By on March 3, 2011


While I prefer daily-driven survivors for this series, it’s impossible to resist photographing a flawless 1960s machine making a rare street appearance in my neighborhood. This 289/4-speed ’67 fastback spends most of its life garaged, but the weather in Denver this week has been so nice that the car’s owner must have felt compelled to give it some fresh air.

I’ve never been much of a Mustang fan (I prefer the Fairlane-based Fords and Mercuries of the era), but I still think this is the best-looking Mustang Ford ever made. It’s great to see one with the factory wheels and no slapper bars on the leaf springs.

Since I’ve gone ahead and built a stereo digital camera to shoot 3D stuff for Cars In Depth, I figured I’d shoot the Mustang with my new twin-camera rig. The red paint on this car really messes with the view using red/cyan anaglyph glasses, so here’s the black-and-white version. More stereo shots in the gallery below.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

31 Comments on “Down On The Mile High Street: 1967 Ford Mustang Fastback...”


  • avatar
    Educator(of teachers)Dan

    Very nice.  My father has a 1967 Mustang convertible with 289 and “cruise-o-matic” transmission.  His “if I won the lottery” fantasy has always been to restore the convertible to factory specs and then buy a 1967 Mustang fastback to modify.  I think he’s one of those people who always liked the fastback better too.  He only ended up with the convertible because his father-in-law passed away suddenly (in 1978) and my dad bought it from the estate. 

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Nice photos.  However, my preference was for a white ’66 GT fastback that my neighbor up the street owned.  I preferred the less exaggerated front and rear of the 65-66 models to this hone.  The GT had a higher performance version of the great 289 engine, little diffuser tips at the end of the exhaust pipes and a really nice rippling exhaust sound.  Not a deep breather like the bigger bock V-8s, but a nice “sporty” exhaust.
    That was a really pretty car, that I always wanted to drive.  My high school girlfriend had a ’67 convertible, but with the slushbox.

    • 0 avatar
      west-coaster

      Actually, you could still get the solid-lifter 289 (“K-code”) in ’67, but there were few takers compared to the newly available 390.

      And one other note: The GT package had nothing to do with the engine, aside from a minimum of a four-barrel 289 in ’65-67. The K-code engine could be ordered for a non-GT, and as such you’d have ended up with a bit of a sleeper.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Yeah my Dad’s convertible is a 4brl 289 (non-K) engine and it’s a “base” model.  My mom’s cousin was the one who purchased it new and he basically went to the Ford dealer and optioned up a base model till he had what he wanted.  The poor guy then got drafted and never came back from Vietnam.

    • 0 avatar
      william442

      If memory serves me, the K-Code 289 was not available with a limited slip (Equa-Lock) which made it pretty useless on the street. None were as quick as my L-76.

    • 0 avatar
      Zackman

      “The poor guy then got drafted and never came back from Vietnam.’

      Too much of that went on back then, I’m afraid. I was extremely fortunate to be in the Air Force, stationed in northern California my entire four years, living the “American Grafitti” life. I was in the minority to enjoy those blessings. I still feel deeply for all those who lost loved ones. I’ll stop there.

  • avatar
    dswilly

    I have always wanted a ’67 GT fastback with the 390 even though that big block was a pig, something about the combination is wrong but seems right.

  • avatar
    Mark MacInnis

    The 390 equipped cars were very nose-heavy, which really affected the handling on this Falcon-derived platform….the 289′s were much more balanced cars.  Not that the from-the-factory ‘Stangs were ever great handling cars…but the 390 cars were so prone to understeer as to be hard to push to the limit….

    Not that I would kick this redhead outta my garage for eating crackers….

    • 0 avatar
      skor

      The handling on the 390 wasn’t great, but neither was the performance….the 390 was never a performance engine, it was designed to power the family sleds and station wagons of the day.

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      it was designed to power the family sleds and station wagons of the day.
       
      So torque down low, runs out of breath on the top end?  Although you made me recall a line from one of Elemore Leonard’s novels in which the main character is a PI living and working in late 1960s Detroit.  His landlady loans him her son’s Pontiac GTO (the kid is off in the army) and keeps on raving about what a “hot rodder” her son is.  The PI thinks to himself… “Yeah?  Then why did he order the family car four barrel carb instead of the tri-power setup?”

    • 0 avatar
      skor

      Yup, wasn’t much you could do with them either, modification wise.  The 428 engine that eventually found it’s way into the Mustang was a much better performance big block.

    • 0 avatar
      geozinger

      I had a 390 powered 69 Fairlane in 1980-81, it did pretty OK keeping up with the other musclecars of the times. it definitely wasn’t a high revving machine, but the boat loads of torque off the line sure made up for a lot of other sins.
       
      Still nowhere near as quick or fast as my 72 442, though…

    • 0 avatar

      The FE-series engine was also wide enough to make plug changes a job for Plastic Man. Nearly every contemporary review of a 390- or 428-powered Mustang complained about that point.

    • 0 avatar

      I knew someone with a Ford XL, ~1969. That was the two door coupe version of the Galaxie. It had a 390 four barrel and it wasn’t slow.

      Dan, about the Elmore Leonard quote. Years ago when I was still married, my ex and my mom were commiserating about my “expensive bike shoes and pedals”. Since my shoes and pedals were bought on clearance from Nashbar or Performance, I was a bit indignant. I also happened to have a Diadora catalog handy so I got it, opened it up to a $500 carbon fiber pedal/shoe setup and said, “Now those are expensive bike shoes!”

      Let me ask you a question. What do you do when you’re talking to someone and they tell you something that you know is BS about a car or cars in general? Not quite fish carburetor territory, but something that you know is factually or historically wrong.For example, I had a friend who insisted that Porsches had “one to one” steering. Do you correct them, risking an argument, or do you just nod and smile?

    • 0 avatar
      Educator(of teachers)Dan

      Do you correct them, risking an argument, or do you just nod and smile?

      I always try to answer this one question; In the grand scheme of things does it matter?  Is this BSing over beers and cigars or Trivial Pursuit? 

  • avatar
    skor

    Even by today’s standards that car is beautiful, it certainly doesn’t seem like a 45 year old design.  It’s easy to understand why these cars caused the sensation that they did when they appeared on the auto scene back in the mid 1960′s.

  • avatar
    MarcKyle64

    What would be truly awesome would be to take the engine and computer and associated bits out of a wrecked 2011 Mustang GT and transplant them to one of these.  It would be the best of both worlds to me – that beautiful stylish body and the power and responsiveness of one of today’s great drivetrains.  I’d be sure to update the front drum brakes, too.  Heck, even the 300 hp V-6 would be terrific.  Imagine getting 30 mpg from a ’67 Mustang while having enough power to take on and beat a stock ’67 390 GT.

    • 0 avatar
      skor

      I believe that front disc was optional on the 67′s.  I’ve kicked around the idea of installing a Ford Oz overhead cam turbo straight 6 into one of these cars.  It would be just like a 3 series BMW except it would be beautiful.

  • avatar
    anchke

    Ah! Exhibit A for my styling case. Here is a Mustang that is far better looking than anything done since. If they still made ‘em, i’d write a check.  But noooo, the marketeers insist that designs have to be “freshened” annually, which is an invitation to absurdity that, like other forms of absurdity, isn’t plainly apparent to the people involved who, instead, develop a specialized jargon to defend their misguided efforts. Really, I ask you, look at this car and describe what areas need improvement. 

    • 0 avatar
      skor

      “If they still made ‘em, i’d write a check.”
       
      They can’t make ‘em, even if there was a demand and they wanted to.  That car would never be able to meet modern crash standards.  You do realize that the top of the gas tank in that car IS the trunk floor?  To make such a thing meet modern safety standards, it would need to expand on the outside, shrink on the inside, or both.  It would also need to gain a ton of weight.  It was nice when it happened, but it ain’t coming back for an encore.

  • avatar
    rocketrodeo

    Well, I did have a ’67 390 GT fastback–bought after I passed on a car identical to the one in Murilee’s pics–and what posters above say is true. It was an evil-handling pig. Fast, lots of attitude, lovely big block sounds, but even with the standard-for-GT disc brakes the engine constantly wrote checks that the suspension and brakes couldn’t cash. I lived in the western North Carolina mountains at the time and a car that couldn’t be driven smoothly in the twisties was useless to me. I sold it in 1985 for about $6500, not bad money at the time for a driver-quality car with a little rust here and there.  Really, the only reason I regret selling it is that I could put a kid through college on what it would be worth today. Between Bullitt and Gone In 60 Seconds, the craze those movies created for this body style completely absorbed the supply of both restomoddable and collector quality cars.
     
    I still think that it’s the most beautiful, purposeful Mustang style ever. If I ever got the itch to do one again, Dynacorn makes completely accurate bodyshells for about 15 grand and that would be a sane place to start, given that rusty wrecked hulks have been going for five figures.

  • avatar
    Jerry Sutherland

    The classic era for Mustang-here’s an example of another stock 67-his biggest problem was a case of bad gas.
    http://www.mystarcollectorcar.com/2-features/stories/411-67-mustang-gta-fastbacka-bad-case-of-gas-mars-car-show-weekend.html

  • avatar
    cdotson

    While the 67 fastback is a fine looking Mustang, the best looking Mustang ever made IMHO is the 1969 fastback with the “intakes” at the top leading edge of the rear flanks.  Preferably in Boss 302 guise with matte-black spoiler and shaker hood, although I vividly remember literally stumbling upon an orange (without black accents) fastback with 17″ Torque-thrust II-D wheels and a disc brake conversion while hanging out at a friend’s house party back in college.  The looks of the 67 didn’t need improving upon, but the 69 delivered.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    William442, aren’t you the guy that claimed to race at tracks that never existed?

  • avatar
    william442

    Howland, Akron, and Salem, (Ohio) did exist. I think the concrete pad for Howland is still there. After about 100 feet it became dirt. One lane was an automatic win The only ones I’ve seen in the last 20 years are Bradenton, and Gainesville, and they are both still there. I took a 1954 Ford Sunliner with automatic, to Akron; never went back.

  • avatar
    geozinger

    Salem is Quaker City, and it’s still there. Akron, I’ don’t know for sure if there are any left in Akron. When I lived over that way, we went to Norwalk (early 1980′s). The Howland strip is the one that puzzles me as I’m from Brookfield Township, which is right down the road. I’m 48 and can’t remember a dragstrip in Howland at all.

    EDIT: I must remember, Google is my friend. I found the Howland dragstrip, also called Meander or Youngstown Drag City or Ohio Drag City.

    • 0 avatar
      william442

      Geo: There are pictures of Howland at standard 1320.com. I often passed it on my way to Packard. Quaker City still operates, and has a very good website. Akron is supposedly having a reunion this summer. I am 72 which may have something to do with your memory of “Howling at Howland”, the article in a very old Hotrod.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    William, I am a lifelong resident of Akron, and we never had a drag strip. There is no reunion here because there is no drag strip here, and there never was.  Goezinger, Salem is dragway 42.

    • 0 avatar
      william442

      Please go to JalopyJournal.com  and others. They even discuss the curve at the end. West Salem is Dragway 42. Salem, Quaker City, is in eastern Ohio. Or just google Akron Dragstrip.

  • avatar
    Moparman426W

    Yes I know all about Dragway 42, I hunt in Salem. It is all farm land, the drag strip is the only thing they have there. No drag strip here in Akron though.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India