"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
11/19/2013 at 09:07 • Filed to: None
3
10|
"GhostZ" (GhostZ)
11/19/2013 at 09:07 • Filed to: None | 3
| 10 |
I'm not going to lie. I want this car. The Mustang II doesn't get any love, and is considered the worst generation Mustang. But this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is the best of the worst, and it is priced right to make its younger, Foxier sibling seem a lot less attractive.
Here is my thesis: Why listen to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on a cassette when you could listen to !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! on a record? Sure, the cassette is more refined and sophisticated, but if you're buying classic rock music, you're buying classic rock music. You want the biggest, baddest, most bombastic rock you can find, and Dire Straits isn't a cheap alternative anymore.
And let's be honest, it's not the source of the music, but the equipment you play it through . Or in this case, what modifications you put on the two cars, which are going to cost the same no matter which car you start with.
With Notchback Fox bodies getting rarer and 80s nostalgia in full swing, unless you want a terrible convertible with a chassis like a banana peel, its becoming very, very hard to find a Fox Body that has been unmolested or will last another 10,000 miles. Enter the Mustang II.
That being said, this car costs 2 Miatas, 3 in a generous world. It doesn't take a genius to know that this car is, on some level, overpriced for its performance. Would a a clean body and relatively rare number make up for its performance deficit? Or would it just make it more of a waste to modify to make up that deficit?
webmonkees
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 09:10 |
|
Guy who works across the street has one apparently for a dd. He never parks photogenically so I've not done a shoot. Looking at the market.. um.. looks like the II owners have already figured that rarirty thing out. Cheaper to find a foxbody v6 that's just worn out.
But a Maverick would be a a maverick choice.
Yowen - not necessarily not spaghetti and meatballs
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 09:13 |
|
I think Mustang II's can look very awesome if done right. I don't know if I'd actually want the cobra... I'd rather have a regular GT to have my way with.
ttyymmnn
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 09:19 |
|
Yup.
The Transporter
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 09:29 |
|
I'm just going to come out and say it. I think the Mustang II looks way better than the Fox Body. I'll go even further and say that I've always thought the Fox Body looked flat out ugly - except for perhaps the convertible version.
While the Mustang II might have that wimpy Pinto rear leaf spring suspension, because it is so unloved there will be no Mustang II purists who will get bent out of shape if you do a resto-mod that is more mod than resto.
greenagain
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 09:38 |
|
I like them too, in a weird way. I was 11 or 12 when they came out, and that was as cool as it got back then.
BIN $ 9500! Yikes!
MontegoMan562 is a Capri RS Owner
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 10:32 |
|
Great suspension and a great engine. YES would buy.
He swapped out some of the parts on the engine to make it not ruined by it's era. The suspension on these things is great, everyone steals Mustang II running gear for their projects.
I'd say buy, buy aaaaaand buy. I bet it's a blast to drive.
zx6rob
> The Transporter
11/19/2013 at 12:44 |
|
Once, a long time ago, I remember someone posting a concept sketch from the very earliest days of the Fox body Mustang, and it was actually really, really good-looking. Very '80s, lots of sharp lines and no rounded edges, but it looked like a real sports car. Had they gone that direction, the Fox may've been able to carve its own place out in the world of automotive design, but as is, they do look kind of flat. I like them — the late '80s LX coupes, I think, are handsome exercises in minimalism as far as exterior design goes — but I recognize they're far from the looker of the family.
The II, though, when properly resto-modded (especially given some fat rear tires that properly fill those cavernous wells), looks pretty darn good to me, too. I admit to having more than a bit of a soft spot for the incredibly tacky King Cobra version, and would absolutely love to someday put one together with a better rear end, five-speed manual, and a punched-out, worked-over 302 V8.
These things can look really mean when they've had some work done:
|
zx6rob
> GhostZ
11/19/2013 at 12:50 |
|
This is the kind of car you buy and modify only for yourself, knowing every step of the way that you are setting your money on fire. That being said, I really want one, too, so you're not alone. Besides, it's not that hard to overcome this thing's performance deficit, really. From '75 onward, you could get them with a 302 V8, albeit an emissions-strangled, asthmatic, wheezy, mid-'70s malaise V8. The Ford 302 small-block, though, is a proven design with a huge aftermarket, and I don't think it's really all that hard to build yourself a 348 pushing about 400-odd horsepower at the crank, and all that should stuff nicely in place under a stock hood. The Mustang II front end is the first thing all the '66-'70 resto-modders stick in their cars, so it's pretty good already. Swap out that rear end with a stronger bit from a junked car, fit yourself a four-on-the-floor (or a five-speed, if you want), and I think you'd have a really fun little stoplight dragster, especially considering how light these cars were. I mean, in theory, anyway...
|
The Transporter
> zx6rob
11/19/2013 at 14:32 |
|
I'll agree that the older the Fox Bodies got, the better they looked.
SixStar
> GhostZ
02/07/2014 at 10:40 |
|
Every time I see a Mustang II I think of the '80s movie Star Man wit Jeff Bridges. I had always wished that he would have used one of his magical glowing balls to convert that POS into something else. Anything else.