I got a buddy with a 78 mustang II coupe and hes lookin for some simple ground effects for it. does anyone know any sites where he can get some? Thx in advance
L8R
Michael
yearone and if they don't have it you don't need it.
I doubt yearone has anything for a Mustang II they are the redheaded step child of the Mustangs most deny there existance. Google "Monroe Handler" Or get a Cobra body kit for it. That is about all you could do short of making something yourself.
95 Cobra
Check out my site
K thx. Is there anywhere he can get a cowl hood for it? Ive searched but I cant seem to find anything.
L8R
Michael
uglyiest stangs ever
-Borsty
Borsty wrote:uglyiest stangs ever
No I believe that distinction would go to the '71-'73 Mustangs. He'll probably have to fabricate his own cowl hood, I don't think anybody makes one for Mustang II's. I always liked them except for the taillights.
71-73 looks a hell of a lot better then the mustang II's, those mustangs II's arent even real mustangs.
i actually like the mustang 2's over the 71-73 beanmobiles
well the hatch back models , the coupes i didnt really like
ive seen and know a few people with rare king cobra's , nothing like a V8 4spd car in a light weight chassis
1 of the guys i knew worked for toyota , and his king cobra was wicked fast , althought it didnt help he had a 5.0 HO 5spd , with go fast parts from a late 80's early 90's stang
the cobra's and kind cobra's were the better looking models
keep in mind being from L.A. ive seen millions of stangs turned into beanmobiles , so i have a bias against them
i have seen quite a few 71-73 mach 1's and a few boss 351's , that were pretty dam sweet
besides what guy in their right mind would bitch about 3 hot chicks getting out of a mustang 2 , although im sure some of you dont remember charlies angles , because they had 1 in that show
The GoOoOch wrote:71-73 looks a hell of a lot better then the mustang II's, those mustangs II's arent even real mustangs.
Define "real Mustang" and tell me how the Mustang II wasn't one.
The original Mustang was nothing more than a car designed for secretaries and small families. It's main appeal was the fact that it had many options and was cheap. In it's first two years, the Mustang sold over 1 million models. Out of those, only something like 20% even had a V8, and the biggest V8 available before '67 was only a 289, with a max of 270hp in the K-code, of which only several thousand were produced. The main engine was the 170/200 I6, weak but sturdy by any standard. Mustangs weren't "go fast" cars until the full upswing of the muscle car era. By 1969, the Mustang had left it's roots mostly behind, and had become a nice contender in the muscle car scene. But still, it wasn't near the top overall (yes, Boss 302s and 429's and Q/R code Machs were great, but had a very small share of the total overall market)
By 1971, the muscle car era was waning. Emissions were starting to come into play, and everyone knew that more economic cars were needed. Thus, Ford needed to completely redesign the Mustang. It needed to go back to it's beginnings, as a cheap, economical, small car that would appeal to those who didn't need a gas guzzling boat, but a nice small sporty car. The 1974 Mustang II was just that. It was the Motor Trend Car of the Year, as well as being the highest selling year of Mustangs since '66, and stayed that way up till sometime well into the fox bodies. And, oddly enough, this amazingly high selling year of Mustangs...had no V8 option. Only the 2.3L SOHC and a 2.8L V6. It would of course come back for 1975, but the point was proven.
And styling is completely subjective. For it's time, the Mustang II was styled quite well. Look at most other cars from the mid 70's, then look at the Mustang. In an era of cars that looked like this:
This doesn't look so ugly, now does it:
Either way, it's still just in the viewers opinion. But please, do tell about how Mustang II's aren't "real Mustangs" any more than a Fox body, SN95, '05, '71-'73 or even '69-'70.
Hey that '75 Monte Carlo isn't ugly.
Yeah, actually.
'74 Camaros are ugly anyways....
74 Camaro looks a hell of a lot better than that Mustang....IMO. And I used to own 2 1976 Mustangs!
Like I said, looks are all in opinions. The main point was that the Mustang II was as much a Mustang as any other generation, and the comment that "those mustangs II's arent even real mustangs." was just straight-up wrong.
True....I wouldn't say they were not real mustangs. I liked my 76 Mustangs, but liked my 77 Camaro better.
