I Find It a Little Embarrassing for Ford...

[Q'smuscle]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

I do believe that Challenger is the only Chrysler vehicle currently utilizing the LC platform.

I thought that they shared a lot? Or maybe I got them mixed up with the new charger and challenger that is coming out because they share the same platform! But Dodge had to keepa 2 door muscle car for the Dodge enthusiast!

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Q'smuscle

I thought that they shared a lot? Or maybe I got them mixed up with the new charger and challenger that is coming out because they share the same platform! But Dodge had to keepa 2 door muscle car for the Dodge enthusiast!

LD = 2011-up Charger
LX = Magnum, 300, 06-10 Charger
LC = Challenger

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

The foul language seems unnecessary.

However, regardless of the overall poor performance and hilariously hideous design of the Mustang II, no one who knows anything of the late 70's would call it subpar for other vehicles of the time. Mustang II had a sad 140hp 5.0, Monza had a sad 140hp 5.7, Camaro had a sad 155hp 5.7l.

Another point to remember is that once again as pitiful as the Mustang II was, it sold, over a million units during its 4 year run.

Was it a good car? No. Was it what Ford needed to keep selling cars during a sad, dark, time in automotive history? Yeah.

During the dark days of the Mustang 2 (74-78), it and (to a lesser extent) the Camaro were subpar to the Pontiac Trans Am that offered the SD 455 (295 HP) 74, 455 HO (215/200 HP) 75/76 and 6.6L L78 (220 HP) 77/78..

Mustang was a glorified Pinto with no V8 in 74. Chevy dropped the Z28 in 75/76. Both powered as you say but the 74 Z28 still had 245 HP 5.7L while the Mustang was MIA

Pontiac carried the torch alone. RIP Pontiac

[Frank in MD]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

The foul language seems unnecessary.

However, regardless of the overall poor performance and hilariously hideous design of the Mustang II, no one who knows anything of the late 70's would call it subpar for other vehicles of the time. Mustang II had a sad 140hp 5.0, Monza had a sad 140hp 5.7, Camaro had a sad 155hp 5.7l.

Another point to remember is that once again as pitiful as the Mustang II was, it sold, over a million units during its 4 year run.

Was it a good car? No. Was it what Ford needed to keep selling cars during a sad, dark, time in automotive history? Yeah.

I acknowledged that Ford wasn't the only late 70's car that took a dump on performance. Does everyone here read the latest post, and respond to a specific part of it without adressing the point? My point was, which no one has acknowledged, is please stop using the same "mustang is better b/c it has a continuous build cycle." Put on whatever spin you wish, Mustang II was a Pinto and was awful.

[big hammer]

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

During the dark days of the Mustang 2 (74-78), it and (to a lesser extent) the Camaro were subpar to the Pontiac Trans Am that offered the SD 455 (295 HP) 74, 455 HO (215/200 HP) 75/76 and 6.6L L78 (220 HP) 77/78..

Mustang was a glorified Pinto with no V8 in 74. Chevy dropped the Z28 in 75/76. Both powered as you say but the 74 Z28 still had 245 HP 5.7L while the Mustang was MIA

Pontiac carried the torch alone. RIP Pontiac

yup Pontiac fought the good fight alone through the 70's. you could get a 455 right through 76. they weren't lighting any fires stock but ere just a cam and headers away from pretty good performance.

[hotlap]

Originally Posted by Frank in MD

I acknowledged that Ford wasn't the only late 70's car that took a dump on performance. Does everyone here read the latest post, and respond to a specific part of it without adressing the point? My point was, which no one has acknowledged, is please stop using the same "mustang is better b/c it has a continuous build cycle." Put on whatever spin you wish, Mustang II was a Pinto and was awful.

Originally Posted by hotlapZL1

Mustang was a glorified Pinto with no V8 in 74. Chevy dropped the Z28 in 75/76. Both powered as you say but the 74 Z28 still had 245 HP 5.7L while the Mustang was MIA

Not clear enough Frank?

Crysalis_01 pointing to the Mustang 2 with pride of continuous production is misguided. It was a nameplate only stuck to a Pinto to sell cars to secretaries. It more directly matched the Chevy Monza produced 75-80 (with a V8) and is as much a Mustang as the car shown in the attached pic is a Challenger.

Ford abandoned performance with Mustang 2. Dodge followed in 75 by dropping the Challenger and Chevy in a 1/2 step by discontinuing the Z/28 but at least the G2 platform continued with a V8.

Pontiac held the line proving Americans wanted performance cars and sold a lot of Trans Ams forcing Ford and Chevy to get back into the game. The 78 King Cobra and Z28 were obviously styled to mimic the Trans Am.

[shine2013]

I think you're reading too much into it. When that car hits the market, I'm willing to bet it puts up more than respectable numbers. I know people who have never owned a Mustang who are waiting to see the car/drive it and they're probably buying.