• Mustang Forums
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech

if you could go back to january of 73....

  • Thread starter Thread starter 77sleeper
  • Start date Start date Oct 14, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last

Wart

I'm Mad as HELL and I'M not Gonna Take it ANYMORE!
Founding Member
Sep 1, 1998
408
3
58
NE Ohio
Oct 20, 2005
#41
  • Oct 20, 2005
  • #41
Vince said:
Alright, alright. Geez, tough crowd.

OK, how about this... I would tell the engineers the car was too heavy and they needed to trim at least 200 lbs..and all that weight should come off the front end since the car is nose-heavy.
Click to expand...


The engineers would point out how removing 200 pounds from the nose wouldn't leave much metal.

Far as the II being nose heavy see my first post, move the cross member forward.
 
S

Superd88

New Member
Aug 27, 2005
23
0
0
58
St.Louis Missouri
Nov 7, 2005
#42
  • Nov 7, 2005
  • #42
they coulda put the battery in the trunk and made use of more aluminum for weight savings...ever hold a front bumper?
 
M

Mustangj

Founding Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,228
2
0
51
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
www.mustangsandmore.com
Nov 12, 2005
#43
  • Nov 12, 2005
  • #43
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.
 
M

Mustangj

Founding Member
Apr 22, 2001
1,228
2
0
51
Guelph, Ontario, Canada
www.mustangsandmore.com
Nov 12, 2005
#44
  • Nov 12, 2005
  • #44
Superd88 said:
they coulda put the battery in the trunk and made use of more aluminum for weight savings...ever hold a front bumper?
Click to expand...

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??
 
Reactions: 2Blue2

429MII

5 Year Member
Mar 10, 2019
484
653
113
63
British columbia Canada
Jul 19, 2020
#45
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #45
make the side markers a little shorter
 
Reactions: 2Blue2

Adieu

Easy there, this ain't a dating site.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 7, 2002
9,531
5,187
224
Jul 19, 2020
#46
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #46
Smaller tail lights.
 
Reactions: 2Blue2

Enzio

Dang it. I was hoping mine would get 3 more inches
5 Year Member
May 14, 2019
1,055
841
133
70
Minnesota
Jul 19, 2020
#47
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #47
14" (at least) 5 lug.
 
Reactions: 2Blue2

2Blue2

will be trying this sex one when I can find it
Mod Dude
Mar 5, 2019
4,430
2,893
163
59
Oahu
Jul 19, 2020
#48
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #48
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^
 
Reactions: Enzio and LILCBRA

Adieu

Easy there, this ain't a dating site.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 7, 2002
9,531
5,187
224
Jul 19, 2020
#49
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #49
2Blue2 said:
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^
Click to expand...
But the "Chevy II" worked out just fine... and they still re-named it Nova.
 

429MII

5 Year Member
Mar 10, 2019
484
653
113
63
British columbia Canada
Jul 19, 2020
#50
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #50
All right...lets remove all the II's from our emblems in protest!...
 

2Blue2

will be trying this sex one when I can find it
Mod Dude
Mar 5, 2019
4,430
2,893
163
59
Oahu
Jul 19, 2020
#51
  • Jul 19, 2020
  • #51
429MII said:
All right...lets remove all the II's from our emblems in protest!...
Click to expand...

Cancel culture strikes again, LOL

Were just lucky the Henery Ford III didn't do Mustang III or Bronco III ect.
 

429MII

5 Year Member
Mar 10, 2019
484
653
113
63
British columbia Canada
Jul 20, 2020
#52
  • Jul 20, 2020
  • #52
What would we be on now? mustang vi or vii?
 
Reactions: Enzio and 2Blue2
I

IICrew

Mustang Master
Mar 29, 2020
479
608
103
USA
Jul 24, 2020
#53
  • Jul 24, 2020
  • #53
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.
 

429MII

5 Year Member
Mar 10, 2019
484
653
113
63
British columbia Canada
Jul 24, 2020
#54
  • Jul 24, 2020
  • #54
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.
 
Last edited: Jul 25, 2020

2Blue2

will be trying this sex one when I can find it
Mod Dude
Mar 5, 2019
4,430
2,893
163
59
Oahu
Jul 25, 2020
#55
  • Jul 25, 2020
  • #55
429MII said:
I agree that the MII crossmember should have been 4 to 6" forward from the factory
Click to expand...


If the cross member was moved forward, would it have been as popular a swap for the hot rod crowd?
 

Adieu

Easy there, this ain't a dating site.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 7, 2002
9,531
5,187
224
Jul 25, 2020
#56
  • Jul 25, 2020
  • #56
2Blue2 said:
If the cross member was moved forward, would it have been as popular a swap for the hot rod crowd?
Click to expand...
Yes.

For them it wouldn't have mattered.
 
Reactions: Enzio, 429MII and 2Blue2

Adieu

Easy there, this ain't a dating site.
20+ Year Stangneter
Mar 7, 2002
9,531
5,187
224
Aug 13, 2020
#57
  • Aug 13, 2020
  • #57





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" )
 
Reactions: LILCBRA

LILCBRA

I wish I didn't have all of these balls in the air
Mod Dude
Dec 6, 2005
6,415
5,393
194
54
Corn County USA
Aug 14, 2020
#58
  • Aug 14, 2020
  • #58
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 .....
 
Reactions: Enzio

429MII

5 Year Member
Mar 10, 2019
484
653
113
63
British columbia Canada
Aug 14, 2020
#59
  • Aug 14, 2020
  • #59
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.
 
Reactions: 2Blue2 and Adieu

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
43,188
21,355
234
Box behind Walmart
www.stangnet.com
Aug 14, 2020
#60
  • Aug 14, 2020
  • #60
Put all my nickels and pennies into Apple stock.
 
Reactions: Adieu
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 3 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Is this a fuel filter?
  • Dutch74
  • Oct 2, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
7
Views
317
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Oct 21, 2025
welder4956
J
Hello all, I have returned from a hiatus... Update and Questions
  • JackH
  • Aug 13, 2025
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
6
Views
346
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Aug 15, 2025
JackH
J
B
Where to go from here on my build…
  • B0udreaux
  • Jul 14, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
226
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 18, 2026
AeroCoupe
Considering widening my rear wheels, would like to verify my thoughts on fitment
  • 2000xp8
  • Jul 9, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
25
Views
531
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Aug 6, 2026
85GT4V
A
need help and advise
  • amps1956
  • Oct 14, 2025
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
16
Views
700
Other Auto Tech Oct 21, 2025
Mcmahst
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?