GTPlanet Cool Wall: Ford Mustang Cobra II

  • Thread starter Thread starter BKGlover
  • 99 comments
  • 14,227 views

Ford Mustang Cobra II

  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
Zenith
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen aftermarket packages for sale online branded as "Mustang II IFS" and have absolutely nothing in common with the actual factory suspension. I find it funny :lol:
 
Slashfan
I've seen aftermarket packages for sale online branded as "Mustang II IFS" and have absolutely nothing in common with the actual factory suspension. I find it funny :lol:
Click to expand...

They are indeed Mustang II front ends but as has been stated, the way they're repackaged you wouldn't recognize them. They use Mustang II Tie rods,ball joints, A-arms/upper and lower even steering racks.

They've been making them since the 70's.👍
 
I knew tey made them for a while but I was under the impression that literally everything in those kits was new or redesigned in some way different than the actual production systems.
 
Slashfan
I knew tey made them for a while but I was under the impression that literally everything in those kits was new or redesigned in some way different than the actual production systems.
Click to expand...

Actually after reading something on stangnet.com. I agree, you're right, the kits are made stronger than the original Mustang II's.

.
 
playnthru
Actually after reading something on stangnet.com. I agree, you're right, the kits are made stronger than the original Mustang II's.

.
Click to expand...

I thought so. Just confuses me why they label them as Mustang II suspension...its based on it but it isn't actually it. Marketing purposes I guess.
 
Claimed horsepower for the stock 302 was 134 hp. No stock car has been officially timed to 60 mph faster than 10 seconds.... lending credence to the number. Most of the V8 Mustang IIs have been timed to worse than that... in the mid- to low- 11s.

A 134 hp car, with a coefficient of drag of over 0.50, is not going to hit 130 mph on a level road, not in your wildest dreams, no matter how long your gearing (and the longer the gearing, the less power you're putting down...). And the aero addenda on the Cobra and the King, the ridiculous air dam and the wing, make it more brick-like than the stock Mustang II.
 
Last edited:
niky
Claimed horsepower for the stock 302 was 134 hp. No stock car has been officially timed to 60 mph faster than 10 seconds.... lending credence to the number. Most of the V8 Mustang IIs have been timed to worse than that... in the mid- to low- 11s.

A 134 hp car, with a coefficient of drag of over 0.50, is not going to hit 130 mph on a level road, not in your wildest dreams, no matter how long your gearing (and the longer the gearing, the less power you're putting down...). And the aero addenda on the Cobra and the King, the ridiculous air dam and the wing, make it more brick-like than the stock Mustang II.
Click to expand...

I need to get the time slip from my friends Cobra. Too bad it's mildly modified though so even then it's irrelevant.
 
Yes. It is.

"Mildly" in this case, doesn't mean much. Because the factory system is so restrictive that you could sneeze on it and make more power. Doesn't have any bearing on what the car does out-of-the-box.

Funnily enough. With modern turbocharged engines, it is possible to see the same huge gains without even turning a wrench, simply by reflashing the ECU. Volvo locally even offers these reflashes for free. (Yeah... sales ain't great)
 
I hate to bump this, but I think these engines were hotter than they made them out to be after getting really into the specs. The engines actually have equal or better (in some aspects) internal specs than the late 80s/early 90s EFI 302's....
 
From what I understood the cam sucked (not roller) bad heads with tiny ports, I don't see how they were equal to the EFI 5.0 HO motors.
 
Badasp5.0
From what I understood the cam sucked (not roller) bad heads with tiny ports, I don't see how they were equal to the EFI 5.0 HO motors.
Click to expand...

Really? Because a '75 302 has a hotter cam. Approximately (off the top of my head) .125" more of lift both intake and exhaust side, and only ever so slightly less duration. Valves I believe were the same too. I think these motors had a bit more of a bite than 140hp...someone told me they underrated these motors too to keep an act going from the last few years.
 
If I can interject my two cents here, I feel that underrating an engine is seriously uncool in its own right. Tell people the truth, don't be a slave to the marketing division.
 
Beeblebrox237
If I can interject my two cents here, I feel that underrating an engine is seriously uncool in its own right. Tell people the truth, don't be a slave to the marketing division.
Click to expand...

That applies to almost every automaker for 20 years prior to this car anyways.
 
Slashfan
Really? Because a '75 302 has a hotter cam. Approximately (off the top of my head) .125" more of lift both intake and exhaust side, and only ever so slightly less duration. Valves I believe were the same too. I think these motors had a bit more of a bite than 140hp...someone told me they underrated these motors too to keep an act going from the last few years.
Click to expand...

From what I found the the Stock EFI HO Cam was .444 both intake and exhaust and the Mustang II was .368 Intake .380 Exhaust. Also being that the HO cam was a roller the ramps cam be a lot more aggressive. Stock Mustang II heads also had a MASSIVE Combustion Chamber Volume of 69CC which helped make the compression ratio low.

I would love to pick up a II with a 302 and put modern Aluminum heads/modern roller cam/4bl intake and see how fast I could make it.
 
Last edited:
Badasp5.0
From what I found the the Stock EFI HO Cam was .444 both intake and exhaust and the Mustang II was .368 Intake .380 Exhaust. Also being that the HO cam was a roller the ramps cam be a lot more aggressive. Stock Mustang II heads also had a MASSIVE Combustion Chamber Volume of 69CC which helped make the compression ratio low.
Click to expand...

Advertised isn't what it actually is. Being a roller doesn't necessarily mean it's more agressive.

According to this site, a 1991 EFI 5.0 H.O. roller specs are:

Intake Duration: 276*
Exhaust Duration: 266*

Intake/Exhaust Inches of Lift: .278/.278



vs 1975.



Intake Duration: 270*
Exhaust Duration: 248*

Intake/Exhaust Inches of Lift: .360/.380








The timing on a '75/'76 motor is also farther advanced than the '91 EFI motor. Not to mention the fact the the stock Motorcraft/Autolite 2 barrel actually flows equal/better than the EFI systems. The EFI systems flowed around 580cfm and the 2 barrels flowed between 470-600 depending.
















Badasp5.0
I would love to pick up a II with a 302 and put modern Aluminum heads/modern roller cam/4bl intake and see how fast I could make it.
Click to expand...

I have had several chances to get a couple II's. My buddies isn't a roller but has a Mutha Thumpr cam, intake and 4bbl and she goes pretty good.
 
niky
Funnily enough. With modern turbocharged engines, it is possible to see the same huge gains without even turning a wrench, simply by reflashing the ECU. Volvo locally even offers these reflashes for free. (Yeah... sales ain't great)
Click to expand...

What kind of ECU changes would produce those kinds of gains? The only thing that springs to mind is adding, say, 5 psi of boost assuming electronic boost control.
 
Dude, why did you bump this in the first place, just to say the thing might have 15 more hp than everyone says? They're weak-ass slow anyway :lol:
 
Interesting thanks. I stand corrected. But I still think a cheap upgrade would be to swap in a junkyard 5.0 HO or expo GT40P and swap the cam. I wonder how easy a T-5 swap is into a II? Sadly I will never own a II my wife likes Mustangs but HATES the II.
 
Badasp5.0
Interesting thanks. I stand corrected. But I still think a cheap upgrade would be to swap in a junkyard 5.0 HO or expo GT40P and swap the cam. I wonder how easy a T-5 swap is into a II? Sadly I will never own a II my wife likes Mustangs but HATES the II.
Click to expand...

The 444/444 and 480/480 specs you are thinking of is I believe the Ford Racing E303 cam.


T-5 swaps aren't too hard to do but they require some fabbing skills. It's a pretty common swap.

I rather like MII's. They are neat little cars, easy to work on and a great hot rod platform.
Cano
Dude, why did you bump this in the first place, just to say the thing might have 15 more hp than everyone says? They're weak-ass slow anyway :lol:
Click to expand...

More like 45-50 :lol:

Actually, they aren't all that slow. On paper maybe.
 
Slashfan
The 444/444 and 480/480 specs you are thinking of is I believe the Ford Racing E303 cam.


T-5 swaps aren't too hard to do but they require some fabbing skills. It's a pretty common swap.

I rather like MII's. They are neat little cars, easy to work on and a great hot rod platform.
.
Click to expand...

They are neat little cars I like them a lot, my 1st ride in a Mustang was II. Underdogs for sure.
the 480 lift is the FRPP B-303 I know all about that one I have had one in the Cobra for about ten years now LOL.

E-303 is 498./498. IIRC.
 
Badasp5.0
They are neat little cars I like them a lot, my 1st ride in a Mustang was II. Underdogs for sure.
the 480 lift is the FRPP B-303 I know all about that one I have had one in the Cobra for about ten years now LOL.

E-303 is 498./498. IIRC.
Click to expand...

Nice. I'll never forget the first time I caught a ride in a II. That was an experience :lol:

I couldn't remember. I've heard all sorts of numbers for an E303 cam. Kind of makes me wonder how stock springs can take that much lift.
 
Slashfan
More like 45-50 :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol, you really think, based on those small differences, that you could pick 50 horses from what a stock II small block could muster? You're pretty naive. It's really hard to believe all the stuff you claim you have done with Ford V8s when one reads something like this. 20 hp at most.

And come on, even with 50 hp (I'll concede you the number) more, they'd still be slow as molasses in january. I like the car too but it's absolutely impossible to make a stand for it in stock form, they were trash.
 
If this thing had "45-50" more horsepower than it was rated for, which it didn't, they wouldn't have taken over 10 seconds to get to 60, which they frequently did.

Slashfan
That applies to almost every automaker for 20 years prior to this car anyways.
Click to expand...

No. Every automaker for 20 years prior to this car made up numbers entirely, sometimes to the extent of being 100 horsepower more than the engine actually produced.
 
Cano
Lol, you really think, based on those small differences, that you could pick 50 horses from what a stock II small block could muster? You're pretty naive. It's really hard to believe all the stuff you claim you have done with Ford V8s when one reads something like this. 20 hp at most.

And come on, even with 50 hp (I'll concede you the number) more, they'd still be slow as molasses in january. I like the car too but it's absolutely impossible to make a stand for it in stock form, they were trash.
Click to expand...


Picking up horses with a smog motor is as easy as lighting a candle on a birthday cake. Takes literally no effort. Like nicky said, you can sneeze on them and they will make power. That Cobra my friend has was dynoed at 342 horse (crank mind you) with nothing but a cheap cam, intake, carb and custom headers. Throw a couple dollars at it and you will see absurd increases. I will admit that bone stock with some miles on them they aren't the cream of the crop in the speed factor but they really do not take much to make fast.

The guy I almost bought one off of had a stock 302 II that ran low 10s in the 1/8th, which is roughly a 15 in the 1/4, at 75mph. Nothing done to it. IIRC, most Foxes and SN95s ran low 15s.

I met up with a guy who had a N/A 393 stroker in a II. Other than it being tubbed, shorter geared rear end and the moderate motor, it ran 10's in the 1/4 at over 130mph. Didn't take much to do it.


Tornado
If this thing had "45-50" more horsepower than it was rated for, which it didn't, they wouldn't have taken over 10 seconds to get to 60, which they did.



No. Every automaker for 20 years prior to this car made up numbers entirely, sometimes to the extent of being 100 horsepower more than the engine actually produced.
Click to expand...

It's really a case by case basis.
 
Slashfan
Picking up horses with a smog motor is as easy as lighting a candle on a birthday cake. Takes literally no effort. Like nicky said, you can sneeze on them and they will make power. That Cobra my friend has was dynoed at 342 horse (crank mind you) with nothing but a cheap cam, intake, carb and custom headers. Throw a couple dollars at it and you will see absurd increases. I will admit that bone stock with some miles on them they aren't the cream of the crop in the speed factor but they really do not take much to make fast.

The guy I almost bought one off of had a stock 302 II that ran low 10s in the 1/8th, which is roughly a 15 in the 1/4, at 75mph. Nothing done to it. IIRC, most Foxes and SN95s ran low 15s.

I met up with a guy who had a N/A 393 stroker in a II. Other than it being tubbed, shorter geared rear end and the moderate motor, it ran 10's in the 1/4 at over 130mph. Didn't take much to do it.
Click to expand...

Look, don't start talking about modified cars. I know how that goes. I absolutely know that it doesn't take much to wake up the 302 in the II. Hell I'm in Mexico, home of the strong, nickel-rich 302 blocks which I'm sure you, as a hardcore Ford small block fan, are well aware of. Stop that.

You dug this thread from the grave talking about stock components and how you thought the II was underrated, then pulled an absurd 40-50 hp number out of nowhere that not even some aftermarket stuff would pull off, forget about stock smog-era Ford parts.

I never talked modified stuff, I mentioned stock like three times in my post because I knew you'd come up with this "a few bolt ons" thing like usual. Yes we know small block Fords are good engines when modified, but stock, sorry, they're mostly trash, and even more so when we're talking about the weak-ass powerplants in the II.

And the times you mention don't help it at all, 15s are puke-slow.
 
Cano
You're talking with a 2.1 km above sea level dweller. 15s here are stock Coyote Mustang and LS1 Camaro territory. Sadly.
Click to expand...

Damn where only at 1.5KM here. I had to do some quick math to see how high you are.
 
Yup, it sucks. And the local track will be closed soon, so the closest track after that will be at almost 2.5 kilometers above sea level. Engine choke here we go.
 
15s are pretty damn good for what's apparently a pile of 🤬 especially seeing as most cars ran like 25s. I understand today 15 isn't all that special. That's not the point I'm trying to make.

You can say what you want about stock SBF's. the top end isn't too much to write home about. The bottom end on Windsors is exceptionally strong for a 2 bolt main block. And yes I know about the Mexican blocks.

I'm not trying to make an argument. I'm simply stating that I don't think they were all quite as low in power as they are made out to be.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back