Precisely.
Worst ever and best ever?
- Thread starter Chris!
- Start date
Precisely.
Oh yes the 1975 250ci 105HP 3500# camaros were REAL POWER HOUSES!! Lol or the 400ci 180hp 3800# rocket ship. GM almost killed the car off in 72-74.
Yes the Mustang II is the red headed step child in many of the eyes of today. (Unfortunately a lot of current owners I wouldn't consider Mustang enthusiast as they seem to only be euthusiast only about the car that they own and barely knew the Mustang existed before their purchase of their car). The Mustang II has a rightful place in Mustang history and should at least be treated with a little respect. It sold over 1 million cars from 74-78. It was also Car of the year(back when that used to mean something) it offered a good fuel economy, sporty looks and it was cheap. Exactly what the buyers were looking for at that point in time.
You may not like the car but you should show some respect to the heritage of the Mustang. A car that has been in constant production over 48 years as there is not too many automobile models that can say that.
Yes the Mustang II is the red headed step child in many of the eyes of today. (Unfortunately a lot of current owners I wouldn't consider Mustang enthusiast as they seem to only be euthusiast only about the car that they own and barely knew the Mustang existed before their purchase of their car). The Mustang II has a rightful place in Mustang history and should at least be treated with a little respect. It sold over 1 million cars from 74-78. It was also Car of the year(back when that used to mean something) it offered a good fuel economy, sporty looks and it was cheap. Exactly what the buyers were looking for at that point in time.
You may not like the car but you should show some respect to the heritage of the Mustang. A car that has been in constant production over 48 years as there is not too many automobile models that can say that.
Last edited:
Ry's example was a 455 SD. Quite a bit more potential than anything the Iacocca II had to offer.
Ford affixed the Mustang moniker to a Pinto. It deserves little respect.
With Knudsen freshly shitcanned, the organization moved in the direction that oil prices took them. The fact that it sold well says little about the performance of the car in the context of what a Mustang means to most.
The current GT500 is moving in the opposite direction, against the grain. THAT deserves respect. So do the 65/66 GT350, '68 428 CJ, '69/'70 Boss 429, '69/'70 Boss 302, '71 Boss 351, '85 GT, '87 LX HO, '93 Cobra (R especially), '95 R, '00 R, '03/'04 Cobra, '07-current GT500, '11 GT, '12/'13 Boss 302. But good Lord...respect any Mustang II model from '74 to '78?
Never.
ON EDIT...the Chrysler K-cars had sales numbers over a million as well and also made the Car of The Year list. Another brainchild of Lee I. that served the purpose of allowing quick repayment of a huge taxpayer loan, they were just as bad. Like the Mustang II, you used to see them on every corner. They are now as popular as a Chevy Citation (X11!!). All horrible, horrible cars.
Ford affixed the Mustang moniker to a Pinto. It deserves little respect.
With Knudsen freshly shitcanned, the organization moved in the direction that oil prices took them. The fact that it sold well says little about the performance of the car in the context of what a Mustang means to most.
The current GT500 is moving in the opposite direction, against the grain. THAT deserves respect. So do the 65/66 GT350, '68 428 CJ, '69/'70 Boss 429, '69/'70 Boss 302, '71 Boss 351, '85 GT, '87 LX HO, '93 Cobra (R especially), '95 R, '00 R, '03/'04 Cobra, '07-current GT500, '11 GT, '12/'13 Boss 302. But good Lord...respect any Mustang II model from '74 to '78?
Never.
ON EDIT...the Chrysler K-cars had sales numbers over a million as well and also made the Car of The Year list. Another brainchild of Lee I. that served the purpose of allowing quick repayment of a huge taxpayer loan, they were just as bad. Like the Mustang II, you used to see them on every corner. They are now as popular as a Chevy Citation (X11!!). All horrible, horrible cars.
Last edited:
do you really want to go there?
1972
mustang - 275HP 351
camaro - 255HP 350
firebird - 300HP 455
1973
mustang - 266HP 351
camaro - 245HP 350
firebird - 290HP 455
1974
mustang - 105HP 171 V6, no V8. same year that motortrend awarded it "car of the year"...
camaro - 245HP 350
firebird - 290HP 455
1975
mustang - 140HP 302
camaro - 155HP 350
firebird - 200HP 455
1976
mustang - 140HP 302
camaro - 165HP 350
firebird - 200HP 455
1977
mustang - 134HP 302
camaro - 185HP 350
firebird - 220HP 400
1978
mustang - 139HP 302 "king cobra":rollseyes
camaro - 185HP 350
firebird - 220HP 400
1979 - beginning of fox body mustang
mustang - 140HP 302
camaro - 175HP 350
firebird - 220HP 400
the only 2 years the mustang had more power were the 2 years before the mustang II. the mustang II was competitive in '75 and '76, and the competition just moved on from there. yea, mad respect, especially for the 1974 model year:bored:
GM almost killed the F-bodies in 1972 because of the UAW strike at the norwood production plant, not because they weren't good cars or whatever.
BTW, motortrends 'car of the year' NEVER meant anything, it's always been a 'bought' title.
"...The “man in the street” read Motor Trend, a magazine seemingly devoted to breathless reviews of such scintillating hardware as the Chevrolet Nova Concours and Mercury Monarch. MT was the Will Rogers of car magazines; they never reviewed a car they didn’t like. In an era where offering a 12/12,000 warranty was considered a bit “risky” (with good reason) and cars regularly fell apart during basic slalom testing, this level of continuous optimism required both a strong stomach and a powerful addiction to advertising money. Legend has it that the men who ran the magazine would select their “Car Of The Year” by relaxing every evening at Detroit’s famous London Chop House and waiting to see which manufacturer brought around the biggest bribe, an allegation not entirely disproved by their selection of the Plymouth Volare in 1976."
...of course, i can't prove this, but do you REALLY doubt it? i mean, honestly, just go check out that list:dw:edit: all this, and everything Tob said!
Last edited:
Funny how the firebird always had a bigger motor with more power and now its gone....:shrug:
i'm thankful for that, we don't need a castrated 4000lb mediocre 5th gen firebird. always been my number 2 behind the mustang(except for those ugly ass 1st gen birds:xpl
.Performance wise, Yes, the Mustang II wasn't up to par.
Tob what is interesting about the list you had on all the cars people remember and look fondly back on are the performance marquee cars. Those units didn't make up the bulk of Mustang sales. Those cars helped build an image of the car as a performance of the car. It was Lee Iacocca that the Mustang was born in the first place, and he brought Shelby to pump up the Mustang Performance image as it was a "secretary's car". Sporty looking and priced right but lacked performance.
We are performance minded people on this site no doubt about that. Tob you have a modified GT500, I have had several different Mustangs. We are all about performance and we like the top performance pick. You like myself would probably never fathom buying a basic model 6cyl automatic. However, boy they have sold a ton of them that has allowed the brand to stay strong so that they can produce the top cars for Guys like us.
RY
Your numbers are important to performance minded guys like us who are looking at a spec sheet. However the numbers that are important to the Mustang brand and the Company are Sales numbers. Where Mustang sales have remained solid and of Outsold it's competitors in the same market for the vast majority of the time. Even on the years you listed except for 77/78 were Mustang sales where still strong but the F-body did outsell them.
Tob what is interesting about the list you had on all the cars people remember and look fondly back on are the performance marquee cars. Those units didn't make up the bulk of Mustang sales. Those cars helped build an image of the car as a performance of the car. It was Lee Iacocca that the Mustang was born in the first place, and he brought Shelby to pump up the Mustang Performance image as it was a "secretary's car". Sporty looking and priced right but lacked performance.
We are performance minded people on this site no doubt about that. Tob you have a modified GT500, I have had several different Mustangs. We are all about performance and we like the top performance pick. You like myself would probably never fathom buying a basic model 6cyl automatic. However, boy they have sold a ton of them that has allowed the brand to stay strong so that they can produce the top cars for Guys like us.
RY
Your numbers are important to performance minded guys like us who are looking at a spec sheet. However the numbers that are important to the Mustang brand and the Company are Sales numbers. Where Mustang sales have remained solid and of Outsold it's competitors in the same market for the vast majority of the time. Even on the years you listed except for 77/78 were Mustang sales where still strong but the F-body did outsell them.
Last edited:
Ry_Trapp0; IMO said:
Users who are viewing this thread
