Its time the 1974-78 Mustang II gets some respect
5/2/05, 12:33 PM
#1
Bullitt Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its time the 1974-78 Mustang II gets some respect
It's Time for Mustangers to Finally Accept the II
by John Clor
For those of us who own Mustangs, there can be no greater joy than to drive one's prized pony to an all-Mustang show and experience all the wonderfully diverse expressions of Mustang love. It's like one, big, happy family picnic.
Well, almost.
For owners of second-generation Mustangs, that joy is sometimes bittersweet. That's because certain members of the hobby still hold a personal disdain for all things related to the 1974-1978 Mustang II - as if it were the troublesome redheaded stepchild of the Mustang family. Personal tastes aside, I think it's time to put that sort of exclusionary thinking to bed and allow the facts about the Mustang II to address the common misconceptions that still prevail among so-called "Mustang purists."
Every generation Mustang needs to be measured on its own merits, and taken in context when any form of success is considered. Those who would knock the Mustang II because it was so radically "downsized" need to understand the market dynamics of the 1970s to appreciate the II for being Ford's "Right Car at the Right Time."
When the upsized 1971-1973 Mustangs began floundering in the marketplace, the Musclecar Era was coming to an end, while insurance premiums were skyrocketing and federally mandated emissions controls were choking performance out of old-tech large-displacement V-8. The 250 cid inline six found in the 1973 Mustang put out only 95 horsepower, and the 302 V-8 that came standard in the '73 Mach 1 was rated at a mere 136 hp. Even the 351 that was optional for the '73 Mustang was only making around 155.
Mustang production for 1971 had dropped below 150,000 units, and for '72 fell to a bit over 125,000. in 1973, the nation was rocked by and energy crisis fueled by an Arab oil embargo while Mustang sales were crippled by the growing popularity of small, sporty import coupes. Eugene Bordinat, vice-president of Ford design at the time, noted that with the Mustang, "We started out with a secretary's car, and all of a sudden we had a behemoth." But the "father" of the Mustang, Ford's Lee Iacocca, was about to fix that and rejuvenate the Mustang brand with something he called the "little jewel."
Mustang II bowed in 1974, praised for its perfect timing in the marketplace, much like the original '65. Sales rebounded, and with model-year production of nearly 400,000 units, the Mustang II came to within 10 percent of equaling the original's Mustang's first-year sales record. It remains the sixth best-selling Mustang of all time. Much trimmer and thriftier than the 1971-1973s, Mustang II was 20 inches shorter, four inches narrower, and inch lower, and almost 500 pounds lighter. (What self-respecting enthusiast wouldn't want his favorite sports car to get smaller and lighter, instead of bigger and heavier?)
Despite it being the only year the II wasn't offered with a V-8, 1974 was Mustang named Motor Trend Car of the Year (the only other Mustang to win that honor was the '94.)
One common knock against II is its relationship with the Pinto. I find this strange as first-generation Mustangs were also based on Ford's economy car at the time (Falcon), plus the third- and fourth-generation cars were based on Ford's entry-level car of their era as well(Fairmont). Technically, Mustang II's platform was quite different that the Pinto's, with only a few chassis items such as wheel spindles and brake discs common to both after 1973, when Pinto got heavier and was in need of sturdier componentry found in the II's front suspension (which became the modle for many street rods.) Comparatively, the first-generation and Fox-bodied Mustangs had more Falcon and Fairmont in them that Mustang II had Pinto, yet nobody demeans them for it.
Finally, there is the rap that the Mustang II was embarrassingly underpowered. But when its performance is put in context of the times, Mustang II actually offered segment-topping bang for the buck. True, the 1978 Mustang II 302 V-8 made 139 horsepower, but its rival, the heavier Chevy Camaro, got only six more (145) from its 302 cid V-8. Even the four-barrel 350 in the slow-selling Z28 made just 185 hp, and with a sticker price of $6,500, the Z28 was some $2,300 more than a base Mustang II V-8 coupe - big money for oly 46 extra ponies. Heck, Smokey and the Bandit's "mighty" 400 cid powered '78 Pontiac Trans Am delivered a mere 180 horses - and it was a Hollywood performer!
"Mustang purists" should consider that performance dropped from Mustang II levels into the Fox-body era when the 118-horse 255 V-8 replaced the 302. And when performance was "reborn" in '82 with the Mustang GT, its 5.0-liter cranked out a whopping 18 more horses than in '78.
You see, the fact of the matter is that the Mustang II was as viable a performer during its time as almost any other era Mustang. And more than a million were sold in just five years. Armed with some facts, a sense of historical perspective and a taste for special Mustangs - the next time you're at a car show and want to see something really rare, walk past the row of Boss Mustangs and the section reserved for Shelbys, and seek out a Mustang II. You might just begin to see it in a different light.
by John Clor
For those of us who own Mustangs, there can be no greater joy than to drive one's prized pony to an all-Mustang show and experience all the wonderfully diverse expressions of Mustang love. It's like one, big, happy family picnic.
Well, almost.
For owners of second-generation Mustangs, that joy is sometimes bittersweet. That's because certain members of the hobby still hold a personal disdain for all things related to the 1974-1978 Mustang II - as if it were the troublesome redheaded stepchild of the Mustang family. Personal tastes aside, I think it's time to put that sort of exclusionary thinking to bed and allow the facts about the Mustang II to address the common misconceptions that still prevail among so-called "Mustang purists."
Every generation Mustang needs to be measured on its own merits, and taken in context when any form of success is considered. Those who would knock the Mustang II because it was so radically "downsized" need to understand the market dynamics of the 1970s to appreciate the II for being Ford's "Right Car at the Right Time."
When the upsized 1971-1973 Mustangs began floundering in the marketplace, the Musclecar Era was coming to an end, while insurance premiums were skyrocketing and federally mandated emissions controls were choking performance out of old-tech large-displacement V-8. The 250 cid inline six found in the 1973 Mustang put out only 95 horsepower, and the 302 V-8 that came standard in the '73 Mach 1 was rated at a mere 136 hp. Even the 351 that was optional for the '73 Mustang was only making around 155.
Mustang production for 1971 had dropped below 150,000 units, and for '72 fell to a bit over 125,000. in 1973, the nation was rocked by and energy crisis fueled by an Arab oil embargo while Mustang sales were crippled by the growing popularity of small, sporty import coupes. Eugene Bordinat, vice-president of Ford design at the time, noted that with the Mustang, "We started out with a secretary's car, and all of a sudden we had a behemoth." But the "father" of the Mustang, Ford's Lee Iacocca, was about to fix that and rejuvenate the Mustang brand with something he called the "little jewel."
Mustang II bowed in 1974, praised for its perfect timing in the marketplace, much like the original '65. Sales rebounded, and with model-year production of nearly 400,000 units, the Mustang II came to within 10 percent of equaling the original's Mustang's first-year sales record. It remains the sixth best-selling Mustang of all time. Much trimmer and thriftier than the 1971-1973s, Mustang II was 20 inches shorter, four inches narrower, and inch lower, and almost 500 pounds lighter. (What self-respecting enthusiast wouldn't want his favorite sports car to get smaller and lighter, instead of bigger and heavier?)
Despite it being the only year the II wasn't offered with a V-8, 1974 was Mustang named Motor Trend Car of the Year (the only other Mustang to win that honor was the '94.)
One common knock against II is its relationship with the Pinto. I find this strange as first-generation Mustangs were also based on Ford's economy car at the time (Falcon), plus the third- and fourth-generation cars were based on Ford's entry-level car of their era as well(Fairmont). Technically, Mustang II's platform was quite different that the Pinto's, with only a few chassis items such as wheel spindles and brake discs common to both after 1973, when Pinto got heavier and was in need of sturdier componentry found in the II's front suspension (which became the modle for many street rods.) Comparatively, the first-generation and Fox-bodied Mustangs had more Falcon and Fairmont in them that Mustang II had Pinto, yet nobody demeans them for it.
Finally, there is the rap that the Mustang II was embarrassingly underpowered. But when its performance is put in context of the times, Mustang II actually offered segment-topping bang for the buck. True, the 1978 Mustang II 302 V-8 made 139 horsepower, but its rival, the heavier Chevy Camaro, got only six more (145) from its 302 cid V-8. Even the four-barrel 350 in the slow-selling Z28 made just 185 hp, and with a sticker price of $6,500, the Z28 was some $2,300 more than a base Mustang II V-8 coupe - big money for oly 46 extra ponies. Heck, Smokey and the Bandit's "mighty" 400 cid powered '78 Pontiac Trans Am delivered a mere 180 horses - and it was a Hollywood performer!
"Mustang purists" should consider that performance dropped from Mustang II levels into the Fox-body era when the 118-horse 255 V-8 replaced the 302. And when performance was "reborn" in '82 with the Mustang GT, its 5.0-liter cranked out a whopping 18 more horses than in '78.
You see, the fact of the matter is that the Mustang II was as viable a performer during its time as almost any other era Mustang. And more than a million were sold in just five years. Armed with some facts, a sense of historical perspective and a taste for special Mustangs - the next time you're at a car show and want to see something really rare, walk past the row of Boss Mustangs and the section reserved for Shelbys, and seek out a Mustang II. You might just begin to see it in a different light.
Last edited by m05fastbackGT; 9/8/23 at 09:59 PM. Reason: Updated Title
5/2/05, 12:43 PM
#2
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: March 9, 2005
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by 78Mach1@May 2, 2005, 12:36 PM
It's Time for Mustangers to Finally Accept the II
by John Clor
For those of us who own Mustangs, there can be no greater joy than to drive one's prized pony to an all-Mustang show and experience all the wonderfully diverse expressions of Mustang love. It's like one, big, happy family picnic.
Well, almost.
For owners of second-generation Mustangs, that joy is sometimes bittersweet. That's because certain members of the hobby still hold a personal disdain for all things related to the 1974-1978 Mustang II - as if it were the troublesome redheaded stepchild of the Mustang family. Personal tastes aside, I think it's time to put that sort of exclusionary thinking to bed and allow the facts about the Mustang II to address the common misconceptions that still prevail among so-called "Mustang purists."
Every generation Mustang needs to be measured on its own merits, and taken in context when any form of success is considered. Those who would knock the Mustang II because it was so radically "downsized" need to understand the market dynamics of the 1970s to appreciate the II for being Ford's "Right Car at the Right Time."
When the upsized 1971-1973 Mustangs began floundering in the marketplace, the Musclecar Era was coming to an end, while insurance premiums were skyrocketing and federally mandated emissions controls were choking performance out of old-tech large-displacement V-8. The 250 cid inline six found in the 1973 Mustang put out only 95 horsepower, and the 302 V-8 that came standard in the '73 Mach 1 was rated at a mere 136 hp. Even the 351 that was optional for the '73 Mustang was only making around 155.
Mustang production for 1971 had dropped below 150,000 units, and for '72 fell to a bit over 125,000. in 1973, the nation was rocked by and energy crisis fueled by an Arab oil embargo while Mustang sales were crippled by the growing popularity of small, sporty import coupes. Eugene Bordinat, vice-president of Ford design at the time, noted that with the Mustang, "We started out with a secretary's car, and all of a sudden we had a behemoth." But the "father" of the Mustang, Ford's Lee Iacocca, was about to fix that and rejuvenate the Mustang brand with something he called the "little jewel."
Mustang II bowed in 1974, praised for its perfect timing in the marketplace, much like the original '65. Sales rebounded, and with model-year production of nearly 400,000 units, the Mustang II came to within 10 percent of equaling the original's Mustang's first-year sales record. It remains the sixth best-selling Mustang of all time. Much trimmer and thriftier than the 1971-1973s, Mustang II was 20 inches shorter, four inches narrower, and inch lower, and almost 500 pounds lighter. (What self-respecting enthusiast wouldn't want his favorite sports car to get smaller and lighter, instead of bigger and heavier?)
Despite it being the only year the II wasn't offered with a V-8, 1974 was Mustang named Motor Trend Car of the Year (the only other Mustang to win that honor was the '94.)
One common knock against II is its relationship with the Pinto. I find this strange as first-generation Mustangs were also based on Ford's economy car at the time (Falcon), plus the third- and fourth-generation cars were based on Ford's entry-level car of their era as well(Fairmont). Technically, Mustang II's platform was quite different that the Pinto's, with only a few chassis items such as wheel spindles and brake discs common to both after 1973, when Pinto got heavier and was in need of sturdier componentry found in the II's front suspension (which became the modle for many street rods.) Comparatively, the first-generation and Fox-bodied Mustangs had more Falcon and Fairmont in them that Mustang II had Pinto, yet nobody demeans them for it.
Finally, there is the rap that the Mustang II was embarrassingly underpowered. But when its performance is put in context of the times, Mustang II actually offered segment-topping bang for the buck. True, the 1978 Mustang II 302 V-8 made 139 horsepower, but its rival, the heavier Chevy Camaro, got only six more (145) from its 302 cid V-8. Even the four-barrel 350 in the slow-selling Z28 made just 185 hp, and with a sticker price of $6,500, the Z28 was some $2,300 more than a base Mustang II V-8 coupe - big money for oly 46 extra ponies. Heck, Smokey and the Bandit's "mighty" 400 cid powered '78 Pontiac Trans Am delivered a mere 180 horses - and it was a Hollywood performer!
"Mustang purists" should consider that performance dropped from Mustang II levels into the Fox-body era when the 118-horse 255 V-8 replaced the 302. And when performance was "reborn" in '82 with the Mustang GT, its 5.0-liter cranked out a whopping 18 more horses than in '78.
You see, the fact of the matter is that the Mustang II was as viable a performer during its time as almost any other era Mustang. And more than a million were sold in just five years. Armed with some facts, a sense of historical perspective and a taste for special Mustangs - the next time you're at a car show and want to see something really rare, walk past the row of Boss Mustangs and the section reserved for Shelbys, and seek out a Mustang II. You might just begin to see it in a different light.
It's Time for Mustangers to Finally Accept the II
by John Clor
For those of us who own Mustangs, there can be no greater joy than to drive one's prized pony to an all-Mustang show and experience all the wonderfully diverse expressions of Mustang love. It's like one, big, happy family picnic.
Well, almost.
For owners of second-generation Mustangs, that joy is sometimes bittersweet. That's because certain members of the hobby still hold a personal disdain for all things related to the 1974-1978 Mustang II - as if it were the troublesome redheaded stepchild of the Mustang family. Personal tastes aside, I think it's time to put that sort of exclusionary thinking to bed and allow the facts about the Mustang II to address the common misconceptions that still prevail among so-called "Mustang purists."
Every generation Mustang needs to be measured on its own merits, and taken in context when any form of success is considered. Those who would knock the Mustang II because it was so radically "downsized" need to understand the market dynamics of the 1970s to appreciate the II for being Ford's "Right Car at the Right Time."
When the upsized 1971-1973 Mustangs began floundering in the marketplace, the Musclecar Era was coming to an end, while insurance premiums were skyrocketing and federally mandated emissions controls were choking performance out of old-tech large-displacement V-8. The 250 cid inline six found in the 1973 Mustang put out only 95 horsepower, and the 302 V-8 that came standard in the '73 Mach 1 was rated at a mere 136 hp. Even the 351 that was optional for the '73 Mustang was only making around 155.
Mustang production for 1971 had dropped below 150,000 units, and for '72 fell to a bit over 125,000. in 1973, the nation was rocked by and energy crisis fueled by an Arab oil embargo while Mustang sales were crippled by the growing popularity of small, sporty import coupes. Eugene Bordinat, vice-president of Ford design at the time, noted that with the Mustang, "We started out with a secretary's car, and all of a sudden we had a behemoth." But the "father" of the Mustang, Ford's Lee Iacocca, was about to fix that and rejuvenate the Mustang brand with something he called the "little jewel."
Mustang II bowed in 1974, praised for its perfect timing in the marketplace, much like the original '65. Sales rebounded, and with model-year production of nearly 400,000 units, the Mustang II came to within 10 percent of equaling the original's Mustang's first-year sales record. It remains the sixth best-selling Mustang of all time. Much trimmer and thriftier than the 1971-1973s, Mustang II was 20 inches shorter, four inches narrower, and inch lower, and almost 500 pounds lighter. (What self-respecting enthusiast wouldn't want his favorite sports car to get smaller and lighter, instead of bigger and heavier?)
Despite it being the only year the II wasn't offered with a V-8, 1974 was Mustang named Motor Trend Car of the Year (the only other Mustang to win that honor was the '94.)
One common knock against II is its relationship with the Pinto. I find this strange as first-generation Mustangs were also based on Ford's economy car at the time (Falcon), plus the third- and fourth-generation cars were based on Ford's entry-level car of their era as well(Fairmont). Technically, Mustang II's platform was quite different that the Pinto's, with only a few chassis items such as wheel spindles and brake discs common to both after 1973, when Pinto got heavier and was in need of sturdier componentry found in the II's front suspension (which became the modle for many street rods.) Comparatively, the first-generation and Fox-bodied Mustangs had more Falcon and Fairmont in them that Mustang II had Pinto, yet nobody demeans them for it.
Finally, there is the rap that the Mustang II was embarrassingly underpowered. But when its performance is put in context of the times, Mustang II actually offered segment-topping bang for the buck. True, the 1978 Mustang II 302 V-8 made 139 horsepower, but its rival, the heavier Chevy Camaro, got only six more (145) from its 302 cid V-8. Even the four-barrel 350 in the slow-selling Z28 made just 185 hp, and with a sticker price of $6,500, the Z28 was some $2,300 more than a base Mustang II V-8 coupe - big money for oly 46 extra ponies. Heck, Smokey and the Bandit's "mighty" 400 cid powered '78 Pontiac Trans Am delivered a mere 180 horses - and it was a Hollywood performer!
"Mustang purists" should consider that performance dropped from Mustang II levels into the Fox-body era when the 118-horse 255 V-8 replaced the 302. And when performance was "reborn" in '82 with the Mustang GT, its 5.0-liter cranked out a whopping 18 more horses than in '78.
You see, the fact of the matter is that the Mustang II was as viable a performer during its time as almost any other era Mustang. And more than a million were sold in just five years. Armed with some facts, a sense of historical perspective and a taste for special Mustangs - the next time you're at a car show and want to see something really rare, walk past the row of Boss Mustangs and the section reserved for Shelbys, and seek out a Mustang II. You might just begin to see it in a different light.
5/2/05, 02:26 PM
#4
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know where the article is from?
My Tangerine got some looks at our clubs recent show.
And someone other than our club photographer took some shots with a serious camera / lens set-up.
My Tangerine got some looks at our clubs recent show.
And someone other than our club photographer took some shots with a serious camera / lens set-up.
5/2/05, 09:48 PM
#7
Bullitt Member
Join Date: February 27, 2005
Posts: 223
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
does any one have 1/4 mile times for a 78 cobra II (manual) and a 82 "boss is back" gt (manual)
it would be intresting to compare, considering most ppl consider the 82 as the first "real mustang" after the 73's
it would be intresting to compare, considering most ppl consider the 82 as the first "real mustang" after the 73's
5/2/05, 10:27 PM
#8
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
according to the MM and MF thing "40 years of mustang"
the 302 2V from 75-78 (hatch and 4 speed i assume, its the only time listed)
had a "best" ET of 17.7 @78.2
whereas the 82 GT had a "best" of 16.26@83.7
i say best in " " cuz i have no idea who tested the cars. may have been crappy drivers. and the time for the II im not sure of. there was not much info on the II in the publication, and there were no times for the 2.3 and 2.8.
the 302 2V from 75-78 (hatch and 4 speed i assume, its the only time listed)
had a "best" ET of 17.7 @78.2
whereas the 82 GT had a "best" of 16.26@83.7
i say best in " " cuz i have no idea who tested the cars. may have been crappy drivers. and the time for the II im not sure of. there was not much info on the II in the publication, and there were no times for the 2.3 and 2.8.
5/3/05, 07:53 PM
#9
Nice read, I do remember that article as well. I like the "2" myself and always looking for a nice one. Respect? In my county, everybody respects my buddies '77 with a 408 Stroker!! Quickest car we have around here @ 10.80's Its a thrill ride, one I never get tired of riding in!! 
5/4/05, 05:49 PM
#10
Bullitt Member
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I copied it into Word, changed to a bold font and spaced between the paragraphs.
This is going in the notebook that travels with my Tangerine '78 with copies of the original export documents.
This is going in the notebook that travels with my Tangerine '78 with copies of the original export documents.
5/5/05, 09:29 PM
#11
Bow Chica Bow Wow
TMS Staff
TMS Staff
Always have given the 2 the respect it desered.. Having owned on I can persoanlly attest to the scorn it recieved. But man plain and simple it looked more like a classic mustang that anything else from 69-2005
It's the only mustang since 68 to have the side scallops and that to me is a signature line on the stang. As a matter of fact the raked back scallop on the 2 was in my opion an improvement on the scallop design of the 60's.
Plain and simple..that car had some great lines and great character.
It's the only mustang since 68 to have the side scallops and that to me is a signature line on the stang. As a matter of fact the raked back scallop on the 2 was in my opion an improvement on the scallop design of the 60's.
Plain and simple..that car had some great lines and great character.
5/5/05, 11:37 PM
#13
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
the II is one of the sexiest cars of all time. up there with the 05, 71-73s, torinos, and aussie 70s falcons.
its hard to explain why it looks so good. it just does! all i want is a nice cobra II/ KC with a 302 as a nice daily driver and i will be content! oh and about ten bajillion dollars worth of mods
i would KILL for a nice cobra II or king cobra.
a 408W
i saw an ad for an 87GT commercial, the pix had a green/white 78 cobra II in the back. i emailed about THAT car lol. and i got a rejection letter "its a 78 cobra 2 and at this point we're not looking to sell.sorry"
there is a cobraII i saw for $2200 in san diego (collector ar trader) but san diego is sooo far away from here anyone wanna give a 16 year old a lift?
PS-if anyone knows of a II hatch being sold anywhere near the bay, please let me know.
long live the II!
its hard to explain why it looks so good. it just does! all i want is a nice cobra II/ KC with a 302 as a nice daily driver and i will be content! oh and about ten bajillion dollars worth of mods
i would KILL for a nice cobra II or king cobra.
a 408W
i saw an ad for an 87GT commercial, the pix had a green/white 78 cobra II in the back. i emailed about THAT car lol. and i got a rejection letter "its a 78 cobra 2 and at this point we're not looking to sell.sorry"
there is a cobraII i saw for $2200 in san diego (collector ar trader) but san diego is sooo far away from here
anyone wanna give a 16 year old a lift?PS-if anyone knows of a II hatch being sold anywhere near the bay, please let me know.
long live the II!
6/1/05, 02:55 PM
#14
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 20, 2004
Location: Victoria Canada
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've always like the II's. I had a 78 Cobra it was a fun car. I would love to get one and restore it. Then I would have a 67,97,05 and a II in my coral!!!
9/27/05, 09:37 PM
#17
GT Member
Join Date: September 19, 2005
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mustang II was and still is a great car.
When mine was running I drove that 78 King Cobra everyday, Untill I parked it 13 years ago.
I put $3600.00 into the engine. Fastest car I ever drove.
I remember one time drive it on a two lane highway going about 40 MPH dropped into 3rd gear punched the gas and spun the tires. Fun Car.
When mine was running I drove that 78 King Cobra everyday, Untill I parked it 13 years ago.
I put $3600.00 into the engine. Fastest car I ever drove.
I remember one time drive it on a two lane highway going about 40 MPH dropped into 3rd gear punched the gas and spun the tires. Fun Car.
11/21/05, 05:06 PM
#18
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: October 1, 2004
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bought my first Stang in 67 - a "semi totaled 65". Took me until this year to get another. I think the II deserves credit for keeping the Mustang line in tact. I remember how hot cars disappeared during that period. If Ford had made a decision to discontinue the line, who knows what might have happened. Just my opinion but if that happened, and when Ford decided they needed a "hot" model, they would have been starting from scratch instead of building off the existing model - just maybe it would not have been a Mustang. Look at the T-bird.
I would like to see more II's. Our club has one member with one but thats it. Sure do not see many (any) at shows or cruise-ins.
I would like to see more II's. Our club has one member with one but thats it. Sure do not see many (any) at shows or cruise-ins.
11/27/05, 05:20 PM
#20
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: July 9, 2004
Posts: 533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I liek the IIs. I dont know what it is about them but something draws me into them. Im the only one in my family that likes them.
Check out this II I found on Classic Car Trader.
http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.co.../3/80894323.htm
Check out this II I found on Classic Car Trader.
http://adcache.collectorcartraderonline.co.../3/80894323.htm