'76 Mustang II Cobra V-6 $17k

[Leif in Calif]

This Mustang II just sold for $$17,063 on Hemmings auction. A very nice example and possibly a record for a Mustang II. Cars like this make me think the the controversy that erupted at the Olympics in Korea some years ago. A member of the broadcast  team made some t shirts saying the games were "Bad" meaning they were good. The Koreans didn't take it that way. This car in many ways, when compared to the rest of Mustangs in history is so "Bad" it's actually good! (and I still want a Cimarron to take to Cadillac Club meets)

https://www.hemmings.com/stories/hemmings-auctions-1976-mustang-ii/

[bryankazmer]

A sheep in wolf's clothing

[Bloo]

[Gearheadengineer]

Bloo, that’s the first thing I thought of!

[TAKerry]

I like those for what they are. I have no need for 1000hp so being a v6 is fine with me. I dont think Mustang people even acknowledge them. They get a bad rep for being built on a pinto platform, to me its no different than the original mustang being built on a falcon platform.

[Steve_Mack_CT]

The Farrah pic is iconic.  

 

Amazing how many of those Mustang II cars were out there.  You see almost none today, like mid 70s Olds Cutlass models.

[B Jake Moran]

I don't mind the Mustang II Cobras and special editions but I can't have a V6. Heck, I didn't even know Ford had a V6 in that time frame.  

 

Here is what I like - the Pontiac Trans Am like add on's which evoke Can Am type sports cars.  Here is what I would do though is drop a modified 302 in there.  Easy to do, with an automatic or 4 speed, it's going to be fast.   And "stock" looking. 

 

But the styling is excellent.  Mustang types fall into 2-3 different camps. Some say a Mustang built after 1970 is not really a Mustang, at least until one gets to the modern era which was a throwback.  

 

But this Mustang II is NOT an ugly car, it's a smart looking 2 door fastback.   My issue?  I never include them in my Facebook marketplace or Craigslist searches.  I've forgotten about them.  

 

Cordobas, Torinos, Mustang II's and many other worthwhile collector cars I have simply lost track of. 

[Gearheadengineer]

8 hours ago, Steve_Mack_CT said:

The Farrah pic is iconic.  

 

Amazing how many of those Mustang II cars were out there.  You see almost none today, like mid 70s Olds Cutlass models.

In an odd coincidence, this just got posted today. Looks nice. More pics in the ad.

 

https://worcester.craigslist.org/cto/d/milford-1975-cutlass-supreme/7565667686.html

[Twisted Shifter]

The reason you don't see many Mustang II's is that they were all stripped of their conveniently sized and easily adapted independent front suspensions by hot rodders who eliminated straight axels and converted to small block Ford V-8's. Rack and pinion steering and the disk brakes were added features. Its difficult to resurect a junk yard gem when the front suspension has been torched off.'

 

 

 

 

 

[f.f.jones]

Another reason you don't see them is because they are UGLY!

[B Jake Moran]

7 hours ago, f.f.jones said:

Another reason you don't see them is because they are UGLY!

What to you is ugly about them?  This is a forum and anyone can comment but your comment is too brief.  If I refer to an old car as ugly I usually point out why.  

 

The car is not ugly.  Ugly refers to poor proportions, add ons or just a badly executed concept.  The Edsel for instance has been ridiculed for the horse collar grille.    The rest of the body is an interpretation of the core 57-59 Fomoco styling philosophy. 

 

Econoboxes from the 1980's lacked a styling theme. 

 

The Mustang II is proportionately correct, and fastback styling is seldom seen as ugly.  Maybe see Marlins and some Dodges from the 60's as poorly proportioned fastbacks.    The grille was prominant but not overbearing.  Nothing Ford or anyone could do about the 5 mph bumpers, except maybe the Pontiac Firebirds and Corvettes. 

 

Nicely shaped fenders with the then in vogue hipped rear quarters, again not too big or too small.  Remember many folks hated Shinodas work on the 71-73 iteration of the Mustangs.  He tweaked that before he was fired with Knudsen.  I loved them because they looked very European but even today many hate the 71-73 Mustangs as bloated, too big.   

 

Lacking power - the Mustang II Cobras can be seen as laughable, but the bodywork is good, attractive and all you need is a massaged 302 developing as much as 350 hp, which is easily doable with all of the aftermarket support, even directly from Ford, and a person can have a 0-60 in 4 second car.  

[bryankazmer]

I agree the proportions aren't bad, but on the execution part, lose all the silly decals and stripes. 

The notchback coupe version has a greenhouse that doesn't match the lower body.

[JACK M]

12 hours ago, Twisted Shifter said:

The reason you don't see many Mustang II's is that they were all stripped of their conveniently sized and easily adapted independent front suspensions by hot rodders who eliminated straight axels and converted to small block Ford V-8's. Rack and pinion steering and the disk brakes were added features. Its difficult to resurect a junk yard gem when the front suspension has been torched off.'

 

 

 

 

 

No need to look for MII stuff at junk yards.

One can buy that set up in just about any configuration, new and ready to install.

Like the one in the picture.

This particular one has the wide lower control arms so no need to run the stock struts from the chassis to the lowers.

Not sure about why it's so long out front.

Edited December 8, 2022 by JACK M (see edit history)

[f.f.jones]

•  
•               f.f.jones said:

Another reason you don't see them is because they are UGLY!

 

 

B Jake Moran said:

What to you is ugly about them?  This is a forum and anyone can comment but your comment is too brief.  If I refer to an old car as ugly I usually point out why.  

 

Reply - Let me count the ways:

1) The hood and front fenders are stubby

2) The wheelbase and overall length is too short for the height of the car

3) The chrome strip dividing the bumpers looks cheap and fragile

4) The grille is too high/thick in relation to the headlights and bumper

5) The front overhang (in front of the front wheels) is too long

6) The profile is too reminiscent of the Pinto

7) The tail lights are larger than found on most smaller cars and trucks of the era  

8) The bumpers are atrocious (re: GTO and Corvette did much better, as poster stated above) 

9) The stock wheel and tire size is too small.

 

...and the tenth reason (drum roll, please...)

 

10) All the decals and do-dads make it a clown car

 

Other than that, I think it"s a fine automobile!

Edited December 9, 2022 by f.f.jones (see edit history)

[Leif in Calif]

I think if the Mustang II had come out before the Mustang one (like same time as the falcon) we'd all have loved it. The 2s big sin is it wasn't a "one". and the whole Cobra thing was just silly.