As rare as a Packard?

[Blue coyote]

And I just realised something about "Karman".....He's a moron with 6 whole posts, and he decides to slag on the guys who have the Mustangs that look the most like the one he doesn't even have yet

 

[Blue Thunder]

A Matador. Amazing turn-around. Kinda cool looking, though that wing's gotta go.

 

[karman]

And I just realised something about "Karman".....He's a moron with 6 whole posts, and he decides to slag on the guys who have the Mustangs that look the most like the one he doesn't even have yet

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!! MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!
Look, sometimes the truth hurts. I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them. That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

 

[Wart]

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!!

Use to.

MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!

Glad to see you agree.

Look, sometimes the truth hurts.

You'll get over it.

Give it time, you'll feel better.

 

[Wart]

And I just realised something about "Karman".....He's a moron with 6 whole posts, and he decides to slag on the guys who have the Mustangs that look the most like the one he doesn't even have yet

Astounding, isn't it?

It's almost like he thinks he's the first dumbass to waunder in here and try busting on the II.

He should go back to whatever circle jerk he strayed from.

 

[UnbridledFury]

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!! MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!
Look, sometimes the truth hurts. I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them. That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

Incredible! I have "trampled" a lot of GM cars in my day with my Mustang II. And when we pulled my stock motor and found how worn it was, my GM buddy couldn't believe I beat him consistantly with that motor. He didn't stand a chance after the rebuild. He sold his GM car and bought a Ford truck.

But I have to ask, in your 30 years of driving, have you ever driven a Mustang II? Just wondering where you got your "bad handling" opinion from.

 

[Blue coyote]

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!!

No, it doesn't, because you were too dumb to hang onto it, ya putz....

MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!

OOOh, just beggin' fer that hero bisquit, eh? And YES, it is when you're talking to me. I'm not a teenager, and I've been loyal to the Mustang II for going on twenty years. (And I've NEVER owned a freakin' Valiant, either...)

Look, sometimes the truth hurts.

Yeah, let me know when yer rectum heals up...

I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them.

No, you obviously DON'T, or you'd have thought before entering the lion's den...

That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them.

And I had a Bronco II (thoroughly Rednecked) with a Mustang II 2.8 in it. Handed more than one Prelude owner his ass on a platter. SO FRICKIN' WHAT! I also notice that you neglect to mention how your former Mustang stacked up against them...

You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

You are definitely on crack. 'nuff said....

 

[Blue Thunder]

Use to.

No, I think he meant "used to sit", as in, the car was literally used to sit, perhaps because it was missing a transmission or something and so it just made a good outdoor chair?

 

[itsaMustangtoo]

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!! MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!
Look, sometimes the truth hurts. I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them. That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

JEEEZZ, I would bet you all felt like big girlie men after you camaros trampled over some old lady's pinto
AND-- how comes nobody is ripping on the VEGA-- what a piece of crap!!Heck we used to sit around and watch those things rust away.As far as the Mustang II on handleing, I do not remember anything of that day handleing all that well. I am sorry I missed the factory trans am version of the VEGA

 

[Mike97gt]

Karman, why are you in the II forum if you don't like the II's

Speaking of II's the last time I saw one was in 1987 when I was in 4th grade, one of the high school school students at the catholic school I was going too had a beat down king cobra. there is hardly any of the II's left in the northeast.

 

[roadsterII]

I can't remember who wrote this and it's a long read but, here's some truth for those that don't know.

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.

 

[timeless2]

Good read.

 

[Wart]

AND-- how comes nobody is ripping on the VEGA--

You mean the Mosquito fogger?

What the hell, aluminum blocks and walls were good enough for Briggs and Stratons disposable engines, why not chevrolets?

 

[LILCBRA]

That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

I remember back in high school when everyone had a Camaro.....I also remember whipping all of their a$$e$ with my stock 302. My first one had a V6 and beat a 327 Camaro.....hmmm...performance lacking? In fact the only 2 Camaros I remember losing to were a 78 or so Z-28 that the guy took the time to put a 427 in, and another one with a 4 speed that I never had the chance to talk to. Not to mention the countless other GM vehicles that I played with when it had the stock 302. Then, after I hit a curb pretty hard one winter and threw 3 rods, I got a 68 302 in its place. More GM destruction....I guess I just don't see what you are getting at. As far as handling, if its good enough for high end street rods and customs to rape a II for their front end, then the suspension has to be worth something? How many, lets say, 57 Chevys have a 66 Mustang front end? Or, for that matter, a Fox Mustang front end? And, if you want to dispute the handling capabilities of these cars, ask Alcino, or pick up the April? issue of Hot Rod. I am sure you can find alot of discrepencies to discredit the II there. And finally, a word of advice....don't go to another person's house and tell him his stuff is worthless, it only fuels a fire you can't contain.

 

[Camshaft78]

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!! MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!
Look, sometimes the truth hurts. I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them. That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

I'd call you a tool, but those are generally useful.

 

[karman]

Astounding, isn't it?

It's almost like he thinks he's the first dumbass to waunder in here and try busting on the II.

He should go back to whatever circle jerk he strayed from.

Now I know how you got so many posts. Random bashing of people's personal opinions. DID ANYONE READ THE PART THAT SAID I DON'T HATE THE CAR?????!!!!!! I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS EVER GOING TO BE A "PACKARD" COLLECTOR CAR.

 

[Blue coyote]

Now I know how you got so many posts. Random bashing of people's personal opinions. DID ANYONE READ THE PART THAT SAID I DON'T HATE THE CAR?????!!!!!! I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS EVER GOING TO BE A "PACKARD" COLLECTOR CAR.

And bashing people's cars (YES, I did actually read your posts) IN THEIR FORUM!! when its rather obvious that you dislike them AND have little or no actual knowledge about them makes your opinion superior in WHAT way???

And as for collectability, I bet a good condition king Cobra, Cobra II, or pretty much ANY II will be worth plenty when its 50+ years old...

 

[LILCBRA]

Rare? Sort of . The difference is that the Packard was an excellent and powerful car for it's day and still has style. The Pinto II was an inferior car in every respect even for it's day and in it's day I used to blow them off on a regular basis with my stock Plymouth Valiant (oh yes the Cobras and the V6). 30 years from now, the Mustang II will command values which will allow an entry level collector to start a collection.
10 years after that he will be able to sell it for what he paid for it.
Don't get me wrong, I don't hate the car (although we did make fun of them back in the day), it just will never be a sought after car like a Packard.

SO THE '65 289 THAT USED TO SIT IN MY DRIVEWAY DOESN'T COUNT HUH!! MY NUMBER OF POSTS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAT 30 YEARS OF DRIVING AND MECHANICAL EXPERIENCE !!!
Look, sometimes the truth hurts. I understand that people like the Pinto II. I knew people back in the day who loved them. That didn't stop my buddy's GM cars from trampling them. You can build any car into anything, but the stock Mustang II was a bad handling underpowered vehicle.

I don't know, but going to a forum that is meant for Mustang II's, calling them Pinto II's, telling everyone there that you whipped them with a stock Valiant and your buddies whipped them with their GM vehicles, calling them underpowered and everything else in your posts isn't bashing? It is good that you don't hate them...but give some kind of post supporting that fact.

 

[Wart]

Despite your distaste for the Fox, sales figures and its production tenure tell a contrary story with reference to its popularity.

I've owned IIs for over 28 years.

How much could I care about a cars 'popularity'?

 

[Wart]

Now I know how you got so many posts. Random bashing of people's personal opinions. DID ANYONE READ THE PART THAT SAID I DON'T HATE THE CAR?????!!!!!! I JUST DON'T THINK IT IS EVER GOING TO BE A "PACKARD" COLLECTOR CAR.

You've made yourself a pretty deep hole.

I suggest you stop digging.