Early Mustangs

[JimOH]

Does all of the 1964 1/2 - 66 Mustang convertibles have the extra frame reinforcement just about at the rear of the transmission? I am looking at a 66 that doesn't have the reinforced frame piece that goes from side to side at that point. Jim
The photo shows the piece I am talking about.

[toby]

You should get on a Mustang forum for this. My father-in-law had a 66 Coupe that had the whole underside restored to original and I don't remember his having the flat brace from side to side.

[Dave72dt]

Coupes didn't have them . Convertibles were supposed to, possibly the early ones didn't have it but they should have.. That bracing helps make up some of the body stiffness it loses when the metal roofs aren't there.

[JimOH]

Thanks guys,
I have been looking through some of the more than 100 64 1/2 - 66 Mustang web sites and I have come to the conclusion like mentioned above that all convertibles should have this bracing. I read an article that says all 64-66 convertibles had extra bracing and I suppose this is what they are talking about. Maybe later Mustangs do too. I see a lot of restored Mustangs don't have it. I have ordered the book, Collectorr's Original Guide, MUSTANG 1964 1/2-1966 by Colin Date. I should learn a lot from that.
Thanks again, JimOH

[raceron1120]

In the early 70s I had a '65 convertible 289/4speed. I'm pretty sure it had that support because I had to remove the driveshaft. Can't remember if I had to remove the support (seems we did), or if we fished the shaft over it.

[416Ford]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Mustang convertibles had torque boxes in front on both side also. Ford did not put them in the coupes till later on.
All convertibles if I remember correctly had the connecting plate under the cars and were also equipped with inner rockers.
Just a few of the things you will find on a convertible that you won't find on a coupe.
Dave

[416Ford]

Re read your post JimOH, There may be a couple of reason it is not there.
1-May have been left off......
2- Car was restored and the car was not gap correctly and the pan will not fit now.
3- Car is original and without that in there it is sagging.

Is the car restored? If so, by who?
I restored Mustang here in Michigan in the 90's for Mid Michigan Mustang. If you have any question, feel free to ask.
Dave

[JohnSunliner]

Is the mustang a unibody, looks it? I did not know that. My 1954 has a huge X frame added to the stock frame to stiffen it like all convertibles. This mustang would probably be real sloppy with out a frame and that extra support. One drive will tell you. One time I owned a Camero with a sun roof. Removing it made the body shake so bad that I seldom did it.

[JimOH]

Wow! Thanks a million to all of you. I had a '40 Ford convertible that had an extra plate on the bottom of the X frame. Ford must have carried this all of the way up.
I am learning from you all. JimOH

[Y-Blockhead]

Originally Posted by JimOH

I am learning from you all.

Don't we all... I don't have a convertible or a Mustang but I learned something from this thread.

[416Ford]

Originally Posted by JimOH

I am learning from you all. JimOH

That is what keeps us all coming back.
The hard part is retaining it.