The Mustang Wagon Ford Never Wanted You to See

Two industry insiders bought a Mustang, shipped it to a coachbuilder in Turin, and had a genuine station wagon version built, complete with a drop-down tailgate, power rear glass, and taillights modified to stay lit with the gate open. Ford’s styling leadership turned it down, reportedly less over the design than over where it came from. Here is how the car was built, why Ford said no, and why the idea keeps coming back.

Picture a Mustang with a tailgate. Not a rendering, not a fan sketch, not a photoshop that circulates every few years and gets people arguing in the comments. An actual running, driving car with a cargo floor, a folding rear seat, power rear glass, and taillights that were surgically reworked so they would still function with the tailgate dropped. Two men with real credentials in the industry paid to have it built, shipped a genuine Mustang across the Atlantic to make it happen, and then watched Ford’s own styling leadership reject the idea for reasons that had almost nothing to do with how it looked. Six decades later people are still asking why.

⚑ Featured Gear

Start Car Conversations →

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

Two Insiders and an Idea Ford Was Not Asking For

The project came from inside the industry rather than from an outsider with a wild notion. Advertising executive Barney Clark and designer Robert Cumberford were both people who understood how cars got made and how they got sold, and both saw an obvious gap: the Mustang was selling in extraordinary numbers to young buyers who would eventually need to carry something larger than a weekend bag. A wagon variant would let those customers stay with the nameplate instead of trading into something duller. It was a commercial argument first and a styling exercise second, which is exactly why the pair went to the trouble of building a real one rather than drawing it.

Why the Car Had to Go to Italy

Nobody in Detroit was going to build a one-off body for two men with an idea, so they went to someone who would. Cumberford had a relationship with Frank Reisner at Intermeccanica, the Italian coachbuilder in Turin known for low-volume specialty bodies, and that connection made the whole thing possible. In the spring of 1965 the pair bought an early Mustang coupe, a white car with a small V8 and an automatic, and shipped it to Turin along with Cumberford’s drawings. Turin was the right destination for a reason: the city’s coachbuilding trade could take a set of drawings and a donor car and return a finished body in a way American shops of the era largely could not.

The Roof Is the Hard Part

Converting a fastback-adjacent coupe into a wagon is not a matter of cutting a hole in the back. The roof has to be extended and reshaped, the rear quarters have to be reworked to meet it, and the entire rear structure has to be restiffened to make up for the load-bearing sheetmetal that was just removed. Intermeccanica fabricated a new rear roof section and side glass that followed the Mustang’s existing fender line rather than fighting it, so the greenhouse reads as though it was drawn that way from the beginning. That single decision is why the finished car looks resolved instead of looking like a conversion.

The Details That Prove It Was Not a Hack Job

The details are what elevate it from an interesting curiosity to a genuinely finished piece of work. The tailgate hinges at the bottom, with power-operated rear glass that drops down into it, which is exactly how full-size American wagons of the period operated. The fuel filler was relocated to the left rear fender to clear the new bodywork and the reworked tail. Most impressively, the Mustang’s signature three-element taillights were carefully cut down so that the outer segments remained functional and lit even with the tailgate open. Nobody solves that problem unless they intend the car to be taken seriously as a production proposal.

The Proportions Worked Better Than They Should Have

What surprises people most is how right the proportions look. The Mustang’s long hood and short deck was always a styling formula rather than a packaging necessity, and extending the roof rearward gives the shape something it arguably lacked: visual balance between the front and rear volumes. The car reads as a shooting brake, a body style with a long European tradition, rather than as a family hauler. Nothing about it looks apologetic. Set it next to a standard coupe of the same year and the wagon does not obviously lose, which is a remarkable outcome for a one-off body built to a set of drawings on the other side of an ocean.

Ford’s Reaction Had Nothing to Do With the Design

Ford’s reaction is the part of the story that still frustrates people. The company’s styling leadership was reportedly unimpressed, not because the execution was poor but because the work had originated outside the building. A design proposal arriving fully realized from an outside party puts an internal studio in an awkward position, and the institutional response to that is rarely enthusiasm. It is a pattern that repeats across the entire history of the industry. Plenty of good ideas have been rejected less on their merits than on the question of whose name would be attached to them if they succeeded.

There Was Also a Real Business Case Against It

To be fair to Ford, there were also legitimate commercial objections. The company already sold a compact wagon on closely related mechanicals, and adding a Mustang version risked cannibalizing that model while adding tooling costs for a new roof, new glass, a tailgate assembly, and a reengineered rear structure. Mustang production was already straining capacity, and every engineering hour spent on a low-volume body style was an hour not spent on variants with clearer demand. The wagon would also have blurred the identity of a car whose entire marketing position rested on being sporty and youthful rather than practical.

What Happened to the Car Afterward

The car itself survived, which is more than can be said for most one-off proposals of the era. Rather than being crushed or quietly forgotten in a warehouse, it stayed in private hands, changed owners over the decades, and eventually received the kind of attention that any significant one-off deserves. It now appears periodically at shows and auctions, where it invariably draws a crowd of people who had no idea such a thing existed. For a car built speculatively by two men trying to convince a corporation of something, that is an unusually happy ending.

It Was Not the Only Attempt

The concept did not begin or end with that one car. Ford’s own studios explored wagon and shooting brake interpretations of the Mustang internally at various points, and over the following decades a handful of independent builders produced their own conversions, with wildly varying levels of craftsmanship. Some are genuinely well executed, and a few of the recent ones are startlingly good. What none of them have is the historical weight of a period car built by a recognized coachbuilder while the first-generation Mustang was still in production and still being argued about inside Ford.

The Idea Refuses to Die

The reason the idea keeps resurfacing is that it was always sound. Buyers do want performance and practicality in the same vehicle, which is precisely why the market has since filled up with fast crossovers and high-performance wagons from nearly every manufacturer that builds them. Ford eventually attached the Mustang name to a four-door electric crossover, a decision that generated years of argument, and it is worth noting that a 1966 wagon would have been a far gentler stretch of the badge. The car that could have started that conversation sixty years early was built, finished, and turned down.

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Republished by Blog Post Promoter