Mustang II

Is the Mustang II really as bad as people claim it is? Or is this just "i read it before so i'll post it" meme knowledge?

When I see Mustang II I see 2800lbs, 302, rwd. Plus I seem to recall the front suspension being popular with people building hot rods so it can't have too terrible handling otherwise that would just be garbage bin.

So verdict? Mustang 2's reputation warranted or memeparroting?

The suspension isn't bad on them and there are plenty of upgrades for it out there. From a handling standpoint, the engine sits rather far forward compared to other V8 cars, so it is a bit nose heavy. They do tend to rust so look out for that. Parts availability isn't as good as the earlier or later cars so make sure the car isn't missing too much.

I think they carry some stigma from being Pinto derived. Though really, as I understand it, Ford way beefed up the Pinto for the MII, especially the suspension, and then decided it was cheaper just to build both the Pinto and MII with the same suspension and whatnot.

I think it's mostly a combination of engines that were very smog choked in stock trim, looks that aren't for everybody, and less nostalgia for it than older variants.

You forgot "Ugly"

There is, or was, a really fast red one that ran in prepared. I worked course during nationals once when it ran. It was very impressive.

That is Rick Ruth's car in C-prepared. It is pretty darn quick.

I believe it's multiple stigmas. One being Pinto derived has caused it to have the same stigma. Another being the stigma of the time frame they were made. 70's era cars being mostly hampered from emissions and technology of the time. Another being that it wasn't a true Mustang to the Mustang fans.

As for being ugly, that's relative. Some looked good. I like the looks of the Cobra II version.

They can be made fast and decent-looking, but I just hate the details - the ergonomics, the seats, the switchgear, the trim, et cetera, et cetera. It reminds me of when I test drove a Chevette and (I think that it was) a Tercel back-to-back. Both cars were the same size and aimed at the same market, but while the Tercel just seemed cheap, the Chevette seemed to be designed by Monkeys.

In reply to kreb: That reads really strangely 'til you get to the end and realize you meant "Chevette" and not "Chevelle" as you have it typed the first time...

I think they look really ungainly unless they're hunkered down and have the wheelwells opened up and big meats. Without that, it just looks like so much sheetmetal and so little tire...

Suspension-wise, it sure seems they're a big step forward from their predecessors, at least up front. At the rear, anything especially good or bad about the II's implementation of the stick axle on leafs?

What's up with the Pinto suspension etc. being a problem on the Mustang II. Did you forget the '65 Mustang was based on a Ford Falcon? Look it up.

Interestingly many hot rodders use Mustang II front suspension for everything!

As mentioned the smog laddened 302 was good for a whopping 140 hp.

I mean a MII with the zetec swap or a Esslinger 2.3 would be a riot

Rupert wrote: What's up with the Pinto suspension etc. being a problem on the Mustang II. Did you forget the '65 Mustang was based on a Ford Falcon? Look it up.

They don't have Pinto suspension, Pintos built after the Mustang II came out have Mustang II suspension.

Kenny_McCormic wrote:

Rupert wrote: What's up with the Pinto suspension etc. being a problem on the Mustang II. Did you forget the '65 Mustang was based on a Ford Falcon? Look it up.

They don't have Pinto suspension, Pintos built after the Mustang II came out have Mustang II suspension.

The Mustang II doesn't have a Pinto suspension? I have no idea, I never was interested enough in a Mustang II to find out. My mother bought a Mustang II new and didn't like the way it handled. I always figured if a Mustang II wasn't sporty enough for my mother, it probably wouldn't suit me. However a lot of others on this thread have stated the Mustang II is based on the Pinto.

My point is/was, the original Mustang was based on the Falcon. Whether that is considered good or bad probably has to do with each person's opinion of the Falcon.

A Mustang 2 was a Pinto in drag, nothing more until they shoe horned a V8 into it.

Then with that stroke they ruined any weight balance the car had with a strangled motor.

I don't think any changes were made to the suspension besides springs sway bar and brakes.

The 3rd gen Stangs were the first Fox body style models that were the step away from the Pinto

The Mustang II was a porky thing, I should know. I had a 1974 hatchback 2300 4 speed. The 1974 and earlier Pinto was much lighter and was truthfully a much better car in just about every way but carried the 'econobox' stigma, the German produced 2000cc OHC motor was lighter and just as powerful as the Lima 2300. The MII was the same platform as the 1975-up Pinto, the platform is different from the earlier cars mostly in detail and added weight.

'You can't make a race car from a pig, but you can make a mighty fast pig.'

In reply to Curmudgeon:

I remember reading that a '74 Capri with the 2800cc V6 was faster than the first 4942cc V8 Mustang II's because of weight and factory tuning issues with the MII. Obviously the 302 is a better platform to make power but I still think this really says something about these cars. Something like "the MII should not have existed and we should have just rebadged the Capri".

My friend's V6 Capri was way faster than my Monza GT with its California-spec 5.7L V8.