I'm thinking about buying one of these that seems to be in great condition considering the year.
Don't
>>13846098
What engine? Remember, it'll be smog-era anemic
>>13846159
It's 4 cylinder 2.3 liter.
>>13846279
unless you really like the way the car looks or you're planning on some kind of neato resto-mod I wouldn't.
But I mean, I like the way they look so I'd buy a clean one if it was a manuel v8 in good condition.
>you will never build a touge machine out of a mustang II
>>13846291
I really just need my own car because I'm sick of relying on my brother's car. I just need a vehiccle that's okay on gas and looks okay. I don't know why this vehicle gets so much flak about the way it looks, but I think looks okay. The color of the one I want to buy doesn't look so good, but at least it works. Pic I posted is the one I want.
>>13846476
i think the mustang II looks nice but that 4 banger is going to feel like a sewing machine engine lugging that behemoth around.
>my buddy has a 8 cylinder 5.3 liter
>supposedly a '79
wtf /o/?
why not buy a civic and be done with it.. why buy a POS obsolete vehicle thats a deathtrap and will probably need resto work
>>13846476
>I just need a vehiccle that's okay on gas and looks okay
There's nothing redeeming about that car, at all. Its 40 years old so your going to be replacing parts regularly. Have fun with a 13 second 0-60 from the whopping 88 horsepower.
you could get a $1000 corolla and it would beat a mustang II in all aspects
The late 70's was an interesting time for cars. I'd buy one for a daily. Keep in mind the rock bottom power, build quality, and resale value.
>>13846098
Don't. The 2.3 is anemic in the Mustang II and you have to change the subframe and beef the chassis to handle even a 289. If you want an older car to drive around, look for something with a 225 Slant Six or a 300 I6. Both are unbreakable and in the case of the SS, decently powerful for the cars it was in.
>>13846543
>The late 70's was a shitty time for cars
ftfy
the only thing people like about this car is the front suspension, which seems to be the choice of hot-rodders and resto-modders
Junkyard will probably take the rest in scrap.
You need to buy it and take care of it. They'll be worth money. No matter how bad they were.
Nobody is ever going to make another one, and it'll be niche. But parts might be okay.
Restomod it if you want or just keep that 2.3 kicking with mods from its era.
I suggest putting a new turbocharged 2.3 in it. That'd be pretty neat.
>>13846838
I have noticed that 70's Mustangs are pretty rare, especially the 74-78. Whenever I'm searching for a Mustang it seems that most people tend to get wet over the 60's and 90's-early 00's models. There are currently 2 for sale in my area and I'd be willing to link you to them if you'd like to see them.
>>13846476
>I really just need my own car because I'm sick of relying on my brother's car.
Buy a corolla and move on.
>>13847275
This, really. If you just need a car, any car, don't go classic.
That said, I do kind of like the Mustang II's looks and have sometimes wondered about getting one, undoing the smog era shit or swapping the engine entirely and generally modding it up into a pro touring surprise. Still wouldn't want it as my main car, though.
They look cool, ive always liked all the styling aspects with them and the liftbacks are awesome
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/mustang_2gen_ii/mustang_2gen_ii_ghia/1974.html
Heres probably the best source of information i could find about all the specs regarding the Mustang II. The i4 is dismal, the v6 isn't even worth considering an upgrade to the 4 cylinder. The lack of a v8 option is unfortunate
The only reason to buy one is to resto mod, by buying a good clean example and basically dropping in a 302 or similar.
GOAT
O
A
T
