Ford Fusion reverse gear

"razz" > wrote in message
...
> Actually the production mustang was unveiled at the worlds fair in new
> york in april of 64, and was available to the public that same month. All
> other mustangs previous to that were only Prototypes and were never sold
> to the public.

Never brought into production was the Mustang I, a car that made us
salivate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Mustang_I

A couple were made, and at least one of them showed up at a race track
and took some fast laps.

Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
> On Jul 13, 10:43 am, "Mike" > wrote:
> > Of course you are correct, at 83 years old and after over seventy cars, I
> > was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to as a
> > 1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is 64
> > and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
>
> So in all of those bets that you won at car shows, no one saw that the
> title was for a Falcon Sprint? They couldn't ID the VIN, given these
> were car guys that usually know their car history ****? Do you feel
> compelled now to refund all of your earnings since you were wrong the
> whole time? Were you 83 at the time, and does that explain why you
> didn't know what cars you own?


Give him a break. He said he is old and can't remember. Who knows maybe
the part he has forgotten is that he lost every single bet.

-jim


>
> > "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in ...
> >
> >
> >
> > > Mike wrote:
> > >> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
> >
> > > No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.
> >
> > >> Actually Ford introduced the Mustang in late April of 1963 and referred
> > >> to it as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
> >
> > >> I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
> > >> including taxes and fees.
> > >> The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
> >
> > >> The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford Coupe,"
> > >> as PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA titled
> > >> cars in the year they were first titled.
> >
> > >> As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there is no
> > >> 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows.
> >
> > > No you haven't.
> >
> > >> "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> >
> > >>> Dave D wrote:
> >
> > >>>> "Mike" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >>>>> I own a 1941 Continental convertible, 1963 1/2 Mustang GT convertible,
> > >>>>> 1972 Ford LTD Brougham convertible, 1971 Pinto and a 1983 Continental
> > >>>>> Mark VI Signature Sedan, as well as a 2009 Mustang GT convertible and
> > >>>>> a 2010 Lincoln MKZ. The MKZ was made in Mexico
> >
> > >>>> Very interesting Mike...How much would you take for that 63 1/2
> > >>>> Mustang? Must be very, very rare as production on the Mustang did not
> > >>>> start until March of 1964. Hmmmm!!!
> >
> > >>>> DaveD
> >
> > >>>>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >>>>>> Hal > wrote:
> >
> > >>>>>>>> To me a domestic vehicle is one that is built in north America by
> > >>>>>>>> and
> > >>>>>>>> American Corporation, using mostly parts and MATERIALS purchased
> > >>>>>>>> from
> > >>>>>>>> American corporations.
> >
> > >>>>>>> Good lucking finding a car that meets your criteria. Name one. I
> > >>>>>>> dare
> > >>>>>>> you. Hint: It isn't one of the cars you own now.
> >
> > >>>>>> A '54 Hudson would fit the bill.
> > >>>>>> --scott
> >
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
> >
> > >>> Interesting indeed. A full year early, and amazingly with the then
> > >>> fairly rare GT package. Let me guess, his 63.5 Mustang GT also has the
> > >>> original Boss 429. Naturally Mikey boy will claim a typo, LOL.
> >
> > >>> --
> > >>> Toyota MDT in MO
> >
> > > --
> > > Toyota MDT in MO- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -

No, what I meant to say was the Mustang was referred to by Ford as the 1964
1/2 Mustang but they have a 1965 VIN number.

I said 1963 in error because the new Sprint and the convertible when they
came out in April of 1963 were referred to as 1963 1/2 Falcons, as well,
because they offered the new engines that met 1964 federal regulations.


My cars have PA lifetime "Historic Car" plates, so I have annual
registration and no generally have no need to look at titles in my bank box
any more.


"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
.. .
>
>
> Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 13, 10:43 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>> > Of course you are correct, at 83 years old and after over seventy cars,
>> > I
>> > was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to
>> > as a
>> > 1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is
>> > 64
>> > and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
>>
>> So in all of those bets that you won at car shows, no one saw that the
>> title was for a Falcon Sprint? They couldn't ID the VIN, given these
>> were car guys that usually know their car history ****? Do you feel
>> compelled now to refund all of your earnings since you were wrong the
>> whole time? Were you 83 at the time, and does that explain why you
>> didn't know what cars you own?
>
>
> Give him a break. He said he is old and can't remember. Who knows maybe
> the part he has forgotten is that he lost every single bet.
>
> -jim
>
>
>>
>> > "Toyota MDT in MO" > wrote in
>> > ...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > > Mike wrote:
>> > >> Sorry, none of my collector cars are for sale.
>> >
>> > > No one is interested in imaginary cars anyway.
>> >
>> > >> Actually Ford introduced the Mustang in late April of 1963 and
>> > >> referred
>> > >> to it as a the "All new "1963 1/2 Mustang."
>> >
>> > >> I traded a 1963 Falcon Sprint convertible and gave the dealer $560,
>> > >> including taxes and fees.
>> > >> The difference in the MSRP of the two was a bit over $300.
>> >
>> > >> The VIN is indeed 1964 but my Pennsylvania title says "1963 Ford
>> > >> Coupe,"
>> > >> as PA called all convertibles at the time. Back in the day PA
>> > >> titled
>> > >> cars in the year they were first titled.
>> >
>> > >> As an aside, I have won quite a few bets with guys that say there
>> > >> is no
>> > >> 1963 Mustang, when I produce the title at car shows.

jim wrote:
> Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
>> On Jul 13, 10:43 am, "Mike" > wrote:
>>
>>> Of course you are correct, at 83 years old and after over seventy cars, I
>>> was confusing the Mustang with my Falcon Sprint which was referred to as a
>>> 1963 1/2 by Ford . But the Mustangs VIN is 65 not 64 and the title is 64
>>> and I should have listed it as a 1964 1/2.
>>>
>> So in all of those bets that you won at car shows, no one saw that the
>> title was for a Falcon Sprint? They couldn't ID the VIN, given these
>> were car guys that usually know their car history ****? Do you feel
>> compelled now to refund all of your earnings since you were wrong the
>> whole time? Were you 83 at the time, and does that explain why you
>> didn't know what cars you own?
>>
>
>
> Give him a break. He said he is old and can't remember. Who knows maybe
> the part he has forgotten is that he lost every single bet.
>
> -jim
>
>

I'll assume that your comment was smiley based. If not, personally I'm
tired of his lies and bull**** and can't always let them go. It never
changes with this guy. How do you really know he's 83? Forgetting and
lying are two different things. Again, this response is only in case
you didn't intend to smiley your post :-)

--
Toyota MDT in MO

Toyota MDT in MO wrote:

>
> I'll assume that your comment was smiley based.

Aren't smileys kinda like laughing at your own joke?

-jim

jim wrote:
> Toyota MDT in MO wrote:
>
>
>> I'll assume that your comment was smiley based.
>>
>
> Aren't smileys kinda like laughing at your own joke?
>
> -jim
>

Not normally, no.

--
Toyota MDT in MO