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?
andrew laurence on April 05, 2009 at 01:28 PM
im looking for a cobra II body i want to build the engine and put it in i just want the body stly my father passed recently and he loved the cobra II he had one when he was a kid and now i wish to carry his memory on with the car rebuilt contact me if anyone knows where i can get one thank u takeingbackluke@yahoo.com
james aiken on April 20, 2009 at 06:02 AM
send me so books at14930 grandy dunn rd wilmer alabama
Seth Powell on May 19, 2009 at 11:09 PM
I had one of those original Cobra II's from 1976. Yeah, it looked like a cheap imitation of a muscle car. It was the blue model with the white stripes (they never peeled off when I had it). The real giveaway of the cheapness was that the louvre's were stuck on with adhesive and not bolted on. I found that out one morning after getting off from the night shift, to find that both my louvre's were ripped-off the back side windows. That's when I discovered the adhesive on the windows. Talk about cutting corners.
I always felt the suspension really loose and clunky; no high performance features there. The steering was never really tight and boy, was that engine sluggish. I had previously owned a '68 Fury III with 383 4bbl, a '70 Monaco 2-dr coupe with a 440 4-bbl and later a CHP 1978 Dodge Monaco with a 440 4-bbl. Those were big, heavy cars, but man did they have pickup and zoom to over 100 mph fast! Although my 1979 Chrysler Le Baron 318 2-bbl cop car was a disappointment.
Well, at least I still have pictures of me and my little faux Mustang. I always wondered why my friends laughed when they rode inside my car. We never laughed when we were in their '69 Mach 1, or '70 Cuda 440 six-pack, or '71 Hemi Challenger. Boy, was I dumb.
Mark on May 23, 2009 at 07:11 PM
As with many cars of that era, the Mustang II came with many different combinations of drive trains. Just because one was deemed slow doesn't mean that there weren't others that were quicker or had better handling. As far as the comparison to a Capri II or the Celica, my '74 would out run the Celica of my sister and more than kept up with my cousin's Capri II ( much to her surprise).
As far as being a Pinto in disquise, my '74 had very few parts on it from any other cars. I got a good solid 20 miles to gallon no matter how hard or soft I ran it. The only reason I sold it was I didn't deem it a family car (silly me!). Now I finally have another one (thanks to my family!)..
CobraII4me on June 29, 2009 at 10:19 PM
Poseur, ah the stupendous irony on the language chosen and the clever tounge-in-cheek platitudes intended to insult the car that was by any standard among the best received product launch of the Ford Mustang product line in the past 35 years.
Chris, without doing your research you have maligned a car that was produced for five years, three of which to this date remain in the top ten of all years of Mustang production in 45 years. In fact, the introductory year of the II has had the best sales volume of any year since 1974, save it be one. Can you think of another body style run of Mustang that sold over 1.2 million units? Probably not-- because any other comparison was not even close. The reality is that Ford was proud to rightfully point out in their advertising that they outsold nearly a half dozen competitor models in its class by all of them combined. The fact is they were well received!
So, was it based on the Pinto? Not by any reasonable standard. I don't hear you calling a Camaro a Vega? Consider how many common parts are shared between a Pinto and a II? Other than fasteners, you would be very hard pressed to identify any... and believe me I have tried hard. The facts are there are far more shared parts in a Ford Falcon than a first generation Mustang. The same is true with a Fox body Mustang and a Ford Fairmont. But, we haven't heard you clarify those relationships.
As far as handling, you again have your facts wrong. The demise of the II today is a result of this fact. As the first Mustang to be reworked to include a rack and pinion steering setup, its front ends have been yanked out with nearly universal appeal to hot rodders who put its front end under hot rods from lots of cars of earlier vintage. Why is that? Because they were very smooth and easy to steer, stable, and sure footed with good driver feedback. Many of the IIs have been canibalized to obtain their drive trains and front ends. The old link and arm steering of the earlier mustangs are loose and unresponsive compared to the IIs. But if you had done your research you would have known that.
To refer to the interior as anything unappealing or resembling a Pinto was just plain wrong, especially with the Ghia. All Mustangs were well equipped compared to the competition which had idiot lights, with a full gauge clusters and many amenities not offered in that era in a sporty car. The interior layout was very nice, comfortable, and with lots of visual appeal. Compare the brushed aluminum trim accents, full center console, entry lights, map light, glove box lighting, remote control mirrors, vanity visors, and full padded dash that to the pinto's basic metal dash plate and dash panel. Your facts are just wrong again. Compare the competition, and you will see how basic those offerings were in contrast. No wonder they outsold the competition by such an unprecidented margin.
The underpower of the II was a sign of the times, a result of government over-regulation through mandated COLA restrictions. Is it a reflection on the II alone? Not hardly, and compare how it compared to the competition.... they were all pretty lack luster. But swap in a set of heads, intake/carb, and dual exhaust and you have a solid driving car, as good as anything made in they so called glory days of the Mustang. Only with a reinforced webbing rear end that was lacking in the earlier generation.
The simple fact is that the II was well received, was voted car and driver car of the year for good reason. It addressed fuel economy issues of its day, which prevented the 500 pound heaver 73 model from rolling off the showroom floors in any volume. IIs were a return to the Mustang market segment vision Lee Iococca originally envisioned, and returned it to save Ford from the sad direction it was headed earlier on in the decade. It was the right time for the right car.
Your review gives me heartburn over the build quality point. No mention of the diffiuclty with chevrolet head gaskets or mopar inconsistent engine specs? Basically the engineering was far superior than the competition and the numbers bear that out. Great effort was put into IIs to put a superior product on the road. Perhaps better efforts toward quality would have preserved nameplates like chevelle, nova, javelin, AMX, vega, monza, hornet, GTO, Coronet, Dart, road runner, duster, charger, challenger, and many other cars that went into automotive history in that same period? IIs were great cars in their day and and I am proud to own 2 myself. I get nods of approval every time I take them out.
So, as far as the Poseur goes. You win the prize, not the II. Next time do your research. Many II owners would gladly back me up-- and the facts are out there, if you do your homework.
Brandon Humphires on August 19, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Any of you that still think tha Mustang II's are slow , come down to South Carolina and I'll will show some II'S that will spank the ZO6's all the way back to Detroit!!
brandon humphries on August 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM
The Mustang II was a great car for the time and If you find one today , most of the time they are still street worthy. Alot of Camaro fans can say the same ! Ford has always been smart at marketing and selling cars, probably why they didn't have borrow money from UNCLE SAM!!! Mustang II's 4EVER!!!!!!
CobraII4me on October 13, 2009 at 07:45 PM
Its amazing. Obviously over time its so easy to overlook history. Other than 1979, how many models of Mustangs have outsold the Mustang II, say, in any year?
Here's the facts. Mustang II with over 1.2 million units sold it was one of the best sellers of any run of the mustang, or for that matter, any domestic car model. It sold well because it was better than the competition. In 45 years of production how many other Mustang model series won the car and driver car of the year?
Underperformer in performance. Yeah, I guess it was. Lets own up to why? The government regulations about did in the auto industry in that era. For calling it what it was, this period of underhanded government involvement in automotive history about did in the golden years of American made muscle cars. Where are the Novas, the Javelin, the Chevelle, The Charger, Challenger, The Tempest, the GTOs, the Coronet, Baracuda, The AMX, The LeMans, or a dozen other models that never survived the period? Ford in its wisdom adapted and made the most of unrealistic safety and emission COLA requirements.
Luxury? For the Era, the II was way ahead of its time. It was loaded with far more options than anything in its period. Walk through your local wrecking yard and check out the junk of the 1970s. The II was well equipped and innovative over what Ford had done in the past with the Mustang.
Pinto-esque? Not even remotely. The pinto was bare bones, with a simple instrument cluster and basic options. The II was a completely different feel, and had a whole entirely different experience.
I am proud to own 3 IIs at the moment. If the author owned one, his opinion would be less hostile to the car, considering it to have the merits of a decal-loaded substandard compact car.
Nighthawk620 on February 12, 2010 at 09:47 AM
I bought a 77 Cobra II black/Gold brand new and despite the arguing in previous posts, loved the car. It had a reliable 302 V8 - air conditioning and auto, daily driven from Conn. to New York City and Pennsylvania. Great highway cruiser and easy to park in the city.
Nicak De La Cruz on March 02, 2010 at 12:39 AM
i love what you've done with the car i am actually in the process of buying one i was wondering if you could help me out or give me advice, needs a bit of work done on it, its probroly going to be my first car.
302 on March 14, 2010 at 04:05 AM
@ Cartel - nice Cobra II - I love it!
randy on June 17, 2010 at 05:16 PM
I read these misinformed articles regarding what might just be one of the best cars produced in the 70's. What really bothers me is that people who "supposedly" understand cars, think this Mustang was such a turd. As a child of the 70's let me set some of you younger dudes straight. The II shares more common parts with the Granada that it does the Pinto. To say it sits on a Pinto chasis is about as far away from the truth as you can get. The unibody the II sits on was an engineering marvel in its day called the "toilet bowl". It was ground breaking in the way it isolated the body from road noise and the like. These cars handled decent from the factory, but any fool know 13" tires and rims do not a canyon carver make.
Now about the power, throw the 4 and 6 in the garbage. What I want to talk about is the "anemic" 302 Chris speaks of. If you look closely, 139bhp at 3600 RPM...sounds bad doesn't it? How then do you account for 247 lb/ft of TORQUE at 1800 RPM? The power to weight ratio resembled that of the 65 Stang, facts are facts. These things came off the line with a TON of wheelspin. Ford sandbagged the numbers for the insurance turds....ever wonder what kind of HP they were churning out at about 2700 rpm? Way more than 139.
The reason for the low HP numbers is because:
A. The measurment was taken out of the "power band"
B. Single exhaust with a super restrictive Cat killed upper rpm power.
C. Piece of crap "variable ventury" carb.
D. No spark advance due to the crap gas we had.
Add all of this up, run the motors through all this power killing garbage (higher RPM), then to top it off, the baddest gear one could get is a 3:00.1.......
The fact is this: In the 50's Hot Rodders all over the country had to modify their cars to go fast. In the 60's the factory did it for them. In the 70's they had to go back to what they did in the 70's. Which was modification. The parts were/are readily available.
Recipe for a killer II:
Holley 600cfm carb
Edelbrock intake
dual exhaust with or without headers....no cats
Ford 9" with about a 3:73.1 gear
Decent performance distributor with power curve
The Mustang II was a little jewel. Just a little Hot Rod mojo and you have a real 2900lb screamer.
But hey....that's just my opinion.
tomm on July 01, 2010 at 11:32 AM
For the 1,000,000,000th time, the Mustang line up is not supposed to be "all muscle cars"! It's a Pony car, aka a 'sporty' daily driver, but offered in many variations. Thus, not at all was the Mustang II meant to be anything 'muscular' when it was new.
Despite what car history revisionists think, the Stang II was not an "instant reaction to the fall 1973 oil embargo". No car company can design a car that fast! Smaller compacts were starting to sell well in the late 60's. The Toyota Celica and others were what the MII was meant to compete against. Also, when the original Mustang was stretched, buyers wanted the old 1965 size back. So, the car came out coincidentally with Oil Crisis and was a huge hit.
albee213 on September 16, 2010 at 10:29 PM
What I do not understand is why anyone would have bought one of these new? If I was going to buy a new performance car in the late 70’s I would have bought a used Muscle car. Mustang II was no muscle car! And this goes for all 70’s junk, Vettes were garbage, Mopar made lame Road Runners and Chargers that were so slow it was a joke! I love American cars but really why did people by these heaps!
Bill on October 13, 2010 at 08:53 AM
I've never owned one of these (however I would like to, I'd lighten it up but keep the 4 cyl), but I just want to say that with all of the bodykits and stickers Ford put on these with hardly any performance mods they're probably the very first ricers ever made, then again they don't sound like old vespas.
Tony on March 16, 2011 at 09:26 AM
Our family's first second car was a 1974 Mustang II coupe, lightly optioned with the exception of the V6/four-speed combination. The '74 II V6 also had true dual exhausts (though they exited on one side through a dual outlet muffler).
For it's day, it was "peppy" as my Dad termed it, but not particularly fast. It handled better than the mid-sized American cars we had owned, but I suspect if my Dad had test-driven a Celica, for example, we might have ended up with something else!
Fuel economy was OK -- better than the low-teens mentioned here IIRC. But, the engine was burning oil at about 75,000 miles (valve guides, pretty common on the German-built V6, apparently) and rust was already showing up on the lower door panels. Even by the standards of our other cars (typically GM mid-sizers), this wasn't terribly impressive.
It was replaced by a '81 Mazda 626, which was a much better car by almost any measure. It was also the first foreign car in my family, that led to a number of Mazdas and Nissans (and a Ford Probe GT, which is really a Mazda).
Kelsey N on March 25, 2011 at 05:20 PM
I own 2 '78 Mustang II's, both with the Cobra II package, and I have to say that I get more looks and more people coming to talk about the cars then any of those flamboyant tuners and new Camaros. I have one with the 3 speed w/ OD and the other with the c4. The 3 speed has blown a few eclipses and a few other college kids rides out of the water, the c4 on the other hand is hell of alot more fun to just cruise around in. What I am getting at is: Even though the II wasnt and isnt very popular with, well, anybody it still provides the one and only use of a real mustang. And that is, my friend, to turn heads while leaving your useless "tuned" import in the dust. By the way, if you want to talk smack about the Mustang II go for it, 'cause I will be glad to listen to you bitch after the race is over...
besttype03 on September 03, 2011 at 07:28 PM
ok 4 discussion sakes i just wanna add there is no classic look to the 80s fox bodies but can be very hooked up 2 be fast if done right hence my 83 that ran 8s the nicest and fastest fox was my 90 with a blower and chip n charger but most of all my 76 cobra 2 has smoked almost every dream car u can name runnin low 6 450 hp dyno tested very light ive burnt bikes 2 with it plenty to bad i got hit by a drunk driver when i made it street legal ripped my whole back end off but i can proove the cobra 2 capability push the fire wall back 6 inches to fit the 427 cj with blower and chip and dual stage tripple shot nos a tci c6 comp trans with line lock 373 richmond gears in rear flowmasters hooker headers all msd ignition rear mount battery bucket seat harnest and rollcage rear fuel cell in place of tank with 31/2inch pipes custom bent of ralley sport camaro trick flow heads nothing will touch it ever i do mean ever the only cars i didnt get to race was a lamborgini n farrari dino take your 455 424 450 460 340 347 350 all the jap crap or any other placement of cubic inch its worthless when facing a car as light as the cobra 2 in a race do not sleep on it cause i will get another and do this to the car again and shatter all dreams again taking pinks and all have 0 fear for speed i drag if it was street legal id put a funny car jet motor in it and its suppose to be cramped its a small car on purpose for speed specifically designed by carrol shelby and tony d branda so dont sit any1 back there unless u have to its a natural born hot rod from the factory wind tunnel tested to beat the 69 to late 70 camaros read the original ownership books that come with the car or contact tony d branda performance if u dont know u better ask someone that does ps my cobra has almost killed me several times just from learning its power never mind as a daily driver its all in how much money u wanna put into it or have 2 do what should be done oh also look into the light bar option 4 the 76 cobra 2 mach1 style many options be creative ive seen some nice cobra2s out there mine was probely suicidal 2 make but i had alot of fun and women love that car it still has more body lines then any car to this day go count oh yeah wind tunnel tested eat that chevy fans first on race day and for only real drivers ford power beep beep lol no opinions here thats all facts money talks though you can make anything nice (: dont try to race me in a cobra2 ill kill us both real talk i love to weave and will hit your car 2 win cause i dont care if we die hope i see yas when im right l8er brrrrroooooooooom====================