Now, I ask a question of you? What car did you own in 1965 and are you relating stories about the Mustang from reading articles?
PE
This sounds like a backhanded attempt to discredit me rather than a genuine question, but I will bite anyhow. I am a car nerd, the same way many people are stamp nerds or any other kind of nerd. How do you know anything about World War I or the formation of the nation? Because you were there? Please!
I know about old cars the same way anybody knows about anything that happened in the past. Research: historical reading, discussion with peers and parents...and, most importantly, personal experience. I grew up among car nuts. I remember being a little kid riding in a '65 coupe (modified to be fast and scary as balls, and yes, with a standard hood), two different '65 Fairlanes, and a '64 Mercury Comet, among other old cars of various makes (a Volvo P1800 among them - the kind of car that you truly work on all week just so you can drive it on Sunday - the main problem? English-made twin carbs). One of those Fairlanes was purchased new, so my father happened to know that the odometer had gone around three times on the original engine, BTW. Abnormal, but true. When the car got wrecked by a drunk whil epaked in front of our house, he put the engine in the replacement Fairlane, while was an oil burner.
Plus, I had two of my own '65 2+2's for years. One had the K-Code engine. I sold it when it became too valuable to warrant keeping. This is in addition to an original L-6/4-speed 2+2 that I also had that had been converted to a 302 factory Hi-Po mill. The K-code was unrestored original in good condition, and the other one I had "restored" to super clean condition, though not as original. Both had standard hoods. Both got no less than 13 MPG in the city unless I was tearing about. And both only needed maintenance (brakes, clutch, tires, alignment, etc.), never repair.
FWIW, the only cars that have given me maintenance headaches (and I have owned at least a dozen cars from the '50's and '60's) have been newer GMs ('90's in my case), and those from the dark ages of American automobiles, the '70's, '80's, and '90's, such as a my grandmother's '79 Fairmont. (Nicknamed "The Pumpkin" in reference to "Cinderella" because of an electrical problem that rendered the headlights useless.)
Nobody in all the Ford clubs and shows, books, etc. has ever mentioned anything about any of the optional carburetors being hard to tune or sucking down the gas so severely. As I said, if it had been that much of a problem with the model, they would not have done so well or been so highly lauded by drivers and critics alike, and the problem would certainly be common knowledge among old car nuts. ("You want my advice, son, get rid of that 2V. It is nothing but a headache.") There are always exceptions, but my point was that exceptions should not be used as evidence for general statements. You also should realize that your dealers could have very well likely been feeding you a line about that model of carb being a problem child, simply because they had to tell you something about your repeated visits in your lemon.
And I have said I agree with your point about rising costs being offset by increased mileage. I just thought your example was a gross exaggeration. I just don't understand why you insist on making so many adamant yet completely incorrect statements about the '65 Mustang, rather than simply stating that your experience with your car was likely the exception, rather than the rule, of '60's cars. It makes the whole story highly suspect and works against your original point by discrediting the information used to make it. If your statements are debated with real information, and you respond as you did, by simply sticking your feet in the mud and beginning to shovel out crap information as if nobody reading it knows any better, all it does it further discredit your information and work against your original point. I was trying to improve your argument, yet ran into a wall of misinformation as a defense.
