Redpill me on the Mustang II.
Just no.
Looks like absolute shit. Looks even more shitty compared to other mustangs.
No.
What's worse the mustang II or the bronco II?
>>14764735
Why do americans hate it?
V8 version seemed ok but ausfag here never driven one
>>14764757
I've driven both...owned a Bronco II. The bronco is better. Both vehicles are too light.
>>14764781
>Both vehicles are too light.
but according to /o/ most cars are too heavy and safe in a crash
I guess less isnt always more.
>>14764770
they neutered a muscle car into that tiny worthless ugly piece of shit
>>14764753
Does it really?
>>14764770
Just look at it and tell me how Australia would have felt if the XB Falcon was replaced by that fucking thing. Also the first year had NO V8 option whatsoever.
>>14764735
an ugly but solid car, choked by smog regs
>>14764792
Isnt that what people used to say about the fox body?
Was it just the engine a 302 getting like 100hp at the wheels in 75?
>>14764803
Oh.
Thats fucked.
Its ugly as all shit as well.
We got your newest mustang turd here now and its already shitting itself blowing gearboxes and other crap.
No Falcon after this year and no commadore after next year no RWD GM replacement either
>>14764802
>Them 3 spoke alloys in the 90's
WHY? WHO THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA?
4 WHEELS 4 + SPOKES
hERES WHAT clarkson thought
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEDiMipIskc
Doesn't look that bad.
>>14764814
The Foxbody ugly as it is, was an improvement by most standards at the time.
>>14764814
I wasn't a fan of them either, but the fox body was at least trying after that shitty 2nd gen that was basically a pinto
Seems like a great platform for a coyote swap, not much else though.
>>14764850
So wait the mustang 2 is actually a pinto?
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
they done fucked up
>>14764735
I was told you have to unbolt the motor mounts on each side and jack up the motor a few inches to get to the 2 inside sparkplugs on the 302 Mustang II. True?
>>14764735
here ya go
http://www.autonews.com/article/20140416/BLOG06/140419880/why-the-mustang-ii-should-get-its-due
>>14764770
From the above article:
"The Mustang II is looked upon with derision today by the Mustang faithful because its Pinto underpinnings robbed the car of much of its sporty driving characteristics. And it’s true the Mustang’s 1964-66 styling cues didn’t work as well on the shrunken 1974 coupe version."
>>14764830
This. It's honestly okay-looking.
>>14764870
God i was just reading up on the pinto it was a goddamn death trap.
Never got to drive them over here thank god
>>14764735
Outside of the 1970s, they're crap. No performance heritage, dumpy looks, "not muh muhstang".
But in the context of their era, they saved the Mustang. The 1971-1973 Mustangs were gigantic pigfat cars that couldn't go fast, and were selling horribly even before the oil crisis. They were downsized back to their original pony car roots right as the oil embargo hit and that saved the car. Sure, they couldn't go fast, but they were still a cheap personalizable coupe that had good fuel economy for the time. When the embargo ended and people wanted to go fast again, the V8s came out again and the Mustang started climbing back up.
But without the Mustang II, the Mustang would have died in the mid-70s like all the other American cheap performance cars. You don't have to like them now, but give them the respect they deserve for carrying the Mustang torch through the darkest days of American car culture.
>>14764830
Do you (or the owner of that car) live near glendora?
I think the king cobra looks baller as fuck, stock is pretty ok. I don't hate it but I wouldn't want to spend my money on one.
>>14764872
Their gas tanks aren't in the same place on the Mustang II. And better protected.
![39454d1202415709-1976-mustang-cobra-ii-76cobra2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/obvNOcO.jpg "39454d1202415709-1976-mustang-cobra-ii-76cobra2[1].jpg")
Late 70s Mustang looks pretty good.
Are they a good platform for engine swaps and modifications?
>>14764814
You could get a 73 Mustang with a 351 Cleveland. Sure it only made 260 horses but it could still murder a set of tires. And it looked like this.
My condolences regarding the Falcodores, always envied your cheap RWD sedans with good engines. And the utes.
>>14764830
Fastbacks can look good, especially the Cobra IIs. The notchbacks are hideous.
>>14764844
Fox bodies were garbage for the first couple years but gradually improved.
>>14764893
Yeah
They already have mustang 2 suspension, which is so popular to swap into earlier fords.
Any vehicle built by FoMoCo from the early '70's to around the year 2003 should be fed to the shredder without prejudice.
>>14764897
Whats the weird looking metal bar with a rubber stop under the rear wheel towards the front of the car?
Some sort of bump stop for leaf springs?
>>14764913
Had 90's to early 2002 falcons here same is sadly true.
Everything was horrible except the rear diff literally everything else exploded
>>14764913
Gm too, but instead of 2003 it'll be 2016
Exception is the new vette
Worst Mustang ever made.
>>14764897
>Fox bodies were garbage for the first couple years but gradually improved.
That maybe but visually they were better looking.
>>14764874
Decent theory Mr. Regular but what's your explanation for the Camaro/Firebird surviving the 70s?
>>14764918
Traction bars. Supposed to stop the axle from twisting or "hopping" during hard launches.
>>14764932
>Have a 01 Commadore
>look at anything from 2003 onwards
>Horrible interior
>Dogshit reliability
at least the newer ls's where ok for a while apparently
This feel
>>14764938
They don't even look like fucking sports cars. They look like shitty econo boxes.
>>14764949
Oh cool i thought those where only on offroaders or rods
Looks mad.
>>14764953
Isnt that because thats what they are?
>>14764949
Traction bars lel. High tech add-ons to a suspension design that shouldn't have been on anything except maybe trucks after the 1960's.
>>14764997
You know just as well as everyone else here, that americans at that time weren't concerned about turning, only going fast in a straight line with putting as much power down as possible.
>>14764949
They were the only competitors in their class, and their allure was based entirely around performance. They kept their focus on going fast. Before the restyle, the Mustang had largely forgotten that, and its sales had cratered because of it. It's one thing to take a beating at the gas pump because you're trying to go fast in an oil embargo, it's another thing to just be SLOW and inefficient.
>>14764959
They definitely aren't factory but I bet it's mostly street driven. Traction bars or "slapper" bars were popular on muscle cars in the 70s/80s.
Fox bodies got better by the mid 80s, fuel injected 302 with a 5 speed and an 8.8 LSD in a tiny car was a lot of fun and also why most were rekt and it's impossible to find a cheap running one anymore.
>>14765017
Well, they didn't want to buy an American car to do that. If they wanted to turn, they went and bought British or Italian.
>>14765037
They had leaf springs too though
>>14765017
Coil spring rear master race. I'm an american and an oldfag. GM's A-bodies from the late '60's and up did just fine in a straight line, and handled better overall. Fuck them junk camaros and stangs.
>>14765044
Yeah, but they were lighter and had much better weight distribution.
Say what you want about the rubber-bumper MGBs, they still turned better than a muscle car.
>>14765058
Enjoy your turning ability....I prefer 500 or so ft/lbs of torque.
>>14765074
Different strokes, anon. There's no need for us to be enemies as long as we acknowledge our cars of choice can't do things the other can.
Besides, we both know the REAL enemy are modern Japfags.
>>14765106
I won't say that I don't enjoy a great handling car, on a personal level. But it's things like downshifting and busting the tires loose at 40 mph that makes your girls panties wet and has your friends talking about it 25 years later.
Why were Mustang II called a 2. Did the 1st gen stay about the same from 64 to 73 outside of styling and power?
>>14764753
It's really not so bad if you grab one in good condition and do something about the recessed wheels and ride height. The problem is that most of them are absolutely run into the ground because no one cared about them for decades.
>restomod classic car owners saying the mustang II was shit
>unaware or ignoring the fact they have a glorious mustang II front suspension setup so their shitheap can turn
>>14767330
Whenever you want to sell something that's worse than the predecessor in every way, just slap a higher number behind it.
>>14767341
Kek, this guy is right.
>>14764874
You raise a fair point. The Challenger/Barracuda kicked it in '74. And hell, one could argue that the Camaro died in 2002. What we've called the Camaro (and a few other things) for the past several years have all been built on platforms that were originally designed by Holden for the Australian market. Not *everyone* knows that. Obviously the Holden-based Camaro didn't *save* GM or anything, but it certainly did them a big fucking favor on several different levels. And how does GM repay Holden? By shutting them down.
And while we're on the subject of pony cars, I sometimes wonder how much of the current Challenger and Charger is still E-Class.
>>14767341
>not turning your Stang 2 into the ultimate toegay machine.
Its the right size and everything, just needs sum gud engine.
>>14764735
JUST PINTO ME UP
>>14767330
Basically
>>14767341
Pintos in general are the source of some pretty decent suspension shit man
>>14767341
fuck baby boomers
>>14767824
Not really.
Sure, it's a thousand times better than some archaic straight axle shit from the Jurassic but when compared to some decent suspensions it's strictly pleb tier.
Cobra II's are pretty cool. You can easily desmog the SBF and make it pretty capable.
Massively underrated imo.
>>14767341
>painted brake discs
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>14764870
>Pinto underpinnings
People say that but I don't buy it as the true reason. I mean the original Mustang is nothing more than the Pinto of it's era, the '60 Falcon.
No, I think it's more to do with the MII signalling the irrevocable end of an era coupled with frumpy styling and broughamization. Even then I think if they'd nailed the styling the MII would have overcome the other factors and been far more popular.
Ghia editions are rather sexy.
You wouldn't think a curvy brougham would work, but it does.
>>14764949
Thos guy is correct. The mustang 2 actually was the most succesful mustang in terms of sales numbers
>>14767341
LEL
Check out this aluminum m2 setup. It's like 6k and you can't even weld it to your frame.
>mfw restofags will defend this
>>14767341
>heavy
> no power
> decent for 1971 suspension
It's the miata of the malaise era
>>14768733
Yeah, they're alright. I prefer to just not think of them as "Mustangs".
>shitting on smog era cars that help keep the names alive
It's not like imports were doing much better in the power department anyway. The 1st gen Prelude only made like 75hp from a 1.8l for example.
>>14769251
When you consider v8 hp hit as low as 120 hp that's not bad. Probably almost as fast and much better to drive in an actual gas crisis
>>14764735
Terrible, doesn't deserve to be called mustang, and that's saying something...
>>14768732
>Even then I think if they'd nailed the styling the MII would have overcome the other factors and been far more popular.
It WAS popular, though. It was Ford's biggest model launch of the 70s. The deal is that nobody values them as a classic.
Complete crap but they had a killer tagline
>mustan II, boredom 0
>>14769390
Yes and no.
Yeah the first year, that included an oil crisis panic, sold 386,000 and then fell off a cliff for 75 with only 189,000 units and never really recovered. Total for the 5 model years was 1.1 million. First Mustangs sold that many in two model years.
>>14769854
It was selling better than the 72s and 73s were, though.
>>14767337
>looks worse than a stock Dodge Aspen
Just say no, anon.
>mfw all that work and effort to shine a turd
>>14764932
>Implying 90s buicks and GMT400 trucks weren't GOAT
ITT complete assholes all around.
I own two Cobra II's AMA.
I owned one and loved it.
100 hp with the V6, light weight, RWD. All you fucking need, ever.
>>14764866
100% true. 302 Mustang II's are not something you actually want, unless you only are drag racing. The pinto engine bay was never intended to fit anything bigger than the cologne V6, and the weight distribution took a pretty big hit putting the 302 in it.
>>14767341
So much this. The Pinto/Mustang II were the first Fords with decent suspension design and good geometry. To this day, people still use the front suspension out of out of junked pintos to build project cars that turn. The semi-famous Model T GT uses Pinto front suspension and Fox Body rear. http://www.hotrod.com/cars/featured/hrdp-1109-1927-ford-model-t-gt-race-car/
>>14768524
So, double-wishbone with rack & pinion steering is shit now, I guess. What's the awesome new design that's come along and replaced it?
Cobra II was the only thing decent looking in that generation.
>>14764802
>hating best platform
I actually really like them. I have an odd fetish for 70s malaise cars.
People harvest the front suspension/subframes for resto-mods. Otherwise the car is useless.
>>14773997
Only thing good is the IRS
I want one
>4tehh8rz
>>14776702
And that's only good for swapping into a foxbody.
Bought an (obviously well used) '77 Mustang II last month for a project car. The last owner bought it after it had been sitting for at least 15 years. Managed to scoop it up with a huge amount of parts. It runs good with all the fucking repairs I've put into it and it's a nice little car, honestly. I don't mind how they look and how similar they are to the Pinto. They're zippy little cars and can be had used for a decent price as long as you're willing to get your hands dirty and source some parts if need be.
Biggest issue I've had so far is the radiator. Had to get it re-cored. Saved approximately $3000 in repair costs because it came with parts. Had to get my local shop to do some work I couldn't do myself. Cosmetically, the interior is a goddamn nightmare. Honestly, outside of the 70s, these cars are not that fantastic and come with some serious issues, but I've been nothing but happy with mine. Carbureted engine is always a fun learning curve. The EGR and seals need to be replaced as it's blowing some nasty smoke for the first few minutes.
Is it possible to drop a Turbo Coupe engine in one of these?
>>14765058
At least your car will survive a 5MPH hit desu
>>14773997
Those tail lights and hood scoop, though
>>14777566
Yes. Any lima-family engine is a direct bolt in.
Transplanting the wiring harness is the only big issue for using an EFI engine.
>>14774097
Same. Some interesting designs from that decade.
Can't nix the EGR?
I wouldn't mind owning one
>undesirable, therefore can be found for cheap
>muh carburetter
>simple to wrench on
It's a poor man's 1965 Mustang
>>14772946
>So, double-wishbone with rack & pinion steering is shit now, I guess. What's the awesome new design that's come along and replaced it?
Kek, absolutely nothing. Unequal length wishbones are still one of the best, if not the best.
It's just unlikely that most people will ever take advantage of that, and it takes up a little more room in the engine bay.
And since we have this trendy thing of putting engines in sideways, it's McPherson struts for everybody now.
