Ford Forums is the premier Ford Forum on the internet. We discuss all Ford models on the forum. Registered Users do not see the above ads. Please Register - It's Free!
eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop around
> for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an
> elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you
> drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by
> shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom will
> be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...
At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was
very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at
least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the
insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no
sense to me.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4251302C.E46CF798@nospam.com...
>
>
> eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop around
>> for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an
>> elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you
>> drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by
>> shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom will
>> be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...
>
> At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was
> very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at
> least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the
> insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no
> sense to me.
The dudes who drive Mustangs probably drive less safely than those who drive
Thunderbirds.
C. E. White wrote:
>
>
> At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was
> very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at
> least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the
> insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no
> sense to me.
>
> Ed
In 1986 I bought a new Escort EXP,a cute, fun car. My insurance company wanted to
charge me nearly triple the rate I was paying on my old car, a 1978 Mustang II, 4cyl.
Their assertion was that it qualified as a sports car because it was a 2 seater with
a stick shift!! Granted, I was looking for more coverage as I only carried liability
and a couple of add ons on the old car, but that was way out of line. I dropped State
Farm faster than a cheating girlfriend.
Mislabeled by whom? At introduction in April 1964, Ford called
its new car the 1964 1/2 Mustang but they did wear 1965 VINs.
My PA title lists my first year Mustang as a 1964, not a 1965, as
does NADA. The Mustang was a derivative of the Falcon. The 200
CID six was first used in the 1962 Falcon and the 260 V8 was
first used in the 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint and convertible that
were introduced in April of that year. The Shelby Mustang came
several years later.
I was working at Ford in those days, the first high performance
Mustang we built was the 1966 T5 fastback.
R Code with the 427, ONLY 2 WERE MANUFACTURED and exported to
West Germany I know one was destroyed but the other may still
exist. ;)
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> DustyRhoades@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > The original Mustang came with a 200 CID straight 6 and two V8s.
> > I own a 1964 Mustang Convertible, that I bought new, with the 225
> > HP 289 V8. There was also a 271 HP 289 V8. My car cost me
> > around $2,800 new, today it is worth around $48,000. ;)
>
> Early 1965 Mustangs (the somewhat mislabled 64 1/2) got the
> 170 cid six cylinder instead of the 200. And early V-8s were
> 260's (164 horsepower?). Later they added the 200 six and
> 289 V-8s in two different flavors from Ford, and Shelby had
> one with even more power.
>
> Ed
Jeff wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:4251302C.E46CF798@nospam.com...
> >
> >
> > eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >> The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop around
> >> for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an
> >> elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you
> >> drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by
> >> shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom will
> >> be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...
> >
> > At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was
> > very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at
> > least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the
> > insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no
> > sense to me.
>
> The dudes who drive Mustangs probably drive less safely than those who drive
> Thunderbirds.
>
> And people are more apt to steal mustangs.
>
> Both raise insurance rates.
I am sure you are correct. However, both cars were driven by
the same person and parked in the same low risk area. It
seems to me the insurance company should take this into
consideration.
Old Mustangs (was: 2005 mustang convertible, v6 or v8 ?)
MikeHunt2@mailcity.com wrote:
>
> Mislabeled by whom? At introduction in April 1964, Ford called
> its new car the 1964 1/2 Mustang but they did wear 1965 VINs.
> My PA title lists my first year Mustang as a 1964, not a 1965, as
> does NADA. The Mustang was a derivative of the Falcon. The 200
> CID six was first used in the 1962 Falcon and the 260 V8 was
> first used in the 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint and convertible that
> were introduced in April of that year.
All true, but everything I read says the early Mustangs (64
1/2 or early 65 whcih ever you prefer) used the 170 cid six
and not the 200 cid six. See http://www.fordclassics.com/mustangspecs.html . I did say
"somewhat" mislabeled in reference to 64 and 1/2. Mustang
"experts" argue this point all the time. As I recall (I was
only 11), Ford did refer to the Mustang as a 1965 Model.
Since the VIN indicated that it was a 1965 model, I say it
was a 1965 Model.
> The Shelby Mustang came several years later.
> I was working at Ford in those days, the first high
> performance Mustang we built was the 1966 T5 fastback.
The Shelby version did not appear "several" years later. The
GT350 was introduced in Janruary of 1965....I think that
qualifies as 8 Months later, not several years.
> R Code with the 427, ONLY 2 WERE MANUFACTURED and exported to
> West Germany I know one was destroyed but the other may still
> exist. ;)
"If Kevin Marti has all the facts from Ford, then no W-Code
427 Mustangs were built. According to his new book, Mustang
by the Numbers 1967-1973 [copyright 1999 Kevin Marti, El
Mirage, AZ (623) 935-2558], which takes information from
Ford’s computer archives, the W-Code did not exist—at least
where the Mustang is concerned. There is, however, a
caveat—the ’72 options list does not show the rear deck
spoiler as an option, even though it was shown in 1971 and
1973. Marti even backs up the what-if theory: “Ford might
have built them in such small numbers that they never showed
up as a Code, kind of like the ’67 Shelbys that had an S
engine code (390) and were, in fact, packing the 428.” So,
either they are or they aren’t, but so far we still have no
graphic proof one way or the other."
I do think a big block would have been a tght fit in a 1965
engine compartment. I've never seen any listing for "R" Code
Mustangs prior to 1968. And then the "R" code was for the
428, not the 427. I suppose with a lot of hammering and
special parts a 427 could have been shoehorned into a 1965
Mustang, but I am not sure I'd call that "manufactured."
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42514BF6.ADC5CA1C@nospam.com...
>
>
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:4251302C.E46CF798@nospam.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > eastwardbound2003@yahoo.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The only way you will find out about your premium is if you shop
>> >> around
>> >> for an insurer. If you have a good driving record and you are an
>> >> elderly fellow than your premium should be low regaurdless of what you
>> >> drive. But down't quote me on this, the only way to find out is by
>> >> shopping around for the right car insurance company. Many of whom
>> >> will
>> >> be scum, the trick is to find out who's honest and who aint...
>> >
>> > At least for me, the insurance on my 2001 Mustang GT was
>> > very high. I am 52 years old and haven't had a ticket in at
>> > least 10 years. What really surpriced me is that the
>> > insurance on my 2004 Thunderbird was much lower. Makes no
>> > sense to me.
>>
>> The dudes who drive Mustangs probably drive less safely than those who
>> drive
>> Thunderbirds.
>>
>> And people are more apt to steal mustangs.
>>
>> Both raise insurance rates.
>
> I am sure you are correct. However, both cars were driven by
> the same person and parked in the same low risk area. It
> seems to me the insurance company should take this into
> consideration.
I think they look at the crash rates, cost of repairs, etc., for the car and
use this as a base rate. They don't look at the characteristics, driving
record, etc., of the person driving the car because they can make more money
if they don't. Plus, the main driver is not the only driver of the car.
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in part:
>I am sure you are correct. However, both cars were driven by
>the same person and parked in the same low risk area. It
>seems to me the insurance company should take this into
>consideration.
....They might just raise the rates on your T-bird, seeing as you
drive a Mustang. :-)
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Jim Chinnis wrote:
>
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote in part:
>
> >I am sure you are correct. However, both cars were driven by
> >the same person and parked in the same low risk area. It
> >seems to me the insurance company should take this into
> >consideration.
>
> ...They might just raise the rates on your T-bird, seeing as you
> drive a Mustang. :-)
Not any more. My left knee started giving up on me, so the
Mustang (with a 5 Speed Manual) had to go.
Re: Old Mustangs (was: 2005 mustang convertible, v6 or v8 ?)
That is apples and pears. Ford could not call the '63 1/2 Falcon
and the '64 1/4 Mustang '64s or '65s. Back then new model year
vehicles were introduced in September of the prior year. It is
only recently that franchise laws were changed to allow
manufactures to introduce new models prior to four month before
the beginning of the calendar year. The larger 6 and V8 engines
were a free standing options on both the regular Falcons and the
Mustang. Although the Sprint had the 260 CID V8 one could order
a 289 V8 in the Sprint, or a 200 CID 6 or a 260 in the Falcon
Futura.
Ford built those two, 'R' Code, race ready cars with the 427,
that is why they were 'manufactured by Ford.' The first Shelbys
were regular Mustangs that were modified by Carol Shelby. The
purpose of the conversion was an effort to see if they could
build a car that could run with the Corvette, but ford only
allowed him to spend $1,500. He modified the body, interior,
suspension and engines. By the way they were built on the same
chassis and sold by select Ford dealers, not Shelby. It was
later that Ford manufactured generic Shelbys, but not the 350 or
500 GTs.
mike hunt
"C. E. White" wrote:
>
> MikeHunt2@mailcity.com wrote:
> >
> > Mislabeled by whom? At introduction in April 1964, Ford called
> > its new car the 1964 1/2 Mustang but they did wear 1965 VINs.
> > My PA title lists my first year Mustang as a 1964, not a 1965, as
> > does NADA. The Mustang was a derivative of the Falcon. The 200
> > CID six was first used in the 1962 Falcon and the 260 V8 was
> > first used in the 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint and convertible that
> > were introduced in April of that year.
>
> All true, but everything I read says the early Mustangs (64
> 1/2 or early 65 whcih ever you prefer) used the 170 cid six
> and not the 200 cid six. See
> http://www.fordclassics.com/mustangspecs.html . I did say
> "somewhat" mislabeled in reference to 64 and 1/2. Mustang
> "experts" argue this point all the time. As I recall (I was
> only 11), Ford did refer to the Mustang as a 1965 Model.
> Since the VIN indicated that it was a 1965 model, I say it
> was a 1965 Model.
>
> > The Shelby Mustang came several years later.
> > I was working at Ford in those days, the first high
> > performance Mustang we built was the 1966 T5 fastback.
>
> The Shelby version did not appear "several" years later. The
> GT350 was introduced in Janruary of 1965....I think that
> qualifies as 8 Months later, not several years.
>
> > R Code with the 427, ONLY 2 WERE MANUFACTURED and exported to
> > West Germany I know one was destroyed but the other may still
> > exist. ;)
>
> I don't know about the 427 Mustangs.
> http://www.mustangmonthly.com/thehistoryof/5866/ says the
> following on the subject:
>
> "Urban legend: 427 Mystery Solved?!
>
> "If Kevin Marti has all the facts from Ford, then no W-Code
> 427 Mustangs were built. According to his new book, Mustang
> by the Numbers 1967-1973 [copyright 1999 Kevin Marti, El
> Mirage, AZ (623) 935-2558], which takes information from
> Ford’s computer archives, the W-Code did not exist—at least
> where the Mustang is concerned. There is, however, a
> caveat—the ’72 options list does not show the rear deck
> spoiler as an option, even though it was shown in 1971 and
> 1973. Marti even backs up the what-if theory: “Ford might
> have built them in such small numbers that they never showed
> up as a Code, kind of like the ’67 Shelbys that had an S
> engine code (390) and were, in fact, packing the 428.” So,
> either they are or they aren’t, but so far we still have no
> graphic proof one way or the other."
>
> Other 427 References:
>
> http://www.mustangmonthly.com/techar...de/index6.html
> http://www.fordclassics.com/mustangspecs.html does show the
> 427 as an option in 1968.
> http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/mustang_vin.htm
> http://www.geocities.com/~mustangs68/engcode.html
>
> I do think a big block would have been a tght fit in a 1965
> engine compartment. I've never seen any listing for "R" Code
> Mustangs prior to 1968. And then the "R" code was for the
> 428, not the 427. I suppose with a lot of hammering and
> special parts a 427 could have been shoehorned into a 1965
> Mustang, but I am not sure I'd call that "manufactured."
>
> Ed
Linear Mode
