GTPlanet Cool Wall: Ford Mustang Cobra II

  • Thread starter Thread starter BKGlover
  • 99 comments
  • 13,868 views

Ford Mustang Cobra II

  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
GranTurismo916
Why is there not an "Outrageously uncool" option?
Click to expand...

It had to be cut off at some point. Was it really this bad in reality?

Clark
The are no words to describe how uncool this car is. How you can go from something as cool as the original Mustang to this is beyond belief, I hope the people responsible for this car lost their jobs after this.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, Lee Iacocca and Henry Ford II fell out in 1978, resulting in Lee being fired from FoMoCo and subsequently saving Chrysler Corp. Both the Mustang and the Pinto had Iacocca as the "driving force".
 
The biggest engine (4.9L V8) has 140HP.

I would much rather eat my own head than call this cool.
 
I'll give it cool. But only because I've seen a couple with 408s that scoot and no one sees it coming!
 
I think the word is idiosyncratic. It's so of it's time, with the fuel crisis and whatnot. And it's woefully inefficient but most 70s US cars were surely? I think I would have hated it at the time but I like it now, it's way way more interesting than 9/10 new cars you can get nowadays. I've also quite enjoyed throwing it around in Forza 4, and like Cano said, throw a little money at it, get the power up, perhaps the weight down and you have a pretty unique car. Cool.
 
playnthru
It gave it's front suspension to many great hot rods if the form of kits.:)
Click to expand...

"Mustang II IFS" is just so right on a rod, you kind of expect it.

Still doesn't save the car.

-

Mind you, I don't really hate the Mustang II. I like the clean looks of the thing, and whenever I see a restored one, I go... "cool". But we're talking about the Cobra here, which was "ricey" even before America even knew what "rice" was.

Here was a car that was all dressed up with no place to go. If flashy body kits and graphics could make a car go faster, the Cobra should have been in the deep 12's at the strip. As it was, it took nearly that long just to get to the speed limit.

Again, Mustang II... maybe a "Cool", maybe a "Meh"... but this? No.
 
BKGlover
It had to be cut off at some point. Was it really this bad in reality?
Click to expand...

The Mustang had to downsize. It had to. By 1973 it was so ridiculously heavy, unbalanced and bloated (a thousand pounds heavier with the big engines than the chassis was ever designed to cope with) that they simply needed to restore it back to how it was in the early 60s to get it through the 70s. The idea of the Mustang II was a good one, and it sold as such. They should have built it off a domestically-built version of the Capri (which actually looked the part plus was actually sporty) but it was still the right car at the right place at the right time; and far better of an idea then letting the thing continue to become the pseudo-luxury monstrosity that the Cougar ended up becoming at the same time.


The Cobra II and King Cobra were (expensive) sticker packages that added plenty of weight to the car and did plenty to screw up the actually decent handling the car had with the regular engines without making it notably faster; and worse than that, they were sticker packages that purposely aped a car that had fought hard to keep its performance credentials when the Mustang II had none whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
The only thing good about this car is that I very rarely see them.

Seriously Uncool.:yuck:
 
You guys want to know what is really strange about this thread?







Slashfan has not posted in it. :lol:
 
Dennisch
You guys want to know what is really strange about this thread?







Slashfan has not posted in it. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, wtf.

All in all, this car has done way better than I ever thought it would. I thought this was going to be as one sided as the Alpine but obviously in the Uncool side of things, and while indeed it has been a slaughterfest, the car has actually received a few cools. I can't believe that.

For the record, a nicely appointed II can look really cool; you have to have a certain sense of humour to take in the 70s gaudiness, but come on, even if so cheesy, it's cool:

2lx8i00.jpg


78_Cobra_II_Boss_302.jpg


Mustang-II-Cobra.jpg


SCCA-AutoX-MustangII053009.jpg


And of course, the Monroe Handler:
mump_1102_01_o+1978_monroe_handler_ford_mustang_ii+front_driver_side_view.jpg


I mean, I don't see what's so different really between this and, say a 70s Corolla, and people seem to love that thing but hate on the II. Yeah I know the roots of the II are severely offended by the car, but I still don't think it's thaaaat bad.

And come on, it's a feaking Mustang, power, suspension and drivetrain upgrades are a dime a dozen and relatively cheap. I do think people will start fixing them up in the near future and they'll gain acceptance.

Maybe.
 
Well yeah, I only think it's uncool for its lack of power, but you can easily up the engine's hp or put a better engine in it instead as well enhance the handling and you could end up with a good track car out of it or drag racer.
 
Maybe I'm missing the point here, but aren't we really judging these vehicles by its stock performance? Any one-off or assumption of impressive modifications would pointlessly negate any discussion of the product, unless it's a kit car.
 
The performance isn't a factor for me in the coolness, you could have one with a NASCAR engine and it still wouldn't be cool.

It looks absolutely terrible, all the worst parts of 70's American cars, and like has been said already, it wasn't even an original model, it was a Pinto in drag.
 
Actually, I was wrong, there's quite a few of them for sale on Craigslist for less than 5k, and that includes couple Cobras.
 
It's pretty lame for a muscle car so I voted meh.
 
Sorry I posted late, bene on vacation for a week.

First point I would like to adress is that this car is NOT a Pinto. It shares less than 10% of it's total parts with that car. hardly anything similar except maybe a bit of the style. Extend the wheelbase a little bit and it would look better. Really wish you would have used the images I provided.

Next, the 302 that is in that car might only put out a little horsepower but the torque makes up for it especially in the low RPMs. You all are forgetting this car is smaller and lighter than a Fox Body weighing in between 2,500-3,000lbs (1,200 or so kilograms), and a 300hp engine can be had for very cheap and will make this car will FLY.

It doesn't handle to bad for what it is, but it's not great I'll admit it. My buddy has one and it goes pretty good. The chassis isn't great but a cheap set of subframe connectors really helps.

The automatic transmission in this thing is absolutely bullet proof. Especially it's beefier brother, the C6.

I don't see these too often though which always makes them stand out for me. I'l admit I hated them until I got a ride in one....things changed after that. Over time the car grew on me.

This car will go rediculously fast for not a lot of green and the funny thing is is that it's an excellent sleeper car.

I voted cool.
 
So when has how fast got to do with how cool a car is?
 
Regardless, I think they are fun little cars and don't look half bad. Like I've said before, rip on them all you want. They still are one of the best selling Mustangs of all time so they got something right given the circumstances.

I4 models still let the coupes get 30+ mpg though, that's pretty damn good for the 1970s if you ask me. It was also MotorTrends car of the year in 1974.


Also from my nomination post:


Me
What's so special about these rather crap figures when compared to the legends before it?

~ The car is cheap to purchase from just about any junkyard, and even on in perfect shape will run about $2,500.
~ The car is incredibly small, compact and light, more so in every dimension except width (only larger by 1 inch) than the famed Fox Body after it.
~ Managed 24-31mpg (standard and Stallion models), amazing by 1970s standards
~ Makes a cheap and powerful street machine, great for newcomers to the sport
~ Engine is extremely reliable, proven after 40 years of installation in production vehicles, many of which are still on the road with high miles
~ Engine can be woken up to be a real performer with the slightest of mods. Ex. Complete exhaust system, intake and carb will yield 80+ horsepower. More expensive mods such as heads and cam will guarantee 150+ horsepower increase while staying on pump gas
~ HEFTY availability of aftermarket powertrain parts
~ Turns heads more than most Mustangs because of the awkward styling and overall rareness/scarcity
~ Tall geared rear and with a good tire combination yields perfect acceleration and top speed without sacrificing either
~ Because of the lightness of the car it can become a really quick car
~ Car is one of the biggest selling Mustangs of all time, it came at a time very much needed.
~ Despite popular belief, the Mustang II only shares 10% of it's parts with the Ford Pinto.
~ IMSA recommends earplugs for anyone that gets within 10 feet of the car (I find that awesome :lol:)
Click to expand...

Also the correct top speed is 132, not 106. That is with that 302 engine. Though the speedo pegs at 85.



Again with the Pinto arguement, you might as well call the Foxes a Farimonet and teh first gens Falcons...
 
Last edited:
Slashfan
Also the correct top speed is 132, not 106. That is with that 302 engine. Though the speedo pegs at 85.
Click to expand...

I call shenanigans. I'm looking at all four cars, the three Cobra IIs and King Cobra, and if anything it's over stated. I see estimates of about 95-100.
 
BKGlover
I call shenanigans. I'm looking at all four cars, the three Cobra IIs and King Cobra, and if anything it's over stated. I see estimates of about 95-100.
Click to expand...

With its low weight, a 4 speed and a 2.73 or taller rear end it will do 130-ish. Takes a while to get there, but it will do it if you really push it. Like I said it pegs at 85 though so the only way to really tell and get an idea is with a radar gun or GPS.
 
Last edited:
It would not do 132 mph. It simply would not. It's not a matter of gearing. It's not a matter of weight. It has almost-certainly atrocious aerodynamics and only 140 hp. The fastest car made in America you could get in the mid-70s, the SD-455 Trans Am, could not do 132 mph. No way in hell that a car with less than half as much horsepower would.
 
Last edited:
Tornado
It would not do 132 mph. It simply would not. It's not a matter of gearing. It's not a matter of weight. It has almost-certainly atrocious aerodynamics and only 140 hp. The fastest car you could made in America get in the mid-70s, the SD-455 Trans Am, could not do 132 mph. No way in hell that a car with less than half as much horsepower would.
Click to expand...

You are forgetting that 132mph isn't exactly a hard speed to reach.

That said, I'll end it there before it turns into a war :lol:
 
On that Mustang II suspension.

Its true that lots of hot rodders like to use the suspension, it's also worth noting that the suspension itself is craptastic. The geometry is FUBAR. The reason it is popular is because it packages well, comes in easy to use packages, and is cheap.
 
So my car has 20hp more than the 5.0L Mustang II, a modern 6-speed gearbox, and computer derived aerodynamics giving the car a coefficient of drag of .27...and guess what? It can't hit 132 mph. Hitting 132 mph takes more than you think it does.
 

Latest Posts

Back