i've never understood why the II got such a bad rap.yeah it was based on the pinto but the original was based on a subcompact too,the falcon and in base form it like the falcon used 4 lug wheels a lighter rear axle and a six cylinder engine.to beef it up you had to order the 260 v-8 in 1964 and half or in 1965 the 289 v-8 to get five lug wheels and heavier rear axle the mustang didnt really become a high performance car until 67 when the first big blocks came avaiable and in 69 they really got serious.the shelbys were available begining in 1965 but they were'nt built in house and the gt was available starting in 65 with a 225 hp 289 or the k code 271 horse 289 but the early mustangs real mission was to just be a sporty car that appealed to young folks the real musclecar mustangs didnt start until later in the sixties.by the 73 the mustang had become much bigger and heavier and with the mustang II ford was taking the mustang back to its roots.i personaly think the mustangII's are good looking cars and with a v-8 and a little tinkering they will really perform online with all the other performce mustangs....just my 2 cents.....let me know what you think
The mustang II is not that bad, but what kills it with most people is that you could not ever order it with any HIPO mods from the factory. It was never a performance car, the 65 Mustang could get a option of the K code, and FOX body had a turbo 4 cyclinder and a V8 and really picked back up in 86. But the Mustang II never had any performance options, and not a King Cobra Package does not make it a performance car. I personaly like the Mustang II I am even thinking of getting a 1974 and dropping a V8 now I don't have to smog it.
I like my 74 Mustang II... It's small, and rusted, and not even drivable at the moment, but it has potential. I've got a modified 2.3 in mine that should be good for about 150hp when finished with it's current Federal-Mogul cam, and over 200 when I go with a 390cfm Holley 4-bbl. and with the hotter cam that's available for it. I hope to make one mean screamer out of it and run it on the GM vs. FoMoCo shootouts at the local dragstrip.
__________________
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
just to clarify a few things, the FIRST Mustang off the line had a 289 4V, they had a 289 Hi-Po availible in the early 65's.....and the first 75 Shelby Cobra's had a 260 that put out more power than the 289 Cobra
Twister,i believe the first 64 1/2 mustangs got a 260 not a 289,i think it was a few months later that the 289 became available.and you are right the first two seat cobra's were powered by the 260 and were 1964 models but the first shelby mustang the 1965 GT 350 was powered by a k code 289 warmed up by shelby to make 306 horsepower.btw in my humble opinion a factory v-8 mustang II with it's 302 has lots of potental and hop up parts are everywhere for the 302,switch to five lug wheels.......well you get the idea
302 Mustang IIs aren't the only ones with potential...
I'm continually blown away by the number of hi-performance parts manufactured for the 2.3 and 2.8 engines.
and you can always swap in a Turbo 2.3 or a Ranger 4.0 if you want something different, but still powerful.
__________________
1976 Ford Mustang II Ghia: 302 with a 600cfm Edelbrock carb, Edelbrock Performer 289 intake, Dynomax Blackjack headers, 2.5" exhaust with Flowmaster Super 44s. RJS 11-gallon fuel cell, C4 tranny, chrome 16" pony wheels, fuzzy dice, brown vinyl half-top, and painted in the tackiest color ever (harvest gold, that's why I call it "The Goldenrod").
Also have a 2003 Dodge Ram (lightly modded daily driver/tow rig/office/dining room/home away from home/workshop... I call it "The Big Blue Dawg".)
Originally posted by rustyjunk Twister,i believe the first 64 1/2 mustangs got a 260 not a 289,i think it was a few months later that the 289 became available.and you are right the first two seat cobra's were powered by the 260 and were 1964 models but the first shelby mustang the 1965 GT 350 was powered by a k code 289 warmed up by shelby to make 306 horsepower.btw in my humble opinion a factory v-8 mustang II with it's 302 has lots of potental and hop up parts are everywhere for the 302,switch to five lug wheels.......well you get the idea
The engine options for early 65's were a 170 straight 6, a 260 2V, a 289 4V, and the 289 Hi-po, the very first production Mustang is in the Henry Ford Museum, and has a D code 289 in it. I have seen many low production cars with 289's, and even a few with a Hi-Po. If you want to learn more about Mustang engine options, do a search for VIN codes.....I have broke them all down in the Classic, II, and Fox Lounges. As for Cobra's, the 63's had 260's, since the K code 289 was not used until 1964, first (for Ford) in the Fairlane (oh how I would love to have a 64 2-door K-code Fairlane)As for potential, it depends really on where you live, here in Cali with the Smog Nazi's, they will continue to be dogs....
Please note, I am not trying to bash you or the II, just correcting some misinformation
Last edited by ScottHalliday; 01-19-2003 at 12:21 AM.
hey Twister no offence taken,and i stand corrected.just friendly shop talk.i have been studying and playing with musclcars for a long time {better part of thirty years} and after i posted i got to thnking about it and i thought maybe it was 63 for the cobra.i havent studied the books in the last few years as much as i used to,i just dont have the time anymore.and i also restore antique farm and garden tractors,so i dont give the cars as much of my free time as i used to.i am sure i have forgot alot of details so i hope you guys can help me brush up.as far as my original post all i was trying to say was originaly the mustang was based on the falcon {a great little car in its own rite} and was to appeal to a wide range of youth {the baby boomers} as a sporty car.it could be speced as a sporty economy car a sporty luxury car or a sporty performace car but in base form it was a lot like the mustang II.
mustangII's are mustangs too 
