Mustang II Member's rides
- Thread starter 77sleeper
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
Big deal. It's still a 302 (unless you buy a 2.3 or 2.8 car), it still responds to all of the same mods. Mine is at over 300 horses at the flywheel with the original (bored .040 over) block and (heavily ported) heads. The 302 in the IIs was actually a direct carryover from 1973, the SAE, EPA, and manufacturers just changed how the numbers were reported (a change from gross hp to net hp).
-
2
- Show all
As 74stang2togo stated, it was all in how the numbers were reported. And this wasn't just for Mustangs...this was all across the board. EVERY vehicle was impacted by the change at the time. Even though the numbers for the Mustang II's V8 were showing at under 140 hp, they still had plenty of kick in 'em.
-
1
- Show all
I had a 202hp 460 in my 1975 Thunderbird... That fried sticky BFGs in a 5000lb car all day long. It was stock except for the carb and spacer.
The II is really a victim of three things:
1. Iacocca's boneheaded move to not have a V8 option in the US market in 1974.
2. Nostalgia for the 64-73 cars. Ironic, because 302 to 302, a II will walk all over the heavy 71-73 cars.
3. Ford's own marketing department in 1982. Ford declared "The Boss is Back!" with the 5.0 putting out 11 more horsepower in a fox that was 2 tenths faster in the quarter mile than the fastest stock II. That's right, 11hp and .2 seconds in the magazine tests of the day. That's a driver's race, but Ford convinced the world otherwise.
The II is really a victim of three things:
1. Iacocca's boneheaded move to not have a V8 option in the US market in 1974.
2. Nostalgia for the 64-73 cars. Ironic, because 302 to 302, a II will walk all over the heavy 71-73 cars.
3. Ford's own marketing department in 1982. Ford declared "The Boss is Back!" with the 5.0 putting out 11 more horsepower in a fox that was 2 tenths faster in the quarter mile than the fastest stock II. That's right, 11hp and .2 seconds in the magazine tests of the day. That's a driver's race, but Ford convinced the world otherwise.
Last edited:
-
2
- Show all
4. And the II designation IMO. It's easy to say that it's "not a Mustang" with the II after it. Ford kind of made it the redheaded step-child when they did that.
Besides, the performance image steadily grew as the years went on. The 64-66 coupes were called secretary's cars - how's that for a performance slogan? Sure, they had a performance version in GT form, but not all Mustangs were designed to be race cars, they were made to be driven from point A to point B and look good doing it. Besides, the 70s were a dark time for ALL automakers as far as their performance image goes. Most everything was choked because they were trying to figure out emissions and how to achieve better mileage. Back then, performance meant sucking fuel through a fire hose, that doesn't bode well for trying to maintain fuel economy. We live in some good times now and look back at those days through our modern eyes. "It only had 139 horsepower" because of a multitude of things - but, it is still a <3000 pound car with a V8 - power to weight ratio is where it's at! The only Mustang to weigh less is the new-for-79 Fox body, and it wasn't lighter by a whole lot. Transplant a later model 5.0 from a Fox and do the same mods you would if the engine were still in the Fox. There would be nothing wrong with the redheaded step-child then - except the II designation....
Besides, the performance image steadily grew as the years went on. The 64-66 coupes were called secretary's cars - how's that for a performance slogan? Sure, they had a performance version in GT form, but not all Mustangs were designed to be race cars, they were made to be driven from point A to point B and look good doing it. Besides, the 70s were a dark time for ALL automakers as far as their performance image goes. Most everything was choked because they were trying to figure out emissions and how to achieve better mileage. Back then, performance meant sucking fuel through a fire hose, that doesn't bode well for trying to maintain fuel economy. We live in some good times now and look back at those days through our modern eyes. "It only had 139 horsepower" because of a multitude of things - but, it is still a <3000 pound car with a V8 - power to weight ratio is where it's at! The only Mustang to weigh less is the new-for-79 Fox body, and it wasn't lighter by a whole lot. Transplant a later model 5.0 from a Fox and do the same mods you would if the engine were still in the Fox. There would be nothing wrong with the redheaded step-child then - except the II designation....
Some updated pics of my II's.
The Ghia has had a lot of mechanical work, cleaning and polishing. Plan to pull her off the road in the near future for new quarter panels paint.
The King has been a nightmare of problems from past owners. Tons of mechanical/electrical work, T5 upgrade, engine bay and engine redone, wet sanded, buffed and al new decals.
The Ghia has had a lot of mechanical work, cleaning and polishing. Plan to pull her off the road in the near future for new quarter panels paint.
The King has been a nightmare of problems from past owners. Tons of mechanical/electrical work, T5 upgrade, engine bay and engine redone, wet sanded, buffed and al new decals.
Last edited:
-
4
- Show all
Well i havent got to far with it since i have only had it a lil while. But after putting a starter on it she fires right up its a 78 with fact T-tops and the German v6 with 8674 miles on it. It spent most of its life setting in a drive way with no protection from the elements. All because of a bad fuel pump. So sad
Attachments
-
2
- Show all
Very nice! I like the grill! I wonder where I've seen one like that before.... 
To be honest, I saw another one somewhere on the internet and copied their idea. The one thing I would like to change about mine would be to get ahold of actual chrome turn signal bezels. I think that would set it off.....
To be honest, I saw another one somewhere on the internet and copied their idea. The one thing I would like to change about mine would be to get ahold of actual chrome turn signal bezels. I think that would set it off.....
If I still had the car, I would have removed the signal lights from the grille all together, moving them down to the bumper corners, and then used pieces from another grille to fill in the holes.
Very nice! I like the grill! I wonder where I've seen one like that before....
To be honest, I saw another one somewhere on the internet and copied their idea. The one thing I would like to change about mine would be to get ahold of actual chrome turn signal bezels. I think that would set it off.....
To be honest, I saw another one somewhere on the internet and copied their idea. The one thing I would like to change about mine would be to get ahold of actual chrome turn signal bezels. I think that would set it off.....
-
1
- Show all
Similar threads
-
97 Mustang Gt Motor Mount Install With Qa1 Tubular K Member
- Started by Dboypuckett
- Replies: 0
-
SN95 95 Mustang Gt Convertible Transmission Mount/cross Member ??- Started by webslinger67
- Replies: 9
-
New Member With 65 Mustang With 94-04 Spindles+hubs+ Wilwood
- Started by danfar
- Replies: 10
-
Came Back To The Mustang World; Whose Used The Aje K Member
- Started by John Grunwald
- Replies: 0
-
Came Back To The Mustang World; Whose Used The Aje K Member
- Started by John Grunwald
- Replies: 0