if you could go back to january of 73....
- Thread starter 77sleeper
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I took my new gerl friend to see the II and took her for what could be best described as a drift around the block. I had not seen the II in a few months and I forgot one thing. The wipers are ugly!!! Ford should have extended the hood to the windsheild and hid those ugly suckers
The girl liked the II, so I think I will keep her. 
The girl liked the II, so I think I will keep her. Superd88 said:
My 78 merc Bobcat had aluminum bumpers. I bolted the front one to a II. (It bolts right on and even looks good). The only problem was the rear. The rear bumper was too narrow so I chopped it up a bit, but it looked stupid because it had the indent for the plate in it, thus the car had two rear plate holders. Your right though, the Bobcat bumper weighed maybe 10lbs and a II bumper weights what 50lbs??
429MII
Mustang Master
- Mar 7, 2002
- 9,432
- 5,380
- 224
NOT USE ' II ' IN THE NAME!
Mustang II , LTD II, Bronco II, and JUST STOP IT!
They should of added great big gaudy sticker packages.
Oh wait they did that.
#@$%& {}!* Zombie thread eats my brain again
but like the Bobcat bumper idea^
Mustang II , LTD II, Bronco II, and JUST STOP IT!
They should of added great big gaudy sticker packages.
Oh wait they did that.
#@$%& {}!* Zombie thread eats my brain again
but like the Bobcat bumper idea^
- Mar 7, 2002
- 9,432
- 5,380
- 224
429MII
Mustang Master
All right...lets remove all the II's from our emblems in protest!...
Cancel culture strikes again, LOL
Were just lucky the Henery Ford III didn't do Mustang III or Bronco III ect.
429MII
Mustang Master
Crossmember 4 to 6" forward to me would have made multiple significant changes. It would have made the balance better having the engine over/behind the member vs being mostly in front of it. The car would have looked sleeker and less of a compact car with the wheel centered in the fender vs forward in the fender.
Turn signals in the grill. Makes the front appear toy like.
Don't get me wrong, I love my II's. Have had several over the years. But pics of the grill without the turn signals makes the car appear wider. Less like a compact. The evolution mustang is a love hate for me. It has too many things changed but I really love the longer wheel base. It looks like a much bigger car in pics.
Turn signals in the grill. Makes the front appear toy like.
Don't get me wrong, I love my II's. Have had several over the years. But pics of the grill without the turn signals makes the car appear wider. Less like a compact. The evolution mustang is a love hate for me. It has too many things changed but I really love the longer wheel base. It looks like a much bigger car in pics.
429MII
Mustang Master
Re: Evolution
It is a cool exercise in styling to be sure...but...
Toyota tail lights on a mustang is a mistake. spoiler too abrupt and tall.
I think the wheelbase is a little too long and front wheel openings too far forward on that car. Kind of makes it a little too stretched (in my opinion).
I agree that the MII crossmember should have been 4 to 6" forward from the factory and thats all it would have taken really.
To summarize all the (mostly realistic) changes/options I would have made if possible to the original design.. (I think all of these have been mentioned by now)
1) front crossmember and fender opening forward correction as earlier suggested 4 to 6"
2) at least 14" wheels, possibly a 14/15 staggered
3) hidden wipers/longer hood to contain cowl to do so
4) smaller tail lights without the yellow euro lens
5) shorter side markers more in proportion
6) smaller front bumper
7) rear lower valence
8) fuel filler under licence plate
9) gas strut hood
10) proper 4 speed that isn't made of china
11) hydraulic clutch
12) proper dual exhaust
13) better battery location
14) fuse box in a better location that doesn't require the removal of 3/4 of the interior to get to
15) front turn signals in lower valence instead of grille
16) slightly less pronounced square shape to headlights integral bezel body colored
17) windshield located antenna
18) loop carpet instead of fluffy carpet
19) tilt steering
20) functional scoop or shaker
21) availability of the 351W
22) availability of the 9"
23) cruise control
24) 8k tach, 140 mph speedo
25) 5 lug wheels
26) power windows
27) oil pressure gauge
I think that is about it. Oh yeah, maybe some less drab colours to choose from.
It is a cool exercise in styling to be sure...but...
Toyota tail lights on a mustang is a mistake. spoiler too abrupt and tall.
I think the wheelbase is a little too long and front wheel openings too far forward on that car. Kind of makes it a little too stretched (in my opinion).
I agree that the MII crossmember should have been 4 to 6" forward from the factory and thats all it would have taken really.
To summarize all the (mostly realistic) changes/options I would have made if possible to the original design.. (I think all of these have been mentioned by now)
1) front crossmember and fender opening forward correction as earlier suggested 4 to 6"
2) at least 14" wheels, possibly a 14/15 staggered
3) hidden wipers/longer hood to contain cowl to do so
4) smaller tail lights without the yellow euro lens
5) shorter side markers more in proportion
6) smaller front bumper
7) rear lower valence
8) fuel filler under licence plate
9) gas strut hood
10) proper 4 speed that isn't made of china
11) hydraulic clutch
12) proper dual exhaust
13) better battery location
14) fuse box in a better location that doesn't require the removal of 3/4 of the interior to get to
15) front turn signals in lower valence instead of grille
16) slightly less pronounced square shape to headlights integral bezel body colored
17) windshield located antenna
18) loop carpet instead of fluffy carpet
19) tilt steering
20) functional scoop or shaker
21) availability of the 351W
22) availability of the 9"
23) cruise control
24) 8k tach, 140 mph speedo
25) 5 lug wheels
26) power windows
27) oil pressure gauge
I think that is about it. Oh yeah, maybe some less drab colours to choose from.
Last edited:
If the cross member was moved forward, would it have been as popular a swap for the hot rod crowd?
- Mar 7, 2002
- 9,432
- 5,380
- 224
- Mar 7, 2002
- 9,432
- 5,380
- 224
How did GM manage to do 5mph bumpers so much better than Ford in the '70s?
These were both Mustang II competitors... it's a miracle the II sold so well! (Not gonna lie, I'm digging the Sunbird and Monza both... and thinking crazy thoughts about an LS-swapped future project built from one... I'll call it... "ElSuperVega"
)
Had buddies in high school who had these. 1 had a Starfire GT with a 3.8, one had a Sunbird and another a Monza coupe, both with the 4 bangers.
Kinda funny story about that Sunbird - before my dad was killed he had bought a set of 4 Keystone Classics with 60 series tires that he put on what is now my 55. I sold them to my buddy who then put a pair on the back of his Sunbird. IF it woulda had some power to back it up it wouldn't have been so bad, but he had all sorts of people wanting to prove that their Berlinetta Camaro was hot
.....
Kinda funny story about that Sunbird - before my dad was killed he had bought a set of 4 Keystone Classics with 60 series tires that he put on what is now my 55. I sold them to my buddy who then put a pair on the back of his Sunbird. IF it woulda had some power to back it up it wouldn't have been so bad, but he had all sorts of people wanting to prove that their Berlinetta Camaro was hot
.....
429MII
Mustang Master
I've had a couple of early vegas too and if they weren't so hard to find now would love to LS one of those.
GM H bodies were a weaker structure compared tp the mustang II though. I've rooted through both chassis now and I can say the II is a much sturdier platform. Vegas etc. are much more flimsy.
It was one of GM's first computer engineered unibodies so they calculated in ways to save metal and achieve adequate strength for the engine (140 ci aluminum) and usage, so there really was no engineering overkill in those bodies. They were designed as a alternative for Honda, Toyota, Datsun (Nissan) for consumers.
Any real hp and without support they twist like a pretzel.
The monza etc. had a little extra engineering to handle a bit more power..V6 and a few anemic 305 V8's but don't like a lot of torque and traction without help. Plus the rear unequal length torque arm and too short for performance design, suspensions are goofy and difficult to get to perform in their stock state where the II has at least leaf springs of a decent construction.
GM H bodies were a weaker structure compared tp the mustang II though. I've rooted through both chassis now and I can say the II is a much sturdier platform. Vegas etc. are much more flimsy.
It was one of GM's first computer engineered unibodies so they calculated in ways to save metal and achieve adequate strength for the engine (140 ci aluminum) and usage, so there really was no engineering overkill in those bodies. They were designed as a alternative for Honda, Toyota, Datsun (Nissan) for consumers.
Any real hp and without support they twist like a pretzel.
The monza etc. had a little extra engineering to handle a bit more power..V6 and a few anemic 305 V8's but don't like a lot of torque and traction without help. Plus the rear unequal length torque arm and too short for performance design, suspensions are goofy and difficult to get to perform in their stock state where the II has at least leaf springs of a decent construction.
