300 mile 1971 Mustang Conv on eBay

7173Mustangs.com

Help Support 7173Mustangs.com:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'd look up the number of Grabber Blue convertibles produced with base and deluxe all-vinyl interiors in ...By the Numbers, but I can't even be guaranteed that I'd be looking up the right exterior color...

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"and has done a lot of work on it. She mentioned carpets, upholstery, and engine work."

300 mile car needing a lot of work?

Ok, I guess so if it has been improperly stored. Back IN 1972 AND 1973 there were many speculators that bought new 1973 Mustang convertibles because they believed the 1973 Mustang convertible would be the VERY LAST Mustang convertible EVER built. (Ford said it! LOL) People put them up on jack stands, removed the tires. Some even sealed them in big bags using desiccant packets to control moisture. I don't think I could ever do that!

I knew some guys who bought a 1982 Corvette Pace Car and did the same thing. - They thought they would get rich. Car ended up sold for less than it cost new about 10 years later...

Ray

 
I agree with you Ray, why all the "work". I asked and she just said he made it perfect... not sure what that meant. She also said the car has been garage kept and never been out in the rain. Anyway, it's her car I guess she can ask what ever she wants. She is very old (80) and I can tell her memory is going and she spoke very slow and deliberate. She told me she didn't want to sell it but that they won't let her drive it. She even asked me if I thought she should keep it. She liked me because I am a "collector" and am the type person she would want it to go to. If I get a chance I'm going to go look at it just out of curiosity but not going to invest any real time in tracking this down. It was just kind of amusing.

Cheers,

John

 
I agree with you Ray, why all the "work". I asked and she just said he made it perfect... not sure what that meant. She also said the car has been garage kept and never been out in the rain. Anyway, it's her car I guess she can ask what ever she wants. She is very old (80) and I can tell her memory is going and she spoke very slow and deliberate. She told me she didn't want to sell it but that they won't let her drive it. She even asked me if I thought she should keep it. She liked me because I am a "collector" and am the type person she would want it to go to. If I get a chance I'm going to go look at it just out of curiosity but not going to invest any real time in tracking this down. It was just kind of amusing.

Cheers,

John
John,

Thanks for your time. Hopefully if you go look at it, you can get some pics. Sounds like a very interesting car. You'd think Mustang Monthly or Hemmings or another well-known magazine would be interested in doing a story about this 80 yr old woman and her very low mileage 1971 Mustang convertible. Would make for an interesting story.

Ray

 
Seller responded to me this morning. VIN is the same as the one provided to jhawk635.

Car has a "beautiful chrome bumper," which only makes it all the more confusing, as - bad Photoshop or otherwise - the bumper in the auction has the side profile of a urethane bumper, not chrome. It fits too tight against the front fender to be anything but the former, and there isn't any sign of chrome gleaming around the front fender end cap under the blue tinting either.

What's more, there is enough evidence in that photo to show that the car has the Decor Group due to the side mouldings and the argent lower body. If so, it's supposed to have the body-color front end and urethane bumper.

jhawk635 - if you can photograph this thing when you go see it, please do so. Something tells me that this photo is of ANOTHER convertible '71/72 Mustang done up at the Pena shop, and - in lieu of dragging the real car out - someone did this amateur Photoshop job as a substitute.

"Hey, if one photo will suffice, surely a photo of a similar Mustang made to look like ours will suffice too!"

Sorry lady, we don't accept stock images around here.

-Kurt

 
It just keeps getting fishier by the minute! She tells me she's in NY on a trip and the guy with the Upholstery shop isn't available. If I can see it I'll get some pics to post.

John
My end says:

I can get you some more pictures-need to contact Rudy on Monday.
Sounds quite reasonable - today is Sunday. Go drive your Mustang and forget about worrying about the weird stuff that crawls out of the hole on eBay.

We can resume the lynch mob on Monday :p

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Decent exterior restoration of a 101,945 mile 1972 convertible, complete with replacement 1973 taillights. Under the hood tells the real story - speaking of which, that's a new Gates upper radiator hose and a Chinese aluminum radiator in it.

Love the overspray on the RH hood support too.

As I had suspected from the photo - it has the Decor Group. So much for the "beautiful chrome bumper."

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wonder who came up with that 300 mile thing. The engine bay does definitely not look like the car was never driven, the odometer doesn't say 00300 either and the wear on the bezel under the trip reset button tells its own story. That button has been used many many times.

Other than that the car looks pretty cool with the decor group and that color combined with the white top.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other than that the car looks pretty cool with the decor group and that color combined with the white top.
+1 - It's one of the sharpest looking stock convertibles I've seen. All it could benefit from are some new WSW tires in place of the old white letters.

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ad says auction ended, did she find a deep-pocket sucker or did someone bring her back too earth ?

 
It ended with no bids.

now I would like to know, who came up with the Value of $65k ???

it maybe a $6500 car. with 101,XXX miles not 300!!!

its been repainted, plus all of the other work mentioned earlier, its labeled as a 1971 for sale, VIN says 1972 but it has 1973 tail lights.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Decent looking car but wildly misrepresented! Maybe the body shop just liked the look of the 73 tail lights better (yeah right) but more likely as Kurt said; they just opted for the typical repops online which are the 73 versions.

Both she (owner) and the guys selling the car must know it has been painted and the low milage claim is wrong...

They are hard pressed to get one by us! Good observations everyone.

Ray

 
It's funny how everyone mentions the tail lights...I thought the same thing but they definitely were black painted with silver trim at one time. When i looked closely at them you could see traces of the black paint in every corner. It was almost like they had blasted at the car wash repeatedly until most of it was gone...really weird.

 
It's funny how everyone mentions the tail lights...I thought the same thing but they definitely were black painted with silver trim at one time. When i looked closely at them you could see traces of the black paint in every corner. It was almost like they had blasted at the car wash repeatedly until most of it was gone...really weird.
Rear end of the car saw extensive UV exposure.

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The saga continues:

Hello,The VIN that you indicate for this car is for a 1972: "2F03H106073" = (2) 1972 / (F) Dearborn / (03) Convertible / (H) 351 2V / 106073 = production number. This is not a 1971.

Mr. Cudak,
Thank you for your inquiries and comments on the Ford Mustang. My mother, Mrs. Bingham purchased the car in 1971 and it was still in wrapping paper. It is listed as a 1971 and is garaged at a classic collectibles business in San Antonio, Texas if you would like to see it. It is in immaculate condition and I would be happy to help you in any way possible with further questions. The car has been recognized as a 1971 Ford Mustang by collectors. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you would like to test drive it. Thank you,

Dear Ms. Hiller:
Though the car may have indeed been purchased in the calendar year of 1971, it was (and remains) not unusual for next years' models to be available at dealerships prior to the new calendar year. 1972 Mustangs were officially made available to the general public on September 24th, 1971. Undoubtedly then, your car must have been purchased around this time.

With exception to additional trim options and colors, there were no significant, externally visual variations between 1971 and 1972 Mustangs. However, 1972 did see the addition of a contrasting silver (or black, depending on the vehicle's color) paint option with bodyside trim - as part of the Decor Group - a feature which is present in the photo of the car.

That said, Decor Group or otherwise, federal-assigned motor vehicle VIN tags do not lie, and are coded to leave nothing to chance. 2F03H106073 is irrevocably the VIN of a 1972 Mustang Convertible, as any online Mustang VIN number decoder will indicate. In short, unless the VIN of this car is 1F03H106073, it is not a 1971.

Case in point, the first Mustangs were produced for mid-year 1964 release, and were marketed by Ford as "1964-1/2" models. However, the late development and introduction of these cars required that they meet the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards of the following year. As a result, all of the Mustangs that were built, sold, and marketed to consumers as 1964-1/2 models carried government-issued 1965 model-year VINs, beginning with the number "5" in the VIN sequence.

All collectors and concourse judges of vintage vehicles (and the Mustang Club of America) accept these government VIN numbers as the official year of any vehicle of model year 1954 to present. A simple discrepancy such as the advertised year vs. the VIN may scare away potential buyers - after all, the person willing to pay top dollar for a mint example such as yours -will- be an absolute perfectionist.

I wish you the best on your sale.
Let's see how nice - or rude - they are to accepting a courteous and well-informed correction such as this.

-Kurt

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top