Notice how the new models always make the current models look outdated?

No I haven't. You have a good point here. I never knew that.

fastmustangII said:

http://bradbarnett.net/mustangs/timeline/74-78/74/64-74.jpg

oh gee i guess those 2 cars dont look anything alike

Click to expand...

You've completely missed my point... You can say that the Mustang II "looks like" the 65-68 cars, but it misses all of the primary dimensional and proportional points, and how they relate to each other. It's a tiny little car, and if you tossed a car cover from 65-68 fastback over a Mustang II, nothing would line up. It would look like a XXL t-shirt on Gary Coleman, and none of the seams or pockets on the cover would allign with anything, even if it was scaled down proportionally. I've got nothing against the "II", but Ford tossed the key relational dimensions out the window when they styled it on that Pinto platform. That's why I said "excluding". It's not a diss, it's just a reality. And at this point, I'm being annoyingly boring....

Two cars don't have to be the same size to look the same, nor do they have to be the same size to share proportions. Proportions are relative. There's not many cheapskates out there who really give a damn if their car cover fits every Mustang in their stable.

Just to skew this even further off topic, the II is hardly on the Pinto platform anyway. The only thing the II shares with the Pinto is the rear wheel houses, the trunk floor, front suspension arms, and the rear axle. It was less of a Pinto than the original Mustang was a Falcon, or the fox body was a Fairmont.

here is a bit of a better side by side comparison I worked on.



Kinda not fair with the '04 in an action stance though

nor do they have to be the same size to share proportions

Click to expand...

No duh. Yes, I covered that point:

even if it was scaled down proportionally

Click to expand...

You don't understand what I'm getting at, so I'll drop it. Forget about it.

I think proportions are 75% a matter of the beholder.

Example: What car do you think is bigger a 1965 Mustang Fastback or a 1998 Escort ZX2?

I will tell you the answer when I get a couple of responses.

& Posted that:

You've completely missed my point... You can say that the Mustang II "looks like" the 65-68 cars, but it misses all of the primary dimensional and proportional points, and how they relate to each other. It's a tiny little car, and if you tossed a car cover from 65-68 fastback over a Mustang II, nothing would line up. It would look like a XXL t-shirt on Gary Coleman, and none of the seams or pockets on the cover would allign with anything, even if it was scaled down proportionally. I've got nothing against the "II", but Ford tossed the key relational dimensions out the window when they styled it on that Pinto platform. That's why I said "excluding". It's not a diss, it's just a reality.
________________________________________________________________


I'm very glad that someone in here sees the difference and aknowledges the exact same thing that I have been trying to get people to understand here now for a very loooong time. God job mate.

____________ZX2___________65Mustang___1972 Mustang___1975 MII
Length______174.7"_________181.6"_______189.5"__________175.0"
Height_______53.3"__________51.2"________50.1"__________50.0"
Width_______67.0"__________68.2"________74.1"___________70.2"
Wheelbase___98.4"__________108.0"_______109.0"__________96.2"

bringing down the thread IQ even further

Mini Me and Dr. Evil look a lot alike, but Dr. Evil's quasi-futuristic space suit wouldn't fit Mini Me.

RICKS said:

You've completely missed my point... You can say that the Mustang II "looks like" the 65-68 cars, but it misses all of the primary dimensional and proportional points, and how they relate to each other. It's a tiny little car, and if you tossed a car cover from 65-68 fastback over a Mustang II, nothing would line up. It would look like a XXL t-shirt on Gary Coleman, and none of the seams or pockets on the cover would allign with anything, even if it was scaled down proportionally. I've got nothing against the "II", but Ford tossed the key relational dimensions out the window when they styled it on that Pinto platform. That's why I said "excluding". It's not a diss, it's just a reality. And at this point, I'm being annoyingly boring....

Click to expand...

I was referring to this direct quote from you

"Not to any owners of 65-68 Mustangs. We called them "Pentangs" because they were basically a Pinto with a Mustang-looking grille. Nowhere near the car that a "real" Mustang was, in the opinion of the day."

I found that offensive as a mustang II owner and lover. The mustang II was NOT a pinto. Just because they shared the same chassis does NOT make them the same car. Lots of cars share a chassis. The mustang II only shared a measely 10% of its parts with the pinto. The other 90% were all mustang. So don't give me that *basically a pinto* crap.

(&) said:

Two cars don't have to be the same size to look the same, nor do they have to be the same size to share proportions. Proportions are relative. There's not many cheapskates out there who really give a damn if their car cover fits every Mustang in their stable.

Just to skew this even further off topic, the II is hardly on the Pinto platform anyway. The only thing the II shares with the Pinto is the rear wheel houses, the trunk floor, front suspension arms, and the rear axle. It was less of a Pinto than the original Mustang was a Falcon, or the fox body was a Fairmont.

Click to expand...

Just read this after I posted my response. Thank you

My last mustang before my 02 GT and the Mach was an 1987 GT. I skipped all the junk Ford put out in the middle. They didn't put out anything better before 1999 so I stuck with my old car. 01/04 is the best models of the fox body IMO having owned an 66,69,82,87,02,03, I like the Mach the best of all of them so far.........JMO

I was referring to this direct quote from you

"Not to any owners of 65-68 Mustangs. We called them "Pentangs" because they were basically a Pinto with a Mustang-looking grille. Nowhere near the car that a "real" Mustang was, in the opinion of the day."

Click to expand...

I can understand why that statement would seem insulting to you, but there's one small problem........that's not my quote ..... 65conv50 said that. I don't have anything "bad" to say about the Mustang II. It was the right car for its time, and Ford sold 'em like hotcakes. But if you take a mechanical drawing of a 66 Mustang, and scale it down 5% so that the overall length matches the same 175" length as the Mustang II, and lay that drawing over an identical scale Mustang II mechanical drawing (like a transparancy laid over another transparancy), you'll find that nothing about the two cars lines up. none of the proportion is related. None of the key focal points match up well. It's not a dig on your Mustang II. My whole point was that on the 79-up cars Ford retained an almost exacting proportion to the early cars, even though the styling was worlds apart, as a SUBLIMINAL way of making the car say "Mustang" to the senses, even at a glance, even though they really were not related in much of a styling sense. I used the car cover story just as a way to prove my point, not as a helpful hint to save money on car covers! I'm saying there's a "Mustang proportion" that has been adhered to since the 60's that most folks don't realize is there, but that proportion was not used on Mustang II's. Don't feel left out, it's just an observation that bears out with facts, but it's nothing to get defensive about. Mustang sales were heading into the tank in the early 70's. The muscle Mustang faithful cried foul when the "II" was introduced, but the general public bought them in droves. Good business move by Ford.