Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
TuxStang ◊ 2006-03-07 13:52	Car is a 64 1/2 260ci automatic transmission VIN #5F08F100145 DSO89 Was a showroom car in Belgium (look at its license plates) then used in this movie and stayed in France where it's still today, unrestored but running (and continue to be in recent video clips and series).
DAF555 ◊ 2006-07-17 18:36	Aziz wrote En fait,c'est un véhicule dit "de pré-série". It´s of very early production, the VIN-code tells us that it´s number 145 from the Dearborn plant, that it´s a Convertible with the 260ci V8. Just as TuxStang told us earlier, and the first digit, 5, makes it to modelyear 1965 even if it´s built as early as spring 1964. But usually these early cars are referred to as 64½. DSO 89 is a code for the district that ordered it, 89 is transportation services. Whatever that is?. Export codes are 90-99 so it was originally delivered in the US.
Skid ◊ 2009-03-06 16:59	Allegedly this was the first Ford Mustang ever used in any film. It was also supposedly a pre-production convertible, completed on March 9, 1964. Car was listed on EBAY in February of this year...still looks great, with plenty of documentation and 68,226 miles on it. Unfortunately, the seller was obviously hitting the crack pipe, as his starting bid was US $4,500,000. Not surprisingly, the car got no bids at all. Link to the Ebay page, which has not expired as of the creation of this post: Link to "cgi.ebay.com" -- Last edit: 2009-03-06 17:05:10
antp ◊ 2009-03-06 19:13	Archived here: /archives/Ford_Mustang_Gendarme_StTropez.pdf
130rapid ◊ 2010-10-19 21:08	Shall we change the year of producton to 1964? Yes, there is the model year rule but here we know exact date of birth: 9th March 1964. It's pre-production car.
Commander 57 ◊ 2010-10-19 22:47	But it's still officially a 1965 model, true from the very first vehicle to cross the assembly line. The "1964" and "1964 1/2" designations were never used by Ford Motor Co, just added by the motoring press years later to differentiate early '65's from later ones.
130rapid ◊ 2010-10-20 11:16	I think the exact production date should have priority with this sample. We haven't such precise knowledge many times.
Commander 57 ◊ 2010-10-20 15:54	But the production date is not relevant. We list strictly by model year here. -- Last edit: 2010-10-20 15:57:20
dsl ◊ 2010-10-20 16:11	I would have thought my is fine as a general principle unless we have a specific date as in this case and can be more accurate. The other point here is when during the calendar year a my starts - to me August onwards seems sensible - anything earlier unconvincing (and we have lots of cases where a May or June introduction is accepted as not going into the following my). It is bizarre in real terms to call this March 64 production, apparently a pre-launch prototype, a 1965 car.
Commander 57 ◊ 2010-10-20 16:45	But it was registered and VIN-coded (legally) as a 1965. There is simply no such thing as a "1964 Mustang". Adopting your idea would mean a revision of many of the car listings here and would confuse researchers. I can understand where you are coming from but I think it can simply be handled by a parenthetical comment in appropriate cases.
dsl ◊ 2010-10-20 17:52	I'm not a Mustang expert, so I'm treading cautiously outside my envelope, but to me it seems instead that there is no such thing in reality as a 1965 my Mustang (apart from the Sept 64 introduction of the Fastback). The VIN number is an interesting contradiction, but no more than a piece of protocol. There may be a different set of conventions between US and Europe, as we also have lots of European spring/summer introductions on the dbase which do not go into the following model year; we also for UK have several precisely dateable registrations from DVLA records late within a calendar year which stay as are without falling into the my-conquers-all rule. So there are two entrenched systems already. Perhaps the only overall response is to put the lid back on the bottle and keep the two conventions in parallel - what works best in terms of precision for US is not the same as Europe and vice versa. Finally for this car, the most accurate compromise might be to call it a 1964 Pre-production or Pre-launch car which is totally true, adds in the individual information we have here, and avoids the other differences in practice. As that exhausts my "wisdom" on the subject, I'll shut up now.
antp ◊ 2010-10-20 18:03	Just for the fun I shall count the number of Mustang page on which this was discussed... I wonder if it is more than 64
Commander 57 ◊ 2010-10-20 18:08	No, that's fine. My area of expertise is US and not Europe. Here, we have a specifically coded VIN number on all cars with the 10th character being the one which tells the model year. This system was standardized for the 1981 model year. Before then, each manufacturer used their own system but there was still a model year serial number code. The last US car I can think of at the moment which did not follow a strict model year was the "23rd Series" (mid-'49 to 1950) Packard but even they had to be registered as a particular model year when sold.
Sunbar ◊ 2010-10-20 19:20	Commander 57 wrote But it was registered and VIN-coded (legally) as a 1965. There is simply no such thing as a "1964 Mustang". Before the mid-1980s the vehicle manufacturer could use whatever definition they preffered for Model Year. The VIN code did not specify how Model Year was to be applied, so each manufacturer was free to use their own system. Currently and after the mid-1980s, the Model Year is definded as "the annual production period of a manufacturer, as decided by the administrator of the specific regulation, that includes January 1st. of that calendar year". So the Model Year could start anytime from January 2nd. of the preceeding calender year, to January 1st. of the same calender year. As we know most manufacturers use August-September as the start but they are not required to and can vary it as early as January 2nd of the preceeding year.
Commander 57 ◊ 2010-10-20 19:37	The standardizartion of model year VIN codes was definitely in place by 1981, not the mid-80's. For many years before then, the companies could decide what model year to apply but they used a dependable year code in their serial numbers so dealers and purchasers could determine the model year. For instance, for the 1975 model year, Ford Motor Co. and AMC cars had a "5" in the 2nd position of the VIN while GM and Chrysler Motors cars had it in the 6th position, they but the all used a "5".
Sunbar ◊ 2010-10-20 19:59	You're correct Commander 57, the standardisation of model year VIN codes took effect from 1981. I could only remember it was sometime before the mid-1980s and not the exact date.
130rapid ◊ 2010-10-20 21:44	dsl wrote We also for UK have several precisely dateable registrations from DVLA records late within a calendar year which stay as are without falling into the my-conquers-all rule. So there are two entrenched systems already. I went same way of thinking, however... Commander57 wrote Before then, each manufacturer used their own system but there was still a model year serial number code. The last US car I can think of at the moment which did not follow a strict model year was the "23rd Series" (mid-'49 to 1950) Packard but even they had to be registered as a particular model year when sold. ...it's enough explanation for me.
cudak888 ◊ 2012-11-10 04:24	If the earliest pre-production cars had left-mounted antennas, the Goldfinger car is earlier than this one - regardless of Ford VIN assignment. -Kurt
qualibre ◊ 2013-01-29 17:48	to commander 57 (2010-10-20) : " But the production date is not relevant. We list strictly by model year here. " sorry but the mustang in goldfinger is dated from 1964, the gendarme of st tropez was on screen on 9 september 1964. golfinger on 17 september 1964. so if you write 1964 on the goldfinger mustang you have to put 1964 on the gendarme de st tropez mustang. if you maintain the "1965" for the gendarme de st tropez mustang, you have to change the 1964 goldfinger mustang in 1965. thanks for information : the model year of 1964 for mustang doesn't exist. the production started on 4/1964 directly with the 1965 year model. but few cars are normally 1964 year model like the one in the gendarme. -- Last edit: 2013-11-20 15:33:23
sthor ◊ 2014-01-10 16:59	Only one pre production Mustang was realest to the public and it had the VIN 5F08F100001 (1965), so this one is a 1965. 1965 Mustangs were produced from March 1964 to September 1965. From wikipedia: "Since it was introduced five months before the normal start of the 1965 production year and manufactured alongside 1964 Ford Falcons and 1964 Mercury Comets, the earliest Mustangs are widely referred to as the 1964½ model.[17] A more accurate description is the "early 1965" model because it underwent significant changes at the beginning of the regular model year. All the early cars, however, were marketed by Ford as 1965 models." Question: Was there a 1964 model year Ford Mustang? Answer: Although many people refer to the 1965 early-production units as the Ford Mustang 1964 1/2, the first official model year of the Mustang was 1965, not 1964. http://mustangs.about.com/od/faq/f/faq_64_mustang.htm -- Last edit: 2014-01-10 17:09:34
Commander 57 ◊ 2014-03-02 02:42	And we always use official model years on this site. I vote the 3 cars listed here as 1964's be changed to 1965 with a note in the text that they are early '65's.
dsl ◊ 2014-03-02 04:38	I vote against. The everything-has-to-be-65 situation is bad enough, but these three cars have tangible detail differences so deserve to be separated out and not lost within the currently 22 pages of 65 Mustangs. Text notes won't enable them to be found. But there could be a compromise - label this trio as 1965 Mustang Pre-production in model name (not extra info) and they would still be clearly identifiable for what they actually are, both individually and - equally important - would list together instead of being scattered. And while we're on the subject, this should also be applied to the trickle of "2015" Mustangs which is beginning to emerge - production is still several months away so these are not normal examples and may well have differences from the eventual release.
Commander 57 ◊ 2014-03-02 04:51	While I agree that leaving them listed as 1964's would "enable them to be found" more easily, it violates the rules set at IMCDB and adhered to for every other car listed. We have always used official model years on this site and these cars are all officially 1965 models per their serial number codes. Other opinions?
dsl ◊ 2014-03-02 14:05	PS Going back to the wider 64 vs 65 debate for a moment, I've just spotted ^ from wiki: sthor wrote "... the earliest Mustangs are widely referred to as the 1964½ model. A more accurate description is the "early 1965" model because it underwent significant changes at the beginning of the regular model year.... " By lumping the 1964½ cars in with the true 1965 series you lose any ability to separate the 22 pages of entries into groups before and after the "significant changes", so we lose a useful attribute from imcdb's potential as a research tool. And we have one example at least of Ford themselves marketing an early one as a 64 car - /vehicle_663772-Ford-Mustang-1964.html . So I think we are entitled to interpret the diVINe message for greater benefit, not slavishly follow its flawed direction.
Commander 57 ◊ 2014-03-02 17:05	But I don't think listing an incorrect and non existant model year is the best way to avoid "loosing" early '65's in with the later models. Usng my own knowledge of Studebakers, the early 1955 sedans had curved windshields then later in the year, they introduced the "Ultra Vista" models with the wrap-around windshields. But they were all 1955's. There are other examples of running changes within model years. We need a better way of finding early/late season cars than listing by incorrect model year. Dsl and I have been going back and forth for some time now. Anyone else have a perspective?
antp ◊ 2014-03-03 18:20	There are possibly already several early '65 listed as 1965... If they make changes between two cars of the same model name and model year, why should we list them with different name or year? -- Last edit: 2014-03-03 18:21:00
Commander 57 ◊ 2014-03-03 18:28	That's how I feel about it.
tore-40 ◊ 2014-03-03 19:07	antp wrote There are possibly already several early '65 listed as 1965... If they make changes between two cars of the same model name and model year, why should we list them with different name or year? It is de facto a 1965 by the VIN. This is established by the '5'. Even today the modelyear differs quite heavily - the US 2015 models are arriving now and nobody questions their model year. For 1955, there was a change in the VW system so 1955 models are produced just over half a year - from 01/55 to 07/55. Take the Australian market - the new model year was (is?) mostly introduced well into the corresponding calendar year. So IMHO this could be called a 1964 1/2 - and often is - but it is a 1965 model year by definition.
dsl ◊ 2014-03-03 19:20	antp wrote .... why should we list them with different name or year? Because lumping them together without trying to separate them reduces their information/research value. imcdb's asset is the attempts we make for precision and accuracy. Just because Ford played silly buggers with an obscure bureaucratic bit of paperwork (the consequences of which they seem to have happily ignored for marketing early Mustangs to the general public) is not an alibi for us to avoid creating a tightly focused analysis to the best of our ability. Everything-has-to-be-65 is not maximising the information value of our early Mustangs. But the big discussion on the full sample has bogged down again without a useful outcome. Commander 57 asked what we do about these 3 pre-production cars (and wasn't there a 4th some months back from the early 64 World Trade Fair launch event?? I've looked but didn't spot it). I think current solution as 1964 with Pre-production in extra info is the most appropriate, but suggested a compromise of 1965 with model name as Mustang Pre-production. Will that keep all sides happy?? And as a further question, do we do something similar (for much the same reasons) for all the "2015" appearances ahead of production starting??
tore-40 ◊ 2014-03-03 19:36	Well it is not a special case for 2015 models, but I think you got my point. Your 1965 pre-production solution would be edible.
Commander 57 ◊ 2014-03-03 21:48	And palatable. No objection. -- Last edit: 2014-03-03 21:49:12
dsl ◊ 2014-03-04 00:34
qualibre ◊ 2014-05-23 12:18	the exact and real year model of this car is 1964 : why ? it is simple, it was built in 04/1964 during the real and official 1964 year model. but as 04/1964 is very closed to 07/1964 (july is the change of year model), ford decide to put directly 5 in the vin. this decision was not ok with the rules of year model, but it was better for Ford. it is only for commercial purpose that ford never used on the vin mustang the 4 but directly put the 5. the other cars built by ford in 4/1964 used the 4 in the vin. What is the most important, the real year model of the car or a "commercial year model by Ford decision" ? this is the real question ! but, after all, I agree of 1965 Ford Mustang Pre Production because it is the best way for this site.

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1965 Ford Mustang Pre-production 260

1965 Ford Mustang Pre-production in Le gendarme de Saint-Tropez, Movie, 1964

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising