1966 Mustang

>>17426895
Gay

>Searching car adds
>Open in new tab for each ad that looks interesting
>Click through tabs to check out the details
>Picture with something modified on the car - close tab
>Spec not within my search criteria and a bunch of keywords on the bottom of the ad - close tab
>Automatic transmission - close tab
>Picture with the foglights on when its a clear day - close tab
>Exterior looks spotless but interior looks horrible with cracked and torn seat bolsters - close tab
>Damage described but images clearly avoid showing it - close tab
>Mileage near turbo, injector or other major replacement interval - close tab

>>17428645
All I want is a clean vintage Mustang thats automatic and require less work

>>17428656
why an auto though? It's not a heavy landbarge for cruising. Granted some are badged a 'grand tourer' but the early ones are involving; why wouldn't you want a manual?

Genuinely curious, not being an /o/ autist trying to take the piss.

>>17428668
I driven manual for a while but gave up after 4 years and purchased a auto, not going back

>>17428675
Mate, you'll literally hate yourself driving an old style 3 or 4 speed. Seriously, it's not like you're going to drive the fucking thing in heavy traffic on the way to work.

>>17428692
What if I want to use it as a daily driver?

>>17428692
What's wrong with a 4 speed auto?

My DD is 140hp With a BW55 and I do alright

>>17428699
daily drive manual is terrible.

>>17428699
Pretty silly. Insurance rates are extremely high (might have to go through shannons), if you crash you better hope you die quickly, fuel efficiency is shit (although I guess that's not why you're sold on this car, but you'll realise the gravity of that statement after you've driven it for a month).

I really don't think you've evaluated how much effort needs to be put in when owning an old car; I know the mustang is a classic and I guess that fuels normie fascination with them.

Seriously think about it, are you going to garage it, clean it weekly, etc? If you treat it like you'd treat your mums corolla, the car will be worth fuck all.

There's a reason most people keep these cars as sunday drivers; modern cars are just that much better to live with, albeit at the expense of fun that these cars offer. If you want to daily it to attract attention, there's plenty of other cars you can do that with for the same price or less.

Oh, and I know I brushed on the crash safety of these cars earlier, but I'm serious here. Yes, it's sensible and dull, but driving one of these cars as a daily driver is dumb; so many people died in auto accidents during this era, even later on. My parents have both lost separate groups of friends travelling in Kingswoods (I imagine there's been a lot of deaths in those fuckers when they were on the road) and they were built over a decade later. Old cars are great, but it's best to drive them when you're completely focused and enjoying driving, when you're less likely to get in an accident, and more likely to avoid an impending collision.

>>17428716
How old is that? I can't find info on BW55 transmissions anywhere, I assume it's a Borg Warner? Point being, auto transmissions were pretty fucking awful until about 2-3 decades ago, they've really only superseded a good manual in the last decade.

>>17428832
>but you'll realise the gravity of that statement after you've driven it for a month).

Not true, I drove an ss commodore and I am far from well paid and the fuel efficency thing is highly exaggerated by normies... driving a v8 isn'y that bad.

>
Seriously think about it, are you going to garage it, clean it weekly, etc? If you treat it like you'd treat your mums corolla, the car will be worth fuck all.

That's a boomer thing to do, drive it and let it get stone chips and damage. It's a car not a fucking statue or something to stand next to in a school paddock car show hoping someone will say hello and if it get's destroyed then it dies an honourable death by actually being driven.

>Oh, and I know I brushed on the crash safety of these cars earlier, but I'm serious here. Yes, it's sensible and dull, but driving one of these cars as a daily driver is dumb; so many people died in auto accidents during this era, even later on. My parents have both lost separate groups of friends travelling in Kingswoods (I imagine there's been a lot of deaths in those fuckers when they were on the road) and they were built over a decade later. Old cars are great, but it's best to drive them when you're completely focused and enjoying driving, when you're less likely to get in an accident, and more likely to avoid an impending collision.

Who the fuck cares? What kind of people raised you? what the fuck.

>>17426895
it's fairly cheap for what it is, so I'd be mighty skeptical about ti's condition. It's LHD aswell.
Take a really long close look at it, drive it. Then go buy something converted to RHD, restored for twice the price, even then, be real careful

>>17428856
An SS commodore is much more fuel efficient than this car. It has a lot to do with the transmission, not the engine; it's part of the reason modern econoboxes get 4L/100km with their 7 speed gearboxes (the other reason is their anemic engines).

You're an adult, do as you wish, but you'll realise owning one does become an inconvenience. I'm not saying you should keep it garaged and stored away without driving it, I'm saying that daily driving it is silly because of the above listed reasons. They're great cars to drive spiritedly.