25 Greatest Mustangs

[kerrynzl]

As for the 74-78 mustang II, not many mid 70's cars out of Detroit were memorable for their looks.

The ugly stick was the most used tool in mid 70's automotive design.

They can be made into good looking competition cars.
eg: High cut wheel arches and dumped into the weeds to give that oval track look.

Dyno Don's Mustang II pro-stock looks timeless


In NZ we have the famous "PDL" Mustang II that ran against [and slaughtered] the "DeKon" Monzas [TransAm road racing]


Maybe it's just the yellow / red paint scheme

 

[tjm73]

I feel they have a critical design flaw. The front wheel opening is a few inches too far back. It needs to move forward 3-4".

 

[RED09GT]

What I meant is that for the mid 70's they were actually a decent looking car, at least compared to everything else.

Pontiac probably had some of the best looking cars for the era.

 

[Flusher]

I feel they have a critical design flaw. The front wheel opening is a few inches too far back. It needs to move forward 3-4".

An altered would be sick! I would move the front wheel opening to just behind the front bumper. I always wanted to build my '70 A body Mopar as if the A/FX class continued into the '70s.

 

[tjm73]

Pintos have the same problem.

 

[pwd72s]

Even lovely Farrah had a problem making the Mustang II look good.

 

[banzai_bullitt]

I'm really surprised that the '86 wasn't on the list. First year of SEFI, true dual exhaust, 8.8 rear axle. I wasn't impressed with the article... mediocre.

 

[tjm73]

I'm really surprised that the '86 wasn't on the list. First year of SEFI, true dual exhaust, 8.8 rear axle. I wasn't impressed with the article... mediocre.

That's true. It's not the best article I ever read. And you are correct the '86 Mustang was a major milestone. It may have looked just the '85 but what changed under the skin signaled to coming real muscle car resurgence we still enjoy today. It deserved to be on the list long before the original Elenor. Nothing special about that car AT ALL.

 

[Pentalab]

Only choked in the sense that it came saddled with smog equipment and a smallish 735cfm Holley carb. Given a bigger carb, LT headers, and no smog equipment, 500+rwhp does sound plausible.

Back then, insurance companies put a max lower limit of 10 lbs per hp. A 3750 lb car ( weighed with a full tank of gas, no driver or pass), couldn't have any more than 375 crank hp. So the car makers either BS'ed the weight, or BS'ed the crank hp...or a bit of both.

Pre- 1972, it was called..'SAE-gross' . That was crank hp, not including any device operating off the fead belt..nor the crankshaft. IE: a '300' hp engine would actually be considerably less than 300 hp, once the water pump, AC, alternator, oil pump, etc, etc, was subtracted.

After 1972, it was called...'SAE-NET'. This was crank hp, after all the fead belt driven devices. We are still using SAE-net to this day.

 

[tjm73]

I read an article a year or so ago that talked about a Chrysler (I think it was them) power rating. They rated the car at X hp at like 4800 rpm. In reality the peak power happened at like 5800 rpm and was substantially higher.

Just another way to get around the "rules".

 

[pwd72s]

An old Geezer having a fun memory here. Laughing my ass off as a Charlie's Angels episode had Farrah in her Mustang II "Cobra" chasing and running down a Porsche 911 over a twisty Canyon road.

They call it having a willing suspension of disbelief...

 

[JimC]

Back then, insurance companies put a max lower limit of 10 lbs per hp. A 3750 lb car ( weighed with a full tank of gas, no driver or pass), couldn't have any more than 375 crank hp. So the car makers either BS'ed the weight, or BS'ed the crank hp...or a bit of both.

Pre- 1972, it was called..'SAE-gross' . That was crank hp, not including any device operating off the fead belt..nor the crankshaft. IE: a '300' hp engine would actually be considerably less than 300 hp, once the water pump, AC, alternator, oil pump, etc, etc, was subtracted.

After 1972, it was called...'SAE-NET'. This was crank hp, after all the fead belt driven devices. We are still using SAE-net to this day.

Was that an insurance rule or was it the GM rule? As I recall that was one of the issues for Delorean with Pontiac and bringing the GTO online. So he fudged a lot of information.

 

[Dino Dino Bambino]

I have a write up about horsepower here:

http://www.angelfire.com/my/fan/Horsepower.html

I'm not sure that there was a 10lb per hp limit for insurance purposes though. The '70-'71 Dodge Challenger with a 426 Hemi had a quoted base weight of 3650lb and the engine was rated at 425hp. In reality that engine made 490hp SAE gross so even though that engine was also underrated, it wasn't to keep the car over the 10lb per hp limit.
The Boss 429 had a quoted curb weight of 3870lb and hit the 1/4 mile trap at 103, which suggests that the engine made ~360hp SAE net. SAE gross might have been anywhere between 450-480.

 

[Pentalab]

Was that an insurance rule or was it the GM rule? As I recall that was one of the issues for Delorean with Pontiac and bringing the GTO online. So he fudged a lot of information.

The story I got was that it was an insurance company rule.

On a side note, the cars in mid 70's were a joke. A guy at work bought a brand new camaro in summer of either 1974..or 1975. 350 ci...and rated at a whopping 160 hp. The deluxe version was rated at 170 hp. The 170 hp version had a slightly higher redline. The car, imo was fugly.

 

[tjm73]

The mid to late 70's through the very early 80's were dark times for design and performance in the automotive world.

 

[Bullitt2954]

Followed closely by the "it's gonna rust soon stick".

Or the “I think aluminium cylinders and an Iron head would make a GREAT and DURABLE Engine combination!” stick....