Error With Vin And Dataplate Details

[Jake2012]

Hi all,

I'm new to this forum and recently purchase a 1966 GT Mustang Coupe. When trying to validate the VIN 6R07A123456 against the door data plate using the various online decoders, I continually receive an error on the paint code and build date?

The VIN in the top of the right fender under the hood matches that on the door plate in every regard except the paint. My mustang is Rangoon red in color and has a matching ' J ' paint code on the data plate??????

I researched the net and found that Rangoon Red was a 1965 Mustang color and NOT a 66 colour. In 66 the red paints on offer were Candy apple red code (T) or Signalflare red code (5) . Was it possible for a buyer back in 66 to request a 65 paint color, say Rangoon Red ?

The build date shows 18K which translates to October 18, 1965 when decoded which is also strange? How can a 66 mustang have a 65 build date?

Can anyone shed some light on my dilemma?

Jake

 

[atomicpunk]

I can't help on the paint code, but model years and build years don't meet up. New models start being built before the new year - usually August/September IIRC. I seem to recall reading the 65 model year was 16 months long somewhere.

 

[Smitten65]

In those days it was possible to 'special order' paint colors that weren't normally avaialable. I'm guessing that's what might have happened. '65 production was longer becuase it included the '64 1/2 models which were tiltled as '65's. Some '64 1/2 colors were not 'available' in the regular 65 production that started in August '65. Guadsman Blue is one such color that was a 64 1/2 only color.

 

[Jake2012]

I can't help on the paint code, but model years and build years don't meet up. New models start being built before the new year - usually August/September IIRC. I seem to recall reading the 65 model year was 16 months long somewhere.

Thanks, that explains the Build date being October 1965 for my 66 Mustang. Can anyone advise if it was possible to order a 1966 Mustang painted in Rangoon Red (J) code which was a 1965 color? Could it of been a special order at the time?

 

[Jake2012]

In those days it was possible to 'special order' paint colors that weren't normally avaialable. I'm guessing that's what might have happened. '65 production was longer becuase it included the '64 1/2 models which were tiltled as '65's. Some '64 1/2 colors were not 'available' in the regular 65 production that started in August '65. Guadsman Blue is one such color that was a 64 1/2 only color.

 

[Jake2012]

Thanks, it's shame they don't have records prior to 67. The mustang I just bought is a 66 GT Coupe A code and i became worried when I jumped online using the.decoder, they all returned an error on the (j) paint code! I'm guessing you might be right and it may have been a special order! Personally, I would have chosen the standard 66 candy apple red T code.

 

[horse sence]

it is possible the door tag was stamped incorrectly as well ,i restored a 64 1/2 convert
the body stamp showed a d code so did the pink but the matching number door tag showed c code every thing else matched the motor was the d code , dmv didnt like it
and tried to rais a fuss till i showed the bottom of the door tag were it says for warranty use only not for registration use

 

[bartl]

In some cases, a prior years paint code can be found in early models of the following year. If yours was a "special paint" car there would be no paint code and you'd have a long DSO indicating a special order. Also, look at your door tag carefully....they are being reproduced. The font is a bit different than the original.

 

[Jake2012]

In some cases, a prior years paint code can be found in early models of the following year. If yours was a "special paint" car there would be no paint code and you'd have a long DSO indicating a special order. Also, look at your door tag carefully....they are being reproduced. The font is a bit different than the original.

Thanks, I'm pretty certain the door plate is a reproduction because it looks too new to be an orginal 66 plate, but many restorers do this when restoring Mustangs. The DSO shows 51 (Denver) so really if its normal for a 66 to have a build date of late 65, then the only mismatch is the paint code, because its a 65 paint code of J. Are you certain in then instance of " a special paint " order, that the apint code would be BLANK??

 

[bartl]

Yes.

 

[pocketlint]

If your 66 was built at the beginning of the 66 production year, you may have just gotten the previous paint color because they had it left over. They did this with parts sometimes too. I know there are reports that the inserts (between the grille and the head lights. the ones with the little gills in them) were mismatched between the end of 65 and beginning of 66 years. The newer ones had a beveled edge so as not to rub the hood. But some 66 cars ended up with the 65 ones. And some cars ended up with one of each. Just what parts Ford still had around when building them. Remember in 66, Ford was cranking these things out as fast as humanly possible and still had trouble keeping up with demand. The 66 production year saw the most mustangs sold ever. and still is.

If your car really is a 66 GT with a 65 paint code from the factory, it might make it slightly more valuable. maybe. Just cause its different from the majority of the other red 66s.

 

[Jake2012]

If your 66 was built at the beginning of the 66 production year, you may have just gotten the previous paint color because they had it left over. They did this with parts sometimes too. I know there are reports that the inserts (between the grille and the head lights. the ones with the little gills in them) were mismatched between the end of 65 and beginning of 66 years. The newer ones had a beveled edge so as not to rub the hood. But some 66 cars ended up with the 65 ones. And some cars ended up with one of each. Just what parts Ford still had around when building them. Remember in 66, Ford was cranking these things out as fast as humanly possible and still had trouble keeping up with demand. The 66 production year saw the most mustangs sold ever. and still is.

If your car really is a 66 GT with a 65 paint code from the factory, it might make it slightly more valuable. maybe. Just cause its different from the majority of the other red 66s.

Pocketlint, Thanks heaps for your reply.

As previously advised my build date on my GT Mustang decodes as October 1965 so I'm assuming its quite possible the car was painted in a 1965 color code instead of a 1966 color given it was built in late 1965. I too have heard about some cases where Ford around the end of a production year did actually use left over parts say from a previous model such as 65 Mustang parts on a 1966 Mustang. If this is fact, then its quite possible that a 1966 model vehicle built in late 1965 was painted using a 65 color although a previous reply to my thread said if the paint was a 'special order' then my paint code should be BLANK and I would have a longer DSO?? The DSO is normal and shows 51 (denver) so I'm left thinking it can be a special paint order.

I think I'm going to take the position it is a 66 GT with a 65 paint code (J) Rangoon red from the factory. I have been done heaps of research of late but simply can not find any way to prove or disprove the possibility Ford simply used a 65 red color code or it was ordered in that color.

Jake

 

[Jake2012]

Pocketlint, Thanks heaps for your reply.

As previously advised my build date on my GT Mustang decodes as October 1965 so I'm assuming its quite possible the car was painted in a 1965 color code instead of a 1966 color given it was built in late 1965. I too have heard about some cases where Ford around the end of a production year did actually use left over parts say from a previous model such as 65 Mustang parts on a 1966 Mustang. If this is fact, then its quite possible that a 1966 model vehicle built in late 1965 was painted using a 65 color although a previous reply to my thread said if the paint was a 'special order' then my paint code should be BLANK and I would have a longer DSO?? The DSO is normal and shows 51 (denver) so I'm left thinking it cant be a special paint order.

I think I'm going to take the position it is a 66 GT with a 65 paint code (J) Rangoon red from the factory. I have been done heaps of research of late but simply can not find any way to prove or disprove the possibility Ford simply used a 65 red color code or it was ordered in that color.

Jake

 

[bartl]

Would be nice to see a closeup of the data plate.

 

[Wally779]

I'm actually having the same issue. Except mine is a 1968 mustang gt with a "J" paint code.
I followed some advice on here and did check all the tags and everything matches.

 

[Jake2012]

I'm actually having the same issue. Except mine is a 1968 mustang gt with a "J" paint code.
I followed some advice on here and did check all the tags and everything matches.

Wally, With your 68, you can source the original build specs by obtaining a Marti report. If you are trying validate if its a matching # , this woul be the most reliable option!

 

[Wally779]

My bad I should have mentioned that I have already obtained a Marti Report with no success on the color.
I have been looking at ford catalogs for other models in '68. The Lincoln's and the thunderbird did have J paint codes, the Lincoln was called Mediterranean metallic and the thunderbird was midnight aqua. I started looking into it possibly being one of those.

 

[Jake2012]

What paint code is shown on the Marti ? Does this match the data plate specs ? If the Marti paint code matches your door plate code, then i would say that would almost be 100% accurate & is the original paint colour!

 

[Wally779]

The data plate and the Marti codes completely matched including both being J paint code. Just no paint name or paint # on the report.

 

[Jake2012]

Based on that info you can be 100% confident your 68 mustang was Painted with a J code paint. I am beginning to think those online decoders only ONLY about 90% accurate. Any vehicle ordered with special paint, other non common options for a specific build year can NOT be decoded correctly !

Jake