(first posted 4/16/2013) Today, I’m presenting a Curbside Classic, a Car of a Lifetime, and a Curbside Tech all rolled into one. You may recall seeing this Mustang II on Curbside Classic before, since it appeared in the background in one of my first articles (on the 1973 Toyota Carina). However, at that point I did not want to write it up, since I had just purchased it and planned to make a number of improvements before sharing my pet with you.
This is not the first Mustang II to appear in Curbside Classics, as Paul wrote one up as a Deadly Sin some time ago. I’m hard pressed to disagree with Paul when he said “The simple truth is that the Mustang II was a pathetic little toad” (article linked here). However, I always liked the concept of the Mustang II, despite Ford’s poor execution and subsequent lousy product management. While the cars built in 1974 came close to the intended target, Ford quickly moved away from the initial vision of the car, modifying it in an attempt to appeal to multiple audiences. While they found plenty of buyers for V-8s, Cobra II packages, and the “Mustang II MPG,” these models were not so much engineered as kludged up.
The original model offered in 1974 did not suffer from these excesses and I always kind of liked it. While it isn’t the best looking Mustang ever, the black painted rocker panels on the Mach 1 help lengthen the car visually and none of the lines on the early cars are corrupted by tacked on spoilers. In addition, I’ve always felt the 2.8 V-6 was all the engine this car needed, assuming it delivered proper power levels. I’ll explain what I mean by this a little later.
Image courtesy of: Carspotting: Auto Archeology
Putting all these thoughts together, I started looking for a Mustang II a couple of years ago, and it proved to be a fairly daunting task. While initially popular, Mustang II sales quickly faded away, and those mounting 4 cylinder or V-6 engines became just another disposable car.
Even worse, Ford equipped these cars with a front sub frame that provided the perfect base for Hot Rod projects. Given the desirability of the sub frame, and the low acquisition cost of these cars, thousands of these little ponies donated their front ends to Dad’s project car, and headed to an early grave.
Searching around, I found two types of cars: Highly modified and overpriced, or highly used up and underpriced. I wasn’t interested in someone else’s project, and there’s little aftermarket support available for the II, so no car needing new trim pieces would come together very easily. I wanted a car in good enough condition to take to shows, but with a kid approaching college age, I needed to keep my budget tight. After six months of searching, this Mach 1 appeared in the local Craigslist. It seemed to meet all my criteria, but I wasn’t real taken with the color. Ford called it “Medium Lime Yellow,” but most people just call it green. Some parts of the car have been repainted, but I believe the black rocker panels and MACH 1 labels were factory original, making the car something of a survivor.
Yes, Virginia, that is a shag carpet. Thanks to wear I’ve had to upgrade quite a bit of the interior trim, but I just can’t let go of the carpet. Without it, the car would lose so much of that seventies vibe…
However, the interior was in fairly good shape (despite its shockingly bad shade of avocado), and a test drive demonstrated that the mechanicals were solid. The owner had an offer from someone who wanted to strip the car down and build up a drag car, but he didn’t want a car in such nice shape taken off the road. I think he preferred to hear that I planned to keep it on the road and leave a V-6 in it. While the test drive was encouraging, I still dithered back and forth on the purchase. I liked the car, and considered his $2,800 asking price reasonable. However, I didn’t have $2,800 lying around in cash, and the color (both inside and out) kept me on the fence.
The car had a few nicks and scratches, but overall the car had an honesty about it you don’t see in the typical trailer queen. Because of that, I found myself leaning towards a purchase despite the garish color scheme. After discussing it with my wife, we decided to offer the owner a low ball price based on our cash on hand. I didn’t think the owner would go for $2,200, but he agreed right away, and I suddenly owned a ’74 Mustang II Mach 1 with V-6 and four-speed manual.
Several months after acquiring it, I drove from LA to Steamboat Springs, Colorado for a yearly Mustang Roundup. I lived in Colorado for thirty years, and bringing a Mustang up to this show every year was one of the rationales behind my purchase. The car acquitted itself well on the 2,000 mile journey. It burned up an air pump climbing the Colorado Mountains, and the shift linkage vibrated apart on the return trip through Utah, but both problems were easily addressed and I made it home in one piece. I came up with the name “Soul Survivor” while making a signboard for the event. The Mustang II is really more Disco than Soul, but this car is definitely a survivor.
At the event, I received a trophy for my efforts. There were four cars in the Mustang II class, and they handed out three trophies, so in retrospect my odds of winning were pretty damn good. Yet another reason to buy a Mustang II instead of the more common sixties-era Mustangs.
Driving back to LA, trophy in hand, the car burrowed its way into my heart. I’d wanted a car I could take on the road to car shows, but still use as a daily driver. This car appeared to be the right answer.
However, our time on the road (especially through the open vistas of Utah) reminded me that I wanted a little more punch in the engine bay. I also discovered that the 3.50 to 1 final drive called out for an overdrive gear, both for greater peace at highway speeds, and improved fuel economy.
Not my engine bay- Picture courtesy of mustangattitude.comB
Before I bought the Mustang II, I knew the Cologne 2.8 V-6 lacked punch. While the 2.6 in the 1971 Capri had decent power, emissions requirements and the increased weight of the Mustang II had emasculated the engine to the point that its power was barely adequate.
In addition, I’m a big fan of modern engine technologies, and this car had none. Solid state electronics have made a huge improvement in engine performance and drivability, and the only chip under this hood was the electronic voltage regulator. Hell, in 1974 Ford still used breaker points!
A typical Mustang II V-6- The AC compressor is almost larger than the block.
To solve this problem, I kept my eye out for a 2.9 V-6 out of a Merkur Scorpio. All 2.9 Cologne V-6s were fuel injected, but I was concerned that the plenums on the engines used in the Ranger and Bronco II would not clear the Mustang’s hood. Since I used to own a Scorpio, I knew the induction system had a very low profile and would fit without question. After a few months of looking, I found a donor car out in 29 Palms, California. It seemed the Gods had reached down and blessed me. Not only was the asking price under $500, the car was located about 2 miles from my where I intended to do the conversion work!
I had to tow the car over to my work site, but I fired it up prior to engine removal, and the 2.9 seemed to be in good health. It was a promising start to what proved to be a lengthy project.
To give you an idea of the project scope, here’s a shot of the Scorpio after we extracted the motor. All the work was done in my buddy Paul’s driveway (Paul is that handsome chap in the center of the picture). Once we started working on the Mustang II, we put the rear axle up on ramps, and raise the front using jack stands. 29 Palms is in the California high desert, so we also got to deal with a couple of days of triple digit heat. While a fully equipped shop and four-post lift would have made our life easier, Paul and I knew we could get the job done with the tools at hand. As Clint Eastwood said in Heartbreak Ridge, “You improvise, adapt, and overcome!”
By the way, that ’59 Willys truck in the background is another example of Clint’s philosophy. Powered by a Chevy 327 with TPI injection, Paul built it pretty much singlehandedly. Four Wheeler Magazine was impressed enough to write an article on it a few years ago, so I knew I was in good hands.
While I have many more pictures of my engine swap project, let’s jump to the final result. Here’s the Scorpio 2.9 in my engine bay. In addition to the new motor, I installed a T-5 manual transmission out of a Fox body Mustang (to better describe that harrowing experience, I’m writing a transmission swap post for later this week). While I’m still chasing a few bugs, so far this engine/transmission combination is everything I need. It won’t keep up with the current pony cars, but it also doesn’t add more weight to the II’s already overloaded front tires. It’s about 40% more power than the original 2.8, so it can put me out in front when the light turns green. In addition, the overdrive fifth gear is a godsend–I’m actually looking forward to future road trips.
Speaking of road trips, I’m planning on driving my little Mach 1 up to Las Vegas for the Mustang 50th Anniversary celebration this week. Of course, I only drove it home last Sunday, and there have been a few bugs. Just this evening, I had to solder the fuel tank pickup tube to quell a small fuel leak, but with God’s blessing, I’ll make it. Several buddies from Denver are also headed out to the event, so it looks to be a good weekend. So far, over 2,000 owners have signed up for the event, so we’ll have plenty of company. Personally, I’ll be shocked if there’s more than a dozen Mustang II’s at the event, and I’m sure over half of those present will include the Cobra II package.
But as a representative of Curbside Classic, I’ll have my daily driven, somewhat flea-bitten Mach 1 parked out amongst the trailer queens. Even better, under the hood of my car beats the heart of another Curbside Classic, the Merkur Scorpio. As our motto states, “Every Car Has a Story,” and this has been the start of an exciting chapter for mine.
For more information on the Soul Survivor’s driveline, check out this link: Installing a T-5 into a Mustang II
I came to CC with many prejudices and the Mustang II was one of them. Then I see a clean fastback like this and suddenly I get it. Really nice car, Dave. Have a great trip.
My least favorite Mustang, but for only one reason…. the bumpers kill the look for me. Otherwise a nice trim design especially in this configuration.
But isn’t this the only FoMoCo car of the 70s that avoided the chrome plated I beams? I have no quarrel with the bumpers on the MII.
Please consider the following:
Jim-
If I built up a Pinto, I’d definitely consider the wagon. But I’d do a small bumper model with the 2.0, build up the engine (just a little), and use a Eurpoean T-9 five speed. The t-9 would take the torque, and already in US junkyards mounted to XR4Ti 2.3 turbos.
Beyond that, I’d follow Colin Chapman’s advice, and “Add lightness.”
For more on the 2.0, click here: Pinto 2.0
My friends Dad bought him one of these for his 16th birthday, It saw allot of action in the back, lots of room for a girlfriend and myself. Oh my! The good ole days. Think it was less than 1800.00 out the door.
And the front overhang.
Nice job Dave, seems like a pretty reversible powertrain upgrade for when it is no longer seeing regular driving duties (keep the 5 speed though)
@John H
You hit the nail on its head, Mustang 2 always looked a bit off but never quite figured out what went wrong. I played with your idea a bit, moving the front wheels forward a bit and bigger tires:
Eh I’d move the wheels back a few inches, it looks like a funnycar. Too much dash to axle area can be just as ugly as too much front overhang.
A combination of a slightly shorter front end, and a slightly wheel move forward – to give a little bit better proportions.
Aced it!
Like these proportions, made me think of the proportions of my’65 XK-E coupe. Friend had one of the Mustang’s in the orange-red color and 2.3 Turbo and 5-speed, went on some road trips to meets, front plowed some, but could power through. seat back lock on front passenger seat jammed a lot. Never was crazy about the yellow-greenish color, but it looks much better than on a ’69 Continental with white interior and white vinyl top, my aunt’s Lincoln, it was originally metallic pink, the yellow green clashed badly with the metallic pink carpet and dash.
never mind…. slow brain morning, got it. Duh.
The 2.9L Cologne V6 with EFI was also used in 1986-92 Ford Ranger pickups and 1986-90 Bronco IIs. Replacing the 2.8L carbureted versions used in 1983-85.
The OHV 4.0 also drops right in, since its a bored and stroked 2.9/2.8/2.6
Or go crazy and swap in the SOHC 4.0 from the Explorer/Ranger.
If you’re looking for displacement in a Mustang II, your best choice is to find a clean 1975-78 Ghia 302. There’s actually quite a few of them floating around, since they were the preferred choice of the little old lady crowd, and pop up fairly often when their owners are “Called to Glory.”
The 302 is dead simple to re-animate, and it’s a much simpler path than the one I chose.
But as I said in the article, I’m happy with a V-6 in the 3 liter range, assuming it has a reasonable power to displacement ratio.
Well you’ve certainly solved any drive-ability issues resulting from dealing with all the old school tech the previous engine had and you got to keep a 3.5 rear so you can still accelerate decently in the lower gears.
Good for you, enjoy your Mustang.
What a great choice of upgrades. It’s a good-looking engine also. Nice job! That has got to be fun to drive.
I agree…good choice and a nice swap for this car. My hat is off….
I simply have to admire a man who goes to this much effort to find a Mustang II. And if a Mustang II is the choice of car, I cannot imagine a more perfect color for it. Both car and color simply scream “1974”.
I logged a lot of passenger miles in middle-aged MIIs back in the early 80s, but neither was a Mach I or a V6. One was a Ghia, and I certainly remember that thick carpet.
I also admire your motivation and skill level shown in the powertrain upgrade. That overdrive gear will take your mind off the car so thar you can enjoy the Gordon Lightfoot and John Denver cassettes that you simply MUST play in this car. 🙂 Seriously, I really do like this car, so enjoy!
Cassettes? I’m thinking a vintage eight-track would (ka-chunk… ka-chunk…) be more in order!
Absolutely true…I love the exterior color AND the interior color. If I were to own a Mustang II, this is exactly the one I’d want.
That’s really what led to my purchase- Yes, in today’s world the colors are over the top, but if you’re going to buy a seventies car, make sure it’s got seventies style.
Nice little car there , I’m glad you saved it from certain death .
-Nate
Outstanding! You took a car you liked to drive and made upgrades to make the drive more enjoyable. Kudos for sticking with the fuel injection and adding overdrive!
I never had a huge problem with the II…certainly prefer it over the ’71-’73 elephant-mobiles. The Mustang II represented a reboot and in many ways was quite true to the spirit of the original, as seen thru a 1974 lens.
Glad you’re driving and enjoying it!
How can you not love a car with shag carpeting and a LeMons grade engine swap?
Well done indeed!
Too bad I’m going to miss the Vegas meetup by a couple of weeks, we were there in April.
This is a nice example, and although the purists DESPISE this generation, I feel that looks wise it carried on the Mustang vibe. I ALWAYS liked the look of these cars and I have fond memories of traveling w/ a friend in his blue 4 spd/ 4 cylinder car to our first USMC duty station. I wouldn’t mind having one, (even though I am a Mopar guy @ heart!) 🙂
Nice swap! As clean as the 5.0L in my ’83 Ranger…can’t wait to see more pics, hope you post them!
I have a posting scheduled for Friday on the tranmission swap (the toughest part of the job). It’s a little heavy on the technical details, but I’m sure some of you will enjoy the subject.
Me , I like the whole ‘ Pony Car ‘ concept , it seems to be lost on many ‘ Enthusiasts ‘ who only think ‘ ! RACING ! ‘ matters , not what typ of driving 99 % actually do most of the time .
in 1974 my Russian girl friend rented one of these with the C4 slushbox and anemic 4 cylinder ?Pinto? engine ~ it really was terribly slow although I liked the overall compactness .
-Nate
“While initially popular, Mustang II sales quickly faded away”
Mustang II sales did drop off substantially after the first year — IIRC, after selling well over 300K in ’74, sales never reached even 200K again — but it was never really a bad seller, just a mediocre one. I think its worst year was around 150K.
You’re right, but I wanted to avoid adding a Mustang II history lesson to an already lengthy article. During my research, I did find it interesting to compare Pinto and Mustang sales pre and post Mustang II:
1973: Pinto- 484,512 Mustang- 134,817
1974: Pinto- 544,209 Mustang II- 385,993
Clearly, the Mustang II not only kicked up Mustang sales considerably, those sales did not come at the expense of the Pinto. This despite the fact that today people frequently call the Mustang “Just a Pinto.” If the buyers in 1974 felt that way, you’d expect Mustang sales to erode Pinto sales. Clearly, that didn’t happen.
Sorry, but those numbers are drastically impacted by the 1974 energy crisis, which meant that anything small sold really well, and anything big didn’t. Those ’74 Pinto and MII sales came out of the hide of LTD and Gran Torino and TBird sales. The MII didn’t stimulate Pinto sales. Realistically, if there hadn’t been the energy crisis, those numbers would be drastically lower. The MII’s arrival was prescient, in terms of timing.
Good point- I was twelve in ’74, so my folks financed that fuel crisis. Thanks to that disconnect, the date is not firmly impressed on my automotive memory.
I do remember the Iranian fuel crisis at the end of the seventies, since my high-school-part-time-job-budget was decimated when fuel costs (already a large and important part of the budget) doubled overnight.
To put a little perspective in 1974 the Pinto was the best selling car in the US at that 540k number while in the preceding years the full size Chev and Ford regularly sold near 1 million units per year each.
I thought the 1979 Ford Mustang sold over 300,000 copies that year and the 1980 Mustang sold somewhere around 260,000 copies
““While initially popular, Mustang II sales quickly faded away”
“Mustang II sales did drop off substantially after the first year — IIRC, after selling well over 300K in ’74, sales never reached even 200K again — but it was never really a bad seller, just a mediocre one. I think its worst year was around 150K.”
“I thought the 1979 Ford Mustang sold over 300,000 copies that year and the 1980 Mustang sold somewhere around 260,000 copies.”
That wasn’t the Mustang II, though.
That’s a beautiful stang Dave! I’m very impressed with the engine & transmission swap, and I’m looking forward to hearing more about it. It’s a breath of fresh air to see a mustang project like this, and I’m happy to see such a nice survivor saved. Great work, and I hope you have a fun trip to Vegas.
I think the mach-1 is the best example of the breed, and this one is stunning. These cars look so much better without the overwrought fiberglass add-ons and stickers that adorned the cobra II. Especially in that far out lime green paint and avocado interior combo! I would love to find an early pinto with that configuration!
My Dad actually bought a brand new mach-1 in ’75, V8 with a 4 speed. He enjoyed it and says it was a good car for the times.
nice write-up. couple thoughts:
1) I still say (and will say so for ever) that the Maverick should have become the Mustang instead of this. It was still Falcon-based but a lot lighter than the bloated ’71-’73 Mustangs.
2) I do give the Mustang II credit for at least trying to make its 5mph bumpers look non-hideous.
3) I love your 2.9 installation. Imagine what one of these could do with the 3.7 out of a modern Mustang.
I wonder if the 3.7 and the six speed transmission would fit; if so the Mustang II would be a strong performer as it is considerably lighter than the current iteration of the Mustang. I suspect the 3.7 is too tall to fit in the engine compartment without major hood surgery or another hood altogether. I never really cared for this model when it was new but they have started to grow on me. I prefer the plain, original fastback body style without the “decorative” add ons; the only thing the spoiler affects is the looks. Don’t know that I would ever buy one of these but kudos to Dave Skinner for taking on the project.
While I had to fabricate a transmission mount, the bolted up to the front mounts. The alternator had to be relocated for clearance, and a shop modified one exhaust manifold, but beyond that the 2.9 itself was bolt in.
A 3.7 is a 60 degree motor, so it would probably clear the Mustang II frame rails, but it uses a hydraulic clutch and has a unique bell housing. Because of this, every aspect of the job would have to be fabricated. Take a look at my Friday posting on the T-5 swap for a better idea (no pun intended) on how complicated these jobs can become.
The cylinder heads are much bigger on the 3.7L (DOHC/4-valve), so expect a lot of apron/shock tower interference.
Mustang II’s lacked the tall shock towers of the Falcon engine compartment, and did not use the Fix body MacPhearson struts, so head clearance isn’t a huge issue.
Back in the day, people frequently replaced the factory 302 with a 351, which had a taller deck and wider heads.
I do kind of like these cars and enjoyed your article. It’s largest faults were the weak motors and dinky wheels. Not bad at all for the time period.
I was once offered a MII Mach One as a loaner by a used car dealer’s shop. Even sitting on the base of my spine, I couldn’t get into it! Definitely a shame as it looked like it would have been fun. I ended up w/ a 78 Malibu V6 instead.
Dave, love it. Seriously! The shag carpet is…shagadelic. That engine and transmission upgrade are perfect for this car; the original V6 was mighty wheezy.
Congratulations on fulfilling your automotive desire; that’s the real win. Have a great trip!
Thanks Paul, I figured my engine upgrade would be “CC approved.” I’ll share the Curbside name with the folks I meet in Vegas, and perhaps we’ll find some kindred spirits.
Based on my previous car show experience, the Soul Survivor will pull folks from our base demographics.
People were afraid to say they liked the MII until recently. Now it’s placing on folks’ favorite Mustangs lists 🙂
Early MIIs are old enough now to be exempt from smog checks which makes it OK to do a swap. Just wondering why you didn’t go for a 4.0L out of a Ranger/Explorer. Perhaps the 2.9L Scorpio was an easier fit?
More interesting than a Fox Mustang and despite popular belief the MII out sold the Fox during its first five years.
You have the perfect condition and specs for a daily driver. Hope you were able to keep the power steering.
Never mind I see you were worried about intake clearance with the Ranger engine. I think it would have worked.
I also like the look of the Scorpio intake. They aren’t polished from the factory, but they do shine up nicely.
Are those valve covers stock Scorpio? The engine looks great.
Those are true collectors items, built by DOBI back in the seventies. No one in the US currently makes alloy covers for the 2.8/2.9/4.0.
I bought those off of Craigslist from a guy in Wisconsin. He was a landlord and found them in the attic of one of his rental properties. When they arrived, it appeared they were NOS- There was no oil residue on the underside at all.
Damn dude you scored all the way around. Soooooo… leave it faded but original looking or paint it? This is a great example of a car that is right on the bubble.
If it wan’t so nice everywhere I would say leave it and enjoy. But freshening up the paint and getting the yellow / black contrast to pop would be incredible. The taillamp lenses look fresh enough to pull off new paint.
Are the dash and door covers to protect or hide cracks?
What a cool car!
What a nice car, I certainly think it is worthy of the name Mustang, especially with the thoughtful power train upgrade.
In the late ’90s, I had a neighbor with a yellow ’75 identical to this car that he was saving. It was in this kind of shape, too. He had owned it for years; I wonder if he still has it.
Have a great trip, Dave, and thanks for sharing this gem.
Being a long time Orphan owner makes me a natural ally to anyone keeping up a non-mainstream classic. And, you have made the beast better with no outward indication. I am in awe of your fortitude. Very clean installation. Looks factory. What’s up with the motorcycle battery?
It’s a battery made by a company called Braille. It packs the punch of a convetional lead-acid battery in a much smaller package. I picked it up from a guy at the office for $100, including the mounting hardware (a $400 value).
Here’s more informtion if you’re interested:
http://www.braillebattery.com/
Actually that battery looks no smaller than the one in my beater CRX. I don’t know what group size it is but it wasn’t hard to find — it was probably a Wal-Mart special.
The auto world was a changin’ in 1974 with rising fuel prices, oil embargos and looming CAFE standards. Certainly something had to be done about slimming the bloated ’73 and Ford was not squeamish about taking out the meat ax. The far smaller, V-8 less result was shocking to those used to the previous generation, but the result was fairly pleasant looking, especially the fastback version, and it was far more efficient and in tune with the times. However, Ford marketing blew it when they designated this as the Mustang “II”. It was like they were admitting from the start these were inferior to the previous generation. They had a big task to convince the market that these shrunken cars were better and the “II” designation didn’t help. At least they tacitly admitted their mistake when they reverted back to “Mustang” with the Fox body restyle.
Ford may have been taking a page out of the Lincoln playbook, as the luxury division had successfully used the Continental Mark II, III and IV names for its line of personal luxury coupes by 1974.
In Great Britain, it was also common to number each new generation of a car – for example, Cortina Mk. II, Mk. III, etc.
Let’s not forget that the guy in the tower office had a “II” after his name.
Ford may have been taking a page out of the Lincoln playbook,
Ford had a thing for Roman numerals for a while. Besides the Lincolns, the Torino begat the LTD II and the Ranger based Bronco reboot was dubbed Bronco II
An International had just launched the Scout II in 1970.
And Plymouth had the Fury I, II and III from 1965 to 1974.
Out of curiosity, did you use the original fuel injection wiring/computer and just plug into a 12V circuit or did you go the Mega Squirt route?
Currenty it’s the factory harness with the EGR air pump, and evap controls removed. To keep from setting codes, I’m running a Ranger PCM which better matches the components on the engine.
Megasquirt is a possibility, especially if I upgrade the camshaft in the future. Right now, it’s running pig rich, but that may due to excessive fuel pressure. I’ll be tweaking it more once I get back from Vegas.
The reason that it is running rich is because the Ranger ECU does not match the engine has very well at all. Fro it to truly be running rich then it would be setting codes because the amount of correction that the ECU is able to do is not enough to compensate for the fact that the Ranger is tuned for low rpm torque while the Scorpio isn’t.
Put the EGR back on it it does not hurt performance and actually improves MPG. The Evap doesn’t hurt performance either not that it would have an effect on setting codes.
It runs pig rich on the Scorpio ECM as well, so it isn’t that simple. It’s also an ’86 Ford ECM, so I don’t have any live data (in those days, Ford ECMs were a pain compared to the GM system).
Driveablity on the Ranger ECM is much improved, so it actually fits my needs better than the Scorpio (automatic transmission) unit.
I’d be running EGR for the improvement in fuel economy, but because I changed out the exhaust manifold, the EGR plumbing does not match up.
With the right $can tool you can access live data, though it is limited compared to GM of the era.
“I never thought it was such a bad little tree. It’s not bad at all, really. Maybe it just needs a little love.” – Charlie Brown in “A Charlie Brown Christmas.”
I think that also describes this car. I don’t have it out for the II. I know it is a re-bodied Pinto, and the one my sister had was a used up 4 cyl. / auto / air car that was hopelessly under powered. Leaky and unreliable as a bonus. Pretty much dead at 70K and 9 years.
But, I think the look was an attractive re-boot of the Mustang to its roots as an economical sporty car – a decade after its Falcon based forebearer. It was a hit initially, and cars like this V-6 were decent and attractive transportation, at lease in the hands of their original owners.
These were part of the landscape in the ’70s, and I enjoy seeing one occasionally, maybe even more when it is such a ’70’s color like Dave’s car.
And, I’ll go with JPC on the bumpers – Ford did get one right, and I forgot that . The ’78 Monte Carlo apes these bumpers to quite an extent. It’s not often that you find another company duplicating a ’70s Ford bumper on a full budget new generation car.
So, Dave, thanks for giving this car a little needed love.
“I know it is a re-bodied Pinto…”
Actually, the MII only shares about 10% content with the Pinto, similar to parts sharing between other models of the day.
Well, that statement isn’t really incorrect, inasmuch as Ford started out with a Pinto when they designed/engineered/built the MII. Since it’s a unibody, it is “rebodied”. And there were of course other changes too. But the MII wasn’t a clean sheet design, in any case.
And I suspect the parts sharing was considerably higher compared to say the big Fords, as in engines, transmissions, rear axle (IIRC), etc. at the very least. I don’t remember any 2.3 L LTDs. 🙂
They’re closely related.
Unlike the GM H Body, the MII (even though it may be “based” on the same unit body) isn’t simply a reskin of the Pinto…
http://www.fordpinto.com/pinto-faq/pinto-mustang-ii-parts-interchange-information/
When I re-engined my ’71 Vega with a Buick 3.8L, motor mounts from a Monza and everything else I needed pretty much bolted right in. The only thing I had to modify was the transmission tunnel, to gain sufficient clearance for a THM350 (my car came with a 4-speed Saginaw manual).
Definitely agree that the MII wasn’t a clean sheet design, tho!
Actually the 74 Pinto was a “re-bodied” Mustang II more than the MII was a re-bodied Pinto. It is similar to the way the Falcon got beefier components when the Fairlane was introduced. The MII weighed significantly more and the Pinto unfortunately had to gain a little weight with the 5mph bumpers. So there is nothing much that interchanges between the front suspension of the 71-73 Pinto and the 74- up Pinto and MII. Larger spindles and wheel bearings larger brakes, thicker control arms ect.
They also went from motor mounts that were welded to the frame rails to ones that bolted on so they could accommodate the different engine options. That is why you can bolt a v8 into a 74-up Pinto with factory pieces and you can’t to a 71-3 Pinto. Of course you need to clearance the firewall and figure out how to get a radiator in there. Even Ford had to figure out how to get a radiator in the MII when they stuck the v8 in there. Because of that the 74 Hood and header panel are different that the 75-78 MII. The later hood is longer, the header panel shorter and the core support is moved forward.
I’m going to guess those aren’t the original seats – are they?
If not – from where?
The previous owner said there were from a mid-eighties T-bird. They’re electric and recline, so no, they are not original.
They look good – and are probably a lot more comfy than the originals.
In the mid 80s I came across a robin’s egg blue fastback Mustang II that knocked me off my feet. I’ve been lusting after it ever since, hoping to come across it again despite feeling slightly ashamed about it. The notchback is so dorky looking; how could I have the hots for the same car with a fastback? Near as I can figure, it’s the kick-up of the rear quarter window on the fastback that does the trick. It results in some additional sheet metal on the back half that offsets the otherwise too-heavy front fender line and gives the car a forward rake. The notchback, on the other hand, has a straighter rear quarter window… it accentuates the too-high cowl and too-heavy front fender, and makes the car look like it’s teeter-tottering on the short wheelbase.
Nice neat swap. That engine looks nice in there.
It is refreshing to see an engine swap that doesn’t involve a small block Chevy.
We had a ’75 or ’76 M-II with the 302; even with the automatic, it was a quick-off-the-line car for sure.
IIRC, lots of Pinto folks have used the Mustang II engine mounts and such to shoehorn a 302 into their Pintos? “Too much” front end weight of course, but all the horsepower you could want in a small, light little car. Always wanted one of those!
Yup you can use the MII mounts, oil pan and pickup tube to bolt a 302 into a Pinto but it has to be a 74 up car. Unfortunately you do have to do a number of other things as there isn’t good room for the exhaust and radiator and you have to dimple the firewall but the bolting in can be done with factory parts.
Very nice! I dig unconventional engine swaps, especially in an unconventional car! That engine looks damn sharp too. If I were to build an MII (which I thought about before buying my Fairmont) I’d go with an ’87-’88 Turbo Coupe/XR7 drivetrain. Kudos for saving that little sweetheart!
That’s a very impressive engine (and tranny) swap. Congrats not just on pulling it off successfully, but also for having thought of it in the first place. Most people in your position would drop in a 302 or 351 — making an already nose-heavy car even moreso. (I’ve told the tale on here of jumping a curb on a wet corner in my mother’s ’74 MII Ghia, also a V6, so I know from bitter experience the realities of MII weight-distribution and roadholding.) Your imaginative Scorpio Solution is certainly better than either the 2.8 it replaced, or upsizing to a V8. And for less than $500, with a free Merkur tossed in!
My neighbor buddy bought a brand new 74 Mustang II Mach 1. 2.8 solid lifter V6, 4 speed manual. Metallic green exterior and green interior. I liked it. In the context of that era, with increased gas prices thanks to OPEC, the Mustang II was the perfect car for that time. Without it, Mustang does not survive. I always had a soft spot for these cars for I came of driving age in this era of “Tape Stripe Detroit Muscle”. Yes, I like the Cobra II. The body shape of the fastback has worn well and I think the time is near when these cars, what’s left of them, that is, show up in the car shows alongside other Mustangs.
Dave, the 2.9 EFI is a brilliant idea and your workmanship makes it look factory. Could a 4.0 V6 be in it’s future? I hope you keep building on your car, bit by bit. Beautiful little car!
The biggest problem with the II that can’t be fixed with an engine swap is the wheel & tire combos, the wheel wells that went with them and the wheelbase itself. The wheels and tires need to be larger in overall diameter, the wheel openings need to be larger accordingly and cut deeper into the fender and the front wheels need to move forward a few inches. Aside from that there’s really nothing wrong with the styling of the II but they will always be aesthetically challenged compared to other generations because of it.
Giant overhangs was the fashion for the Big 3’s big cars so maybe that was part of it. Limitations of the Pinto chassis was surely part of it too and the tiny wheels and tires were probably a conscious choice in keeping with the downsizing and economy theme.
I can’t take credit for the attached photoshop – I found it about halfway down the page here:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/1190783-go-ahead-admit-3.html
I did turn it back into coupe and just left the changes to wheelbase and the wheel opening/wheel/tires to better illustrate the difference without the distraction of a convertible and modifications to the bumpers and grill.
Now that I’m done insulting your car (sorry!), I like what you’ve done with yours and you’ve got a great story – hope you get as much enjoyment out of yours as I have mine.
I’d love to move the front axle forward, and agree it only improves the looks. it would also be nice to drop in a Jaguar (or XR4Ti) independant rear suspension. But those projects cannot happen on Paul’s driveway…
A Mustang II front end and a Jaguar IRS rear – that’s basically every hot rod featured in Hot Rod in the 80’s!
That would be really cool but I’m guessing those IRS conversions are not straightforward drop-in swaps. I eventually want to put a ’99-’04 Cobra IRS in my ’96 but that basically bolts in any Fox or SN95 – I think there are just two holes to mount the subframe that have to be drilled out for my year.
I’ve always preferred the fastback over the notch but think the notch looks nice with the Ghia’s half padded vinyl roof and opera windows.
I’m in the minority I guess, except for Eric who mentioned the King Cobra, that the fastback looks better without the bodyside molding and with the front air dam. That fills up the void in front of the wheels.
15″ wheels help hide the short WB too. The blue Cobra is almost perfect but would benefit from a hood scoop deletion and Dave’s style wheels.
I always admire and respect guys (and girls) who can do such jobs, especially on a driveway. Great job, that Köln V6 seems to be made for that Mustang II. Or the other way around of course.
I just checked the “About” section of this website. Are you a big man Mr. Skinner or is that a small Honda ?
Both-
I’m 188 centimeters tall, and the Honda Beat was a Micro car built for the Japanese Market (and powered by a 660 cc turbo motor).
Right.
Not a fan of these cars but this is a great read. Well done, Dave!
How did you run the fuel injection setup in the Mustang? Did you use the Scorpio computer(the EEC-IV) or did you use a third party setup to use the Merkur FI? I see it looks like you also swapped in the seats of a Murkur or a Taurus. Did you hook the power part of the seats up?
Good job
Currenty it’s the factory harness with the EGR, air pump, and evap controls removed. To keep from setting codes, I’m running a Ranger PCM (also for a 2.9) which doesn’t look for the missing emissions components and is programmed for a manual transmission.
This model Mustang looks from my point of view like FOMOCO US trying to build a Capri like the Pinto was their attempt at a Cortina the mechanicals fitted ok but the styling is puke, Good onya for keeping a V6 aboard.
Although I’m not a fan of the Mustang II, I like your project. The motor swap looks really clean. On top of the additional power I guess you picked some MPGs there too.
Of course, I also had to check your friend’s ride (the TPI 327 caught my attention)
Dave, my hat is off to you for doing this. Not only did you find a good car you definitely improved it exponentially. May everything go smoothly from here in your travels with it.
Great write up, but I must know the fate of the Scoripo!
Terminal- The iron went to the scrapper.
It really wasn’t worth saving- The car had recieved previous front end damage, and suffered from body rust. There are very nice Scorpios out there, and they only trade for a few grand, so there isn’t any incentive to throw money at a hulk.
Love it! Great looking car — totally represents that 70’s vibe, with a unique engine.
Well done.
Wow, that’s really well done! I’m just getting back to reading this. The 1974 Mach I was one of the few variations on the MII that I liked, yours takes it to a whole new level.
This is my 78 mustang project, to say it’s been a challenge is an understatement. The body fabrication is still a work in progress. The drivetrain is an SVO block 408 and T-56 magnum.
This is my 77 Cobra II with 11,300 miles. It’s a 302 with the original paint and decal’s. Been in storage on blocks for decades. You don’t see these cars in upstate New York where I live because they rusted away in four or five years.
Do you still have this car? I know someone that has been looking for one similar to this. Let me know if you are interested in selling it, Thanks!
I factory ordered mine in ’73, still driving it. 357,000 miles. Philco-Ford 8-track.
It’s just beautiful – you should be proud. I guess I never realized that even the bumper guards were body-colored on these that had them.
Thanks, Joseph.
Awesome.
What’s the drivetrain? V6/4-speed?
Yes, 2.8 V6, 4 speed.
I hate myself when I realize I am almost starting to appreciate these Mustangs a little…
they are a piece of history and many people (as sales numbers indicate) adapted to change better than I did. Hmm…. starting to see why I never became a rocket scientist.