According to a Ford engineer I was talking to the S197 Mustang platform and the Lincoln LS have only a single crossmember in common. Other than that they share nothing. He made no mention of anything being common between the Mustang and any front-wheel drive Mazda.
When Ford said that the car was new from the ground up, I knew it couldn't have been the same, thanks for clearing that up.
__________________
2006 GT Tungsten Grey 5 spd, Xcal2/Pipeline CAI, Powerhouse tune. Spoiler delete. Front Speakers:Infinity 6812CF;Blaupunkt GTc652. Rear:Infinity Kappa 682.7CF. H/U:Alpine CDA-9885. Alpine MRP-F250 amp. Sequentials. President of the Splash guard registry. On Deck: Motoblue UDP's.
According to a Ford engineer I was talking to the S197 Mustang platform and the Lincoln LS have only a single crossmember in common. Other than that they share nothing. He made no mention of anything being common between the Mustang and any front-wheel drive Mazda.
THe basis was the LS/S-Type.
That doesn't mean they share the exact same parts. It's the blueprint it was derived from.
Same with the Pinto/Falcon.
You can't make a Mustang from a Pinto, Falcon, Fairmont or vice versa, but the pickup points are similar, and suspension geometry, etc.
__________________
Woe to him who builds his palace by unrighteousness,his upper rooms by injustice,making his countrymen work for nothing...Does it make you a king to have more and more cedar?Did not your father have food and drink?He did what was right and just,so all went well with him. He defended the cause of the poor and needy,and so all went well...But your eyes and your heart are set only on dishonest gain,on shedding innocent blood and on oppression and extortion. Jer 22:13, 15-17
That doesn't mean they share the exact same parts. It's the blueprint it was derived from.
Same with the Pinto/Falcon.
You can't make a Mustang from a Pinto, Falcon, Fairmont or vice versa, but the pickup points are similar, and suspension geometry, etc.
KS is absolutely correct! Ford barely broke even on '04 and earlier models. They stated specifically that the '05 and later would be built using more shared parts to make the car cost less to manufacture. It would also be built in the Mazda factory because that chassis was already being built there and the '05 and later would use shared parts from T Bird, Lincoln LS, and Mazda. A number of people have commented that the'05 and later look like they should have 4 doors because they're longer. Well they're longer because they're based on a 4 door LS chassis. As KS pointed "based on" means just that, doesn't mean they're identical!
__________________
2002 Mustang GT Convertible, auto, Mineral Grey, Dark Charcoal leather, Bullitt rims.
2007 Ford F150 SuperCab FX4, Dark Shadow Grey/Black cloth, 5.4 FFV.
Well, there's one thing the Mustang II has over the new ones for DAMN sure. At least my little '74 "Phony-Pony" was built in the Dearborn plant where it belonged!
__________________
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".)
The 1974 Ford Mustang II, even with it's lack of a V8, was NOT the worst performing Mustang in history, that distinction belongs to... a fox-body! In 1974, the 2.3 had 102hp, and the 2.8 V6 had 119hp.
Compared to the 1979-1982 4/6 cylinder versions? they were little badasses! The 2.8L V6 had been tuned down by then for it's one-year stint in the fox, and the 3.3L I6 that replaced it actually had 3 less horsepower than the 88hp 2.3 that year!
__________________
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".)
Build up a good 302 or 351W, and stick it in a II, and it'll hang with the best of them.
__________________
1992 Deep Emerald Green Mustang GT Hatch, 5 speed, 2.73s, Mac fenderwell cold air intake, '93 Cobra MAF, Mac 70mm throttle body & spacer, Explorer intakes, Mac unequal headers & offroad pipe, Magnaflow catback, Walbro 110lph fuel pump, Jet adjustable FPR, MSD Blaster coil, Accel 8mm wires, FRPP aluminum quadrant, UPR firewall adjuster, stock cable, Granatelli upper control arms.
Waiting to go on: Granatelli lower control arms, and GT40 Iron heads!
The 1974 Ford Mustang II, even with it's lack of a V8, was NOT the worst performing Mustang in history, that distinction belongs to... a fox-body! In 1974, the 2.3 had 102hp, and the 2.8 V6 had 119hp.
Compared to the 1979-1982 4/6 cylinder versions? they were little badasses! The 2.8L V6 had been tuned down by then for it's one-year stint in the fox, and the 3.3L I6 that replaced it actually had 3 less horsepower than the 88hp 2.3 that year!
Actually, both my wife's 81's (well, one thinks its an 89, but its just bolt-ons...) have the 3.3 I6. It definitely doesn't have the HP of the 2.3 or the 2.8 BUT...it kicks butt in the torque curve. Any time I drive one, I'm pleasantly surprised by just how nicely it will hold its RPMs on long grades. One of the few "nice" things I can say about a Fox-body (and its just my own opinion. We all have our own preferences.
And BOTH of my "Pinto's-on-'roids" were built in Dearborn
__________________
78 Rat Snake
78 project
lotsa parts and nowhere to work with them...
My first Mustang was a 74 Ghia (hardtop), V8 302 (Mexican Car), with all the fast goodies of the time (late 70s), cam, ported heads, offenhauser intake, 4 barrel cam, longtubes.
This car would smoke anything at the time, but unfortunately it ended up at the junker after a serious crash.
If you look at the lines it does look like a Mustang, and it is a Mustang, the ones that deny that car the status of a true pony are just morons in my opinion. They have their reasons, one being that the first models were seriously impaired with the small engines, but the V8s performed great.
And make no mistake, Mustang IIs are gathering attention this days, and there are very few left, so prices will GO UP. So if you are looking at a cheap investment, locate one of the rare V8 IIs and restore it.
Actually, both my wife's 81's (well, one thinks its an 89, but its just bolt-ons...) have the 3.3 I6. It definitely doesn't have the HP of the 2.3 or the 2.8 BUT...it kicks butt in the torque curve. Any time I drive one, I'm pleasantly surprised by just how nicely it will hold its RPMs on long grades. One of the few "nice" things I can say about a Fox-body (and its just my own opinion. We all have our own preferences.
And BOTH of my "Pinto's-on-'roids" were built in Dearborn
Yeah, my mom and dad's fox-rides (a 1979 Fairmont and 1982 Granada... (that Fairmont sucked ass, but that Granada was a fantastic car!) had 3.3's in them... my mom still misses her Fairmont (can't figure out for the life of me why, I was never that crazy about it, but I miss the hell outta that Granada! Ford should build another car like that... roomy, not too big on the outside, handled well, smooth... Why did Ford ever quit building Fox-chassis sedans?) We had that Granada for 19 years (unfortunately, it sat idle for the last 7 because my dad started and never finished replacing the oil pump, and I wasn't going anywhere near it because it had a beehive under it (I'm scared to death of bees.) We finally ended up towing the ol' girl to the shredder... that was a sad day, I practically grew up in that car!
I found out from decoding my VIN that my II was actually a San Jose car, but that's still better than being built in a MAZDA plant! Hell, I'd rather have a Camaro from Canada!
__________________
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".)
Imagine you took an alien, and showed him a '65 Mustang, and told him that it was a Mustang. If you then took him someplace where there was a Mustang II parked with Stangs from every year from '79 till '04, and told him to pick the Mustang out of the lineup, he'd pick the II.
__________________
1992 Deep Emerald Green Mustang GT Hatch, 5 speed, 2.73s, Mac fenderwell cold air intake, '93 Cobra MAF, Mac 70mm throttle body & spacer, Explorer intakes, Mac unequal headers & offroad pipe, Magnaflow catback, Walbro 110lph fuel pump, Jet adjustable FPR, MSD Blaster coil, Accel 8mm wires, FRPP aluminum quadrant, UPR firewall adjuster, stock cable, Granatelli upper control arms.
Waiting to go on: Granatelli lower control arms, and GT40 Iron heads!
