Which Group for the II?
2/4/04, 05:07 PM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: February 4, 2004
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's one sure to generate an argument...if you were to try to classify the Mustang II as a "Classic" Mustang or a "Fox" Mustang based on the design of its parts alone, which group would you place it in?
The styling is closer to the "Classic" family.
The front suspension design is closer to the "Classic" family.
The rear suspension design is closer to the "Classic" family.
The 8" rear axle is closer to the "Classic" family.
The core design dates to the late '60's (Pinto).
The C4 auto trans was shared with both groups.
The 302 was shared with (and almost identical to) both groups.
The 2.3L and 2.8L engine was shared with the "Fox" family.
The interior has more in common with the "Fox" family.
The lug pattern is identical with the "Fox" family.
The 6.75" rear is very similar to the 7.5" and 8.8" rears in the "Fox" family.
The RAD 4-speed was the basis of the T-5 5-speed in the "Fox" family.
Most Mustang companies with MII parts in a catalog place the MII in with the "Fox" family catalog. Personally I don't care as long as they HAVE parts for the II and they don't have a 1965-1973 catalog and a 1979-2004 catalog with a gap in-between.
Truthfully there are some MII parts available, and they do have some listings in common with both groups, so there's not much excuse for not placing the MII in one catalog or the other. If for no other reason than to eliminate the gap in their Mustang offerings!
The styling is closer to the "Classic" family.
The front suspension design is closer to the "Classic" family.
The rear suspension design is closer to the "Classic" family.
The 8" rear axle is closer to the "Classic" family.
The core design dates to the late '60's (Pinto).
The C4 auto trans was shared with both groups.
The 302 was shared with (and almost identical to) both groups.
The 2.3L and 2.8L engine was shared with the "Fox" family.
The interior has more in common with the "Fox" family.
The lug pattern is identical with the "Fox" family.
The 6.75" rear is very similar to the 7.5" and 8.8" rears in the "Fox" family.
The RAD 4-speed was the basis of the T-5 5-speed in the "Fox" family.
Most Mustang companies with MII parts in a catalog place the MII in with the "Fox" family catalog. Personally I don't care as long as they HAVE parts for the II and they don't have a 1965-1973 catalog and a 1979-2004 catalog with a gap in-between.
Truthfully there are some MII parts available, and they do have some listings in common with both groups, so there's not much excuse for not placing the MII in one catalog or the other. If for no other reason than to eliminate the gap in their Mustang offerings!
2/6/04, 08:01 AM
#2
Member
Join Date: February 2, 2004
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to all the II specific parts i.e. bell housing flywheel etc i always pretty much left it to its own group. But if you have to group it i would say its grouped to the foxes. IIs started the 4 cyl availability which led to the 4 cyl turbo end eventually the svo (which are neat cars). Of course its the first V6 stang. Internal linkage manual transmissions, 5.0 moniker (thats right the 78 stang was the first one badged 5.0).
6/21/04, 08:29 AM
#5
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Location: Leavenworth KS
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This would be like trying to decide if a Chevy was a Ford or a Dodge. The answer (IMHO), is neither.
The MII is it's own deal. It belongs to both groups, while at the same time, belonging to neither. :scratch:
The MII is it's own deal.
It belongs to both groups, while at the same time, belonging to neither. :scratch:
6/21/04, 10:06 AM
#6
Cobra Member
Join Date: June 9, 2004
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The early 6 cyl Mustangs were inline 6's.
I like the dueces. I wish I had one with all the latest go-fast-goodies. I think they're good looking cars. They earned a reputation for being fat-slow pigs, and rightfully so. Those were the dark ages for the US car industry. But we can overcome all of that now with aftermarket goodies, and 5.0 transplants.
The duece is a classic. It's not a first generation classic. But it's a classic. I'll take a black/gold Cobra II, with T-tops, a SC 5.0, Tremec, an interior upgrade, and a kickin stereo. Yea, that'd be cool.
I like the dueces. I wish I had one with all the latest go-fast-goodies. I think they're good looking cars. They earned a reputation for being fat-slow pigs, and rightfully so. Those were the dark ages for the US car industry. But we can overcome all of that now with aftermarket goodies, and 5.0 transplants.
The duece is a classic. It's not a first generation classic. But it's a classic. I'll take a black/gold Cobra II, with T-tops, a SC 5.0, Tremec, an interior upgrade, and a kickin stereo. Yea, that'd be cool.
12/15/04, 04:05 PM
#11
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
classis cut in its won way sorta. like GT350Clone i thinki ti is very much its own car, but it still is a classic.
oh how i wish for a 78 red King Cobra w/ T-tops and a transplanted 427
oh how i wish for a 78 red King Cobra w/ T-tops and a transplanted 427
12/16/04, 03:09 PM
#12
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 15, 2004
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...All classic in every proportion but the smaller 4's and sixes. Buy one with a 302 for cheap, easy to tune up, once she's pushin over 280hp she'll be running with the big dogs(so light of a car.)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post