| masraum |
02-17-2018 03:26 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDrive
(Post 9930369)
Yeah, I guess you're right. 12.2 second 0-60. Holy hell.
|
The "article" is a series of photos of each of the listed models with a single paragraph under the photo, but if you click "read more" you get what I assume is the original article or review from when they were new. This is an excerpt from the '74 that jogged that asthmatic 12.2 sec 0-60.
Quote:
However, visual and even audible excellence in Super Cou*pes generally comes at the penalty of weight . . . and per*formance. That is the case in the Mustang II Mach I. Our test car weighed over 3100 lbs. Thus, despite the fact that Ford's V-6 engine is now 2820cc as opposed to its 1973 displacement of 2540cc (accomplished by increases of 0.12 inches in bore and 0.07 inches in stroke), the engine is more notable for its smoothness than any feel of power. At the time of this test, horsepower figures were not available, but there is the suspicion that the 2.8-liter version may actually be rated at less than the earlier version due to carburetor and ignition changes aimed at lower emissions. That, combined with the Mach I's surprising heft (the V-6 Capri we tested in January, 1972 weighed slightly under 2400 lbs.), yields acceleration performance that is disappointing. Moreover, the wide spac*ing between third and fourth gears in the Mustang II's exclu*sive 4-speed transmission in no way aids matters. This all-new transmission, which is built in the U.S. and housed in an aluminum case, does offer light and precise operation, but it is not as smooth in shifting as the current Pinto 4-speed.
|
But what I found even more entertaining was this about the V-8 version of the Mustang II. This was apparently, a domestic top speed shootout for 1976. The 5 vehicles in the test were the Corvette L-82, Dodge Dart Sport, Pontiac Trans Am, Chevy C10 (yeah, the pick up) and the Mustang in that descending order for top speed.
Quote:
Every bout has a loser, and it was the Mustang II Cobra II that held up the low end of our test's performance scale. You can't deny its initial appeal — a glorious sobriquet from the past, Caroll Shelby paint job, scoops, spoilers, white-letter tires, V-8 motor and four on the floor. Sounds neat, but what you get is a mini-Mark IV all dressed up in performance gear with nothing to make it go. Your mother-in-law deserves more than 105.7 mph. To strangle a 302-cu. in. motor down to a sickly 134 hp is an amazing — but embarrassing — feat of modern technology. You need light weight for small-engine performance, but what you get in the Mustang II is station-wagon parts underneath and pound upon pound of sound deadener. The suspension developers worked diligently to filter any possible road irritation (or feel) out of the Mustang II's steering and chassis, and the optional competition suspension can't put it back.
|
As a kid, I remember thinking that the Mustang II was cool, but you can't fault me, I was 5-8 years old at the time.
|
