1978 Cobra II

I hate them with a passion and all they represent, but damn do I still love me some 70's disco era goodness (que talking about hot pants edition pintos!)

This car was immaculate, gorgeous paint. The $19k cdn he was asking is a STEAL. The only thing is that you'd be the owner of a mustang 2, but since better performance is a 5.0L gt40 motor away, you could have a sick pro touring car with the right suspension setup!

A Mustang II done right can shake off a whole lot of disco-era stigma. Even one built in that era:

I always thought a Mustang II would make a great track rat. Take the 2.3 out and drop in a turbo 2.3 or swap in a 5.0. I believe the suspension is better than even the Fox cars that everyone loves....

I had a friend who used to track one. The rear suspension was the enemy back then. Even more so than on the Fox cars.

The Monroe Handler is one of my favorite mustangs!!!^^^^

I dunno about yall but i love some crazy late 70s graphics that involve the color orange.

And i like KING COBRAS!!

Granted, it was a letdown after the original, but I've never understood the hate for the Mustang II. In the context of the 70's, was it really that bad of a car??? And you could get them with the 302, right?

I remember back in the mid 80's a guy I worked with had one and he would pull out of the company lot with the tires smoking at the end of every shift. I think he enjoyed his Mustang II.

I think stock they were dogs. We're talking a V8 with 140hp, max. Also I think they're pretty heavy for being so small. I remember weights around 3k which was heavy in the 70's.

But keep in mind those cars have V8's that just need some tweaking to wake up. Much like the Maverick.

Xceler8x wrote: I think stock they were dogs. We're talking a V8 with 140hp, max. Also I think they're pretty heavy for being so small. I remember weights around 3k which was heavy in the 70's. But keep in mind those cars have V8's that just need some tweaking to wake up. Much like the Maverick.

Exactly.

I owned a '76 Olds Cutlass with an Olds 350 and a quadrajet. It made a whopping 170 HP and I dare say it outweighed the Mustang II by just a bit. I could floor it at 60 and a minute or two later, I'd be zooming along at almost 80 mph. Talk about a dog. When I got my 4-cylinder 626 in 1989, I couldn't believe how much faster it was!

I think these have great potential. Lighter than the notchie Fox body a lot of people want and a V8 available later in the run if you can get it to handle you should have something fun to drive. The V8 had only 140-ish hp, but the Fox V8 power went UP to around 157 in '83, so not too bad for those sad hp drained times.

I love the way the fastback (sportsroof?) looks except for the front end. If I remember right even that was praised originally as bringing back a "horsey" front look to the car. The bumpers are another sore point.

I'm still looking for one and researching ways to make it handle in the mean time. Parts seem to be an issue too.

These are cars that I like because of how they look, but having driven a few, I hate the way they feel when you drive them. The steering and brakes are okay, but the car REAAALY feels quite heavy for such a small/short car. If you want a '70s T Bird, but in a smaller/more fuel efficient package, they are fine.

In 1974 I bought an Audi Fox, a sister bought a V6 Capri, and another sister bought a Mustang II Ghia. The Mustang looked nice, but was a heavy, cramped feeling car that drove like it's V6 put out 90-95 horsepower. The Capri was actually somewhat similar (look at a Capri and Mustang II dashboard) but that Fox....well it was light a glider compared to the 747s that were the Mustang and Capri.

Remember, the Mustang II was the Motor Trend car of the year for 1974. The biggest downfall of the II was not the car itself, but rather the poor treatment it received from the Mustang crowd. The II was a better car than the 71-73 Stang (which better resembles a bloated old plow horse destined for the glue factor than an athletic pony).

In the 1970s, there was much anti-small car bias. Anything that was not a traditional muscle car was crapped upon by American performance enthusiasts. Foreign car enthusiasts did not did not warm up to the II or other small domestic car simply because they were domestic.

Looking at the II objectively and placing it in the context of the late 1970s (a time when a Dodge truck was quicker in the 1/4 mile than a then new Vette) and the II is not a bad car.

1988RedT2 wrote:

Xceler8x wrote: I think stock they were dogs. We're talking a V8 with 140hp, max. Also I think they're pretty heavy for being so small. I remember weights around 3k which was heavy in the 70's. But keep in mind those cars have V8's that just need some tweaking to wake up. Much like the Maverick.

Exactly. I owned a '76 Olds Cutlass with an Olds 350 and a quadrajet. It made a whopping 170 HP and I dare say it outweighed the Mustang II by just a bit. I could floor it at 60 and a minute or two later, I'd be zooming along at almost 80 mph. Talk about a dog. When I got my 4-cylinder 626 in 1989, I couldn't believe how much faster it was!

A Cutlass was between 3600 and 3800 pounds in 76, depending on options. My 73 Charger came in at just over 3600 and it had few options.

Mustang II Network lists the '76 Mach 1 at 2,931 lbs, Considering that a 302 weighs nearly 500 lbs the weight isn't too bad. The Chevy Monza weight about the same.

Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying they're bad cars BUT they do have drawbacks that would have to be worked around. The bonus is that they have a V8 under the hood stock. They use a well supplied front end. They are not desirable to the average enthusiast so therefore cheap.

Their drawbacks are they don't have an IRS. Cramped interior. Heavy for their size. All sorts of parts will be hard to source like sheetmetal, interior bits, etc.

All this of course depends on your purpose for the car. Track car? The running gear can be found by throwing a stone in a junkyard. Chances are whatever you hit will work as long as you throw in the Ford section.

Daily driver? If you're not picky about cosmetics you'll do fine as well. Considering the interior parts and metal you have will have to do or you'll be scouring Ebay and Craig's.

Autocrosser? If you're having fun, GREAT! Get some! If you're trying to be competitive I don't think that your path wil be flanked with trophies and surfaced with the wasted carcasses of your competitors.

Fun car on the cheap? Absolutely. Any wrench can fix those cars and any newbie can learn on them. They are not complicated.

I think a V8 II would be a great autocrosser. Remember, the are classed in F Stock and ESP with other live-axle-equipped cars. SP or P is where they would do well. Remember, Car and Driver did an feature in 1984 or 85 to determine the best handling production car. The slalom winner ws the Porsche 944. In second place was the Camaro Z-28, live axle and all.

On smooth surfaces, live axle cars can be quite competitive. IRS helps most when the surface is bumpy.

1988RedT2 wrote: In the context of the 70's, was it really that bad of a car??? And you could get them with the 302, right?

Put it into perspective.

If some company took your favourite muscle car, and put it's badge on a marginal economy car platform, with totally out of proportion, almost comic book styling, how would you feel about it?

Ford had a real winner with the Mustang, but they made some big mistakes in the early to mid 70's with it.

I never thought the Mustang II was all that bad looking

Zomby woof wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: In the context of the 70's, was it really that bad of a car??? And you could get them with the 302, right?

Put it into perspective. If some company took your favourite muscle car, and put it's badge on a marginal economy car platform, with totally out of proportion, almost comic book styling, how would you feel about it? Ford had a real winner with the Mustang, but they made some big mistakes in the early to mid 70's with it.

I agree with you about Ford making some mistakes, but the original Mustang was a mundane economy car underneath. It was a Falcon!. Ever look at the suspension on a 64-66 Mustang? It is nothing special and I am being kind. I'll argue that the II was a better car, all around.

Moparman wrote: I agree with you about Ford making some mistakes, but the original Mustang was a mundane economy car underneath. It was a Falcon!. Ever look at the suspension on a 64-66 Mustang? It is nothing special and I am being kind. I'll argue that the II was a better car, all around.

That reminds me of the Miata NA/NB argument (you didn't think you could get away with a thread without mentioning THE ANSWER did you?). The NB is a better car, the NA is a better Miata.

You're right, the Mustang II is a better car. The original is a better Mustang.

Well put.

Rob_Mopar wrote: A Mustang II done right can shake off a whole lot of disco-era stigma. Even one built in that era:

Chitown Hustler was a good example...and that's about how they have to be modified to make em run

Well, I have a couple.

Hopefully I can get my relocation done and get started building the car. The answer will help me solve some problems and hopefully it can be featured in the box flare thread also.

In reply to Junkyard_Dog:

How come the vitriol was not extended to the Fox Stang? That was less of a Mustang than the II, but a good car.

Honestly, the only early Stangs I liked were the fastbacks. Coupes do nothing for me.

Moparman wrote: I think a V8 II would be a great autocrosser. Remember, the are classed in F Stock and ESP with other live-axle-equipped cars. SP or P is where they would do well. Remember, Car and Driver did an feature in 1984 or 85 to determine the best handling production car. The slalom winner ws the Porsche 944. In second place was the Camaro Z-28, live axle and all. On smooth surfaces, live axle cars can be quite competitive. IRS helps most when the surface is bumpy.

Yeah, the V8 can be made into a pretty competitive autocrosser. You can fit quite a bit of tire on them.

To the OP: 19K seems kind of expensive from what I've seen. The last (restored) King Cobra I saw for sale was 13K and it was show worthy.