Mustang Step-Child Options

[redhorse]

For many years this Generation has been looked down on. To many this is not even a Mustang. If you get the Mustang Times, there is some interesting information in this months issue. As I read it, you will begin to start seeing more '74-'78's at National Shows.

[h8imports]

I have a 75 Pinto II I want to fix up but Lisa said she don't want me too. If I get some of my other projects out of the way I might just fix me up one. I will get a tag that says PINTOII. LOL

I like them because one was my first drag car or my first car I ever drove. Plus you don't see them at shows.

[NO2MORO]

These were some of the worst years for the mustang. They were ugly and under rated.

[78CobraII]

These were some of the worst years for the mustang. They were ugly and under rated.

Whoa Dude...didn't your Momma tell you not to say anything at all if you can't say something nice?

I like Fox Mustangs, even though I've never owned one, I had friends that did and still do. They are attractive cars even if they don't look anything like the Mustangs that came before them. In fact the in the early years they had the exact same engines as the Mustang II (2.3L, 2.8L, and 302), with the same power levels. It's also nice that Ford used the 4 lug wheel design on both the Mustang II and Fox Mustangs...it gives me some nice aftermarket wheels to pick from for my 1978. I wonder why Ford didn't use the "running horse" badge much on the Fox Mustangs? It was in five places on both my 1965 and 1978 coupes.

I also like the Classic Mustangs. I drove a '65 coupe through high school. But it handled poorly compared to my Mustang II's, mainly because it came from the factory with no rear sway bar, drum brakes, and skinny little bias ply tires. Oh, and its 2 bbl 289 engine had only slightly more HP than the 2 bbl 302 in my CBII (remember the conversion to SAE rating...). I do like the fact that both my 1965 and 1978 Mustangs had nearly identical 8 inch rear ends and that 1965 Shelby under-rider traction bars will fit my MII with only minor mods.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I disagree with the "ugly" bit, but I definately agree with the "under rated" part.

An under 3000 lb Ford with a good looks, good structure, good suspension, and an optional 302 engine is a good thing.

[Shinoda Cobra]

Interesting point....
Average yearly Mustang sales 74-78 - 203,367

Average yearly Mustang sales 79 - 93 - 151,836

Average yearly Mustang sales 94 - 04 - 144,399

Average yearly Mustang sales 05-current - 138,345

[Craasher]

I dont have a problem with the Mustang II's, but I like the higher-end ones like the Cobra or ones with the spoiler and chin spoilers on them. (I think its called a chin spoiler) Some of the other ones just look kinda plain.

I would actually like to have a Cobra II some day.

[h8imports]

Interesting point....
Average yearly Mustang sales 74-78 - 203,367

Average yearly Mustang sales 79 - 93 - 151,836

Average yearly Mustang sales 94 - 04 - 144,399

Average yearly Mustang sales 05-current - 138,345

Also the prices kept going up on the cars as well. That may have a lot to do with it. Look at the 65-66 mustangs. New they were 2500.00??? The mustang II's didn't sell nowhere near as many as the 65-66 sold. Prices has a lot to do with the yearly sales. Thats my 2 cents worth.

I dont have a problem with the Mustang II's, but I like the higher-end ones like the Cobra or ones with the spoiler and chin spoilers on them. (I think its called a chin spoiler) Some of the other ones just look kinda plain.

I would actually like to have a Cobra II some day.

Want one? I have one I will sell. You will need to restore it but I got one for ya!

I will have to agree NO2MORO. I think they were the worst years as far as mustangs go. You never hear about the Mustang II's. They are the step child. LOL I personally like them better than the 71-73 mustangs. Other than that I like all the other body styles better than the Mustang II's. You never see Mustang II's around so I would like to have one for that reason. They can be made to look good. I don't like them in stock mode. You start fixing them up and they look pretty good.

As far as 4 lug goes on the Mustang II's and Foxbodys. They had 4 lug in the 65-68 Mustangs. If it was a 6 cyl it came with 4 lug. Only the V8's came with 5 lug.

[Shinoda Cobra]

Also the prices kept going up on the cars as well. That may have a lot to do with it. Look at the 65-66 mustangs. New they were 2500.00??? The mustang II's didn't sell nowhere near as many as the 65-66 sold. Prices has a lot to do with the yearly sales. Thats my 2 cents worth.

Prices had little to do with it. People made less money in 74-79. Ford made the Mustang that America wanted during that period. Mustang enthusiast were not overjoyed with it. My first car was a 73. My sister's first car was a 74. It wasn't a bad car at all. It didn't have nearly the power that mine had but, it got a lot better gas mileage than mine. That was important in the mid 70's. Imports came on the scene in the 70's and 80's as well. That would be a better reason as to why the sales have dropped over the years.

[78CobraII]

Ford has always produced an "economical" Mustang with less content and a more fuel efficient engine, along with the more highly contented and powered Mustangs. The ratio of 2/3's "economical" to 1/3 "performance" is the usual production figure. I've heard from several sources that there would not be a Mustang at all without the larger proportion of 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder models.

The Mustang II carries on with this same ratio with about 1/3 of all MII's having the 302 engine and the rest being "economical". So yeah, most Mustang II's are the "plain looking", "economical" models.

Given that in a short period Ford had to simultaneously improve safety (with 5 mph bumpers, door intrusion beams, and more structure), improve fuel efficiency (with smaller engines and lighter cars), AND reduce exhaust emissions (with new technology such as electronic ignition, electronic carburator control, and catalytic converters), we're lucky that we have any surviving cars from the 1970's at all! The Mustang II bore the brunt of most of these changes and still was a good enough car that over a million were sold in five years.

[h8imports]

Prices had little to do with it. --- Imports came on the scene in the 70's and 80's as well. That would be a better reason as to why the sales have dropped over the years.

Imports where cheaper so prices did have something to do with it. LOL

In 74 Mustang II's didn't have a V8 so there was no performance in mind. Mustang II's were economical cars. Like I said I like them but not as well as other model mustang years. I want to fix one up so bad I can't stand it. I may just do it in the summer. It shouldn't take long to get it running!

[GT500KR]

Let me just say, I AM a Mustang II fan.

In my opinion, Ford's biggest mistake with the Mustang II was not offering a V8 in it's first year. That really hurt the Mustang brand's image as a performance car. The American car buyers put it in the same category with Pinto's and Vegas, and it got stuck there. When Ford finally did put the 302 back on the option list, it was initially only offered with an automatic transmission.

And if that wasn't bad enough, the Mustang II was launched during the worst decade for performance. The auto industry was struggling to meet 5 mph crash ratings (which don't exist anymore), the ever increasing demands by the EPA, and meeting C.A.F.E. standards. Smothered with the early cats, and miles of vacuum hoses, true performance was a thing of the past.

I ordered a 1978 Cobra II in the spring of '78. Black with orange tri-color stripes, the car was beautiful. The styling on these cars was true to the original design, from the open grill with a running horse, "C" scoop like styling on the sides, to the tri-bar tail lights. I ordered it with a 302, 4 speed, and traction lock axle. It was one of the best driving and handling cars I have ever had. While it was not the fastest, it was a pleasure to drive, I wish I still had it.

To all you Mustang II haters out there who think these cars are ugly, take a good hard look at the '79 to '93 cars. They have virtually NO traditional Mustang styling cues, and look more like a sporty Fairmont. If there was ever an ugly duckling Mustang, this is it. Seriously, just LOOK at it!

I personally like ALL the Mustang body styles. I have owned 9 Fox body cars, and still have an 86 GT, and a 91 Saleen convert. The Fox body could have gone down in history as the worst Mustang ever, except for one thing. The one thing that the Mustang II lacked. PERFORMANCE!

Yes, in 1982, the "BOSS" was back. And we embraced it's questionable design, simply because it gave us the excitement we had longed for. Horsepower has increased steadily ever since, and today's cars match, and even exceed the big displacement classics from the sixties and early seventies.

So. let's quit hatin' on the Mustang IIs. They are a part of the Mustang story. I hope we will start seeing a lot more of them at shows and cruse ins.

[Welder4956]

A good discussion. I am a Mustang II owner, but have to agree they do get treated as a "stepchild" in the sense they are shunned by most of the rest of the family, very misunderstood, but highly underestimated. However, there is a lot of potential there when you swap in a 347 or 351W. A 3-door hatchback base model had a shipping weight of 2713 pounds. A 302 V8, automatic with A/C, power steering and power brakes came in around 3400 pounds.

The downside right now is that while I can find front suspension parts out the wazoo, there is not a lot of aftermarket and resto parts due to the perpetuation of the stepchild image. So, help us out and talk up the Mustang II so we can get some parts made!

My least favorite looking model was the 79-82 box cars. After that would be the 71-73 steamboats.

[redhorse]

Very big fan of the of the little car. Obviously over 1 million people liked it also. Different styles and designs draw different individuals. When I first saw the redesigned '87 Mustang, I thought it looked like the European Merkur XR4Ti.

It would be my guess if someone started making and producing spare parts for the Mustang II, it would draw a strong following.

[h8imports]

A good discussion. I am a Mustang II owner, but have to agree they do get treated as a "stepchild" in the sense they are shunned by most of the rest of the family, very misunderstood, but highly underestimated. However, there is a lot of potential there when you swap in a 347 or 351W. A 3-door hatchback base model had a shipping weight of 2713 pounds. A 302 V8, automatic with A/C, power steering and power brakes came in around 3400 pounds.

The downside right now is that while I can find front suspension parts out the wazoo, there is not a lot of aftermarket and resto parts due to the perpetuation of the stepchild image. So, help us out and talk up the Mustang II so we can get some parts made!

My least favorite looking model was the 79-82 box cars. After that would be the 71-73 steamboats.

The Mustang II don't make good drag cars even though they are light weight. Mainly because the motor sits so far in front of the tires. To make them run as good as a Foxbody or earlier mustang (not the 71-73) you really need to move the motor back behind the front tires so you can get good weight transfer. I like the 79-82 Foxbodys. I like them better than the Mustang II's. I would have to change the front ends to at least the 83-86 front end. LOL The Mustang II's are part of Mustangs past and will always be that way. They are treated like a step child and probably always will be. There is NO aftermarket like the 65-73 or 79-2010. I have 3 Mustang II's at the house and all of them need front bumpers and they are not made aftermarket.

Very big fan of the of the little car. Obviously over 1 million people liked it also. Different styles and designs draw different individuals. When I first saw the redesigned '87 Mustang, I thought it looked like the European Merkur XR4Ti.

It would be my guess if someone started making and producing spare parts for the Mustang II, it would draw a strong following.

If people started making after market I still don;t think you would see them start showing up a lot. Pieces cost to much and the cars won't bring anything when they are restored. A fully restored Mustang II vs a fully restored 65. The 65 will be worth twice as much as the Mustang II.

Like I've said I'm a fan of the Mustang II. They are not my favorite Mustang by no means. They are for sure not my least favorite. I like them better than the 71-73. I think the 71-73 are great cars and look good. They are just to big for my taste. I like the smaller cars like the Foxbody's, 65-70, Mustang II's, ETC.

The 87 up Foxbodys do look similiar to the Merkur. I have a buddy who is fixing up a Merkur and putting a 302 H/C/I in it. The sad part is you can buy just about what ever you want for the Merkur's and you can't buy hardly anything for the Mustang II's.