[Terrall]

1967 or 1966, which one is nicer

 

[Unai]

Well since I have a 66, that's what I'd go with. I've always favored the first 2 years, the small ones... the main difference in the 66 and 67 is their size, the 67 is bigger in every way.

 

[Flann]

Kind of a matter of taste. '66's were more "slab-sided" where '67's are a bit more rounded.
The 67 being 2 inches wider and longer made for a smidge more room inside and a smidge more room for bigger V8 engines under the hood.
Old, only option for AC was a gawky looking box thing hanging under the dash. Starting in '67 regular "in-dash" AC was available.
And I personally like the optional brushed aluminum "Deluxe" interior trim you could have (or add). Some people like the 66's "Pony" interior option better.
Another '67+ option wasa the "tilt-away" steering column. "Late" (but fairly rare) 67's got collapsible steering columns which are more crashworthy than early 67's and all 66's. It's not hard to swap a collapsible 68 column into a 67 (I did it) but a whole lot more work to get such a feature into a 66.
I suggest picking the one that makes you feel good every time you look at it, even if it happens to be broken at the moment. That'd be the right one.

 

[marlon30]

1967 for me
but then I would rather have a 1968 torino
a full frame car.
we think those old cars are nice now, but back then.
..the Galaxy ruled. ( in my oppinion) and NASCAR too...

I'd prefer a new 'stang now...

 

[bitten]

That depend on your preference, both are the American Muscles, solely American... Just like the WRX, solely Japanese...

 

[artzai]

67. wider body so the ride is a little smoother. plus it has AC vents.

 

[berke]

66 is far more collectible. but lesser options.

 

[kele74]

I've got a 72 Mach 1, so I'm good

 

[Dinari]

can one be a fast-back?