My 94 v6 was an appliance. But one vortec and the exhaust from a GT later and I added as much lightness as possible and it was a really fun car.
Coming from German cars I could never get over that feeling that when you shut a door on my Mustang it felt like the opposite door of the car had just fallen off.
In reply to dean1484 :
Yes it does lack that built from billet feel.German cars have but that is also it's charm.
Much like the Datsun it's fun taking a built down to a price car and make it go better than it has a right to.
dean1484 said:Coming from German cars I could never get over that feeling that when you shut a door on my Mustang it felt like the opposite door of the car had just fallen off.
Yeah, when I close the door on mine, it sounds like it's full of rocks. 
But, after a succession of several German cars, I can live with it. The cheap parts and easy serviceability, plus the lack of expensive time bombs like IMS bearings or plastic cooling systems, make rattly doors seem pretty minor.
Our 05 sounds exactly like what Tom just said, box of rocks.
Tom1200 said:In reply to dean1484 :
Yes it does lack that built from billet feel.German cars have but that is also it's charm.
Much like the Datsun it's fun taking a built down to a price car and make it go better than it has a right to.
I completely agree. I miss that car. I donated it to the school that MO30 worked at for the kids to repair and learn on. From what I understand it then went to one of the students. I miss that car. I will get another. I want a base 2013-14 GT manual car.
In reply to dean1484 :
It's like rolling in the mud; messy, gritty and fun.
A couple of years after ford came out with the Falcon, they tried to add some performance, but couldn't shake the stodgy old man image. So to sell to the young crowd, they "lengthened the hood shortened the trunk, use as many Falcon parts as we can... and call it a Mustang. "
It worked out pretty good.
Then it got bloated into a big pig, gas crunch turned it Into a pinto ( with a longer hood) and the Fox body, when it first came out, was bairly better than the pinto/mustang II.
The Fox body became better, along the way, but aftermarket did as much of that, as ford did!
In reply to 03Panther :
The aftermarket support for these cars is the main reason I bought one.
I like the Mustang II. The fastback looks good and is the right size. I'd like to have one with a modern drive train and suspension.
JimS said:I like the Mustang II. The fastback looks good and is the right size. I'd like to have one with a modern drive train and suspension.
I was thinking the same thing. There are loads of hot rods using Pinto/Mustang II front ends. I would use the 302 and 5 speed.
Being around when it came out, and a huge early mustang fan, the II was such a massive disappointment at the time, I guess I've never forgiven it. 'Course the '71-73 was not impressive to a early 'Stang fan, but at least one could see how the progression got there. The sporty pinto, with a mustang name? Came outta left field.
I think they had a 302 in the later years. I always liked the smaller cars. I think your Datsun 1200 is very cool. I was an SCCA tech inspector years ago in the DC region and we had a few 1200's racing and I really liked those. Also a B210 I think and 200sx's. Also lots of 510's. Lots of Datsuns. The good old days.
JimS said:I think they had a 302 in the later years. I always liked the smaller cars. I think your Datsun 1200 is very cool. I was an SCCA tech inspector years ago in the DC region and we had a few 1200's racing and I really liked those. Also a B210 I think and 200sx's. Also lots of 510's. Lots of Datsuns. The good old days.
Yeah, they put 302s in them later, but they had something like 130hp. The 70s were dark days for American cars.
In reply to JimS :
My fabricator has been after me for years to put a 302 in the 1200 for years.
The Foxbody keeps him at bay.
There was a 26something Windsor for a couple years which was as bad as the Chevy 267. I think the Mustang II came with those more often than the 302
In reply to ShawnG :
The 260 Fairlane engine was shortly after the 221 (I think) replaced with the 289, that became the 302. 351 w later started the Windsor name. The smog laden 255 was the engine you are thinking about. Any of the mustang v8s that friends had back then all said 302, but badges/stickers have been known to be replaced 
the Fairmont saw a lot of 255s
The 255 was a Fox body engine. The M II only ever had the 302, in a pathetically detuned version. A friend bought one. It was nose heavy, and the transmission did not take kindly to bang shifts. It was a wheezing, wallowing turd trying to be something it couldn't.
Personally, I would take the 2.8 V6 version. I fixed some crash damage on a young guy's V6/auto Pinto and it was quite peppy. I imagine the M II was similar.
I always wind up defending the M II in these discussions. It was a highly successful car, sales-wise. The Bunkie Knudsen models it replaced had strayed too far from the original formula. Iaccoca approved the M II because it brought the Mustang back to being a pony car like the original 1965 model (do not confuse 'pony car' with 'muscle car'. Two different things). If not for the M II, the brand could easily have vanished from the landscape.
I was fairly sure the sporty pinto only got the 302, but the only one I ever owned was a v6 notch back. Like I said, not the worst car from that era. Also, like I said , the original platform might have evolved into a bloated pig, and the fox platform eventually became a good replacement, but the only reason a sporty pinto sold ok, is the lack of other options, at the time. And yes, like many fords before it, it had the same gas tank, as the dreaded self exploding pinto!
The gas tank issue was only on the pre-74 Pintos, and thus the M-II was never part of that.
In reply to ddavidv :
Sure. And other than the marketing, they changed what? Goes right with bronco II falling over. But I didn't work the the automakers, so I only know what I heard, and what I suspect. Since friends owned all of the above, I do have my suspicions. But this has gotten far a field of what makes a mustang, more than a name a focus group applied to a a Falcon, a pinto, a Fairmont and a 4 dr. Sigh.
In reply to 03Panther :
Wasn't the essence of a "Mustang" a cheap performance car, regardless of generation?
The Mustang II wasn't that, not because of Ford but more so due to the regulations of the time. Very few manufacturers dodged the malaise era bullet.
In reply to Tom1200 :
Well the original that was released in 1964 1/2, was planed from the start, t be a cheap 6cyl economy car, that looked sporty. And succeeded. The 74 fit that bill as well, as did the 79. As did the 4 dr abomination.
VERY shortly after the 64 1/2 release the image changed, and even some of the sporty pintos fit the bill, considering their "competition" As you said, the aftermarket turned the fox body into that, as well!
03Panther said:In reply to ddavidv :
Sure. And other than the marketing, they changed what? Goes right with bronco II falling over. But I didn't work the the automakers, so I only know what I heard, and what I suspect. Since friends owned all of the above, I do have my suspicions. But this has gotten far a field of what makes a mustang, more than a name a focus group applied to a a Falcon, a pinto, a Fairmont and a 4 dr. Sigh.
I researched this some time ago, so don't remember the details well enough to write an SAE paper on it, but the tanks allegedly got ruptured by a bumper bracket on the early small bumper cars. They got 5 mph bumpers front and rear in 74 IIRC, which was a different design. Now granted, the gas tank placement in those cars wasn't brilliant, but endless other cars also had fuel tanks hanging behind the rear bumper, so blaming Ford alone for a 'bad design' that was actually the default tank location at the time is a bit unfair. The controversy over the rupturing tanks was more a result of Ford's unwillingness to fix the problem early in production when it was pointed out they were more prone to puncture than most cars.
There's been lots of equally unfair criticism of the early Mustang's gas tank location and also essentially being part of the trunk floor. But again, at the time they were designed/built, that wasn't an uncommon practice. All-steel dash boards were once common too.
A lot of the hysteria over these 'bad designs' is often overblown by sensationalist media. Suzuki Samurai rollovers. GM side saddle fuel tanks. And don't even get me started on the Corvair (that GM had already redesigned and 'fixed' by the time Nader's book came out...and he even pointed out the fix within the pages).
Tom1200 said:In reply to 03Panther :
Wasn't the essence of a "Mustang" a cheap performance car, regardless of generation?
The Mustang II wasn't that, not because of Ford but more so due to the regulations of the time. Very few manufacturers dodged the malaise era bullet.
It is a common misconception that the Mustang originated as a 'performance' car. It was nothing more than a styling exercise that proved an affordable, practical car need not be dull to look at. With John DeLorean's creation of the GTO around the same time, performance suddenly became a marketing tool. The Mustang (and pretty much every other car) had to adapt to the challenge or be left behind. It was no good to have a car that looked fast that couldn't be purchased fast, particularly as other manufacturers jumped on the practical/sexy "pony car" bandwagon (Camaro, Firebird, Javelin, Barracuda). All of these cars as base models came with six cylinders...and lot of people purchased them thus equipped. The styling, for most buyers, was the reason to buy those cars. If it looked fast, that was enough for lots of folks.
I wrote a blog about this years ago as I rationalized my purchase of a V6 Mustang instead of a GT.
You'll need to log in to post.
