, then it is not possible to be a factory GT.
Speaking strictly in absolute terms is a risky thing. While the rear floor reinforcement is normally found with factory dual exhaust, the lack of it is not an absolute indicator of the car NOT having factory duals. Case in point is my early '66 Metuchen built GT. The car is well documented as a true factory GT (one of the original build sheets and the buck tag). It lacks the rear floor reinforcements and the original floor pans were/are untouched. Just like ever other identifying characteristic used to help determine a factory GT car, it is a clue but not an absolute.
I'm certainly not trying to muddy the waters for the OP. I just want to clarify this particular point so that if he discovers no reinforcements present that he doesn't summarily write off the car as not being a factory GT car.
-
Speaking strictly in absolute terms is a risky thing. While the rear floor reinforcement is normally found with factory dual exhaust, the lack of it is not an absolute indicator of the car NOT having factory duals. Case in point is my early '66 Metuchen built GT. The car is well documented as a true factory GT (one of the original build sheets and the buck tag). It lacks the rear floor reinforcements and the original floor pans were/are untouched. Just like ever other identifying characteristic used to help determine a factory GT car, it is a clue but not an absolute.
I'm certainly not trying to muddy the waters for the OP. I just want to clarify this particular point so that if he discovers no reinforcements present that he doesn't summarily write off the car as not being a factory GT car.
Absolutely fair point - I should have said something along the lines of "If those floor pan reinforcements for the dual exhaust are not present, then it is likely not to be a factory GT unless it's a very rare exception".
As with any other production line mistakes sometimes happened and there are exceptions to general rules as your car highlights. However, since most cars do not have the documentation that your car is very fortunate to have a "factory GT" without the reinforcement plates for the dual exhaust would be a point of suspicion. Especially with the large number of 1965 and even more so 1966 GTs (since it is easier to do) that are dealer created and / or more modern day "clones / tribute cars".
Regards,
Ron
-
I stick a finger in the rear frame rail to see if there is a crush tube there, both sides if you are a skeptic. It's only present on factory GT or on "K" Mustangs. It can be faked, but if there's a doubt, look in the trunk over the rails to see how much cutting and welding was done. If someone went to all this trouble, and you can't tell, then I guess it's for real. On the plus side, you don't have to take out the rear seat. On the minus side, your knees get dirty.
Jim
-
OP should look for a build sheet on the wiring harness and/or under the seats
-
Most Metuchen buck tags that I've seen (mostly 1966's) were on the driver's side rear apron, not on the passenger side as the original poster stated.
My Oct 65 built 66 GT had the buck tag on the passenger side.
BTW, I need to come see you (I'm in Dothan, AL) so you can re-do my harness...
Allen
-
I stick a finger in the rear frame rail to see if there is a crush tube there, both sides if you are a skeptic. It's only present on factory GT or on "K" Mustangs. It can be faked, but if there's a doubt, look in the trunk over the rails to see how much cutting and welding was done. If someone went to all this trouble, and you can't tell, then I guess it's for real. On the plus side, you don't have to take out the rear seat. On the minus side, your knees get dirty.
Jim
That is not there on the pre-Feb/March '65 K codes... cars with Arvinode and transverse do not have that style rear frame rail setup.
This is a glaring error in the K code book.
-
In my opinion, there are many other things to look at other than a buck tag for GT identification. As mentioned, the exhaust reinforcements are a big one. Also, a GT should have a 5 dial instrument cluster, so if the car has standard interior, it has to have the dip in the dash structure for the cluster to clear.
Also, have found 'Addressograph' stamping on original buck tags. Very faint, but very cool when seen. If too much paint applied, easy to cover up.
-
I went by yesterday and got some pictures of the car. I felt inside the rear framerails, and the crush tubes are there on both sides. I didn't remove the back seat to look for the reinforcement plates, but I can see the correct hangers from the bottom side of the car. I also wish I could pull the instrument cluster, as that would be a dead giveaway if the car came with the long speedometer or the 5-dial cluster originally.
(http://i.imgur.com/1BGfCiTl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/D6nQVFyl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/dUodjaul.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/wPgulMjl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/3aBaOSal.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0gCqRo4l.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/EHZ0dn6l.jpg)
-
An A code GT should have the square corner snubber plate welded to the floor also, same as a K code.
-
An A code GT should have the square corner snubber plate welded to the floor also, same as a K code.
You mean the pinion snubber? There is a snubber plate above the rearend, welded to the floor. I didn't get a picture of it.
-
Check for the relocated rear brake hose bracket also if you still have access
-
Check for the relocated rear brake hose bracket also if you still have access
Not sure if this helps or not:
(http://i.imgur.com/ZAxG6S5l.jpg)
-
Car looks legit from what I can see in pictures
-
That is not there on the pre-Feb/March '65 K codes... cars with Arvinode and transverse do not have that style rear frame rail setup.
OK, here's the numbers. The original discussion was for GT Mustangs, and to be politically correct, I should have included a disclaimer about the implementation dates.
I don't know where or from who I got these exhaust photos so I'll give a belated thanks.
This is a glaring error in the K code book.
The book "The 289 High Performance Mustang" was first published in 1994, with updated printings in 1996, 2002 and 2006 (the 4th edition). The Arvinode exhaust system was not well known until recently. It is now. You go with the best you have at the time. That approach also gives critics something to do (I consider myself one).
Jim
-
(http://i.imgur.com/1BGfCiTl.jpg)
This photo is interesting to me because of the "putty" sticking out from under the fender. I noticed some of the same putty when I took my passenger fender off but had concluded it was something a previous owner had done. Now I'm not so sure as that looks very much like it.
Allen
-
Hey Allen, the example I pictured might be a little overdone, but yes, these cars had sealant between the tops of the fenders and the fender aprons when they were new.
-
This photo is interesting to me because of the "putty" sticking out from under the fender. I noticed some of the same putty when I took my passenger fender off but had concluded it was something a previous owner had done. Now I'm not so sure as that looks very much like it.
The application of calking is documented in the Mustang Assembly Manuals. You should consider getting a set for your year car.
Jim
-
There are lots of examples of buck tags with no punch outs. Either is fine.
I think I have found a bit of a pattern with the punch outs on 65 and 66 cars. I currently have 17 1966 buck tags on file including my own and 8 of these are unpunched. The unpunched ones span from a buck date of Nov 4 65 (L4) to Feb 4 66 (B4). I do not have any tags at all between these dates that have punches.
I have earlier Sept 8 65 tag and three Oct 28 65 (K28) tags (*K28 tags have three punches each and are all located in the same areas on the tag and are exactly the same set of punched shapes) that are punched and a later one dated Feb 9 66 (B9) that is also punched but with a whole new set of 3 punched shapes. All of my other earlier and later tags are all punched showing that there was a period of no punching between late Oct / early Nov 65 to Early Feb 66.
I also have a June 12 64 tag (F12) that is punched and then 3 tags F15, F23 & F30 that are not punched. I unfortunately do not have any later 64 tags that are later than F30 but there seems to be a pattern forming here too.
Can anyone chime in here with more info or tags so I can continue to compile my file? I am also looking for patterns in C/O numbers and punch shapes and will set up a chart once I have 50+ tags and will post up here so please send them in guys!
Daniel.
-
,,,,,,,,, Can anyone chime in here with more info or tags so I can continue to compile my file? I am also looking for patterns in C/O numbers and punch shapes and will set up a chart once I have 50+ tags and will post up here so please send them in guys!
Daniel.
Are you focusing in on NJ only with this specific request? Hope so since practices and details from all of the plants will surely spoil the results.
Either way I'll separate your post above (once I get an answer from you) and start a new thread since your request differs from the initial post and that discussion. ;)
Think I have the results of the Buck Tag Chain Letter that was assembled and distributed way before this site was opened - just need to find that file as it would add some additional info though we did not collect punch out details with that effort.
Know Pete Morgan collected buck tag info and pictures for a long time as well as others. Allot of it became moot once Kevin Marti's book was published
-
Pete has a ton of buck tag info. Not sure if he documented the punch-outs though? I remember everything in a spread sheet or word doc.
We both have lots of pics of buck tags too. Sorting them all out, at least for me, would be a job, lol.
-
I think I have found a bit of a pattern with the punch outs on 65 and 66 cars. I currently have 17 1966 buck tags on file including my own and 8 of these are unpunched. The unpunched ones span from a buck date of Nov 4 65 (L4) to Feb 4 66 (B4). I do not have any tags at all between these dates that have punches.
I have earlier Sept 8 65 tag and three Oct 28 65 (K28) tags (*K28 tags have three punches each and are all located in the same areas on the tag and are exactly the same set of punched shapes) that are punched and a later one dated Feb 9 66 (B9) that is also punched but with a whole new set of 3 punched shapes. All of my other earlier and later tags are all punched showing that there was a period of no punching between late Oct / early Nov 65 to Early Feb 66.
I also have a June 12 64 tag (F12) that is punched and then 3 tags F15, F23 & F30 that are not punched. I unfortunately do not have any later 64 tags that are later than F30 but there seems to be a pattern forming here too.
Can anyone chime in here with more info or tags so I can continue to compile my file? I am also looking for patterns in C/O numbers and punch shapes and will set up a chart once I have 50+ tags and will post up here so please send them in guys!
Daniel.
Here is Midlife's bucktag (Jan 1966 date). It seems to have the punch shapes, unless I am mis-interpreting what you consider the punch shapes.
(http://midlife66.com/final/final9.jpg)
-
I think I have found a bit of a pattern with the punch outs on 65 and 66 cars. I currently have 17 1966 buck tags on file including my own and 8 of these are unpunched. The unpunched ones span from a buck date of Nov 4 65 (L4) to Feb 4 66 (B4). I do not have any tags at all between these dates that have punches.
I have earlier Sept 8 65 tag and three Oct 28 65 (K28) tags (*K28 tags have three punches each and are all located in the same areas on the tag and are exactly the same set of punched shapes) that are punched and a later one dated Feb 9 66 (B9) that is also punched but with a whole new set of 3 punched shapes. All of my other earlier and later tags are all punched showing that there was a period of no punching between late Oct / early Nov 65 to Early Feb 66.
I also have a June 12 64 tag (F12) that is punched and then 3 tags F15, F23 & F30 that are not punched. I unfortunately do not have any later 64 tags that are later than F30 but there seems to be a pattern forming here too.
Can anyone chime in here with more info or tags so I can continue to compile my file? I am also looking for patterns in C/O numbers and punch shapes and will set up a chart once I have 50+ tags and will post up here so please send them in guys!
Daniel.
Sorry but this one doesn't fit in to your pattern.
-
Just an observation, so far none show a "bend", so the steel buck tag would have to be removed, punched and then re-attached.
Jim
-
Just an observation, so far none show a "bend", so the steel buck tag would have to be removed, punched and then re-attached.
Jim
Or are all of the punches close enough to the edge (remember the fender would not have been installed IMHO at this point) for the inspector/worker to lift the edge and do what needed to be done.
-
With the creases we see with later year buck tags, like 68, it may be that the metal is thinner on the later ones.
Guess someone with calipers might could check to see...
-
I got a few more pictures of the car. I wanted to get a picture of the pinion snubber plate, but the car was already off the lift.
I know the car was originally Rangoon Red, and has been repainted Poppy Red. It was also a standard interior car, and was converted to Pony interior. It looks like the conversion was done well, at least. I'm not sure if the Rally Pac is original to the car or not. The tach doesn't work, and from a quick glance under the dash, I'm guessing that the tach went out at some point and was unplugged so that the car would run again.
(http://i.imgur.com/YPamXAel.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/gdnz95Jl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/BP87PYXl.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/kcA6yRLl.jpg)
-
I got a few more pictures of the car. I wanted to get a picture of the pinion snubber plate, but the car was already off the lift.
So plenty of evidence that a prior owner has taken their liberties at changing original details to those of higher end models making IMHO everything in question . Allot of cars were converted to Pony interior and GT in the early 80's to the point where it was rare to see standard models around at times.
Interesting that they choose the 66 gas cap.
-
Is that rally pac supposed to/can be used with that instrumentation? I always thought that one was for the falcon instrument cluster.
-
Is that rally pac supposed to/can be used with that instrumentation? I always thought that one was for the falcon instrument cluster.
My observations are that factory installed rally-pac's in '65 GT and pony interior cars would have been the low profile. Although, I would cut some slack on a very early intro date GT or pony interior car.
Dealer installed would be a mixed bag, either one could have been used.
-
Seems that car has back up lights. Shouldn't they be called out on the buck tag ? Brian
-
Seems that car has back up lights. Shouldn't they be called out on the buck tag ? Brian
Back up lights were an option in 1965 (they became a standard item in 1966) are are normally quite rare (especially on a GT in my experience). It would be reasonable to expect that a code of B or BS should be on the buck tag for a back up light equipped car.
Regards,
Ron
-
One other thing I found interesting about this car was the style of hood bumpers used (see image below). For car bucked on F12 (which is June 12, 1965), I would have expected to see the later style domed hood bumper without the recessed screw.
In addition - before someone comments on the buck tag date code - the buck tags do not follow the same date code at as the door tag. The second year of production date codes were not used on the buck tag. So this car would have a door date code of "T" for the month of June however the buck tag would use the date code "F".
Regards,
Ron
-
I doubt those hood bumpers are original, they are the earlier squared top. Although, I have seen the open style used up through mid-April on Metuchen cars.
That is correct about buck tag date codes.
-
I doubt those hood bumpers are original, they are the earlier squared top. Although, I have seen the open style used up through mid-April on Metuchen cars.
Right, I think the car has some questionably early parts on it that probably weren't original.
For example, it has:
Clip on window cranks, the early manual shifter bezel, square corner sill plates, early hood bumpers. It does have the early style fastback deck lid, though I guess that could be correct for a '65 model. It also has the later blower motor switch, not the one with the center position being "OFF". This one has OFF at the far left position, like a later car.
I did check behind the dash, and the car has the correct half moon cutout for the GT-style speedometer. The cutout was factory--it was very neatly done, just like the 1966 style dashes I've seen, with a small lip around the cutout. The instrument cluster also had the correct '65 ammeter loop wiring harness. I couldn't see where the dash harness had ever been out of the car. I also checked and the taillights come on when the fog lights are turned on. Finally, I looked under the rear seat, and the reinforcement plates are there for the dual exhaust.
At this point, I still think the car has some features that came from another/earlier car, but there's no doubt in my mind that the car left the factory as a GT.
-
Some more pictures:
Reinforcement plates under back seat:
(http://i.imgur.com/zuL2PTCl.jpg)
Square sill plates:
(http://i.imgur.com/6MghDXcl.jpg)
Early style shifter bezel:
(http://i.imgur.com/BHKBcU2l.jpg)
Dash cutout for GT speedometer:
(http://i.imgur.com/6DG6vFCl.jpg)
Wiring w/loop for ammeter:
(http://i.imgur.com/On4F3h9l.jpg)
-
Hi Midlife,
Thanks for the reply. Any chance of a clearer shot of your buck tag? Bit hard to read this one.
Regards and thanks,
Daniel.
-
Nope...this is the biggest version I have. It was scanned from an actual photo, taken before digital cameras.