I ordered a 1977 f100 shortbed 302, auto pickup at the dealership where I was working at the time. I don't remember even considering a new mustang-----that is how much they had killed them, the owners son ordered a loaded 78 fastback, 302, t-top ,aqua colored that actually was pretty nice, still not enough to make me buy one, I had my f100 customized and nearly got killed in it a month after buying it by a guy who ran a stop sign at night with headlights off---never saw him coming-----the pintang never grew on me!
I told Stephanie (my first wife - D) I would buy her any car for her 16th birthday from the year she was born (1978 - D). Her answer "I want a mustang dad!" To my relief she didn't want a sports car.
[/Ex father in-law]
Hey, wait a minute, I had a 72 Vega and after that I had a 82 EXP...I liked both those cars...Great MPG and with a bit of work the Vega was pretty quick. The EXP had some cool options like leather seats with sheepskin seat inserts and a sunroof. It looked like the silver model pictured on the Hot Rod magazine cover announcing the EXP. It got great MPG and was pretty fast.
Uhhh...I hate to say this - not being a Mustang II fan myself - but this is very likely the car that made it possible for there STILL to be Mustangs today. I know a lot of you guys are too young to have been around when they were introduced, but have you ever look at the sales totals for the II's run? It made even '65-'66 look flabby. Without the "saviour" II, the downward spiral of the '71-'73 sales, which already had the Ford brass thinking about pulling the plug with the smog and insurance-induced death of the muscle car, the car might have just receded into history.
And let's face it, the car took the car back to its original roots of being small-ish, affordable, and economical, was (arguably) more refined, and certainly out-handled and out-steered its previous counterparts. This was a time of the oil embargo, in which people waited 1, 2, 3 hours in line for gas on a regular basis! Gas mileage was what the public needed, if not wanted.
Being that it was later available with the 302, there's no reason a more acceptable SB engine couldn't be swapped into one now and make a decent little buggy.
I've never really understood why these cars have perpetually gotten such a bad rap. Based on a Pinto? OK, the first Mustang was "based" on a lowly Falcon, but somehow everybody got over that. Underpowered? OK, but let's remember how many of the first Mustangs were sixes, and the biggest part of the II's problem was the onset of REAL smog controls, which were not its fault (during a time in which even a Corvette strolled along with only 150hp!).
As I said, I'm really no big fan of the car, but I'm not much of a fan of Chevys either, yet I can still appreciate a Vette or a vintage Camaro, Nova, Chevelle anyway.
As much as I hate to say it, its time to "give the II its due".
Here Here, I for one think the Mustang II is a pretty nice little car, It was based on a pinto but doesn't resemble Pinto at all. There is very little that will interchange with a Pinto (65-66 will interchange with Falcon) they had quite a few problems with the Pinto chassis when they stretched it for the mustang, so they had to go back and redesign the whole thing. The 6 cylinder engine came from the Mercury Capri. even with a smogged 302 the car ran pretty good, I have one that is a 302 with a C4 and the "Hot rear" was a 2.79. how do you expect it to run with that combo in it? I am in the process of rebuilding one for my wife, it is a 78 with a V6. It will lose the V6 and get a 302, it will still have a C4 and the 3.42 gear that the V6 car came with. I figure if I get rid of the pollution controls the car will be twice as fast as it was when new. I will let all of you know how it runs when I finish it.