Neither of these Shetland pony cars were originally designed or intended to have V8 engine. The Mustang II, an evolution of the Pinto platform, was designed for its four and the compact 2.8 L Cologne 60° V6. The Monza, basically a re-skinned Vega, was designed to use GM’s rotary engine as well as the Vega four. Things didn’t turn out so well for either in terms of those original intended engines. The Mustang II turned out remarkably porky (almost 500lbs more than the similar Capri, which performed just great with the V6), and performance with the V6 was decidedly lackluster, never mind the four. GM’s rotary (thankfully) never saw the production light of day; we can only imagine how that would have turned out as a follow up to the Vega’s engine disaster.
So small block V8s were shoehorned into both of them. That required some substantial re-working in the Mustang II’s case, and of course only made it heavier, especially in front, which was not destined to do its mediocre handling any favors. The Chevy V8 fit into the Monza, but obviously that wasn’t originally intended, since it required jacking up the engine to gain access to the rear most spark plugs.
So here’s the big showdown of the V8 pigmy ponys. It’s a bit late tonight for me to add any more commentary, but maybe that’s just as well. I always found the packaging, ergonomics (fixed seat back on Mustang, for starters) overall balance and dynamic qualities of these cars woefully lacking, V8 or otherwise. A VW Sirocco was a much better alternative all-round. But these were so adorable…
I can’t believe the weight of these barges either, & why is the Monza barely lighter despite its smaller engine? I think early V8 Fox Mustangs were under 3000 lbs; the later ones got heavier but of course had much more power, too.
The Chevy engine is only ‘smaller’ in the combustion chamber. 😉
A Gen-1 SBC would weigh about the same whether it were 262 inches or 400. All they did was a smaller bore and stroke.
I see your point, but it would be unwise to use the same connecting-rods, crank, accessories, etc., as these would either be too light or heavy for optimal power.
Also, a smaller bore implies more iron left behind, meaning a heavier block. This seems absurd!
??
“Also, a smaller bore implies more iron left behind, meaning a heavier block.This seems absurd!”
Exactly what crossed my mind.
Look at the body roll & over steer in the cover photos of R&T on those cars! 😯
I had a Buick Skyhawk in ’78(?) with the V-6 & manual 5-speed. Fairly “peppy” car. IIRC, the doors were long & heavy, & the inner door panels (as well as the rest of the interior parts) all became loose. The car fell apart from the inside out.
Having a smaller bore does not mean that more metal is left behind. The smaller bore engine is not built from the same casting as the larger bore engine. Their is a range of optimum cylinder wall thickness. Make the wall too thin and of course strength suffers and the ability to bore the engine for rebuild is limited. On the other hand make it too thick and heat transfer is compromised. The SBC is the perfect example of this. When they decided they needed to squeeze 400 cu in into the same external dimensions it required what is known as siamese bores. The cylinder walls between adjacent cylinder are connected and too make up slightly for the loss in heat transfer they added “steam holes” which is nothing more than a pair of small holes drilled the length of the cylinder.
So the reality is that the smaller bore does lead to a very slightly lighter engine as it has a larger water jacket between the cylinders not more iron that wasn’t machined out. The smaller piston is also slightly lighter all other things equal.
As far as the fact that the connecting rods would be over built it is just not cost effective to make a second rod for that smaller engine. Another good example is my old favorite the International Harvester SV engine family. When they decided to squeeze 392 cu in into the same block as used by the 345 they found the 345 rods to be marginal. So they beefed it up and both engines received the stronger rods. Yes from a pure material stand point the early 345 rod was probably cheaper to make but having two sets of the tooling to make what is essentially an interchangeable part, as well as stocking both, more than ate up the small increase in material used.
Aha. Well that makes sense.
The statement : “A Gen-1 SBC would weigh about the same whether it were 262 inches or 400. ‘All they did was a smaller bore and stroke.’ ” IMPLIED the SAME block casting was used, hence the confusion.
This Mustang II doesn’t look half bad with the red/black treatment and the mag wheels. And I always liked the look of those seat covers with the padded square-grid.
Car was destined to disappoint though given the uninspiring chassis and the anemic state of engine tune in that era.
This article is the first time – and undoubtedly, the only time – that anyone described the Mustang II as “brutish.”
I owned a 1978 Mustang and it was indeed heavy, even somewhat ponderous. I won’t complain because I was t-boned at an intersection by a Chevrolet Suburban going 45 mph. Spun my car around 270 degrees and blew out all of the glass. I walked away with only a chest bruise where the seatbelt clamped me down during the spin.
I later saw a 1978 Plymouth Arrow (the other car I considered buying) that was involved in a lesser accident. It was much lighter than the Ford. However, its two occupants left in an ambulance.
gonna go with the Monza, I’ve always liked the Monza’s with the dual taillights a lot, was never a big fan of the Mustang II
My first car was a Sunbird coupe of this era, only with the Buick V6. The tumblehome on the Monza/Sunbird was huge, it seemed to extend almost to the center of the car. The Sunbird and probably the Monza also included wheel openings with pockets that seemed designed to catch dirt and snow. A recipe for rust from the factory.
The V6 was at least easy to work on, but included an 8-position electronic distributor so it was destined to run forever lumpy. Also, no clutch fan on mine, so the fan speed roar while accelerating (leisurely) drowned out the engine itself.
My Sunbird had no AC, but did have vents below the dash in the footwell area that did provide reasonable airflow when moving at least.
Not GM’s best effort, but it was my first car, so I will always remember it fondly.
A ’75 Monza 2+2 with the 262 and automatic goes down in family history as my mother’s second most disappointing car. The most disappointing was the ’73 Vega that it replaced (no need for more info on that, I trust). “Our” Monza was light metallic blue over black vinyl, and for its time it was a really good looking car. As mentioned in the review, the plastic wheel covers jettisoned themselves with regularity. The rear hatch rattled and squeaked constantly, and it is renowned to have been the absolute worst thing in memory to be stuck driving if it snowed, despite being outfitted with studded snow tires. Unintentional donuts were its best maneuver. Front end alignment was nearly impossible to keep in check, so it tore through tires like a cheese grater. The dealership mechanics swore that this was a design flaw due to the excessive weight of the V8 on a frame not intended to support one. Independent shops couldn’t keep it aligned either, despite quarterly visits to have it put right again. The article’s assessment of the interior almost seems like a view through hindsight though, as for the time it was really pretty well appointed for a car in its class. The lower-end Monzas and Vegas were penalty boxes, but the 2+2 interior was good looking and nicely padded and insulated. The flared front edges of the rear wheel openings protruded just enough to catch all the pebbles and grit thrown back from the front tires, so at even a year old there was a noticeable patch of rust there from the paint being chipped away by debris (coupled with at least one always-missing wheel cover, this didn’t exactly make for graceful aging). My own most vivid memory of that car, besides being dispatched into roadside brush several times to fetch flying wheel covers, was that ours wasn’t air conditioned. Besides the obvious scalding effect of black vinyl on thighs this was also problematic due to a pet cat who’d somehow managed to get loose on a veterinary trip and sprayed the rear hatch with his unique perfume. Imagine the scent of black acrylic carpeting baking under a sheet of glass with Mr. Kitty’s trademark olfactory signature. It was traded at 3.5 years old for a Horizon TC3. Nobody cried.
Ford built a “better Monza” with the ’79 Fox ‘Stang, 😉
I had a ’76 Monza 2+2 (4 cylinder, 5-speed) as my second “modern” car, and I have very fond memories of it. Due to its weight, it was not the B-sedan autocrosser my Vega GT was, but I always considered the car a blue-collar GT, good for back road bombing and rallying. I liked the car quite a bit.
Which is more than I can say for the ’79 Monza Kammback that followed it. One too many trips to the well . . . . . .
Was the four much slower? The acceleration times posted above for the V8 model are slower than my diesel hatch,
I cant help but think GMH did it better with their Vauxhall then Opel derived Torana small performance cars at least they felt quick.
The Torana didn’t require 5-mph bumpers,door beams and such, and was hence much lighter, plus GMH saw fit to offer a hotter state of tune in them.
The results were predictable.
How weird, just last night I watched the episode of Roadkill where they took a V8 Monza and supercharged it using leafblowers. Weird but it worked. And it brought the Monza back into my consciousness where it had lain forgotten for a good decade or so. And now this.
Growing up there there two Monza’s on my street, I remember riding in both of them at one time or another but have never driven one. It looks more modern than the Mustang II did but then the new Mustang leapfrogged it again.
I loved our ’75 Monza 2+2.
4.3 V8, 4-speed, the thing was a ball to drive. Consistent 20 MPG out of it. Brakes were the weak spot. No more than 10k or so our of a set.
VERY low to the ground. Also jacking up the engine not as bad as advertised, Chevrolet stuck easy-to-access bolts under the subframe. Get the jack in place, loosen, raise, change the plug, lower, bolt up and continue with your tune-up.
It seems strange to take the time to shoehorn V8s into these cars and then use the slowest versions possible. Would a four barrel and a dual exhaust system really be out of the question?
I think the 150 torque number given for the Monza V8 is a misprint.
Early catalytic converters really did necessitate the use of a single exhaust, I don’t think there was a car built in the 70s that didn’t have both banks routed to a single catalytic converter, some split to duals by the bumper but there’s no real benefit to that. Plus there really weren’t any more powerful V8s at the time, any that were were going to be hundreds of pounds heavier for (at best) 30-40 extra horsepower, which was bad enough on these platforms with the SBC and SBF, which ironically were light V8s!
I would think that the “smallest possible” engine choice was a GM upper-echelon decision to help the advertising department with fuel economy claims.
Certainly it wasn’t the choice of the “car guys.” A 350 would have weighed no more.
But the cost of developing the 262 c.i.d. V8 was not zero, and it wound up flunking California emissions, anyway. Bad move, GM.
Ford’s later, unloved 255 was another sop to CAFE stds. In accordance with my last post, it appears (from what I could find online) to have been HEAVIER than the 302!
Under the circumstances of the day, I think the best solution would’ve been something like the Buick/Rover aluminum V8.
The Chevy 262 and Ford 255 V8s are really fascinating. I mean, were they purely marketing efforts where the companies simply decided to make a couple of small displacement V8 engines utilizing the most minimal (i.e., cheapest) engineering possible, hoping they’d make a big killing before the automotive buying public realized they’d been had? Or were they just a really bad effort to make a V8 engine specifically designed to meet emission requirements, and nothing else?
I sure don’t recall seeing any of the same kind of negative comments about the Ford 260 and Chevy 265 when they came out. But, then, there weren’t the same kind of government regs back then, either.
I guess maybe the best thing that could be said of these lackluster V8s is that there wasn’t any kind of glaring engineering issues with them (or at least none that I know of). But one has to ponder, were there any other V8 engines in history that simply had absolutely no redeeming qualities and only lasted a couple of years before they were unceremoniously killed off?
In the great pantheon of ‘bad’ V8 engines, where do the 262 and 255 rank?
The 305 would have been an big improvement, with its 140hp/245lbft over the really anemic 262. It would have dropped right in and no change in weight.
The problem would be the rear axle not being able to take the torque. I don’t remember if these had 6.5″ or 7.5″ ring gears, but they weren’t that strong.
The 262s power ratings seem about right, its a smog motor through and through, the 305 at least will match a comparable 350 to within 10hp in like-like dress.
There was a 350 available in California…
Car and Driver did a test on the one-year-only, California-only Monza 350. It was a pretty mundane version of the 350 (2-barrel carb) but C&D felt it was a rocket (for the time, anyway). That’s the article that I’d love to read.
If R&T had gotten one of those to compare with the Mustang II (instead of the lame 262), I suspect the Monza would have sucked the doors off the Ford.
Do you remember the year/issue? I’d love to pull that article out of my archives to share here, but can’t find it. All the C/D Monza articles I found for Fall ’74 and all of ’75 had the 262…
My memory is not that good. All I can really remember is that the caption for the article was, “Attention, Anaheim, Azuza & Cucamonga Sewing Circle, Book Review, and Timing Association. Your car is ready” with a frontal view photo of a Monza 2+2 smoking the rear tires. It’s also worth noting that, in addition to only being available in California, the only transmission you could get with the one-year-only 350 V8 Monza was an automatic.
It’s quite possible that it wasn’t a fully instrumented test, but one of their ‘short take’ one-page reviews. That might explain why it’s not so easy to find.
I haven’t read the write-up yet, but the 305 was a Monza option after 75, not sure which markets got it,
My guess would be 1977 (nationwide), since I think the 262 V8 only lasted two years.
I don’t think there was ever a V8/manual combo ever available in the Monza, either.
I think in 1977 C/D tested a Monza Spyder with a 305 in combination with a Saginaw 4 speed with direct drive top gear. The results were not impressive with 0-60 in 10.8 seconds. The car weighed over 3300 pounds and had an economy minded final drive. They praised the handling despite the 13 inch wheels with 60 series tires. Try finding that combination today.
Speaking of today, it’s nothing short of amazing that, almost 40 years later, it’s possible to get a Prius that gets 50 mpg, yet will go just as fast as a Monza V8 with a 4-speed (that got ‘substantially’ worse mpg).
My wife has a Prius C that manages to be a little slower than the Monza Spyder and not quite get 50mpg, the C having a smaller battery pack. It does have 15 inch wheels so there is that.
I’ve tried again and again but I just don’t understand late-1970s aesthetic, especially the first few cars designed with rectangular headlights. It seems like it took automakers a few years to get them “right”, since they looked WAY more integrated and attractive by the early-’80s.
I appreciate some of the overwrought weird designs of the era, but seriously, how did those headlights on the Monza go into production? The way they jut upwards from each side of the hood looks exactly like a frog, or a gecko, or some slimy gross reptile. How does a frog equate to sportiness, or luxury, exactly? (cause I’m not sure what they were going for with the whole car, really…) The rear actually looks pretty sleek, but that awful front end just mars the whole design.
The Mustang is more palatable, but then those puffy leather lounge seats look so out of place. Is the car supposed to be sporty or premium? Another late-’70s contradiction that seems present in a lot of vehicles produced around then. I actually love big American sedans and wagons of this era, and desire to own them as collector cars even today (since 13-second zero-to-sixty times and 0.67 lateral grip are forgivable in those). But the small cars from this time period are just embarrassing to look at and sad to read about.
Max P: The 74 Mustang was marketed with attention to it’s “jewel like” quality and the same have it your way as the original.
Remember that performance dropped due to unleaded gas and emissions controls and was replaced by comfort features, Brougham era interiors and stickering to give cars the look of performance they couldn’t deliver.
It was the temper of the times and to replace one thing with something else: if one is going to drive a slow car, might as well luxe it up to compensate.
BTW, the addition of the V8 in the Mustang required the grille and hood to be restyled to clear the larger engine.
The interiors of the Mustang II and Pinto were much better finished than their direct GM competitors (and, in the case of the Pinto, the AMC Gremlin, another direct competitor).
Whatever its other limitations, you could equip a Mustang II so that it had a very nicely finished interior. The Mustang II was actually more convincing as a miniature brougham than as a downsized muscle car.
My mother had a 1976 Monza with “Bicentennial” interior. It was her first non-station wagon and she drove if for 10 years until someone hit her. Her next car was a Dodge Aries, which was not as cool as the Monza. She still talks fondly about this car, it was her favorite.
Had to remove the heads on a ’75 Mustang Ghia 302 to replace head gaskets. There was plenty of room to do so. For a car not designed for a V8 under hood access was actually quite good. But getting 13-15 MPG was really pathetic along with only about 130 feeble single exhaust 2 barrel carb HP from 5.0 liters.
I used to work with a guy whose sideline was stuffing Chevy V8s into Vegas, either into someone else’s car or one he’d bought with intent to sell. He was happy to let me borrow one of his for errand runs. His Vega wagon with a 327 was actually a nice little critter, easy to drive in traffic and a hoot when you booted it, but the 409 4-speed 2-door sedan was more work than anyone needs, with a clutch that needed both iron thighs and a delicate touch.
I thought the Vega was a whole lot prettier than the Monza could ever be, especially the wagon, and it’s deeply annoying to me that a car that looked so good and that could be so nice to drive could be so screwed up by poor engineering under the hood and lousy build quality. I think it was not more than a year or two after production had stopped that I started seeing one parked in a nearby alley, rusting away in every visible part. The rear bumper was a rust-riddled shell, barely held together by its “BUY AMERICAN” bumper sticker.
A classmate in my high school auto shop stuffed a built SBC 327 (bored 0.060″ over IIRC even if that left dangerously-thin cylinder walls) into a 1976 Monza, and that was one of the scariest cars that I have even been a passenger in.
First he blew up the rear end, which was ‘fixed’ by opening up the cover and using a stick-welder to weld all of the spider and side gear pieces back together. He had that done in one shop class period. A piece of the broken spider gears had gotten between the ring and pinion after the internal explosion and damaged a spot on the teeth, so there was a loud “chung, chung” emanating from the housing formerly known as the differential as he backed out of the shop (it goes without mentioning that zero clearances or tolerances were checked).
Immediately after said rear end was welded into a solid mass of slag-coated metal, he went out into the high school parking lot and did the most amazing collection of donuts that I have ever seen (this was back in the 1980s, so you could get away with a bit more than these days). The quantity of smoke produced resembled something from a good-sized wildfire.
I also got to witness (from inside the car) an amazingly-long burnout done on the arrow-straight street next to the high school. It’s much less impressive from inside the car unless you turn around and realize that you can’t see anything.
The car’s owner did a lot of stupid things in this car too close to the police, so it got to the point where he had to leave it parked as he would immediately get pulled over anytime that he drove it. He also blew up the 4-speed manual transmission (Saginaw I think, replaced by an iron-case Muncie which were much more plentiful back then).
But as for a cheap car already fitted with a SBC motor, it was one of the easiest to hop up, assuming that you didn’t blow up the transmission and rear end like this guy did.
One ugly piece of thrown-together junk vs. a very slightly different ugly piece of thrown-together junk. Which one’s better? Well, gosh, I donno…is German Shepherd shìt slightly less odiferous than Rottweiler shìt?
Interesting to note how gentle and non-critical the reviewers are, though. I guess that whole decade just desensitized everyone to blatant mediocrity.
Well, yeah, of course they were gentle and non-critical. Advertising dollars depended on it.
I STILL like the looks of both cars…and would love to have one or both of them now! 🙂
My sister had a ’76 Mustang II with the 4 cylinder and 4 speed manual, beige just like below. I got to drive it for a week while she was on vacation. Only issue was the super soft springs and shocks which allowed the front end to wallow up and down on the slightest bump or dip.
I’m sure in wasn’t much slower than the heavy weight V8 with an automatic.
I suspect the shocks needed replacing, as the OEM ones probably didn’t damp all that well to start with (the British synonym “dampers” is more descriptive).
down by the denil floss bush…
I didn’t realize they made a Mustang hatchback. I also threw up a bit into my mouth…
Ford did it twice, with the Mustang II, and then with the Fox-platform Mustang.
Given how popular the Fox-platform Mustang hatchback was, I’m surprised that it’s so easily forgotten…but then again, it’s been 23 years since the last one rolled off of the assembly line. Back in the day, it seemed like they were everywhere!
Back in the early 70s when plans were being finalized for Mustang II production it was originally thought that there needed to be 1 body style only….the fastback. Surveys of potential customers convinced Ford Motor Company that they “needed” the iconic notchback, so almost last minute the go-ahead was given for the 2nd body style.
BTW, notchback Mustang IIs outsold fastbacks. Apparently folks preferred “faux Brougham” over faux muscle.
“BTW, notchback Mustang IIs outsold fastbacks.”
I definitely believe that from having been around at the time, and interestingly, the opposite was the case for the Fox Mustang, at least after the first two years of production. In 1981, the numbers were practically equal between the two body styles, and after 1982 the ratio was at least two to one (hatchbacks to sedans). The reintroduction of the GT (available only as a hatchback or convertible) may have had something to do with that, and it’s interesting to note that Ford dropped the hatchback when the SN-95 appeared for the 1994 model year.
Both of these make a compelling argument for a V-6 Capri, to be frank. Not that the Capri was perfect either, but I’m struggling to find a way either of these cars would be preferable, except maybe in that nebulous hot-rodder “It’s got great potential if you pull out the entire stock drivetrain and half the suspension” sense.
Problem with the Capri – Cost. The exchange rate with the German Mark in the mid 70’s was awful. I know the engine and perhaps many other parts of the car came from West Germany. Capri was a great bargain when first released, but as it soldiered on, the price went stratospheric.
The article spells out on the Monza, and similar things were done with the Mustang II, the suspension changes to make them smoother and quieter than the Vega/Pinto. This differentiated them from the less expensive economy cars. The same could be said for the larger engine choices. Smoothness was being added, acceleration not so much.
These decisions were made solely aiming the cars at the USA market. In comparison the Capri V6 sold in tiny numbers and became an even smaller factor around this time as the Capri II debuted at a very high price.
@driver is right about the exchange rate pushing prices up — at a glance, it looks like a comparably equipped four-speed Capri would have run maybe $400 more than the Mustang unless you wanted to settle for the 2.3-liter four (which I’m not sure would have been that much worse than the Monza, performance-wise). The exchange rates are certainly why Lincoln-Mercury went for the Fox Capri rather than the European Capri Mk3.
To John’s point, the Capri sold much better in the U.S. than you might expect and accounts for a surprisingly large slice of all Capri sales. It’s true, though, that U.S. interest dried up when the exchange rates got out of hand.
For at least a short period of time the Capri was the 2nd best selling “import” behind the Beetle and I’ve seen ads that touted that fact.
I don’t know why, considering what folks say about the Mustang II and this era of car, but I couldn’t wait to read this issue as a kid. I would have been less excited to see a Porsche 911 SC versus Ferrari 308. I liked them both but was pulling for the Mustang to win.
I thought it was cool of Ford to stuff the 302 in there and remember all of the telltale signs — the chrome V8 badge on the front fender, the slightly wider downward pointing dual tailpipes and the scrunched header panel at the radiator to make room for the engine.
The Mustang II was indeed designed for the V8 from the beginning, as it was available with the 302 since 74 in Mexico. The 75 “face-lift” of the II was more to make room and provide better air flow for the optional air-conditioning of the V8.
In 1974 my sisters and I bought new cars: 1 sister bought a Mustang II Ghia with V6 and manual transmission, 1 sister a Capri V6 with manual transmission, and I bought a car highly recommended by Car&Driver…..an Audi Fox.
The Mustang II LOOKED nice, but was a bit of a pile. The radio had some kind of glitch that caused it to stop working randomly. The sunroof leaked when it rained….A LOT. And drove like a mini Thunderbird.
The Capri wasn’t too bad, but affected by weight gains made for the 74 model, that is heavy steering and less than spritely acceleration. But well made and would stay with the family for over 10 years….unlike the Mustang II that was gone in under a year.
These Monzas were definitely lookers. However, it only managed 110 HP? Wow…that’s really a dismal number for a V8, and 150 lb-ft torque is downright pathetic (though another source states 195 lb-ft as the tq figure. Still not great.)
I guess Chevy realized that, as it was upgraded to the 305 in mid ’76. The bump to 140 HP and 245 lb-ft torque must have made it seem like a rocket ship in comparison…
I have a ’77 Chevy Monza 2+2 with the 305 small block. I plan on writing a CC about it soon:
What about the Crosley article?
I’m going with the mustang . I have a 74 and it looks way better than the old man’s car the monza. It performs better to.y uncle used to sell cars and I took one monza for a test drive. It handled like shit and it was much slower than my mustang. The monza was eventually sold for scrap because no one wanted to buy it. That monza sat in the scrap yard for 5 years and was eventually used as a stock rod then after a year landed back I’m my uncles brothers scrapyard…. then got crushed haha. My mustang is still going strong.