Is it cheaper to buy or build a 1967 mustang fastback?
to be honest there is probably very little difference in cost w/ either one.
I recently restored a 1972 Mach 1...I had to actually go w/ a 72 cause any restorable 60's mach I found was REALLY expensive, even before I did anything to it. Anyway, I bought the car for 3, but still spent 15k+ restoring it and right now I could probably sell it for 20-25k. (plus there's always costs on upkeep)
Also it would probably have cost more if my dad wasn't a major gearhead, cause then I would've had to have paid someone to do most of the major work
(and that is ALWAYS more expensive)
I would say it really depends on whether you have the time,skill, and drive to restore a car. Otherwise I would probably lean towards buying one.
Though having said that I think there is a lot more satisfaction in showing of a car that you personally put a lot of work,time, and of course money into versus one you just bought as is (where someone else previously did all the work).
Also if you do the work yourself you are more likely to know what you've got.There's nothing worse than a guy w/ a really nice car who has no clue what he's got even though he wrote the check.
oh, and forget the elanor wannabe thing, there's enough of them out there all ready, and real car people appreciate a proper 67 over some dumb fad anyday.
Not to mention my 72 is closer to being elanor than that thing
(if you understand the nick cage movie is a remake)