Seems like Mustangs should have higher values

[Regta 10]

As a Mustang lover, I think a 69 or 70 fastback is the ultimate car of its era to own and I own a real nice 70 fastback. I often wonder what its worth if I wanted to sell. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like other makes of similar muscle cars sell for quite a bit more than Mustangs.

Does anyone have an opinion to share on this subject?

Are there just more classic Mustangs around keeping the prices down??

[70769 18]

I think the latter of your questions may have hit it on matter. Since the Mustang has been around continually since '64 and with so many of them being sold it think its the simple thing of supply and demand. Since the Camaro, Chargers and such didn't sell as much as the Mustangs there are less of them around and the price is higher. But having said that, I don't quite understand the substantially higher price of parts for our cars....

[TexasEd 188]

Mustang production in 1969 was around 300K

Camero production in 1969 was around 243K

 

Not that far off and that's a lot of cars.

 

The Boss 429 cars are worth a lot, the Boss 302s and Shelbys are worth more too because they were lower production numbers. It's all about the rare options and engine choices.

 

Since 2008 Mustang production has been under 100,000 cars

[DarkBuddha 107]

It depends on what your point of reference is for comparing prices. From what I've seen, generally, similarly built and spec'd Mustangs do sell for relatively similar prices to other muscle cars. That said, the playing field has never been level when it comes to Ford versus GM or Mopar in terms of return on investment at certain build levels. Certainly, at the resto level, Mustangs have some advantage in terms of parts availability. But in terms of ease and accessibility for things like suspension, brakes, motor builds and swaps, there are certain inherent differences that favor cars like the Camaro.

 

But the real thing I think hindering Mustang prices is the ingrained continued belief that deviation from a stock restoration hurts resale values. I just did a really basic survey of auction results from the last few years and other than the truly rare and highly sought-after cars like legit Boss 429s and Shelbys, there was no real sales price advantage for stock restos, and in fact, many modified Mustangs sold at significant premiums over similar quality stock resto cars. Again neither GMs or Mopars are so saddled (pun intended) with such well established rhetoric.

[Zipppo 11]

In my view again this is just me from what I have seen and see today.

 

The highly sought after rare Mustangs like the Boss 302's and 429's in the 69-70 model years have always done well in terms of pricing. Same for the Big block cars of the S, Q, and R code varients. The more options the better. The 4 speed cars seem to fare much better. Same for the Shelby cars.

 

Sports roofs in general are the most desirable in terms of percentages of desirbility from what I have seen.

 

The run of the mill cars as I call them are really like any other brand so so in the market.

 

In my opinion the thing that hurts the 69 and 70 cars is the horrible Falcon front suspension and power steering systems that always weep or leak. The 69's with the glue in windows that always seem to come out of their berth at the most inopportune time coupled with the non locking steering column and lastly the cowl area that is prone to rust. Sure there many other small nit picky things like the dash light issues that plauge these cars. By 70 things got better bolt in door glass, locking steering column.

 

No doubt these are in my view the best looking muscle cars of that era and even today when I drive any of my cars they turn heads young and old alike.

 

Supply and demand play an intregal role here as well. The numbers dwindle the prices go up. Also cyclical when certain cars are hot and others are not.

 

In time the prices will continue to move up. The thing is with inflation compare prices in 1969 to 70 dollars to today well they are still a great value.

 

Lastly when these cars were built they were everyday cars. No one thought these cars would be around for more than maybe 10-15 years before being junked. The collector and restoration hobby had not even started yet. The early 80's is when things really hit the map with that.

 

Hands down a nice 69-70 Mustang is a great investment and for me keeps a smile on my face as I drive down the road or spend a couple of hours waxing my cars. Built not bought is also way up there. The satisfaction one gets when the end result of many long hours in the garage wrnching bringing an old horse back to thoroughbred status uh PRICELESS!

 

Thanks for reading my 2 cents worth and to all on here keep the faith and move forward with your builds. We are the ones that keep these cars alive the caretakers for future generations of Mustang lovers.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Zipppo

[DarkBuddha 107]

BTW, here's the thread I started on my survey of auction results: http://www.1969stang.com/mustang/forum/showthread.php?t=15461

[TexasEd 188]

Lastly when these cars were built they were everyday cars. No one thought these cars would be around for more than maybe 10-15 years before being junked. The collector and restoration hobby had not even started yet. The early 80's is when things really hit the map with that.

 

 

Yes, They were mass produced, every-day cars. Like I said there were about 300,000 1969 Mustangs built.

[69volunteer 84]

Check out Hagerty's valuation tool (granted its not the answer) but I was surprised thinking that the valuations would be closer. See pics below

 

The 350 2bbl was even higher.

 

[TexasEd 188]

Camaro chart is for convertible

[Max Power 74]

A car's resale value is not based on merit, its based on demand, with a little bit of supply thrown in. There are more Chevy guys out there, so I think that is really what drives it.

 

The thing that surprises me is that the Mopar guys were mostly outliers back in the 80s and AMC was barely a mention. Now those cars seem to have increased the most in the past decade. There were never really that many Mopar performance cars made and now that demand has risen sharply, the prices are through the roof. Hell, even the formerly unloved quirky early 60s B-Bodys are really pricey these days.

[miketyler 15]

It is an interesting topic. The popularity of the 69 Camaro vs the 69 Mustang must play a major role making desirability the key factor. I am unsure what production numbers were between the two to contrast but I see the same if not more 69 Camaros for sale then the 69 Mustang.

 

I went and ran a more "apples to apples" report on the base model 69 Camaro with a 307 and the average selling price was still $20k, nearly double that of the Mustang. I think high-end modded cars, rare limited versions and unique story cars will always be at the upper end of the market but looking at the median pricing between the two I think it just boils down to popularity, maybe even at the Ford vs Chevy level

 

EDIT: Just noticed Ed posted production numbers (thanks Ed) which since they are relatively close, really levels the playing field for both cars in the "supply" column.

Edited June 22, 2014 by miketyler

[DarkBuddha 107]

One more thing to think about is how "iconic" a particular model is. For example, some would say that the '69-'70s aren't the icons of the vintage Mustang world the way the '67-'69 are for vintage Camaros. Certainly we all recognize that 65-'66 convertibles were once "THE" Mustangs to own, then it was the '65-'66 fastbacks, then it was '67-'68 fastbacks (especially when the Eleanwhore craze hit). Only over the last few years have the '69-'70s started to get the kind of attention and treatment that draws folks have begun to recognize their appeal and potential. But that attention has again been on the sportsroofs modified in the street rod and pro-touring styles primarily.

[Thunderscrash 10]

I went and ran a more "apples to apples" report on the base model 69 Camaro with a 307 and the average selling price was still $20k, nearly double that of the Mustang.

 

I just want to know where you guys live that you can pick up a nice 69 fastback for 10k. I would gladly pay that and sell my rust bucket. Everywhere I look mustangs seem to be comparitivley priced to camaros if not higher, then again I don't look at stupid things like the hagerty pricing guide. Those guys don't value anything that isn't 1 of 1 or similarly rare.

Edited June 23, 2014 by Thunderscrash

[Regta 10]

I love hearing all these opinions.

 

The thing that got this whole thought process going was the fact I was just looking on ebay at sold or completed listings and found many real nice 69 or 70 mustangs ended for less than $20K. This seems low to me as compared to several other similar makes and models.

[TexasEd 188]

I just want to know where you guys live that you can pick up a nice 69 fastback for 10k. I would gladly pay that and sell my rust bucket. Everywhere I look mustangs seem to be comparitivley priced to camaros if not higher, then again I don't look at stupid things like the hagerty pricing guide. Those guys don't value anything that isn't 1 of 1 or similarly rare.

 

 

Gotta have a brother....

I bought my car back from him, he bought it from our dad. I paid about 8K but the suspension, power steering, tires, and AC were shot in it and the carb needed a rebuild.

 

I think the guy tat pointed out the 67-69 was first generation Camaro was right and that 69-70 mustang was the 3rd iteration of the car and apparently nothing can touch a 67 fastback.

 

Back in high school (late 80s) the early camaros were not common because I think they were already being put away bu collectors. The Mustangs and Chevelles were very common. I think even though they are different sizes of cars that a comparison in their values might be more appropriate since they probably had closer original sticker prices.

[DarkBuddha 107]

I just want to know where you guys live that you can pick up a nice 69 fastback for 10k. I would gladly pay that and sell my rust bucket. Everywhere I look mustangs seem to be comparitivley priced to camaros if not higher, then again I don't look at stupid things like the hagerty pricing guide. Those guys don't value anything that isn't 1 of 1 or similarly rare.

I don't think anyone was saying you could get a SPORTSROOF for $10k, but coupes, definitely. In both Florida and Washington state there are lots of decent cars for relatively cheap. A few craigslist examples:

 

In Florida:

'69 coupe, $9k: http://lakeland.craigslist.org/cto/4525192770.html

 

really nice '69 coupe, $15.5k: http://tampa.craigslist.org/psc/cto/4530730764.html

 

'69 coupe show car $18k: http://jacksonville.craigslist.org/cto/4505582692.html

 

'70 sportsroof, $12.5k : http://jacksonville.craigslist.org/cto/4510959441.html

 

really clean '70 coupe 6 cyl, $12k: http://miami.craigslist.org/pbc/cto/4520741450.html

 

'70 coupe, $10k: http://tampa.craigslist.org/psc/cto/4525130005.html

 

'70 coupe, looks good, needs an engine, $7500: http://panamacity.craigslist.org/cto/4488129041.html

 

 

In Washington:

 

'70 Coupe, pretty clean, $7500: http://seattle.craigslist.org/skc/cto/4535640331.html

 

'70 sportsroof, $11.5k: http://seattle.craigslist.org/kit/cto/4527112570.html

 

'70 coupe, one-owner, $12k: http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/4517981235.html

 

'70 coupe, finished, $12k: http://seattle.craigslist.org/tac/cto/4535388758.html

 

'69 coupe, 31k original miles, 3 speed, $10k: http://seattle.craigslist.org/oly/cto/4492463931.html

 

'69 Grande, needs a bit of clean up, $9500: http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/ctd/4505835766.html

 

 

They're still out there.

[Thunderscrash 10]

I jut think it's hard to compare the camaro to a mustang coupe. The camaro has one "hardtop" body style where the mustang has 2 (coupe and fastback). So to me the only real way to compare a 69 camaro to a 69 mustang is by the most popular body style. The 2 fastbacks you have linked still need work. I only skimmed the ads but they at least need some cosmetics. I see camaros in similar shape sell for the similar money. I'll try to did some ads later, my lunch break is up.

[miketyler 15]

What do you think would be a better comparison? They are two very popular model cars in the same class and manufactured by two of the largest mfrs of the day. Both cars were available in convertibles and special edition high performance models. I dont see the Mustang having a third body style as fastback gives it an edge. The numbers certainly dont reflect it. The reports come from Hagerty and I think are taken from auctions. Might want to ask them about it.

[shaun071 62]

It's a slightly different thing here in Australia. The first gen Camaro seems to pull more dollars than a 69 coupe for example but a 69 fastback is worth more than both. I bought my 69 coupe (running driveable but missing a few minor parts) for $11k, Camaro's in similar condition were in the high teens/low 20's and fastbacks started in the low 20's with high 20's being the norm. This is for running drivable cars, you would see the odd fastback for 15k but it would be a real project- in pieces, major body work missing engine etc.