34 mpg Mustang that shows how different - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 06-22-2007, 06:58 PM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 29
Country: United States
34 mpg Mustang that shows how different

Things were in the mid 70's compared to the early 70's


or now for that matter

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1975-...QQcmdZViewItem

What a change in just a few years

I like this mustang too though

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZzXH...elated&search=
__________________

retrorocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:07 PM   #2
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Send a message via MSN to baddog671
Retro
As an avid Mustang enthusiast, I must say that THAT is no Mustang. As many many other Mustangers will agree, the 74-78 Mustang II was so completely different in regards to the classic, that many of us do not consider it a true Mustang. Of course, other people are different. Some people don't consider 6er's real Mustangs.

In the mid 70's we entered our first "fuel crisis" when the world was "running out of fuel". BS I say. But, Ford responded to this by ending the production of the first generation of Mustangs 64.5-73 and introduced the first "4 cylinder, compact Mustang" for fuel economy.

Pure ugliness in my opinion:P I have a `67 351W and `98 232...
__________________

__________________
baddog671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:26 PM   #3
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 29
Country: United States
I have driven many different Mustangs

I have had a 65 fastback and a 66 fastback and a 92 GT

They were all nice.

My aunt had a Mustang II with a 2.3 liter stick in it and it was a real nice car.

Mustangs had grown so heavy that the 71 through 73 were really the ones that were not Mustangs.

The early ones were based on the falcon so it was really not much of a departure to base it on the Pinto.

The Mustang II and the Pinto both handled really well in stock form and they would achieve over 30mph on the highway.

I really love old Mustangs but there are a lot of cars from that time period (70's) that get a bad rap that were not really that bad.

One of my favorite cars was the 1981 V-4-6-8 Cadillac. That would get over 20 mpg with a 5.9Liter and no overdrive and a weight of 4450 lbs.

Imagine what it would have got with an overdrive as well.

If only GM had kept trying.

Retrorocket
retrorocket is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:38 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
BumblingB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 341
Country: United States
Location: NW Florida
Yep, the Mustang II was pretty much a Pinto. A Street Rodders dream for front end parts (suspension) - as was the Pinto front end.

Think about it though, what was the ORIGINAL production Mustang? Essentially a Falcon - another econobox that most of them were 6 cylinders. Now think back to before the release of the Mustang to the prototype - - what was the ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE Mustang engine? A FOUR CYLINDER! So in a sense, the V-8, I6, V-6 Mustangs aren't TRUE to their origin at all. The Mustang II was as close to the original prototype they had ever gotten (at that time).

I've had a few - several 66 & 67's. Currently have a 64.5. (V-8). I can respect the Mustang II's for what they were, an answer to a call for more efficient cars. Also, I really like the Cobra II's. Back in the day a friend had one that was like new, then again it was a 12 year old car. It looked/ran like new when she sold it and she let it go for a whole $2,500!
BumblingB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:43 PM   #5
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 447
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by retrorocket View Post
One of my favorite cars was the 1981 V-4-6-8 Cadillac. That would get over 20 mpg with a 5.9Liter and no overdrive and a weight of 4450 lbs.

Imagine what it would have got with an overdrive as well.

If only GM had kept trying.

Retrorocket
Those are my thoughts too! What if everyone tried just a little?
__________________
slurp812 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:51 PM   #6
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Send a message via MSN to baddog671
I agree, the suspension parts are nice

Hmm,I have to disagree with the original prototype theory. The production mustang not only didnt have the same motor as the 62 prototype, it looked alot different too. The 63 prototype was closer.

Still, the 05 prototype didnt look like the production cars, but I would call them real...
__________________
baddog671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:55 PM   #7
Registered Member
 
Mentalic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 121
Country: United States
Mustang II.... My wife had one of those when I first met her.. Its definitely in the top 10 biggest pieces of junk ever made, top 5 ugly.
I finally convinced her to stop spending a car note every month fixing that Mustang II and get a Toyota Corolla.
__________________
Mentalic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 07:57 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
BumblingB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 341
Country: United States
Location: NW Florida
That's why I used words like ORIGINAL PRODUCTION and ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE (meaning the '62) I specifically used those words to differentiate between the two. The '62 was a V-4 of course which never made it into a production car, had an aero front end, no roof and I could go on - once again why I said prototype. - I know this seems to come across as mean - not intended to sound that way though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by baddog671 View Post
I agree, the suspension parts are nice

Hmm,I have to disagree with the original prototype theory. The production mustang not only didnt have the same motor as the 62 prototype, it looked alot different too. The 63 prototype was closer.

Still, the 05 prototype didnt look like the production cars, but I would call them real...
BumblingB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2007, 09:56 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
lol my mom had an early 70's mustang convertible. lol the weird green with a black stripe down the side. she only had it for less than a year untill a drunk driver came along it a huge truck and got stuck between a pole and her car. of course being drunk he just kept trying to get out b moving forwards and backwards and totaled her car which he shoved into the side of my moms roomate boyfriends charger...

she keeps sayign everytime at autoshows "theres my mustang" lol i think once im done with college my aprents are going to try to find one....

i had a friend that had a late 80's mustang with a 4 cyl... i dont think a 4 cyl could move the huge current mustangs nor would there be a market for it...
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2007, 02:47 AM   #10
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
FWIW (not much!), I learned to drive in a '66 Mustang with a straight 6 and auto tranny. At only 17 and having ridden in boat like American cars I thought it was sporty and kinda European inspired. Very good at taking fast corners, and even with a six the auto gave you a kick in the rear when you stomped on it.

The auto "stick" in the console was a new feature so far as I knew at the time; other auto trannys had the shift on the column which was completely non-ergonomic.
__________________

__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not very precise mpg calculation larjerr Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 08-20-2012 02:03 AM
Keeping my distance in traffic khurt General Fuel Topics 8 09-07-2008 04:23 AM
Electrical power and cars. DracoFelis Automotive News, Articles and Products 2 09-16-2006 02:31 PM
Solar in Central Oregon. QDM Introduce Yourself - New member Welcome 4 08-04-2006 04:17 PM
"active" aero grille slats on 06 civic concept MetroMPG General Fuel Topics 21 01-03-2006 01:02 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.