the book is called, "automotive atrocities", cars we love to hate.....i opened it up, and a see a section called, "fake muscle cars"...the first car they listed was all of the mustang II's...they called it a weak, egly, wannabe mustang....grrrrr, things like that irritate me

 

why i oughta!!!

 

:ranting:
:bang:

 

i don't know why everbody rips on the II's....if it wasn't for them, there would be no fox bodys or 2005 mustangs or nuthin

 

The thing is a lot of authors don't realize the significance of the II's. While in fact they may not be as powerful as their predecessors they were still Mustangs.

In 1974 the largest engine available was the 171 Cu. In V6 with only 105 hp which is why many people put down the II. That and they were based on the Pinto chassis (which doesn't matter to me at all, the 80's T-Birds and LTD's were based off of the Fox chassis too, all companies frequently use a chassis for more than one vehicle in their lineup).

The thing is that a lot of authors fail to realize is that the II's were introduced during the beginning of the gas crisis and how many 1974's were sold compared to 1973's.

Sales for the 73's were a total of 134,817 compared to 74's which were 385,993. A difference of 251,176 sales for the Mustangs.

Don't get distraught over someone's opinion guys

 

II's have a lot of potential, but most people just judge em by what they hear from people bashing it. Stuff a 351W in it and show em!

 

I like Mustangs II, I really do, and I'm planing to own King Cobra someday, but we gotta understand that people will always look at Mustang IIs differently because they are different. Those were times when Mustang went from V8s to 4-cyl cars and they will always be considered as worst Mustangs ever build.

 

they're onto m

 

They are kinda ugly

 

beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

i for one think that everything that rolls off the BMW and Mercedes and assembly line is ugly as Sin, but most of my family loves em :notnice:

 

Are you sure you're not adopted? :shock:

 

Narrow minded fools that don't see the big picture, its OK, because real Mustang enthusiasts know better about the II. As you said, without the II, we would not enjoy todays Mustangs, and it also kept the marque unbroken. I think the Cobra II is extremely sexy and I shall have one someday!

 

He's a Niner's fan too Whats up with that????


Go Giants

 

my bro's friend's dad used to play for the giants...his name is stuart tate

 

sometimes i wonder if i am. it seems as if im the first person in the family to care about how fast his car can go, or how it sounds, or even what brand it is. im also the only one who wants to race. its kinda weird really.

but the niner thing i got from my dad, so blame him

 

Yep I've heard of him. I met Ed McCaffery a few years back. Now granted he's not with the Giants anymore but he played with them in 1990 when the won Super Bowl XXV!

 

and here i thought you were talking about baseball

 

I can see where you got that. My mistake. I should have said NY Giants

 

lol i was like waitaminute.....

its cool tho, gave me some laughs (which is essentially what the rest of you are here for , to make ME laugh)

 

I bought that book few days ago. The main reason why Cobra and King Cobra were in that section (Fake Muscle Cars) are because of huge stripes on Cobra and huge logo on King Cobra's hood. They look fast but they were really slow. That was main reason, 134 hp engine wasn't that big deal. They said that logo on King Cobra's hood was placed there because of huge success of Trans Am which had Firebird logo on its hood.

Also in that section are 1977-1981 Camaro Z28, 1980-1981 Trans Am Turbo 4.9l, 1982-1983 Camaro Iron Duke (4-cyl), 1976-1980 Dodge Aspen R/T, 1980 Corvette 305 California, 1983-1984 Olds Hurst, 1985-1988 Olds 442, 1974 GTO, 1981-1983 DeLorean, 1975-1976 Bricklin ...