Ford Mustang II Cobra II
I
wouldn't feel right running a week-long Poseur Muscle Cars in the
Afternoon feature without honoring the granddaddy of faux muscle cars,
the hands-down premier combination of puffed-up ostentation with
knock-kneed weakness, the in-the-sheetmetal realization of the saying
"All Hat and No Cattle."
Where
the Mustang II really fell down was in every category other than looks.
The interior was cramped and cheap and had poor visibility. As a sporty
car, the Mustang II fell even farther. The steering was wooden, the
handling spongy. The engines were awful--when it debuted, the Mustang
II, with its top-of-the-line V-8, huffed and puffed to move the car to
60 mph in the leisurely 11-second range, with mileage of only 15 mpg.
primping
and preening in a Pinto-based economy car? Especially when it's tricked
out in wild King Cobra or Cobra II graphics with menacing stripes, loud
graphics, and absolutely no upgrades to the hardware?
pops on January 27, 2008 at 04:59 PM
This has got to be the most pathetic waste of sheet metal, decals, vinyl and plastic. "All hat and no cattle" sums it up perfectly. This thing is a terrible joke. What is most pathetic is seeing these things running around when they were a few years old with paint fading, decals peeling off and an annoying exhaust leak that gave it a hideous nasaly pitch. I feel so badly for the poor folks who were duped into buying this "performance" car. Ford ought to be ashamed of themselves for foisting this on the buying public. This was truly the low water mark of vehicles since the inception of the automobile.
andy on February 13, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Ah, another easy target that criticizes a car that kept the name mustang alive. Mmm, Pinto based. Was the falcon that much better of a grocery getter? Your first gen boys would think so. Also lets dis the performance of the 140HP v8 without mentioning the vette had a whopping 210. The car was Right for the Time. What was a 1976 muscle car by any manufacturer? Gonna complain about the bird decal on a pontiac?
1HOTTSHOT on February 13, 2008 at 01:24 PM
How can you speak so negatively about a car you "Love". There is plenty of Mustang II loyalist, and follower. You complain of performance, what about the V6 cars from 71-73. That is purely pathetic performance. A 2.3l II is byfar a better vehicle then any 6cylinder 71-73. I have to thank Ford for the graphics packages they put on the IIs, the snake decals, and stripes, and names like Cobra, Mach, and King Cobra, gave many of us inspiration to make these into the most menacing vehicles on the roads. Come to Cleveland OH, where there is quite a few us with Mustang IIs and see how well our Mustang IIs perform, and you will be pleasently surprised; From a Radically built NA 302, to the quick 2.3, the IIs that exist today, should not be bashed for the way they came from the factory. They kept the name alive then, and make the name better today.
cobra II on February 14, 2008 at 07:00 AM
Wow this was written by someone who says he "likes" the Mustang II? As someone who has owned every interation of the Mustang except the 71-73 whale bodies, I feel the choice I made in choosing a Mustang II is more valid than someone who casts dispersions from their word processor and has probably never owned a Mustang, much less a Mustang II. The Falcon based cars were decent cars for their time but they also have limitations and flaws: 4 wheel drum brakes on the pedestrian models, less than precise reciprocating ball steering and the power steering option on these cars was an after-thought at best, and my favorite-the trunk floor being the top of the gas tank. The fox cars? Also decent cars but don't really look like Mustangs.
Mustang II's interior cheap and cramped? The dash in my II doesn't rattle near as much as my '04 GT. I'm 6'4" tall and have no problem with the size of the car but I'm also not a rotund typewriter jockey either.
Mustang II's an awful car? Mine could be used as a daily driver if needed and is dependable and fuel efficient (for a Mustang). How many other 30 year old cars can say that?
Some people have too much time on their hands to spend it bashing a car that carried a great name through some tough times. The original poster, pops, reminds me of a saying also- [bash the authors of this blog if you'd like, but no insulting other commenters].
Chris Hafner on February 14, 2008 at 08:47 AM
Wow, looks like the Mustang II brigade is out in force.
A few things:
All three of you point out that the Mustang II kept the Mustang name alive. Um, okay - so you're touting the fact that it *existed* and was named "Mustang." That seems like a pretty low bar.
"Also lets dis the performance of the 140HP v8 without mentioning the vette had a whopping 210."
That's half again as much! And the Corvette, by the standards of the time, was still a good performer. The Mustang II was no quicker than an average family sedan of the time.
"The car was Right for the Time."
A couple of you are also making this point. Out of the world of Mustangs, I can see your point (a point I made in the original post) - the time called for small, more efficient cars, and the Mustang II was more efficient than what came before. The problem is that it still wasn't a good car. Its competition was righter for the time.
"Gonna complain about the bird decal on a pontiac?"
I've made fun of the screaming chicken before, but the difference is that the Trans-Am was actually a hot car for the time.
"From a Radically built NA 302, to the quick 2.3, the IIs that exist today, should not be bashed for the way they came from the factory."
Hey, I think it's awesome that there is an active community out there hot-rodding Mustang IIs. I think it's deeply cool. Take the lemon (figuratively speaking) and make lemonade. But you can hot-rod virtually *any* car - I've seen Chevettes with small-block Chevies in them - and that has nothing to do with the car that Ford rolled off the production line.
"Mustang II's interior cheap and cramped?"
Yep - and I'm not talking about today's standards. This is in comparison with the car's competition. Look at the road tests of the time - they are written by people who are living in the 1970s. They are part of that context - they call the interior cheap and cramped. None of the Mustang IIs I've seen have dispelled that.
I think you guys are actually doing yourselves a disservice by trying to compare the Mustang II to Corvettes and Trans-Ams. In downsizing the Mustang, Ford took it out of that class. The fairer comparison is to the Monzas and Capris of the world. Of course, I'd argue that the Mustang II doesn't clear that bar, either.
Green78II on February 14, 2008 at 01:24 PM
"Mustang II's interior cheap and cramped?"
"Yep - and I'm not talking about today's standards. This is in comparison with the car's competition. Look at the road tests of the time - they are written by people who are living in the 1970s. They are part of that context - they call the interior cheap and cramped. None of the Mustang IIs I've seen have dispelled that."
Do you know what the Motor Trend Car of the Year was for 1974?
Chris Hafner on February 14, 2008 at 02:19 PM
Green78II: "Do you know what the Motor Trend Car of the Year was for 1974?"
The Ford Mustang II. Other winners of that hallowed award include such automotive mega-stars as the Chevy Vega, Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare, Dodge Omni/Plymouth Horizon, Chevrolet Citation, the Chrysler K cars, the Renault Aliance, Lincoln Town Car, Chrysler Cirrus, '97 rental-car Malibu, and the retro Thunderbird.
How has history judged those cars?
roystere on February 14, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Nope, guess he wasn't around in '74. Also guess he hasn't bothered to check and see which Mustangs are listed in the Top 10 Best Selling Mustangs of all times either.
Frank Black on February 14, 2008 at 02:44 PM
I don't think there was all that much of a performance difference b/w M-II and, for example, the Trans Am. GM took a couple of years to detune their engines, but they eventually came down to M-II range. Between '76 and '78 the Trans Am only put out around 185-200 hp; more than the M-II, but they were also a thousand pounds heavier.
I don't think the Corvette is in either class. It's always been a 2-seat true sports car.
GM didn't screw with the sheet metal as much and made a far more attractive car than the M-II. I'd wager if Ford hadn't made the M-II so Pinto-like it wouldn't have gotten quite the rap it got.
FORGOTTENPONY on February 14, 2008 at 02:55 PM
Well I guess the 1979 fox with its staggering 144 HP was a better car according to you. and by the way where are the classic mustang bodylines on a fox, when you find them let us know.
Chris Hafner on February 14, 2008 at 02:59 PM
roystere: "Also guess he hasn't bothered to check and see which Mustangs are listed in the Top 10 Best Selling Mustangs of all times either."
The second-gen Camaro - specifically, the late 1970s version - is the best-selling Camaro ever. Was that the apex of the brand?
Sales numbers do not necessarily indicate quality of car.
roystere on February 14, 2008 at 04:01 PM
You say sales numbers don't necessarily indicate quality? You may or may not be right, that's your opinion and I have mine. That, and a buck eightyfive will get you a venti coffee at Starbucks. Just ask a Brand-X owner and they'll swear their little 'Maro is the best built car since sliced bread, but hmmmm, when's the last time you've seen a new Camaro, or Firebird, in a GM showroom? Oh, that's right, GM stopped building them a couple of years ago because of crappy sales numbers, but hey, I guess they were still quality cars. Sorry, but I'll keep my Mustang II!
Chris Hafner on February 14, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Frank Black: "I don't think there was all that much of a performance difference b/w M-II and, for example, the Trans Am."
A couple of folks have said this in this comment thread, so I got curious about the quality of my memory and decided to go back to the source material. What I found was pretty damning.
First, to summarize my point - I actually rather like the Mustang II, though I don't think it's a particularly good car. Like most cars of the time, it's not a good car in absolute terms; but even for the time, I've argued that it's not particularly good.
But that in itself is no big deal. As anybody who reads this blog can attest, I have a particular fondness for bad cars. And I have a fondness for the Mustang II - if only because its muscle car pretensions (especially the gussied up versions) are so completely at odds with its (to be honest) humble small coupe nature.
I've got no beef with Mustang II fanatics. My hat is off to all of you - you guys are my kind of people. Mad devotion to a car most people scoff at, well, that's what I'm all about. Our only sticking point is that I insist that even in its time, the Mustang II just wasn't good.
So - if you'd like, please continue. There's a lot to follow.
People here are talking about the Mustang II as a competitor with the Trans-Am and (according to some) the Corvette; in reality it was more a competitor with the Monza. And it wasn't even a great competitor by the standards of its time.
Car & Driver pitted the Mustang II against the Monza in the Feb. 1975 issue; I have it right in front of me. The Mustang had a 129-horse 302 V-8; the Monza had a 110-horse 262 V-8. The Mustang had the legs in a straight line, at 10.1 seconds to 60, and a 17.6 seconds (77 mph) run to the 1/4 mile. The Monza trailed at 11.4 seconds to 60 (ouch!), 18.5 seconds and 75.4 mph in the quarter.
But the Monza killed the Mustang in braking (192 feet 70-0, compared to 214 feet) and was faster on the road course. Crucial for the time, the Monza also got marginally better fuel economy, at 15-18 mpg compared to 12-14 for the Mustang.
Because the Monza handled much better and was a much more pleasant car to drive, Car & Driver deemed it the winner. Quotes from Car & Driver about the Mustang: "despite the compact external dimensions, the new Mach 1 feels vaguely ponderous just as the old one did ... it moves over rough surfaces in the same old heavy-footed way ... comfort in the Mustang is greatly compromised by insufficient adjustment in the bucket seats ... the Chevrolet offers substantially more driving pleasure."
Okay, so the Mustang was quicker than that edition of the Monza (later Monzas were faster). And you could argue that 10+ seconds to 60 with 12 mpg was terrible performance, but that the 1970s were a terrible time for cars.
But really - even for the time, that's not good. Just look at normal cars for the time.
Less than a year later, C&D tested the Capri II, the closely related sibling to the car whose hyperlink took many of us to this page. It made do with a 170-cube four cylinder, making only 97 horsepower. Yet it accelerated just as quickly as the Mustang II, doing 0-60 in 10.5 seconds and the quarter in 18.0 seconds and at 76.2 mph. It was lighter and much more efficient.
Still not impressed? Let's look at bone-stock compact family sedans. Not sports cars, not muscle cars, but *compact family sedans* of the time, tested roughly one year after the Mustang II.
The little rotary Mazda RX-4 ran in a dead heat with the Mustang II, at 10.1 seconds to 60 and 17.7 seconds (80.3 mph) in the quarter mile. The Saab 99, with a 115-horsepower four cylinder, dusted the Mustang at 9.5 seconds to 60, and 17.1 seconds (79.6 mph) in the quarter. The entry-level Audi Fox was just a half-step behind at 10.7 seconds to 60, and 17.8 seconds (77.4 mph) in the quarter-mile. The Chevy Nova - the baseline white-bread family sedan! - *destroyed* the Mustang. 8.7 seconds to 60, 16.6 seconds in the quarter mile at 82.5 mph - and with better stopping power, four doors, capacity for five passengers, and better mileage than the Mustang. These are small family cars in *the same era* tested by the same people using the same standards.
Still insist that the Mustang II should be compared to the Trans-Am? Or complaining that I make fun of the Mustang II's toothless graphics without making fun of the Trans-Am's flashy plumage?
Well, first of all, I do think the late-1970s Trans-Am graphics were cheesy. But the Trans-Am at least had some bite to match its bark.
In the same issue as the compact sedan test I mention above, Car & Driver put a Trans-Am to the test. It had a wildly detuned 440 V-8 under the hood. This wasn't the hero engine of years previous (and a previous Car Lust). Car & Driver took pains to call the engine a "station-wagon engine." Even in this issue, Car & Driver tackles the excess decoration issue, saying "Without big muscles to fill its tough hide, the flashy frills decorating every surface on the Trans-Am are excessive. They offer a visual challenge that you are not likely to back up ... so you are left to motor toothlessly around with the Trans-Am's reputation oozing out of every seam and a flaccid engine making empty threats from under the hood."
Not very promising, is it? But the Trans-Am just *completely obliterates* the Mustang II. The Trans-Am did 0-60 in 7.8 seconds - in a completely different class than the Mustang's 10.1. The Trans-Am did the standing 1/4 mile in 16.1 seconds at 88.8 mph, crushing the Mustang's 17.6/77.
Unfair, you say, because the Trans-Am has a massive, heavy engine under the hood? Well, the Trans-Am still stopped more quickly than the Mustang (191 feet 70-0, compared to 214 feet), got nearly as good(?) mileage (12-13 mpg), and was a vastly better handler. Despite Car & Driver's somber prose about the engine, they raved "Handling is (the) ace in a hole. Detroit has never offered a better car for snaking down a country road at speed, and that character remains almost intact ... fast, sensitive steering gives the car keen reflexes ... the fact is, you couldn't choose a more capable machine for getting out of trouble." To add insult to injury, the Trans-Am was also quieter than the Mustang at 70 mph cruise.
Okay, if you argue that the 455 (despite its obvious deficiencies) is a ringer, let's compare to a more plain Jane Camaro RS.
I can't seem to find the original road test, but the Camaro's stats are posted for comparison in the Trans-Am test, and an *automatic* Rally Sport Camaro was comprehensively quicker than the Mustang II at 16.7 seconds in the 1/4 mile. With, I'm guessing, a 350-cube V-8.
Want more on the Camaro? In the preview issue for the Mustang II, back in September of 1973, with the Mustang II Mach I *on the cover* C&D tested a Z-28 Camaro at a thundering 6.7 seconds to 60, and a quarter mile at 15.2 seconds/94.6 mph. That's an entirely different time zone than even the Trans-Am 455.
Okay, so you're finally convinced the Mustang II is in an entirely different class, and should be compared with small, light Super Coupes? Good, so was Car & Driver. In May 1974, Car & Driver rounded up six Super Coupes. The Mustang was ranked sixth out of six. Here's the finishing order, with vital stats:
1. Mazda RX-2, 97-bhp rotary. 0-60 8.6 sec. 1/4 mile 16.5 sec.
2. Opel Manta, 75-bhp 4-cyl. 0-60 11.2 sec., 1/4 mile 18.1 sec.
3. Toyota Celica, 97-bhp 4-cyl. 0-60 11.5 sec., 1/4 mile 18.2 sec.
4. Capri 2800, 105-bhp V-6, 0-60 9.5 sec., 1/4 mile 17.2 sec.
5. Chevy Vega GT, 85-bhp 4-cyl., 0-60 12.3 sec., 1/4 mile 18.8 sec.
6. Ford Mustang II Mach I, 105-bhp V-6, 0-60 12.2 sec., 1/4 mile 18.5 sec.
Some quotes:
"The steering is completely free of feedback, and the suspension is soft to the point of being flaccid. The net is a car about as responsive as a grape. It's perfect for those who would really rather be chauffeured ... it most certainly is not sporting. Nor is it amusing-or even fun-to drive ... It is heavy, slow, not notably miserly in terms of fuel economy, and clumsy. ... If you are searching for driving pleasure, you will find the Mustang a most unrewarding partner."
Now, don't get me wrong here. I pretty clearly think the Mustang II is a bad car - albeit a good-looking one. I still love it unabashedly for what it is. I would be disappointed in Mustang II devotees if they were swayed by this.
You guys love your cars, and good for you. Keep it up. We may not share exactly the same taste, but believe it or not, you guys are my people, and if I saw your pristine Mustang II at a car show, you'd better believe I'd rather see it than the 4,839th exactly perfect Chevelle SS454.
Cobrabob on February 15, 2008 at 06:38 PM
You can quote all the motor magazine articles you want and all I can say is that back in the late 1970s my '76 V8 Cobra II with minimal modifications obliterated almost every mid to late 70s Trans Am or Camaro it saw on the street. If the pansies of the era couldn't do some modification to there "70s muscle car" they deserved to be STOCK slow. Most new Mustangs w/ V8s today have some after market performance extras added to them. My current '77 Cobra II is also modified some (the way Ford should have) and goes like no stock V8 Mustang II did.
Cobrabob on February 15, 2008 at 06:40 PM
You can quote all the motor magazine articles you want and all I can say is that back in the late 1970s my '76 V8 Cobra II with minimal modifications obliterated almost every mid to late 70s Trans Am or Camaro it saw on the street. If the pansies of the era couldn't do some modification to there "70s muscle car" they deserved to be STOCK slow. Most new Mustangs w/ V8s today have some after market performance extras added to them. My current '77 Cobra II is also modified some (the way Ford should have) and goes like no stock V8 Mustang II did.
74stang2togo on February 16, 2008 at 07:52 AM
Being both a mechanic and a Mustang enthusiast; I have driven every generation of Mustang at one point or another, and owned six Mustangs in my life, two of them were Mustang IIs.
Honestly no Mustang ever had great build quality by any standard. I've always bought them for "cheap thrills" while having a more reliable daily driver (usually a pickup to tow the Mustang home when it couldn't make it on it's own, a duty the two Chevy pickups and one Dodge I've owned have all been called upon to perform)
My point is, the Mustang II doesn't deserve a reputation as a lousy car any more than the rest of it's stablemates, in fact, some of them deserve it more. (1979-1982 fox-bodies would be the worst in my opinion).
The ONLY Mustang I'd call well-built is the 2005+ generation, but that's just initial quality, how well they were actually built can't be judged for several more years.
Cobra II Norway on February 16, 2008 at 11:53 PM
Has this guy ever driven a Mustang II ? Dont think so. Regarding the looks of Mustang II , I think the design looks a bit simular to the new moddels of Mustang, so a trubut to the designers that was way ahead of the time.
Cobra II Norway on February 17, 2008 at 12:10 AM
So to sum it up i dont agree to Chris H arguments, the Mustang II that I have is a realy head turner, rear and not a avarage Mustang, it is almost everytime i partisipate in carshows among the 3 best cars gets a loot og coments on how cool it is, espesaly among the young peopel. And with some smaal modificattions i have gaind appr 380 Hp on the rear weels.
Laslo on February 19, 2008 at 12:44 AM
I love my Mustang II!
on March 20, 2008 at 05:16 PM
1976 ford mustang cobra 2 fucking rocks
ThunderbirdJunkie on May 01, 2008 at 11:29 PM
Just out of sheer morbid curiosity...do any of these ancient C/D magazines you have post any performance numbers for the Pinto Rallye? I'd be curious to see how it compares to the CobraII/Mach.
molson63 on July 22, 2008 at 09:03 AM
I learned to drive a stick shift using a Mustang II. I own a 1976 Mustang II Ghia V8 C4 right now and a 1978 Mustang II 2.3L 4 speed notchback. I am about as rabid a defender of Mustang II's as anyone. But come on, guys. Until just recently I had a 1997 Plymouth Voyager, 4 cylinder, 3 speed automatic. It would beat EITHER Mustang in a straight line with the AC on and the stereo going full blast. It cornered and braked better, too. The van had 178,000 miles on it when I gave it away and is still running strong. Cars have made a lot of progress in 20 years. Mustang IIs are great, offbeat cars and most of us who own them are a bit offbeat ourselves. They were the right car for the time, perhaps, but they were never quick. They rode and handled just the way most Americans LIKED cars to ride and handle in the 70s (in fact if I recall correctly Iacocca pushed hard to make the car ride like a large sedan). Soft springs, soft shocks, tons of rubber bushings, one-finger steering, and squishy brakes were the order of the day. The only thing I disagree with a bit is the interior. It was actually fairly good for the 1970s, although that is faint praise. It, too, was made to look like a "high end" Thunderbird interior. Big, soft and squishy. How many times does Chris have to say he likes the II for what it is? An unusual car, cheap to buy and own even today, worthy of car lust but performance-wise Chris nailed it. If you're ever in upstate New York, Chris, and want to cruise (somewhat slowly) in brown metal-flake (!) Mustang II drop me a line!
Cartel on August 06, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I love my Cobra II.
I get thumbs up everyday.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLrJPqZYJSs
on August 23, 2008 at 09:06 AM
Mid to late seventies muscle cars were sort of a grey area. From the the factory they didn't perform well, but the stuff was there, i.e. V-8, 4-speed, etc. I like to think of it this way, The ingredients were there, but it just wasn't cooked. So cook it! upgrade the motor, suspension, brakes, and trans. I'll bet when your done you WILL have a true muscle car.
misfit on September 06, 2008 at 03:08 PM
I think for the most part the author is correct. My mom bought hers brand new in 78 with the 171 v6 and what a piece of garbage,the drivetrain that is. It went through 7 water pumps,leaked oil from every conceivable place got 12 mpg and finally shredded the timing gears and died at 70,000 miles. Thank god.
30 years later and the body in mint condition I dropped a worked 347 stroker in it,mated it up to a t5 with 3:55 trac locs in it and it`s one bad ass little mustang II cobra. I`d have to agree though in stock form they were kinda subpar but they make one nice little restomod.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.............