Ha! Sure, the 2nd gens are still "collected", but only the early or the late years. When was the last time you saw a 74-77(?), - you know, with the giant chrome bumpers- collected, restored, and loved?

You've also failed to mention specifically and technically how a Mustang II was not true to its 1964 roots and. Sure it was ugly and unloved but that is irrelevent. What movies it was in is also irrelevent.

Yup. This thread has pretty much deteriorated into a pissing contest, but it's not the "Mustang Trolls"....

 

You took shots at my car first. We can play a game...which of your cars would a woman be more likely to drive...the Miata or the Mustang Coupe?

If a car has a lot of clubs and enthusiast backing it normall is popular...which means sucessful. The Mustang II may have sold alot, but in the long run it has been a big negative in the Camaro's History.

I don't think many people see the V6 camaro as an eyesore...have you even seen my car..its gets more stares and compliments than you could imagine. It is faster than 90% of the cars on the road and has a big aftermarket. The only people who make fun of V6's really are some V8 drivers..and that is only because they have to overompensate for thier small "members".

 

Thanks for the numbers - I was obviously incorrect on that point.

Once again, you are stereotyping. It would be easy for me to do the same - especially in regards to the gen 2 F-bodies, know what I mean? But I shall refrain.

It shouldn't. There is more to a car - even a performance car - than HP ratings. Also, the Mustang has a following that is probably second only to the Vette (that is an opinion, by the way). Finally, your statement is somewhat misleading. In the mid-90's (93-97), GT's were indeed rated anywhere from 205 to 225 HP. However, GT's and V6's were not the total story. To wit...

In 93, the Mustang's top HP rating was 235 (Cobra). The F-body was only 40 more - with a weight penalty to go along.

In 94/95, the Cobra was 245. The F-body was now only 30 more. Weight was pretty close.

In 96, the Cobra stepped up to 305. The SS/WS6 F-body was rated the same.

Correct - as they did with the F-body.

I also find that hard to believe. You were able to prove me wrong above - could you please do it again? I'd like to see the documentation that says GM lost money on every 6 cyl it built. Forgive me for not taking your word for it. Perhaps you can stereotype that, too?

Thanks.

 

Okay your well thought out post does have my respect. I know there are sterotypes that go with the second gen being a former owner..as my avater proves. I will say though I got a much more favorable response in my nice second gen then I would have in a MustangII.

Cobras are a but rare so including them in the mix with a Z28 HP wise isn't right. Z28-GT there was a 50HP difference. Also I suspect that either GM under rated the LT1 or Ford overrated the Mustang because every time I go to the track I see mid 90's GT's running 15.2-15.4. I understand there is more to a car and all, but the Mustang's only advantage over the Camaro is better driving position...ie..higher. Even weight wise the new Cobra weighs damn near 3500lbs.

As for the V6's not making money there is of course no official documentation on that (simply not public info), but after GM shut down the 2nd shift at Ste.Therese in 98 effectivly cutting the manufacturing capacity of the plant and artifically lowering how many F-bodies would be made they became un profitable. Fbodfather (who knows this information for a fact) posted to the effect that GM only made money on the V8's and as V6 sales decresed with shift being cut they became unprofitable. Apparently before they sold enough V6's to break even or make a profit on them, but as sales lowered they lost any profitablity.

But this is all in the sad drama of how GM killed the F-body, not sales. Have you read up on that in this forum Bob?

 

It is certainly possible that in the final few years, the V6 didn't make money. It is even possible that the LS1 equipped F-body's lost money - hence one reason for killing the car.

I have read many things over the years concerning the reasons for the end of F-body. I've heard many stories, and many of the contridict each other. It is my opinion that those of us on the "outside" will never know the true reasons.

The 5.0 in the GT was never under-rated - they typically made 180-185 at the wheels, which is about right for 215 rated HP. By 94/95, it simply wasn't able to keep up with the LT1-equipped F-body's. The Cobra did better, and actually made a bit more than advertised, typically dyno'ng 210-220 on a 245 HP rating).

Mid 90 GT's are *capable* of high 14's - some might argue mid 14's, though low 15's are fairly common too. Except for the Cobra's, they are generally a few ticks behind the lighter Fox Mustangs (79-93).

I have seen many bone stock LT1's (non-SS/WS6) dyno in the 235-245 range, which is pretty well aligned with its 275-285 rating. Most of my observations were at the 2nd F-body gathering in 1998 in Atlanta. They had a portable dyno at the track, and several cars got on it - including several new at the time LS1's.

 

I went through and reserched yearly sales figures some time ago and posted them here. If you guys want to check them out: http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...t=camaro+sales

Branden, it's obvious you do have a strong bias against Mustang IIs while ignoring Camaro's shortcommings of that time. Realize this, and realise that alot of what you said is opinion, not fact, and the rest of us need to respect his opinion as such.

To say that Camaro was loyal to it's roots in the late 70s and the Mustang II wasn't is indefensible. To say Mustang IIs were cramped & Camaros weren't is also a bad position to try to defend. Also, Mustang was based on Pinto. It wasn't a rebodied Pinto as you may believe. It was also the lightest Mustangs

Also, while one may point to the relative lack of enthusiast appriciation for Mustang IIs, the same can be said about all post 1974 2nd gen Camaros except perhaps the post 79 Z28. To get a better feel for what was popular at the time, check out Movies, TV shows, and ads from that era. Camaros weren't the car they ended up becoming in the 80s & 90s. Top power of a Camaro in 76 was 155hp (the smaller, 200+ lbs lighter Mustang 302s had 140hp starting in 1976....as for performance comparisons, simply do the math).

Here are a couple of sites that may answer a few questions about the "II".

http://www.mustangii.net/questions.asp
http://www.mustangii.org/tech/tipsntricks/danengine/

I'm not saying the II's are not today the least desireable of all Mustangs (they are), but keep things in context.... ALL cars made in the second half of the 1970s are the least desireable today when compared to other years of the same model. This goes for Camaro and Corvettes as well as Mustang IIs.

The sole exception is the Trans Ams, which offered 455s till 1977, when they switched to higher output 400s & high torque Oldsmobile 6.6s on automatics.

 

I happen to agree with formula79 about the compromises made for the current Mustangs. Sure - today's Mustang is commercially viable... but they sacrificed a lot to make it so. They gave it granny-style upright seating, a weak V8 for the GT to not scare away parents and women, and lame stubby styling to appeal to the broadest possible customer segments. I happen to like my raked windshield and pointed, sculpted front clip, thank you very much. I like the low, racecar-like seating, the wraparound cockpit, the T-tops and the curvaceous body with big fat tires hanging out. There is no other car in its price range that looks as racy as a new Z28 or Trans Am, IMO. And there is certainly no other with so much HP and torque for the money. Yes GM did put performance first in these cars... and it shows

 

See...that's what requires further explaination for me.

Of course I see your point about horsepower and bang for your buck, although Mustang has now surpassed the LS1, albeit at higher cost.

Frankly, the Mustangs' styling doesn't appear "stubby" to me. It looks tight, compact, and if you choose one of the several 17" wheels (which are even standard on a base GT)....it looks very muscular.

I just don't understand how excessive mass and huge overhangs can be equated with a "performance look".

 

So correct. Once again we prove to be on the same side.

Perhaps it would be more fair to judge the Mustang II for what it set forth for future models. Not every single iterration (sp?) of a car has to be successful. Sometimes if a company knows it needs a redesign to capture back market sales, they introduce new options/products in the last few years of a model to gauge public interest in those things. I'm not saying this is what Ford did, but look at the technology it offered with the II. It's steering setup is used on almost any rod you see at a show, because it simply works, and is nice and compact.

The II was introduced to try and capture some sales back from gas-minded buyers who were putting Honda and Nissan on the map with the 240Z and the CVCC. Bottom lines is sales, people. Ford saw this as the way to go, and when it saw sales go down, and F-body sales go up, they almost immediately started on a redesign. Anyone in the auto industry will tell you it typically takes 3-5 years to put a brand new vehicle to the market. And essentially going to the Fox Body was a complete redesign. Heck, the 1982 design sketches was floating around GM studios as early as 1977. So yeah, Ford went through some not so good times in the mid-late 70s as far as performance was concerned, but to say the Camaro (not the T/A mind you) was leap years ahead in performance is simply brand loyalty blinding you. The late 70s T/As were really the only Detroit performers still left, but that doesn't apply to the Camaro (the Vette too for that matter). Hell, the F-bod almost dissapeared in 74 was it? Due to a strike at the plant it was being built at. But it wasn't like the Fox was selling like hotcakes either, because the Probe was meant to replace it.

What sucks is the more a model sells because of performance and styling, the faster it is redesigned. And when it doesn't sell, the redesign has to be put off.

To sum it up, the Mustang II has to be the best thing Ford could have done in the long run. Because looking at the 69-73 Stangs, those things were boats themselves. Any bigger, and they might have started calling them LTD IIIs...

 

ya... guess Dodge was wrong, when their Daytona Charger was so good it had to be banned from NASCAR...

http://aerowarriors.com/cgi-bin/af.c...com/daysb.html

(BTW here's another cool long-nosed Charger: )

http://www.musclecarclub.com/musclec...rger-1971a.jpg

Ford was wrong, with it's long-nosed NASCAR champion too:

http://www.fordfairlane.com/talladega.html

Porsche might as well can the silly 911:

http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/pors...v..12.Porsche*

And of course Ferrari was wrong, with its stunning Testarossa:

http://www.ferrari-forsale.com/Testarossa

No performance looks there huh.

Worried about a little mass? Maybe the Celica GT is the car for you!

 

While their racing prowess can't be questioned they were some of the most rediculously ugly cars ever built...

IMO huge overhangs aren't what makes a car perform better, but in many cases shorter overhangs do make a car look better. The next Camaro could stand to lose a couple hundred pounds (which I think is attainable with the use of a more modern chassis) and lose a few inches of length. I never found 4th Gen overhangs to be all that bad though...just me I guess...

 

 

I believe that GM influenced the sales of Camaro, by limiting its production output as indicated in an above post. In the past 4 years you could have gone to an average Chevy dealer and they might have 1 or 2 new Camaro on the lot. Go down the road in the same town to the Ford lot and you might find 10-12 Mustangs in various trim levels. Go to a big city, and a high volume Chevy dealer and they might have 6 new Camaros to choose from. Go to a high volume Ford dealer and they will probably have 25+ new Mustangs available.
This is from my personal experince of the last few years driveing around lots trying to find a Camaro that had all the right options that I wanted. A lot of the times my local Chevy dealer had no new Camaro on the lot. In fact during the 2002 model year they recieved (2) Z28s and (1) 35th Anniversary Edition SS.
So how can they sale them when they aren't available on the lot and you can go down the road and drive home a new Mustang at any time?

 

Lol, you can't use the Ferarri or Porsche as an example. those are Rear or Mid engine cars. A long front overhang actually helps weight distribution.

Also, the Camaro has a coefficient of drag much higher than many "stub nosed" luxury cars.

Worried about mass? Yes. Every gram. It's a performance car.

 

What did 4th Gen Camaros get in Coefficiant Drag?? I know IROC-Z28's got .34 Cd.