Generation of Mustangs

[Mach2burnout]

Only Pinto-based, like the original that was introduced midway through the 1964 model year (sidestep intentional) was Falcon-based. Arguably, the Mustang II is less similar to the Pinto than the 1st gen Mustang was to the Falcon (the Mustang II used a subframe for the front suspension where the Pinto did not - and that represents a significant change).


FWIW, the Pinto had far better potential as a sports coupe than most people ever gave it credit for, certainly better than any Falcon short of the (rare) 260 CID V8-powered Sprint. Trust me on this, back in the day I built a Pinto up.


Norm

And the Pintos made badass dirt cars in the various mini-stock/modified classes.


Sent from iPhone

 

[bujeezus]

I'd drive a Pinto before I'd drive a Mustang II...

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

And what platform was the Mustang II based from ? The Pinto platform..

Only real difference between the Mustang II and Pinto, the Mustang II had just a slightly longer 2 inch wheelbase, otherwise their nearly exactly identical..

 

[Norm Peterson]

↑↑↑ You really have to look deeper than just at what's visible from the outside. What the sheetmetal looks like and minor dimensional differences should not be considered reliable clues to platform differences.


Just because . . . somewhere in the northeast corner of NC, mid-1970's. On the way to the 3rd fastest time along a measured stretch, behind a big-block Camaro (Camaro driver is sitting right seat here) and a car driven by the guy who set this little unofficial competition up.

Norm

 

[46addict]

The compact Mustang II was a breath of fresh air compared to the outgoing 71-73 cars.
They do look nice when done right.

 

[bujeezus]

To each his own. I'll never like em, no matter how they're done.

 

[BruceH]

Only Pinto-based, like the original that was introduced midway through the 1964 model year (sidestep intentional) was Falcon-based. Arguably, the Mustang II is less similar to the Pinto than the 1st gen Mustang was to the Falcon (the Mustang II used a subframe for the front suspension where the Pinto did not - and that represents a significant change).


FWIW, the Pinto had far better potential as a sports coupe than most people ever gave it credit for, certainly better than any Falcon short of the (rare) 260 CID V8-powered Sprint. Trust me on this, back in the day I built a Pinto up.


Norm

The exception is that the Falcon was a cool car. At least I though it was. I also owned a Pinto at one point, it wasn't a Mustang.

 

[AR Stang]

I would drive the hell out of this 1978 Mustang.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/feat...-mustang-ii-is-it-an-evolution-or-revolution/

 

[JimC]

The Mustang II sales were way above the 1972-73 model years. The only model that sold more cars than the Mustang II was the 1965 Mustang. The Mustang II saved the Mustang for us, and when you look at the horsepower comparisons for that time, they were right with the other "muscle" cars of that era and the Fox body 5.0 had less power I think than the 1978 Mustang II 5.0.

 

[Mach2burnout]

The exception is that the Falcon was a cool car. At least I though it was. I also owned a Pinto at one point, it wasn't a Mustang.

Falcons are cool now! They weren't all that cool back then.

The Mustang II sales were way above the 1972-73 model years. The only model that sold more cars than the Mustang II was the 1965 Mustang. The Mustang II saved the Mustang for us, and when you look at the horsepower comparisons for that time, they were right with the other "muscle" cars of that era and the Fox body 5.0 had less power I think than the 1978 Mustang II 5.0.

Iirc the 78 King Cobra was only 200 Hp. But I'm not positive. It in 78 we were happy to get 150. Lol

Edit: A quick search reveals the 78 5.0 was only 139 HP.

Sent from iPhone

 

[BruceH]

Falcons are cool now! They weren't all that cool back then.




Iirc the 78 King Cobra was only 200 Hp. But I'm not positive. It in 78 we were happy to get 150. Lol

Edit: A quick search reveals the 78 5.0 was only 139 HP.

Sent from iPhone

There were cool Falcons in the mid 70's. One of my uncles had one with a 260 that he and my father rebuilt in 1974 IIRC. It was a quick car and looked awesome with 60's on the rear.

Anyway to each his own. I was never a fan of the glorified Pinto and that was the general consensus of the people in my life at the time. If it works for you then great but I can never see that car as anything but a Pinto.

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

↑↑↑ You really have to look deeper than just at what's visible from the outside. What the sheetmetal looks like and minor dimensional differences should not be considered reliable clues to platform differences.



Just because . . . somewhere in the northeast corner of NC, mid-1970's. On the way to the 3rd fastest time along a measured stretch, behind a big-block Camaro (Camaro driver is sitting right seat here) and a car driven by the guy who set this little unofficial competition up.

Norm

I understand and agree where your coming from Norm, however the Mustang II was indeed based off the Pinto platform as was also the Maverick..

The exception is that the Falcon was a cool car. At least I though it was. I also owned a Pinto at one point, it wasn't a Mustang.

Totally agree about the Falcon, especially the Futura/Sprint variants..

The Mustang II sales were way above the 1972-73 model years. The only model that sold more cars than the Mustang II was the 1965 Mustang. The Mustang II saved the Mustang for us, and when you look at the horsepower comparisons for that time, they were right with the other "muscle" cars of that era and the Fox body 5.0 had less power I think than the 1978 Mustang II 5.0.

Mustang II sales were way above the 72-73 model years, due to the Arab Embargo Crisis during the early/mid 1970's.. So yes, I most definitely agree the Mustang II did indeed save the Mustang for us..

There were cool Falcons in the mid 70's. One of my uncles had one with a 260 that he and my father rebuilt in 1974 IIRC. It was a quick car and looked awesome with 60's on the rear.

Anyway to each his own. I was never a fan of the glorified Pinto and that was the general consensus of the people in my life at the time. If it works for you then great but I can never see that car as anything but a Pinto.

What I liked most about the Falcon, it also provided the best bang for the buck performance just as the Mustang did, but was also an alternative to both the Mustang and larger Fairlane models as well..

 

[01yellerCobra]

I understand and agree where your coming from Norm, however the Mustang II was indeed based off the Pinto platform as was also the Maverick..

What part of the Maverick was shared with the Pinto? Or did the Pinto still have upper and lower control arms? The Maverick stuff looks like early Mustang parts to me. That's why the disc brake conversion was so popular. At least until the junk yards caught and jacked up the prices.

 

[46Tbird]

Here is my buddy's '77 Cobra II. It had an EFI roller cam 331 stroker, aluminum GT40 heads, TFS Stage II, Z-spec T5, and 3.73 gears in the 8" rear. Someone had spent a mint on restoring it. I think we counted over $20k in receipts. It was pretty quick and it wasn't embarrassing to be seen in it.

 

[Norm Peterson]

did the Pinto still have upper and lower control arms?

Yes. The upper was a fairly normal upper for the time, but as I recall the "lower" consisted of a lateral link attached at the crossmember location plus a compression strut running diagonally back to the firewall.

If I can find my 1972 Ford Shop Manual I'll see if there's a picture of it. It's in the house . . . somewhere.


Norm

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

What part of the Maverick was shared with the Pinto? Or did the Pinto still have upper and lower control arms? The Maverick stuff looks like early Mustang parts to me. That's why the disc brake conversion was so popular. At least until the junk yards caught and jacked up the prices.

My mistake ! Although the Mustang II's platform was inspired by the Pinto's platform and also evolved from it, they were different from one another despite sharing some of the same underpinnings..

To answer your question, The Pinto did include upper and lower control arms along with rack and pinion steering in which the Mustang II did borrow from the Pinto..

As for the Maverick, I was also mistaken as no parts of the Mustang II's platform were ever shared with the Maverick, nor were any parts of the Pinto ever shared with the Maverick platform..

 

[01yellerCobra]

I thought the Mustang II was the first with the modified McPherson strut set up. Was that the 78?

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

I believe your right and I should know that, being that my first Mustang was a 78 Mustang II/King Cobra.. But then again, it's been over 23 years since I last owned that car lol.

Edit: the 74-78 Mustang II used front standard and rear shocks, the McPhearson strut suspension didn't begin until the Fox body platform in "79"

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/mustang-ii-tech/167337-1978-mustang-ll-shocks-question.html

 

[01yellerCobra]

I believe your right and I should know that, being that my first Mustang was a 78 Mustang II/King Cobra.. But then again, it's been over 23 years since I last owned that car lol.

Edit: the 74-78 Mustang II used front standard and rear shocks, the McPhearson strut suspension didn't begin until the Fox body platform in "79"

http://www.allfordmustangs.com/forums/mustang-ii-tech/167337-1978-mustang-ll-shocks-question.html

That's ok. It just occured to me how many people swap the Mustang II front end into hot rods. I even helped install one in my grandparents 56 F100. So you'd think I'd know the answer already. I'm pulling the "too long ago to remember" card.

 

[06 T-RED S/C GT]

That's ok. It just occured to me how many people swap the Mustang II front end into hot rods. I even helped install one in my grandparents 56 F100. So you'd think I'd know the answer already.

I'm pulling the "too long ago to remember" card.

Same here lol.