blk12svt Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Since this is a Shelby forum how about one of Connie on her hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Why don't you ask Tob that question as he is the one who made the association. He is a moderator on another Mustang Forum and quite knowledgeable on these matters. Sorry if your balls got busted here by some of our comments. We don't all have the same same tastes. There are many of us who find the Mustang IIs quite hideous. Don't act as if you've never encountered this before. http://www.mustangevolution.com/mustang-news/the-mustang-ii-the-most-disappointing-car-model-redesign-ever/ Oh and the redesign for 79 was better??..at least the 74-78 looked like a Mustang sure as hell the people that wrote that article didn't for see into the future to the fox bodied Mustang or they'd have changed their minds I'm sure..and no never did encounter any negative crap about the Cobra II as a matter of fact there's one around now and at car shows it gets complements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Steve, Thanks for the history lesson! All I know is the Mustang ll looked pretty good to me with this hood ornament... (For all of you young guys - that's none other than 1970's bomb shell Farrah Fawcett) Yeah no doubt about it she raised more than an eyebrow back then... ...she was as hot as anyone before her and since IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Wonder what people would be saying if Ford had come out with the 4&6 cylinder FWD Probe based Mustang, certainly that would have ranked lower than the M-II I've posted this pic before but perhaps this is a good time to post it again. Yeah I agree...that's a 77 in the pic I bought one new back then mine was black and gold just exactly like this one...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra78 Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 You know I'm going to be honest here. I have a new 2014 GT 500 Ruby Red with black stripes with 600 miles on it and I really love the car a lot !! Then I have a black 2007 SGT that took second place @ Sturgis Mustang Rally 2011 and believe me that's a tough crowd. I then have my 78 Cobra II that has 37,000 miles on it, and was in Mustang Monthly quite some time ago. The point is I love ALL 3 of them or I wouldn't keep them and I don't bash anyone's car, those 3 cars all differ in many ways but I get more complements on the 78 then the other 2 combined and you can choose to believe it or not. P.S that GT 500 will put you in a different zip code in a hurry !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 You know I'm going to be honest here. I have a new 2014 GT 500 Ruby Red with black stripes with 600 miles on it and I really love the car a lot !! Then I have a black 2007 SGT that took second place @ Sturgis Mustang Rally 2011 and believe me that's a tough crowd. I then have my 78 Cobra II that has 37,000 miles on it, and was in Mustang Monthly quite some time ago. The point is I love ALL 3 of them or I wouldn't keep them and I don't bash anyone's car, those 3 cars all differ in many ways but I get more complements on the 78 then the other 2 combined and you can choose to believe it or not. P.S that GT 500 will put you in a different zip code in a hurry !! Sounds like quite a stable. Enjoy them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnf Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Since this is a Shelby forum how about one of Connie on her hood. Awesome picture. Too bad she passed away at an early age. It was posted before in one of the other threads as well. The trickest pony would be a shot of her and Farrah adorning the hood of a mustang together. Wouldn't matter if the mustang was a GT 500 or a Mustang II at that point. As for the changes over the years of the Mustang, all vehicles change with the progression of time. And most eventually die off. Good or bad changes, the Mustang has and is withstanding the test of time. 50 years is quite a run for a vehicle name plate. I thought this thread was about the GT500 not returning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Yeah, no big deal here. There are some very strong Mustang IIs at the 1/4 mile track we frequent. They are motored up, tubbed out, and pure race cars. The street stock Mustang II will likely continue to have a cult following to a very limited degree but these cars will never have a broad based appeal. There is almost nothing from the mid 70s to mid 80s that is appealing to many of us. It is not just the Mustang. The only exception being the Trans Ams from the 70s. They were pretty slick and not painfull to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra78 Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Yes I agree this got off track some. I sure do hope that Ford does do a good job on the Mustang GT- 350,because I have room for 1 more car in my stable and hopefully it's the 350. Otherwise the mods will begin on the 2014 starting with a Revan 13-6 kit !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 A GT350 in a lighter weight S550 chasis with a pressurized Coyote could easily be the best performing Mustang to date and should really be expected. Ford is on a roll and is unlikely to retreat with the performance capabilities of its new Mustang. Technological progress allows the automobile manufacturers to give us more potent performers that are increasingly more fuel efficient. There's no replacement for displacement except technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelbymotorsports Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 In Ford's Racing newsletter just sent out yesterday they included two "performance vehicle" videos, one for the GT40 and the other for the Mustang II. Below is a link to Ford'd Mustang II video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxg90JdtPFQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondo Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 Nice video, thanks for posting! John Clor is right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 This is how bad the Mustang II really was: 1974 Auto, 0-60 15.5 1/4 mile 19.2 1977 V8, 0-60 11.2 1/4 mile 17.5 Those were obviously very dark days for the Ford Mustang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 In Ford's Racing newsletter just sent out yesterday they included two "performance vehicle" videos, one for the GT40 and the other for the Mustang II. Below is a link to Ford'd Mustang II video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxg90JdtPFQ Awesome vid thanks for sharing this...wow did that bring back great memories..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 You know I'm going to be honest here. I have a new 2014 GT 500 Ruby Red with black stripes with 600 miles on it and I really love the car a lot !! Then I have a black 2007 SGT that took second place @ Sturgis Mustang Rally 2011 and believe me that's a tough crowd. I then have my 78 Cobra II that has 37,000 miles on it, and was in Mustang Monthly quite some time ago. The point is I love ALL 3 of them or I wouldn't keep them and I don't bash anyone's car, those 3 cars all differ in many ways but I get more complements on the 78 then the other 2 combined and you can choose to believe it or not. P.S that GT 500 will put you in a different zip code in a hurry !! Congrats all beautiful cars..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelbymotorsports Posted September 20, 2013 Report Share Posted September 20, 2013 This is how bad the Mustang II really was: 1974 Auto, 0-60 15.5 1/4 mile 19.2 1977 V8, 0-60 11.2 1/4 mile 17.5 Those were obviously very dark days for the Ford Mustang. And do you think that a 1971-73 Mustang with the 100hp 6 cylinder performed better? Not saying you have to love the M-II, all I'm saying is that there were Mustangs from other years that had worse performance than the M-II. Hope no one is taking this debate too seriously as its meant only as good fun. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondo Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 Hey dufus, there were no good performance times for cars between 1975 and 1982. The selling point then was gas mileage and styling which the Mustang II had both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 I kind of understand both sides of this. I always leaned towards thinking like Dufus when it came to the Mustang II. I mean, I get that the whole industry was crap during that era. But, was it? I mean, Firebirds were pretty bad ass during that same time. AND if you look closely, if the King Cobra Mustang II isn't a total frickin copy of the bandit Firebird, I don't know what is. When a mustang looks more like a particular firebird than a camaro, Ford should hang their heads in shame. However, in the last few years, I have pretty much come around on the King Cobra. I think its may be just so over the top, its kinda cool now. Maybe it was just 40 years ahead of its time! Its like everything else. There are big differences in our tastes, and I can happily accept that. Besides, it sure is cool when I see one at a meet or car show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra78 Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 That's what I like.... I can get in my time capsule anytime I want just like John Clor,and bring back some of my good old memories. With the tasteful mods done to it .. it runs darn good, not as strong as the Shelby's but still darn good, and I think just from the factory it put out almost as much hp as the 1973 302 Mach I with it's 2 bbl carb, and how fast do you think that BIG Mach was with that 302 bbl ??? Now back to the GT-500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 Since this is a Shelby forum how about one of Connie on her hood. She grew up and lived a few blocks from where I am at now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DubbsFaris Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 That's what I like.... I can get in my time capsule anytime I want just like John Clor,and bring back some of my good old memories. With the tasteful mods done to it .. it runs darn good, not as strong as the Shelby's but still darn good, and I think just from the factory it put out almost as much hp as the 1973 302 Mach I with it's 2 bbl carb, and how fast do you think that BIG Mach was with that 302 bbl ??? Now back to the GT-500. John just sold his to member here on our site. If I could have 4 or 5 mustangs, it wouldn't quite get to where a King Cobra found its way into my collection, but with the price you can get one, and the looks of it combined, it still is a great mustang value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondo Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 +1 Now Cobra78, don't start on the 71-73's please unless you've owned one. Its 302-2V was 210HP and weighed about 3350 lbs. They ran just fine and rode and handled the best of the 65-78 cars, believe me. The next car in my collection will be a '13-'14 GT500 and the next GT350. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dufus Posted September 21, 2013 Report Share Posted September 21, 2013 +1 Now Cobra78, don't start on the 71-73's please unless you've owned one. Its 302-2V was 210HP and weighed about 3350 lbs. They ran just fine and rode and handled the best of the 65-78 cars, believe me. The next car in my collection will be a '13-'14 GT500 and the next GT350. A guy with a Mustang II is going to rip on the earlier Mustangs. He should read this, http://mustangs.about.com/b/2011/12/23/ford-mustang-ii-really-one-of-the-worst-cars-of-all-time.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Rodgers Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 And do you think that a 1971-73 Mustang with the 100hp 6 cylinder performed better? Not saying you have to love the M-II, all I'm saying is that there were Mustangs from other years that had worse performance than the M-II. Hope no one is taking this debate too seriously as its meant only as good fun. Steve I am not a fan of any of the 70's Mustangs, early or late. To me the 71-73 was way to big, the 74-78 is IMO just plain ugly, I have seen a few that looked nice, but most are ugly as hell IMO. This is the one I think is ugly as can be- I agree no need to take anything seriously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svtkeith Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 I am not a fan of any of the 70's Mustangs, early or late. To me the 71-73 was way to big, the 74-78 is IMO just plain ugly, I have seen a few that looked nice, but most are ugly as hell IMO. This is the one I think is ugly as can be- I agree no need to take anything seriously, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is my opinion on the ugliest car ever let alone Mustang.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 I just don't get the bashing of the Mustang II, so what if it was based on the Pinto. Perhaps folks have forgotten that the original Mustang was based on Ford's cheapest vehicle, the Ford Falcon. Or that after the Mustang II the next generation of Mustang was once again based on Ford's cheapest vehicle, the Ford Fairmont. For people that think the Mustang II was that bad all I can suggest is that they go drive a 1973 Mustang Grande or better yet go drive a 1981 Mustang with the 255 V8. There are many Mustangs that the Mustang II either out performed, out handled or both And if anyone believes that the 1973 Mustang could have survived from 1974-78, well you're fooling yourself. Are the Mustangs from 1974-78 the best Mustangs ever? Of course not but without the Mustang II there may not have been another Mustang after 1973. Steve There was recently a great video from John Chlor that put the Pinto stuff to rest, the Mustang II had no shared components with the Pinto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
svttim Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Rumors have it the GT350 may not have the current coyote engine in it but, a new design Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra78 Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 No I'm not ripping into anyone that had a 71-73 Mustang... I also had A 71 Mach 1 351 Clev with a 4bbl carb, 4 Speed Ram Air and that car went good but, the 73 302 Mach 1 which my friend had was a different story. All's I'm trying to say is "Dufus there were lot's of slow Mustangs and when you post them times in the 1/4 for the Mustang IIs take a look @ other Mustangs as well" Sorry you also so wrong about me not owing any other Mustangs before my II. But then I guess your never wrong are you!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Rodgers Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 This is my opinion on the ugliest car ever let alone Mustang.......imagesCADPCU1R.jpg... Man that is pretty ugly too, I would steer clear of anything from 71-82, I do like the Fox from 83 and on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelbymotorsports Posted September 22, 2013 Report Share Posted September 22, 2013 Man that is pretty ugly too, I would steer clear of anything from 71-82, I do like the Fox from 83 and on. I too liked the Fox bodied Mustang's until the Vanilla Ice years. The body cladding and tail light louvers were hideous and kept me away from Mustang's for many, many years. But Ford sold a bunch of them so its obvious my taste was the minority. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.