(first posted at ttac in 2010 and here on 2/10/2012) Powered By Ford. There’s something special about those words, something iconic, something that evokes nightmares of an uniquely American scope, from our first family cross-country trips in a 1954 Ford that perpetually overheated and stalled from vapor lock (when it actually started) to the last one, Mother’s craptastic 1981 Escort (replaced by a Civic) that could barely do seventy wheezing unsteadily along the rain-soaked I-70 straight. Powered by Ford. It’s the peeling logo hastily slapped onto the valve covers of this five-liter Mustang II, but you won’t need to raise the hood to understand what it means. The first time this pathetic lump of an engine tries to suck air through its tiny two-barrel carburetor and wheezes its feeble exhaust through its soda-straw sized tailpipe, it will be more than crystal clear. (an explanation of my specific choice of these words follows)
My apologies to Jack Baruth (and it’s not the first time I’ve stolen some of his words). But his stirring words of worship at the altar of Ford compels me to release the anti-Ford held safely thus far in the digital files, and unleash its full 122 horsepower V8 fury upon his Mustang love poem. Nature seeks a balance, and for every heroic blue oval exploit at Le Mans in 1967 and Topanga Canyon Road in 2010, there is a 1971 LTD or this 1976 Mustang Cobra II to offset the glory.
The simple truth is that the Mustang II was a pathetic little toad. Obviously, it couldn’t have been much worse than its predecessor, that hideously oversized barge of a draft-horse car, the ’71-’73 ‘Stang. Or could it? One wants desperately to give Lee Iacocca credit for trying to do the right thing: dramatically downsize the Mustang to make it competitive with the Euro style “super-coupes” that were the hot thing after the pony car market collapsed under the weight of its wretched excess.
So the target competition for the Mustang II were the Toyota Celica, Opel Manta, and Ford’s own European import, the Capri (sold by Mercury). Therein lies the sum and substance of Ford’s enormous mistake with the Mustang II, the same one that GM and Ford repeated endlessly until they were finally pounded into submission. Instead of just building the highly competent Capri as the Mustang II, or in the case of GM, the Manta/Opel 1900, instead of the Vega, they threw themselves repeatedly on the sword of hubris: we can do it better in Detroit, even small sporty and economy cars, something the Europeans had been building and perfecting for decades.
GM’s Vega was the first to go down this path, if we generously give the Corvair a pass. The Opel 1900/Manta was a delightful-handling and well designed car, and with a tiny fraction of the money wasted on the Vega’s development, it could have been made truly superb. Ford’s Pinto was only marginally better than the Vega because it didn’t blow up or rust quite so instantaneously, but its silly low, short and wide and cramped body were retrograde from the perfectly practical English Ford Cortina that donated much of its guts for it. We know what Americans want in a small car…
That was 1971. That was also the year Mercury started selling the Capri here. Surprisingly, or not, it became a genuine hit, and at its peak, was the number two selling import in the land after the VW Beetle. Reviews praised it: (R/T) “a very attractive sporting car. It’s solid as a Mercedes, still compact and light in the context of 1974 barrier busters, fast, reasonably economical of fuel, precise-handling, and quick-stopping: its engine and drivetrain are both sporty and refined.” Apparently not good enough for Lido; he had wrought a true miracle turning the Falcon into the original Mustang, so why not do the same thing with the Pinto? Why not indeed! Unlike lightning, hubris always strikes after someone’s first success, deserved or not.
A reworked front end and some new longer rear springs were designed to quiet down the Pinto’s notorious trashy interior noise levels and general structural inefficiencies ( the whole car rattles and rustles like a burlap bag full of tin cups. Self destruction seems only moments away. C/D 1971). Lee wanted the Mustang II to have a touch of luxury to it, especially in the padded-top Ghia series; a sort of mini-T Bird. So, yes, let’s put lots of cushy rubber and soft springs in the suspension to give it a nice ride on the freeway.
But somehow, all that sound deadening and whatever else the Ford boys did to transform the Pinto into the Mustang II must have weighed a lot; well, lead is a terrific sound barrier. The unfortunate result was that the Mustang II weighed more than the original Mustang, despite the fact that its wheelbase was now a full foot shorter and it sported a four cylinder engine. And completely lost the proper proportions of the original. With its absurd front and rear overhang and 13″ tires, the Cobra II looks like a malformed cheap toy car. But Powered By Ford was stamped or glued to the new 2.3 liter OHC four, a rather noisy and thrashy lump that bravely soldiered on for decades, and actually got a bit better with time. Generating all of eighty-eight horsepower, Ford’s huge investment in racing engines during the sixties was finally paying a dividend.
If the four wasn’t quite recreating the Le Mans Mulsanne straight experience adequately, the Cologne V6 was the only option for more go in 1974, the II’s first year. C/D tested the new Mach 1 version with the 105 hp 2.8 six, and noted right off the bat that it was saddled with too much weight: “Our test car weighed over 3100 lbs…(the V-6 Capri we tested in 1972 weighed slightly under 2400 lbs)…the (Mustang’s) engine is more notable for its smoothness than any feel of power”. The quarter mile took over eighteen seconds (@74 mph), and zero to sixty took over twelve seconds. Ouch. But it probably had a better ride than the Capri. Oh, did it ever:
“As the Mustang II Mach I (with the optional “competition” suspension) approaches its cornering limits, the front end transmits the fact that it definitely is plowing…enthusiasts are going to be disappointed..excessive body lean was present in all handling tests…” Since the Mustang II plowed and handled like crap with the light little German V6 under the hood, it doesn’t take much of an imagination to speculate what it handled like when Ford finally shoehorned the 302 V8 into it for 1975, for all the wrong reasons. And the fact that it was still riding on 13″ wheels didn’t help any either.
Before we get on to the Cobra II, let’s note that C/D felt that the new four speed transmission that was developed in the US specifically for it was “not as smooth shifting as the current Pinto 4-speed” (sourced from Europe). And the fact that it was given the Pinto’s brakes without change wasn’t any too inspiring either: “difficult to maintain precise directional stability during hard stops”. C/D sums the Mach1 up this way: “its acceleration and performance don’t match expectations. Much of that is due to weight and some to emission standards, but neither of these factors justify the car’s flaccid handling”.
Given that Ford had to do some fairly extensive work on the Mustang II’s front end to accommodate the V8 implant, it’s obvious that they never planned on that outcome when the car was developed. And given that the 302 put out a mere 122 hp in 1975, one wonders why go to all the trouble, given the dramatic increase in front end weight it caused. Ford should have spent money on its turbo-four program a few years earlier. Or found a way to federalize the DOHC and fuel injection engines it used in Europe. But the American legacy of Ford was built around V8s, and what’s a Mustang without one: Powered By (genuine US) Ford.
Now we can finally speak our vile words about the actual Cobra II. Please note that this is the very first automobile to carry that august name since the original. As thus, it was one of the most disastrous defilements of equity in a name, one that was a true legend. That it was put on such a ridiculous pretender of a car, a Pinto (barely) in disguise, is almost mind boggling. Anything positive anyone can say about the Mustang II program is instantly offset by this cruel joke made by Lido and his not-so Whiz Kids.
Unbelievably, it only got worse with the King Cobra version a couple years later. It actually manages to surpass all the bad and stale stereotypes associated with its era. A true poster boy of wretched excess nothingness. A Cobra that couldn’t get it up.
As it turned out, genuine V8 performance in an excellently handling coupe was still in demand, and very much available, in the form of the Camaro Z-28. And at a price that put the Mustang II Mach I and Cobra II to infinite shame. In the very same issue of C/D is a test of the 1973 Camaro Z-28 with the slightly detuned but still very satisfying 350 V8 that churned out 245 hp, exactly double (plus one) of the Mustang’s V8. And the Z 28 cracked off the dash to sixty in 6.7 seconds, almost exactly one half (!) of the Mustang Mach I’s time. And ran a 15 second quarter at 95 mph. And handled and steered most properly indeed.
C/D summed up the Z28 this way: “Because few cars at any price offer the refinement in going, stopping, and turning abilities. And that refinement is housed in one of the most handsome forms ever to roll out of Detroit. But the real clincher is price: the latest Z-28 is a blue chip investment.”
The comparison of their respective proportions tells the sad tale.
It wouldn’t have been that hard to fix either: some more wheelbase in the front, and proper-sized wheels and tires. We made those fixes here.
Here’s the shocker: the Z-28, equipped with the potent V8 and four speed, stickered at $4066 ($19k adjusted). The 1975 Mustang II Mach I with the V6 listed at $4188; how much more the V8 cost is a guess. Half the horsepower, twice as long to sixty, miserable handling, in a ridiculous and mal-proportioned body with a yard too much front overhang. And if that comparison is just a wee bit too apples/oranges, a base 1975 Mustang II (four cylinder) hatch cost $3818, and a base 1975 V8 Camaro coupe cost $3685. Did the Mustang II sell? Sure. What’s the line about a sucker being born every minute? And now I’ve run out of time before I could even get started on the Mustang II’s build quality. Let’s just say Ford had quite a bit of subtraction ahead of them before they could even claim that Quality Was Job #1, let alone back it up.
There’s a good reason or two why the Camaro rated a “GM’s Greatest Hits” designation at CC (here’s the full gushing writeup), and this Mustang II earns Ford a Deadly Sin; Powered By Ford indeed.
Related: CC Builds a Better Mustang II
Cobra packages completely silly? Agreed (but no worse that what other manufacturers were doing at the time.)
But… I am still firmly in the camp that considers this car to be very much in the spirt of the original Mustang. In fact if it had not been for the gas crisis’, EPA mandates, ect… the Mustang likely would have morphed into a Thunderbird at the rate it was getting larger and fatter in the early 70s. You might say Ford had to kill the Mustang to save it.
People can say what they will about these cars but after riding around in them a bit with a 4 speed and mild V8 it handled pretty good and still managed to make me smile. What people don’t realise is the car is 500+lbs lighter than a Fox Body and smaller in every dimension other than width, which is only wider by 1 inch than the Fox Body. 145hp and 270 lb-ft of torque is still respectable considering the economy it was built it and still will put you in your seat.
Regardless I took a run in a ’76 today with a mild ’84 302 and a 4 speed manual, and the front end stayed right up in the air only coming down to shift and squealed the tires through 3rd gear without a problem. Only thing done to the motor was a Edelbrock 4bbl, custom headers, Mutha Thumpr cam and an intake. She went pretty good for what it was.
The reason that everyone had a car like the Cobra II is that everyone copied the Cobra II, and often bought it from the same designer/vendor, Motortown. The Cobra II was the Original Sin.
As a car guy I have a couple of old ones that are worth some money and would be hard to replace. When my son got his drivers license I bought him one of these mustangs. Not expensive, low powered 302 (compared to what I have) that decreases his likelihood to get into trouble, and it still has an old car rumble to it. He and his buddies all think it is very cool. He can drive it to school, cruise nights, etc and I don’t need to worry about him scratching or denting an expensive car.
To me it was the perfect car – and he loves it – win / win I would say!
In 1979, I bought a 1976, Mustang II, Cobra II, Black and Gold in Chillicothe, IL. It was my first car and I loved it. I got my first 3 speeding tickets in this car. In 1983, I was married and entered into the Navy, heading to Scotland for my first duty station. My father-n-law took care of it in Iron Mountain, MI, crashing it and totaling it in 1985. I now have a replica model of it. But, I sure would like to find another and it is very hard to find one. I have tried many different websites and have been unable to find one as of yet. If anyone has any ideas, please let me know.
Kevin,
I found a 52k mile 1976 Cobra II black and gold beauty in case you’re still in the market. It has never seen a winter and is a very nice all original car.
Let me know how to contact you since this website will not allow email addresses.
Kevin S. 8-13-2020
I know I’m going against the grain here, but I like the looks of the Mustang II hatch.
I expect brickbats to follow for that comment.
You’re not alone. It looks a little goofy without the front and rear spoilers though.
i like the 76 ford mustang IIcobra ! just got one to fix up! very fun to drive!
hey Eddie don’t believe everything Bobby tells ya. Get the sbc and be done with it. haha
Knew someone who bought one these in the same color. They traded a red 70 Torino for it. Liked the Torino, this, not so much.
His son had a 70 Mustang in Grabber Blue with the hotter 351. That was a Mustang. This thing is an abomination.
I worked with a drummer who traded a 70 AMX for one!
This car saved the Mustang. There wouldn’t be a Mustang if it weren’t for the sales of the Mustang 2
C’mon, Paul – don’t beat around the bush, tell us what you REALLY think of this car 🙂 It is an amazing thing when a car brings together all of the individual attributes that rub PN the wrong way. This piece reads like a bracing torrent of pent-up frustration. I enjoyed every second of it, laughing out loud more than once, because I can’t really disagree with anything you have written.
I had two close friends with Mustang IIs, both 2.3/sticks. A 74 Ghia notchback and a 75 base notchback. I am not surprised that these weighed more than a 65 Mustang, as they always felt very heavy for the size. The one payoff from all that weight – the doors sounded really solid when you shut them. The car felt as substantial as an LTD. But that is not necessarily a good thing in a car of this size.
The 2.3 was a rough lump of an engine. The friend with the 74 was always frustrated by the glass-smooth idle of my Plymouth slant 6, even with well over 100K. His Mustang never idled that smoothly. He bought it to replace a 68 Cougar. It was a nice car when he bought it, but I never liked it as well as the Cougar, and I don’t think he did either.
The one issue you miss is their propensity to rust. These were legendary rusters, like most everything else out of Ford in the 70s. In their defense, I will say that both of these that I knew were decently reliable cars for their owners. Not really all that pleasant, but they were at least fairly reliable. But not reliable enough to make me want one.
Ya ever notice that Paul’s at his happiest when he can slam a lousy American car? Odd how the foreign crap never gets hit on quite this hard.
You know when I’m at my happiest (writing wise)? When something triggers me, like the JB piece that inspired this one. It’s like a debate, or a need to present the alternative point of view. I would never have written this in a vacuum.
A couple of years back, he wrote a number of Ford product reviews at TTAC that were really lopsided, and frankly, perhaps he shouldn’t have even done them, since he owned one or more of the Fords like he reviewed. That’s a no-no. This was my way of responding to some really over-the-top biased stuff he wrote. Blame him.
I have a fully restored 1976 Mustang 2. It has around 400 hp and I love it. It really changes the car when you get some motor work done. I will be the one laughing in 20 years when there are not any of these left but the restored one in my garage with 88,000 miles and matching numbers for the 5.0. Its still a cobra baby!
And we have seriously dissed the Yugo, Austin America, and the Bi-Turbo, although other writers jumped on them before I found examples of them. There will be others.
The Sterling 825, which, Paul, you were spot on. Now THAT was a POS. it’s Honda heart could not have saved it. I was back working/living in the Bay Area when those were new. Most languished on dealer lots or wound up as cut rate leases and loss-leaders eventually wholesaled (not that there was ever any “retail” market for these as demos, lease return or used cars) to 2nd/3rd tier dealers (used car dealers). No prejudice on lousy cars that have graced the CC pages.
Seriously though, the Pinto-Stang was going up against the likes of the Camaro/Firebird, which weren’t exactly amazing performers but didn’t turn into baroque imitations of their original concepts in the 70’s.
The gen 2 Camaro/Firebird were actually very attractive cars, and to its credit, GM actually kept them going for a long time and didn’t screw them up too badly.
A slashing critique, and every word of it true. The Mustang II got quite a publicity buildup before it was launched, and I was expecting an American Super Capri or some such. After driving one in the fall of 1973, I was one unhappy Ford fanboy.
During the Ford Centennial event in ’03, when there were hundreds of Fords, Lincolns, and Mercuries on display by their owners on the grounds of Ford World Headquarters, there were lots of ’64-’73 Mustangs, and even some Fox Mustangs. I don’t recall seeing any Mustang II’s, however. I never found out whether this was because a) Ford rejected all entries, wanting to forget this little POS, b) the remaining owners were too embarrassed to show them, or c) they had all returned to iron oxide.
There are three bits of Mustang II history stuck in my mind, the first was a period road test in either R&T or C&D commenting that the slot at the top of the front spoiler (visible below the license plate) rendered the spoiler useless for actual down force by spilling the air (wind tunnel fail), the second was that the Mustang II LSD could be used in a Pinto (Hot Rod or possibly Car Craft tech article titled “Horse Bite”) and finally one of Charlie’s Angels drove a white one with blue stripes and T-Tops.
Comparing a 1973 model against a 1976 (first year for the Cobra II) isn’t really fair.
For one thing, car prices took a huge spike in 1975, as much as 20 percent or more,and secondly, there was no 1975 or ’76 Z28. Chevy re-intro’d it in mid ’77.
There’s no question the ’73 Z is a better car than ’76 Cobra Poo, but apples to apples is in order here. And in absence of research, I’m pretty sure a ’77 Z cost more than a ’77 Cobra Poo, maybe not significantly but more neverthless. Was a it a better value? Probably.
As other here have pointed, and is the accepted historical version, this era of Stang was merely a placeholder to give the marque continuity until better times.
that is giving Ford and Lee far too much respect.
and no Z28 those years matters not; WHATEVER V8 ANY F-body had was a better car…
The M II was a good idea at the time, to compete with Celica and import invasion. But the quality and execution was the ‘deadly sin’. It sold well, but then its customers moved on to imports in the 80’s. Then again, almost all compacts from mid 70’s rusted away.
BTW Original Mustang was not meant to be only a ‘muscle car’ as too many [usually not around in the 60s] car fans assume. So, the II gets compared to the Hi-Po era Shelbys, Mach 1’s, and Bosses unfairly.
abuse the name, share the shame…
Speaking of Carroll Shelby himself, he died on 5/10/2012 in a Dallas hospital;(
So, the II gets compared to the Hi-Po era Shelbys, Mach 1’s, and Bosses unfairly.
If all the Mustang II did was shake off it’s muscle car era frivolity I am certain these comparisons wouldn’t have ever come up. Performance oriented enthusiasts may still despise the II, but the cries of “this is an embarrisment to the Mustang” and similar derisive phrases would never be heard….
But that’s not what the Mustang II did. Right out the gate it carried on with the Mach 1 package, three full liters shy of its predecessor and with a literally foreign engine lacking any hop up potential even smogger V8s could benefit from at the greasy hands of the enthusiast owner, and next comes the name and stripe package of one of the fastest American cars of the 1960s. It may be like shooting fish in a barrel, but with those names it is absolutely fair to compare them unfavorably. It would be as if Tesla followed up their current lineup with diesels – think their current owners and fans would be pleased?
It doesn’t matter that the Mustang II saved the Mustang, or that it was a necessary and profitable step in that comparison. The Mach I(II) and Cobra were objectively worse than their forebearers in every way they were previously known for, period. Ironically the option package that would have compared favorably for the Mustang II was renamed Ghia, which arguably was better than the Grande at being a mini-Tbird – even a Mustang II hater probably wouldn’t argue that.
In retrospect, the mid 70’s had many “pretenders” to the pony car throne. At least a Volare Road Runner/Aspen R/T could be ordered with some quasi-serious go (360 4bbl OUTSIDE of California), but these Cobra II’s/King Cobra Trans-Am wanna be’s and the utterly silly “AMX Hornet” with flaming hood graphics drawn by an eight year old under the influence of NyQuil were, even for the times, “mondo-lame”. I came of age during this malaise period in engine/transmission restricted California. Cobra II’s were laughed off the street!
Side note: High school buddy did have a brand new ’76 Aspen R/T. Did have pretty good go (California 318 2bbl/Torqueflite only V-8 option). Looked good new. When it wasn’t in the Dodge service bay for numerous warranty issues.
Smart money would have opted for the Dart/Duster with the 360 in 75 or 76.
As grown-ups, and afficianados of “sleepers”, a 360 Dart would’ve been the ticket (no pun intended), but as Kelso mid 70’s high-schoolers in the day, a Dart/Valiant sedan, looks wise, was a Grandma car. Even if we’d been sleeper-savvy in the day, us kids in the Golden State found the 360 4bbl Mopar “N/A in CA.”
Mr Rockfish, the utterly silly “Hornet/AMX” was actually a pretty nice package. Based on a very useable hatchback body (considered by many automotive magazine writers to be the best looking offered during that era). It offered an optional 304 V8. Unfortunately without a 4bbl carb or dual exhaust, (that would have helped performance greatly) it wasn’t as good of a performer as it could have been. Just so you know, the silly hood graphics was an option, and as we all know there is no accounting for somebody’s taste.
“Here’s the shocker: the Z-28, equipped with the potent V8 and four speed, stickered at $4066 ($19k adjusted). The 1975 Mustang II Mach I with the V6 listed at $4188;”
There was no 1975 Z-28. And no over 200 hp Chevy 350 in Camaros for 75-76. Should compare to a ’75 Trans Am.
BTW Even with no Z-28, Camaro sales went up in 75-76.
And you know what else? There was no 1975 Cobra II, it was a new for 1976 model. I remember the C/D cover story, and it was for the 76 not a 75.
You’re right! (not that it makes a whole lot of difference). Much of the text and test results actually are about the 1974 Mach II Mustang. But I’ll change the headline. Thanks.
That comparison specifically was with the ’73 Z-28. And I said in the text, it wasn’t a direct apples-to-apples comparison. Which is why I offered another one.
True, but the Z was long gone by ’76 and only available used, so can’t compare prices. For ’76, MSRP’s were well higher on average than 1973-74 models. Inflation in mid 70’s was a record high, Even if there was a ’76 Z-28, it would have maybe cost $5000-6000, about the same as a T/A.
I agree that the Cobra II was not a very good car, but best to compare it to what it was meant to ‘compete’ against; 1976 Pontiac Trans Am.
Direct comparison is the Toyota Celica GTS or Chevy Monza Spyder, to be honest.
And even when the Z28 returned for 1977, it wasn’t really what it had been before; it now used what was more-or-less a conventional 350 4bbl rather than the high-output mill that had powered it in its earlier incarnation. High-output 350s would not appear in a Z again until the late ’80s. Not that this excuses the Mustang II’s many shortcoming, but it’s hard to fault Ford for not a building a car like the Z28 in 1974 when within a year Chevy would conclude that it didn’t make any sense to build one either, and wouldn’t build one again for a long time. I agree that the Celica and Monza are better comparisons.
While the Z28 comparison may not be apt, I think the underlying point Paul was trying to make is that the II was overpriced for a car of its size and performance level, and that definitely seems valid. This all ties in well with Chicagoland’s earlier comment, which boils everything down to a single sentence: building something like the Mustang II wasn’t a bad idea in concept, the execution of that concept was the problem.
I love all this defending Ford…
ANY 2nd gen Fbody is better, apples to apples.
And, No, the CONCEPT stank also.
Car and Driver did a comparison test in April ’76 that included the Mustang II Cobra II, Corvette L82, Chevy C10, Dart 360, and the Trans Am.
The Trans Am made 200hp@3500 and 330lb.-ft@2000. 0-60 in 7 seconds, quarter mile in 15.5@90. It also turned in 70-0 numbers shorter than the 2011 Camaro LT.
The Mustang had 134hp@3200 and 248lb.-ft@1800. 0-60 in 10.5, quarter mile in 17.6@78. Top speed was 105.
The Corvette performed around what the Trans Am recorded (but with a higher top speed), and the C10 was a bit faster than the Mustang, but still a distant 3rd.
The Dodge was a bit of a performance bargain with low cost, the fastest 0-60, and second fastest quarter mile time. However, its braking and handling were deemed fairly poor.
Fondly remember ’75 and ’76 Camaro Rally Sport was “hottest” Camaro of those two years. TH350 165hp 350. In California, anyway.
My best friend in high school bought a ’76 Mustang II with the stick and 2.3. A total and complete shitbox. The front struts went ca-thunk ca-thunk over every road imperfection. The rust that was so bad you could see daylight from the left side of the trunk to the right and the silver paint that was still on there was faded to grey. Here’s the kicker, he bought it for $500 in 1981. Five years from $4000 jewel to $500 junk. It still steered and ran and braked and was serviceable, but the build quality and rust issues made me thankful for the 11 year old VW Ghia I was driving.
We patched the holes with bondo, used cardboard as a reinforcement where the holes had eaten all the way through to air, did a rattle can prime and paint, It looked much better once we were done.
But for all that, I still think these look better than the 71-73 generation.
Drive a 2012 model off the lot and it depreciates about $4000 on average.
But still, many cars of the good old days were “beaters” when 5-6 years old.
Paul, I think I’ve agreed with most of your deadly sins, but this one hits home for me in a way that you wouldn’t believe. 1996 Denver. I was working as a delivery boy taking food from Chili’s, Applebees and other assorted places to people who couldn’t be bothered cooking or even driving to get their food. My ’70 Sport Fury had just crapped out (oh if I only fixed it…) and I needed wheels. Checking the local classifieds, (remember those) I found a ’77 Mustang hatchback for about $800. It was in a quite attractive metallic green with a beige interior and smoked glass t-tops. I was amazed how rust free it was, having grown up in Kansas City, where I hadn’t seen a Mustang 2 since the 80s. This was about as much as I had. Okay, I won’t blame Lee K. Iacocca for all of this cars faluts, but they were myriad and not only due to its string of previous uncaring owners.
I purchased it, dumb and 18, after a short test drive, impressed that it started first turn of the key. It did quite well- driving around, although it needed a coat hanger to keep it in second gear- one of my many inventions that car taught me to engineer. It had also been shunted from behind, and although you couldn’t tell, it was enough that the rear hatch striker wouldn’t line up. Thankfully, the previous owner had the common sense to remove the pistons and allow gravity to do its job.
I took a drive up US6 into the mountains with a mate, and noticed another little quirk of this car- the steering rack tended to stick when going around a curve. Not a good thing on a narrow 2 lane road, and I remember a couple of times when it took both hands to ‘yank’ it out of the sticky spot. I ensured after that I had a change of pants when I drove that car in the mountains.
However, the worst, most unforgivable thing that heap ever did, related to the ‘cool’ T-tops. The seals on the T-tops were in very good condition. 99% of the seal didn’t leak at all. Unfortunately the part that did leak, was directly above the steering wheel, and thus aligned with my crotch.
Denver gets thunderstorms every day at 4pm on the dot. I remember my early dinner deliveries arriving at people’s houses and having to explain the leaking roof. My tips reflected the fact that they probably were not in the mood to eat the food I delivered. I later realised it was better just to leave the roof off and get wet all over.
The Pintstang then developed a terminal engine knock, indicating that it was time to find a new car. I remember clunk clunking down to the local Dodge dealer in SW Denver/ Jefferson County and- when a salesman sees a young guy with a car that deposits oil when it stops, well his eyes lit up. Before showing me around, he took my details, and realised that I actually hadn’t done anything dumb with my credit, so he was keen to ensure that I would.
I was shown two vehicles- a new Neon coupe and a stripper Dakota truck. I went for the truck because it had the Jeep 2.5 engine, manual gearbox, rubber floor and seemed ‘tough.’ I got ripped off, sure, and have not had a car payment since, but that Dodge did 80K miles of abuse by me, and made me a proper Mopar evangelist. I never drove another Ford until my last year of uni in 2002, when I had a…. 1971 Ford Custom. Not 500, not a Galaxie, but a custom. That’s a whole nother story for a whole nother day.
Thanks a bunch Paul for bringing back the memory of a hateful hateful little car that I had not thought about for 16 years.
“And if that comparison is just a wee bit too apples/oranges, a base 1975 Mustang II (four cylinder) hatch cost $3818, and a base 1975 V8 Camaro coupe cost $3685.”
That’s a better comparison, and the F bodies started to sell better, even though there was a recession and high gas prices in mid 70’s.
And Ford did go to work on the Fox body Stang to match the F’s for 1979, and they ended up legendary.
And given that the 302 put out a mere 122 hp in 1975, one wonders why go to all the trouble
I don’t really want to defend the Mustang II, but I will say that the point of offering the V8 probably had a lot to do with modifying potential.
The V8s of the time were so choked by regulations that a ’76 Trans Am can be made to run under 15 second quarter mile times without even opening up the engine.
I’m guessing that the Mustang’s 302 could be similarly helped.
It’s like if in the future a Lancer Evolution can only offer a 180hp turbo engine to meet fuel economy standards, but the turbo can still be tuned to bring the car back up to near 300hp.
Also, the V8 cars were still much quicker than the V6 or fours, particularly with automatic. Naught to 60 mph in 11 seconds or so wasn’t especially quick even by 1975 standards, but it was at least two seconds ahead of a manually shifted V6.
I really like this shade of blue. That’s the only nice thing I can say about this car.
This ’77 was Karen Allen’s ride in “Starman”. Jeff Bridges, as a crashed alien needing to get cross-country fast from Wisconsin to an Arizona rescue, hijacked her and her car. So it’s really a wonderfully weird kind of road movie.
Bridges was brilliant (and Oscar-nominated) as an alien learning human ways. “I watched you very carefully. Red light stop, green light go, yellow light go very fast.”
Well done Paul great write up when these were announced and as a car mad teen I read the writeups I couldnt believe what they were doing to the Mustang and American cars in general Lido layered the fat on the entire range.Luckily the Charger had hit NZ and if you had the money you could go 0-60 in 6 sec 14sec1/4 with a 300hp 6 up front mind you most of us couldnt even afford the 200hp automatic peasant version but the dreams of buying an American car and going fast were over
Regarding the weight of the Mustang II versus the original 1964 1/2 model, I suppose it is only fair to note that the former had 5-mph bumpers front and back, which accounted for a fair bit of its extra heft. Of course, the plushy Ghia notchback added an extra 75 kg or thereabouts, so it wasn’t all safety equipment. And it still doesn’t answer the “why not just the Capri?” question. (Particularly if it had had the 302 as a factory option — certainly, Basil Green’s Perana cars demonstrated that a V8 Capri could be a very intriguing proposition.)
One interesting addendum is that the V8 was available on the 1974 Mustang II…in Mexico. From period articles on it, it appears the reason the V8 wasn’t offered initially was that (a) it hadn’t yet completed EPA and (b) the cooling system of U.S. models had to be beefed up to deal with the additional heat generated by emissions controls, as well as air conditioning (which the Mexican cars didn’t offer with the V8). Since the V8 required extensive front-end modifications, it may have had to go through a new round of crash testing, as well, although I’m not sure about that.
I chuckled when I saw that the Mustang II was included in Microsoft’s massively popular Forza 4 racing sim, exposing a whole new generation to its crappiness. I actually have to hand it to Ford for letting MS license it!
I like these better than the Fox Mustangs.
My dad tells me that, in frontal collisions the Mustang II had the unfortunate tendency to decapitate its occupants with its hood…
I’m sorry, I’ve read this a few times, but I still don’t get what you’re trying to say here:
“Ford’s Pinto was only marginally better than the Vega because it didn’t blow up or rust quite so instantaneously.”
Are you telling me that the Pinto didn’t blow up and the Vega did? Or what?
The Pinto didn’t (both) blow up (and) rust quite as quickly as the Vega. It’s a rough generalization; but close enough?
The current Mustang bears a stronger resemblance to the Mustang II than the original ’64 1/2 model. Despite this Mustang’s Pinto Progeny, I think it looks pretty sharp. If it had had a V8 and decent suspension, it might not have the reputation it does now.
You can’t get any worse-looking than the previous generation’s trailer park deals-on-wheels. Long live the Mustang II.
I have to agree, IMHO, this was one of Ford’s few high points, styling wise, of the latter 60’s/early 70’s. That’s not saying much. I always thought Ford’s styling was just plain bad until into the present century. I actually like most of their stuff’s looks now. Why anyone would buy a Mustang from ’71 until the death of the Mustang II when the F-bodies were available, was a total puzzle to me. A friend of mine’s sister had her choice of any number of cars(Family owned a bunch of dealershps back then), a T/A, Camaro, the MII, a Nova, and a Challenger or Cuda (Leftovers), and her choice of the MII was just baffling to me. When I asked her why, she said it was “cute”, and that was the sole reason. Two years later, in ’78, the MII was gone, replaced by a red T/A. Her brother still has that car, it’s candy apple red now, and has been majorly upgraded. When it was her brother’s turn to get a car in ’77, his first car was a black T/A that his GF wrecked about 1982 or so.
For as much as people love to have the Mustang II, it seems to have been given to us for two very important reasons:
1. Without it, there might not be any Mustangs today. Imagine how much more debased the Mustang name would have been if it followed the trajectory of Cougar after ’73 (in other words, consider the Ford Elite badged as a Mustang).
2. What would we use to build all the street rods that use Mustang II front suspensions?
1. It could have gone on hiatus and come back when Ford had a proper platform, like the Camaro did.
2. Find the next best alternative.
Agreed on #1, IF that is what Ford would have done, but we know they wouldn’t have — look at what they did to the Cougar (and, really, the T-Bird, although it got rescued somewhat by the Aero Bird of ’83)
In stock form, these cars were a big, steaming, mushy pile of crap. 30+ years of abuse and neglect done to the survivors only make a bad situation worse.
Still- nowadays, one of these cars with a healthy aluminum-head / manifold small block 302 or 347 with a beefed C4 or AOD transmission, with some decent 15 or 16 inch rubber would make for a killer deuce.
Ohhh-kaay…far be it from me to rise to the defense of such a lame-o product…but, unlike with many automotive bloopers, I can see how they got from where they started, to the toilet they ended up in.
First…was, as noted, hubris. Lido had it in excess; but it’s a universal human trait. The trouble here was, the source material, for Mustangs I and II, were so completely different.
The Falcon was an automotive appliance – a major-manufacturer downsized Checker, if you will. It was McNamara’s baby, and he made it as boxy and as spartan as possible.
Reworking the body, there…worked. Relatively minor tweaks in lines, proportions, angles, shortening the rear and lengthening the front…hit all the right buttons. The ugly duckling becomes a swan…and if it couldn’t fly any faster, buyers didn’t care.
The Pinto, was crafted with Iacocca’s eye on the “youth market.” Long, low and swoopy works for a big cruiser. With a small platform to start with, there’s sacrifices…which the Pinto demonstrated. Paul will probably disagree, but I think the Pinto a good-LOOKING car…its shortcomings were elsewhere.
Now, you have a low and swoopy youth-market econobox…and out of that you need to make a low and swoopy youth-market ponycar. Where to begin…oh, where to begin…
It was a lost cause from the initial order. The stylists did what they had to; they grafted Mustang cues on their Pinto mule; gave it a notchback body. Frameless door windows. Hood scoop on the performance model. What the hell else CAN you do?
The result was a dog; and since there wasn’t a chance in meeting either price-point or weight targets with a V8, performance ceased to be a priority. That, too, saved R&D on what they certainly knew would be a floater, even before it hit the market. The product planners dusted themselves off, had a drink or twelve, and moved on to the next reworking of the Mustang – in which they started with a platform both different enough, versatile enough, and adaptable enough to actually make a desirable car.
Why didn’t they just copy the Capri? Probably because of the cost of duplicating manufacturing lines. Hey, if they’re going to have to retool, why retool to make something they’re already making? And, an American Capri built for American buyers in large numbers, would need consideration of Americans’ body sizes; Americans’ habit of salting roads, and Americans’ aversions to minor maintenance.
So, the cost savings would be minimal. Running the Capri through the chassis program, would have likely cost as much as designing the M-II. And of course, using the Capri brings in the “Not-Invented-Here” mindset.
By hindsight, basing it on the Capri would have been better. But I don’t think anyone really knew the home-grown Pinto-ponycar would be a road-apple until they saw it lying there.
The II may have been a better car if the engineers had more than 16 months to turn a Pinto into a Mustang. Longer leaf springs, a bolt on subframe, staggered shocks, and a relocated steering rack just weren’t enough to hide the lineage.
I have read that early on there was a plan for the II to be based on the Maverick, that would have been interesting.
I like the II and I don’t. It would have to be a screaming deal for me to look twice at one and I’m a huge fan of “malaise” performance cars.
To my eye, basing the Mustang II on the Maverick would have been a GREAT idea. I’m not sure it would have helped vis-a-vis the import invasion at that time, but in a hereditary sense it would be logical.
In hindsight, while the Mustang II was undoubtedly craptacular, for the times, it was a good fit. The first gas crisis the US had ever experienced was a huge shot of cold water in the face and fuel economy improvements, even miniscule or imagined ones, were the rule of the day. No one wanted any part of gas-sucking musclecar performance that had been such a huge seller just a few years before, and it had all but completely disappeared from all domestic showrooms. For that reason, alone, Iacocca made the right call and Ford sold a lot of anemic, ‘sporty’ four-cylinder Mustang IIs (at least in the first year). Everyone forgets that the majority of Mustangs sold are not high-performance models, but low-performance ‘secretary specials’.
What I’ve always wondered is how differently things might have panned out had Iacocca skipped the ‘We can make a better Capri’ focus and truly went back to the Mustang’s roots, i.e., rather than basing the II on the shitbox Pinto, logically basing the 1974 Mustang on the Falcon’s successor, the Maverick.
A Maverick-based Mustang II, even as miserable as it that would have been, still would have been better than the Pinto (and certainly no worse than the Nova underpinnings of the GM f-bodies).
Unfortunately, the biggest issue of a Maverick-Mustang was probably the difficulty in using the 2.3L four as motivation in such a vehicle. I suspect that was one of the paramount criteria for the 1974 Mustang which would pretty much have eliminated the Maverick and essentially clinched the deal to use the Pinto.
Couldn’t agree more. The big problem, as you noted, was the engine – and it was a far-bigger problem than you state. The 250 six was no sporting engine; it was heavy as a steamship anchor and was rated for the same power as the Lima four.
Which was no great shakes, either; that engine was a faked Rolex next to the jewel which was the 2-liter Cologne four. Which had been phased out at the end of 1973.
The V-6 was around, imported from Germany – at heavy cost, the exchange rate what it was. Making it the standard engine guaranteed a high pricetag and low production.
Given what was going on, at the time; with every four-cylinder car available flying off the lots…using the Pinto chassis made sense. Or, more sense than using the Maverick.
In 1979, with things returning to some state of normalcy, the new Mustang returned to its roots; copied off the Falcon’s ultimate successor, the Fairmont.
While I’ve never owned one of these, I’ve been in plenty of them. By the time I was old enough to own a car, many of my contemporaries would have been the second owners of these cars and their counterparts. In fact, my old college roomate had a 1976 Mach I with the 2.8 V6 and the 4 speed. He’d found an aluminum intake and matching Holley 4 bbl, and I helped him install headers (THAT was a fun job. Not.). The car was OK, but even with the go-faster parts, it wasn’t that fast. Another friend had a bone stock Olds Starfire (Monza clone) with the Buick V6 and five speed, it would just spank the MII. OTOH, the Buick motor was the 3.8, but you’d think the pumped up 2.8 would do better.
Even the most enthusiastic Ford fan back in the mid-70’s could not brook the MII, in any of the guises it eventually appeared in. Among me and my friends back at that time, “the car” became the Capri, only because it never got to the levels of ridiculousness that the Cobra II and the King Cobra eventually attained. I really wanted to love them, but they were just cartoonish. They were the equivalent of a rolling codpiece. The only thing that garnered more derision than the MII was the 280 ZX, And mostly because of the stereotypical drivers of those cars. Although the car itself was becoming it’s own parody, too.
My relatives from Germany just laughed out loud when they saw these. I cringed. I became more of a fan of the GM F-bodies than I had been before. If ever there was a good time to change a car’s name, this would have been it. I knew there was a sea change happening at Ford North America when the Fox body ‘Stangs came out; that was a car I could get behind. Turbo, V6, V8, wow! Of course, my experience with the turbo 2.3 was far from stellar, but if Paul ever does early Fox body, I will go into that further.
Back in 2007, a friend of mine in NE Ohio calls me, says he’s got something he wants me to see. He found a perfect 1977 Mustang II (not a Cobra II) with the V6 and four speed. I think it had 60K miles on it, the owner wanted $6K for it. There was no way I would buy it for that kind of money, but it was interesting to see one again.
I wish it would have been something else…
I always thought these were “counterfeit” Mustangs, but looking at the Mustangs a few years before these, the II’s made more sense and the previous models were the counterfeit ones.
Of course, since I’m not a Ford guy, I snubbed my nose at them and moved on with Chevy ’til I lost faith in them in 1977. Hello, AMC and later Chrysler!
I’ll just leave this here…
“Instead of just building the highly competent Capri as the Mustang II, or in the case of GM, the Manta/Opel 1900, instead of the Vega, they threw themselves repeatedly on the sword of hubris: we can do it better in Detroit, even small sporty and economy cars, something the Europeans had been building and perfecting for decades”.
Don’t get me started, they are still doing it now, Ford Australia are currently making a modern Crown Victoria replacement that could be engineered for LHD and sold (or even made) in the US to Police Departments who are lamenting the loss of the CV and don’t like Tauruses etc, not an insignificant market I would of thought, bit of a shame really, for you guys because you are missing out on a great car and for us because our RWD Falcon will end being and FWD RHD Taurus with a Falcon Badge on it 🙁
Wow after reading all the comments, the love/hate relationship for this car still exists. Guess it always will. As a former owner of a the 1976 Cobra II White with blue stripes and the desireable chrome insert in the bumper, 4 speed V-6 I have to tell you guys, I loved this care. Yes I had 289 hi-po mustang witha 4 speed, a 73 mustang 3 speed 302 and a fantastic 69 Shelby GT-350……Well the Cobra II was just fun to drive. PERIOD. The V-6 was not the 290 HP rated Shelby, but it did ok considering the cars the other manufactures were pumping out. Yeah I loved the Z-28, but the Corvette, was sucking wind as well producing at the time a measely 235 HP engines…… I ordered this Cobra II and when it arrived at the dealership, my salesman was offered no less than ten bids to buy the car from under me……. I was one of the first to get one, and it had a crowd around it when I showed up to take delivery. I saw the car and the crowd and thought ” Wow they got more” Then it was realized they only had one and it was mine……. It was a great moment…. One guy actually offered me a $1,000.00 more than what I paid for it on the spot. May have something to do with Blonde girlfriend. Well my wife was blonde too and she just smiled as we got in the car and said a polite no thank you……Sooooo as far as I am concerned FORD HIT A HOME RUN WITH THIS CAR. It was closer to the original mustang than my bloated 73, and handled and performed in my opinion a 100% better. I have since switched to owning F-150’s, but I love what Ford did to the 2005- present day mustangs/shelby’s and am dreading what the 50th anniversary car will look like…. I was hoping that once in my life time an auto manufacture would have the guts to REISSUE a modern verysion of say the 1966 mustang exactly as it looked in 1966, but with 2012 technology. Now that would be a car to buy…… They should do that with the Camaro as well. Imagine the car lots with brand new 2012-1966 Mustangs and Camaro’s……..and yes I am looking to purchase a 76 Cobra II……… very hard to find……
Does anyone know where i can find a rack and pinon and steering cupler for my 1976 mustang cobra 2
I just found this article via a search for Mexican built V8 Mustang IIs!
I was looking at this: http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/cto/3231119125.html
They had less pollution controls (roughly 1972 levels) and were still around 205 gross and were available with a 4 speed, different high back seats, differently sourced interior materials, bigger rear brakes, etc.
http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustangii_75_302_74.asp
In 1975 I bought a slightly used 1974 Mustang II Ghia. It was silver with a silver interior and top. Red pinstripes. V6/Auto. It also had a manual (crank) sunroof.
It was quite a let down in performance after the 71 Demon 340 I had in High School (graduated in 74). I knew a guy who had a 72 V6 manual trans. Capri. But in all reality I knew the new Mustang was more like my Dad’s 74 Grand Torino Elite…….but much smaller. It was quiet, the carpet was thick, it drove nicely.
But I do remember driving by a Ford performance shop in Minneapolis that had a BOSS 351 on display…….thinking aloud what THAT would be like in my II!
Ford didn’t put a V8 in a Mustang II until ’75. In the mid-80’s a good friend had a ’74 Mustang II hatchback, don’t recall what motor it came with, but he dropped, rather shoe-horned, a ’69 302 V8 into it. The ’74 is different from the ’75-’78 in that the core support is not as forward as the later 4 years. It’s easy to distinguish a ’74 by the front nose piece, where the F-O-R-D emblems are. From front leading edge to front of hood is about 4 to 5 inches on a ’74, the later years were only about 2 inches. Being as it was, my friend had to cut out the core support and rig the radiator more forward to clear the fan. I assume that car twisted like a rope off the line; he eventually found a ’77 to swap the drivetrain into without having to “modify” the body.
As usual, I’m a bit late to the discussion, but I well remember the MII CII as it was my first new car. I ordered a 1976, shortly after the Cobra II package was announced. Mine was the first one on the streets in Northeast Wisconsin.
Mine was a stripper, V-6 manual, convenience group, light group, rear window defroster, and the AM FM 8 track radio. No power steering and no AC, save as much of the meager power as possible.
It wasn’t spectacular, but it wasn’t terrible either. A lot of road trips were made in that car, but generally around the Nixon speed limit, so how well did it have to be engineered? It felt heads above the Pinto my friend had at the time.
I also learned to hate Firestone due to that car, anyone else remember the famous Firestone 500 fiasco. The recall was initiated after three of the tires had already blown out (tread separation?) and had been replaced.
One of the trips was to California and worked at a speed shop in North Hollywood. Once my co-workers re-curved the distributor, re-jetted the carb, disconnected the air pump, and dropped the cats; its performance was better than the Celicas that were regularly beating me on the Van Nuys Blvd. cruise nights.
After the return to Wisconsin, it became the niggling things that started to conspire against it, like dropping reverse in a manual transmission, the electrical gremlins, the superior idea of a 3 1/2 foot coil wire on a damp morning, and the general decline and destruction of the interior bits and pieces as you watched. I had to laugh at the crack in the dash pad in the picture car, as mine cracked in the same place.
I ended up selling it after two and a half years swearing off Ford for awhile. While it was worse than my brother’s 1972 240Z, it was much better than my sister’s 1974 Nova hatchback. And hell, it was a lot better than my brother’s 1974 Lotus Europa. . . .
Fords great idea hindered by poor execution. Senior year in high school went looking for a car to replace my gas hog F100. Looked at a 75 455 Grand Prix,70 Olds Ralley 350 (hated the taxicab interior and bench seat), found a 2 year old Black with gold stripes T302/C4 with 4,000 miles. On the 60 miles drive home I found out the top speed was a little over 105mph totally stock. A trip to Green Valley Raceway turned a 17.1@82. Everyone and their dog had a Trans Am/Camaro at that point in time, and it didn’t take long for them to start picking on my little Cobra II. My first mod was to replace the restrictive dual cat single exhaust with 2″ true dual 18″ glasspacks with an H-pipe. This improved it to 110mph top speed and 16.5@86mph. Next came a set of Hooker 1 5/8 headers. Result, 115mph top speed and 16.1@89. Now it would run neck and neck with the competition. Axing the restrictive smog pump,egr,and miles of vacuum hoses and replacing it with a Holley Street Dominator Intake and a Holly 600 improved it to a 15.54@94mph 122mph top speed still on the stock 13″ wheels and tires. Upgraded to a set of 13×7 slot mags with 215/60/13 and 235/50/13 TA radials and traction bars. Top speed was unchanged, but the new found traction improved it to a 15.1@95mph. It was now faster than any 350 Camaro,75-78 Trans Am, and also knocked off a 70 383 Challenger,454 Amarillo Pickup, and a dude with a 75 455 Hurst Olds. The final mods were adding a set of worked 69 351W heads, a comp cam,rhodes lifters,recurved distributer, shift kit, and opened up the hood scoop and made a cold ram air system. Never went to the drag strip again but now that it could breath it would pull to over 6000rpm in high gear or just over 140mph according to the guy with a 79 928 that I slowly pulled one night. With 1/2 tank of fuel it weighed 2840 lbs. As for the quality debate it one of the nicest black paint jobs of any car at that time. The black interior with the real brushed aluminum instrument and door panels was much nicer than the cheep plastic in the Camaros and was equal to the Trans Am interior. The car never saw a garage in the time I owned it (1977-85), and the interior dash pad never cracked, and the paint still looked great, no doubt due to monthly waxing and armour all on the interior pieces. Back then if you wanted a modern performance car you had to build it your self, and a V8 Cobra II made a great modern Gt350 with less than $1500 in mods. In 1985 I sold it for $3200 to buy a New 85 GT with the 5.0 HO 5 speed. The fox was nowhere near the quality of the Cobra II. After 2 years of ownership the dash started cracking,the seat stitching came apart, and the heater core went out. Always missed the old Cobra II. Last year I was looking on craigslist, did a search, found it, and bought back my old friend who was now a basketcase. Am currently restoring and upgrading it with 5 lug LSC wheels, 9 inch rearend, and am exploring the new BOSS 302/6 speed manual swap or 351W/427 tko 5 speed. Should make a worthy stablemate to my Black 68 1/2 428 Cobrajet fastback.
I am looking for my old 1976 cobra 2. I sold it back in 1977 or 78 . I don’t have the Ser #
It was sold in Northern NJ Phillipsburg. Came from Smith Motors in Washington NJ.
It was white 302 V8 4 speed.
Thanks
I had one back in 1986. I believe it what was called a California special. It had black with gold stripes. I was only 16 and my father and I rebuilt this car from start to finish. What I can tell you for a fact is that with a holley mech secondary 750 double pumper and a fireball cam – When we rebuilt it we upped the compression. I imagine all the smog stuff was disconnected. The cat converter cut out and real dual exhaust, I can honestly say that for the 80s. I loved eating the current power of the day. The 5.0 Fox bodies, z28’s and IROC, trans ams were all fair game. I hunted them down with my cobra and could eat them alive. This 4 speed car was fast but Im not sure of the rear. I thought I had 4:11’s because you couldn’t cruise at 75mph without high rpms. It seems I later read that they had like 3:73s maybe. The 4 speed shifted very well and if I could hook up (which was a problem), I could pull the front rt tire off the ground and that’s the truth. The only problem besides the older big block left over chevells you might see in the 80s – (the old dodge B body’s/ and challengers must have been in barns or fields in he 80s) was a freaking 340 demon. I just couldn’t get him.
My third car was a 76 Mustang II with a 302 and a 4 speed manual, headers, a 4 barrel Holly, and wide tires on Cragar rims. I was told by the first owner it had run low 13 second 1/4 miles. Back in the late 1970s I pplayed semi-pro football. With 80% of the offensive line for the Salt City Aces plus our pads & helmets, I made it from Syracuse to Albany in 75 minutes and got 20 MPG!
Fold down the rear seat and you could camp out in it!
I even ran it in Syracuse winters with 4 snow tires. Not much ground clearance. And changing the spark plugs meant taking the battery out.
I loved that car, except the cherry bomb mufflers kept falling off the headers! LOL
I had an orange ’78 and after an cam/10.5:1 pistons/intake/carb rework, headers, shift kit and 4:10 gears I never lost a race to any camaro. I never did race a giant money camaro but general street racing stuff was no problem. Took out chevelle’s and a real powerful skylark because they had too much power and couldn’t hook up. That thing was snappy enough that if I wanted you to sit back you had no choice. Also, a local car club used to hold an annual ford show at the ford dealership and they set up a sort of road course on the giant lot and low and behold, the winner was a Mustang II beating out the big money “classic” stangs.
With the wealth of modern aftermarket components and an aluminum power-added drivetrain the “II” could become a genuine “pocket rocket”.
…and Putting Out Fires Was Job № 2.
In South Africa they made a Capri with a 289 in the early 70’s for their version of Trans Am racing. It was called a Perana I think. The Essex v6 weighed about 380 pounds. The 289 weighed about 460. If you moved the battery to the trunk, found some aluminum v8 heads… That would have been a FUN Mustang II. I don’t know why they built the Pinto when the Cortina was already developed. Yeah, it would have been long in the tooth by 1970 but it would have been better than the Pinto. The sedans would have been more practical if nothing else.
What’s your number ? Because my friend wants your car. He will pay for it too and he wants to know the street number also ? plus state and city, town.
I am the original owner of a 1976 cobra2 blue with white stripes with V-6 auto( no rust!!)with only 24000 miles.I am relocating and would like to sell ( but not give away!!!)
Paul Niedermeyer
– February 10, 2012……. that is a long time to wait to go bashing on it.. you got nothing better to do with your time?
Obviously never owned a V8 cobra 2 with minor modifications
My 76 cobra 2 302 was a “5.0” mustang eater for many years before I retired it
Oh and you forgot to mention most older restomods use the mustang 2 front suspension
Strange that Ford didn’t persevere with the federalised Ford Capri. It was updated with a rear hatch in ’74 and facelifted in ’78, carrying on until ’86. The 2.8i v6 was a genuinely fast car, 130mph with acceleration to match. Ironically it was conceived as a European “mustang” but was far more true to the spirit of the original than the mustang II was. It was also svelte, attractive and fine handling. We couldn’t get enough of them in the U.K, for the final four years of production the Cologne factory was building them solely for the u.k market and we lamented its passing. For the economy minded masochist there were 1300cc versions, going through 1600, 2000 4 pots then 3.0 and 2.8 v6s.
I think the US dollar fell against the British Pound after 75-76 so it was no longer an inexpensive compact. The Capri also lacked real brougham potential and Lee loved his brougham. The spoiler, wing, and T Top potential is very high on the Capri. How would one sum up Capri in too sweet vinyl graphics?
Weight, you’ve hit the proverbial nail. I’m a big block Chevy guy. It’s all about power to weight ratio.
When I built my first engine 1 for 1, one HP per one C.I.D. was a big deal and much harder to obtain than one may think. The 1970 Chevy LT1 is a 350 with 370 hp@ the flywheel. Open one up and see what it takes to get there.
Holley, Aluminum int, solid cam, big 2.02 valves in small chamber heads, doomed I think 11::1 pistons, 4 bolt main to hold it together.
An aftermarket aluminum intake, an oversized Holley and headers ain’t cutting it. Even adding a 268H cam ain’t getting ya there.
But, if you can get 171 hp =1/1 in the 2.8L and at least that in torque to the rear end, get it to hook in a 2600 lb car you have something going for ya. Power to weight is what to go after in a tang duece. If you can get 280 hp 10hp/litre out of that lighter V6 to the rear end in a 2600 lb car you have an unassuming respectable car….that, until the other guy sees quickly fading tail lights, may get laughed at.
This is what Ford UK was doing in ’74. Capri 3.0 Ghia. Yummy!