Need some help identifying the differences in a Mustang

I am looking to buy a Mustang from the '77, but I'm kind of a newbie when it comes to cars and doing some reseach I found that in 77, Ford produced 4 different kinds of Mustangs (Those being: Mustang II, Mustang II Ghia, Mustang II mach 1 and the Mustang T5)
So I wanted to know if any of you anons know what's the differences in those models

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Standard
    >Fancy
    >Fast
    >European
    in that order

    • 2 months ago
      TOBI

      And out of those which one has a 302 motor?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Fuck if I know, back in that time I'm pretty sure you could just order up whatever trim/motor combo direct from factories but you'd need a real ford nerd to tell you more.

      • 2 months ago
        death to israel.

        every one of them excluding certain years but every bodystyle mustang had a 302 at some point

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >And out of those which one has a 302 motor?

        They all have 302's. It's Ford's SBC.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        any? back then you had decent engine options, though by the late 1970s the options dwindled down a fair bit to mostly contain a 4 cylinder, a v6, a v8, and if your lucky a bigger v8.

        googled results:

        1977 – 140 Lima Inline 4 Engine (2.3 L) 93 hp @ 4000 RPM
        1977 – 302 Windsor V8 (4.9 L) 134 hp @ 4000 RPM
        1977 – 171 Cologne V6 (2.8 L) 104 hp @ 4000 RPM

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I am looking to buy a Mustang from the '77
    Why? I’m pretty sure the worst car you can possibly buy, a Mitsubishi Mirage, would be a faster and more engaging l.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      sometimes people buy cars they just like even if it isn't fast because not everyone is a benchracer that needs the best numbers on paper to be happy with a car

      • 2 months ago
        TOBI

        I thought it looked cool tbh, I don't really care that much about performance

    • 2 months ago
      TOBI

      Why is it bad? Genuine question, I'm not that reallly into cars

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Very low compression ratios meaning your car will suck a lot of gas to go nowhere slowly.

        sometimes people buy cars they just like even if it isn't fast because not everyone is a benchracer that needs the best numbers on paper to be happy with a car

        Some retro cars are cool despite being slow but mustang II is a miserable experience through and through. Poor interior, speed, reliability, fuel consumption and parts price means you’re better off wasting your time and money on any better car. Look into Oldsmobile toronados or Mercury cougars/Ford torinos of the same vintage. Just as slow and expensive but they’re nicer and justify the slow boat experience, plus they came with bigger engines.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Very low compression ratios
          ripe for a Wuhan whistler

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Why is it bad? Genuine question, I'm not that reallly into cars

        As the other anon said, the performance is absolute bottom-tier. I don't say that as a benchracing
        >you need everything to be performance and if it's not fast then it sucks
        but as someone who's fine if you don't need a sporty ride. The Mustang II at one point (forget the years) was making around 120 horsepower even with the v8. Even in a small car that is comically slow, you couldn't beat a 00's soccermom minivan with a Mustang II. You would have your doors blown off by a Chrysler Town & Country or a PT Cruiser.

        It's also something to note that the Mustang II was essentially just a Ford Pinto with the doors kicked in. It's small externally and the interior isn't great either.

        • 2 months ago
          TOBI

          What variant would be a good Mustang then?
          Or which would you recommend?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            1st gen is best but they often require significant work due to age, both engine rebuilds and fixing rust, destroyed interiors, etc. You can find a ton of nice examples but they can be a little pricey as you get the Craigslist boomers who "know what they got".

            These aren't really classics (arguably) but next I would add the 4th and early 5th gen (2005-2010) Mustangs as a good pick. Power started to increase again in the 90's so the GTs are actually driveable without feeling like you're driving an oversized lawnmower, the 4.6 liter v8 is really reliable and relatively easy to work on, and you can find a ton of good condition GTs at reasonable prices. If you want something extra fancy you can look for 4th Gen Mustang Cobra. 4th gens are decent Mustangs overall, but the big downsides are the cheap, plastic interiors and they can be a little cramp if you're taller. The 5th gens get a big bonus for both interiors and overall interior space. Downside is they feel like they're big on the road (at least if you're coming from a 4th gen). Lots of power for the money and (in my opinion) the best overall styling since the first gen. I would probably rate them higher but I'm assessing them more towards someone looking for a classic.

            After that are the fox-body 3rd gen Mustangs. I like the early 80's ones with the squared-off quad headlights but the later 3rd gens frankly just look awful. Interiors are ugly and plasticy too. Good thing is they started making modest increases in horsepower during the 80's so while still slow it's not absolute bottom like the Mustang II. The price on them has started to go up so clean examples are starting to get rather stupid prices, I wouldn't recommend one unless you're specifically in love with the fox-body cars. You would be getting a signficantly better car for cheaper by just getting a 4th gen.

            For alternatives you can look at their Mercury counterparts, the Cougar (67-72) or Capri (79-86). It's just a Mustang made by Mercury.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >120 horsepower
          >Even in a small car that is comically slow, you couldn't beat a 00's soccermom minivan
          Yeah, no way a car with 140hp 250tq could beat a van that weighs over half a ton more.

          >with a 0-60-mph time of 9.5 sec, it's among the quickest minivans
          https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/1999-honda-odyssey-one-year-test/

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Go to the many Mustang forums for exhaustive details. Why would you ask for spoonfeeding on a non-specialist site? Stop being cartarded.

  4. 2 months ago
    death to israel.

    I think theyre neat but it would have to be a 302/4speed for me to be interested in it

  5. 2 months ago
    TOBI

    So after some research it's a Mustang II Mach 1 Fastback, with a BOSS 302 V-8 engine, it's got some scratches on the paint job, some rust on the hood of the car and it doesn't come with the original rims
    Any idea what the price should be?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Better to buy a clean example

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not a BOSS.
      That's a completely different engine than a Windsor 302.

      Question: did the Mustang II every come with a hatchback variant? This is vital information, anons.

      Yes- see pic.
      If it's not a notchback then it's a hatch.

      >Why is it bad? Genuine question, I'm not that reallly into cars

      As the other anon said, the performance is absolute bottom-tier. I don't say that as a benchracing
      >you need everything to be performance and if it's not fast then it sucks
      but as someone who's fine if you don't need a sporty ride. The Mustang II at one point (forget the years) was making around 120 horsepower even with the v8. Even in a small car that is comically slow, you couldn't beat a 00's soccermom minivan with a Mustang II. You would have your doors blown off by a Chrysler Town & Country or a PT Cruiser.

      It's also something to note that the Mustang II was essentially just a Ford Pinto with the doors kicked in. It's small externally and the interior isn't great either.

      HP was pathetic, but the suspension is a winner.
      That's why there's so many aftermarket kits to use mustang II suspension on shit like old chevy trucks.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Aye, now that's a hothatch, does it have the BOSS 302 in it? Or is that a restomod i'll have to do myself?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          The stock 302 is like 140hp.
          A BOSS crate motor from FRPP is about $10k (no intake).
          The Cobra II had an archaic Ford EEC III. It's a shit design that fails consistently. Upgrading and bypassing that system to an MSD 6AL is pretty straightforward although a donor harness from a Fox for MAF with an A9L/P and a twEECer or Moates Quarterhorse is the preferred system.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, Cobra II's were only available in automatic.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              Wrong, they sold almost 50/50 auto to manual. The manual came later though, they had to design and manufacture a new clutch assembly for the V8 vs the designed for the power of the Lima.

              Also see the pic in

              >120 horsepower
              >Even in a small car that is comically slow, you couldn't beat a 00's soccermom minivan
              Yeah, no way a car with 140hp 250tq could beat a van that weighs over half a ton more.

              >with a 0-60-mph time of 9.5 sec, it's among the quickest minivans
              https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/1999-honda-odyssey-one-year-test/

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I should clarify.
                The V8 Cobra II was only available with an automatic.
                The i4 and v6 versions don't exist to me.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                I should clarify.
                You're still wrong.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >9601
                Well shit.
                I had one many years ago but scrapped it because of electrical gremlins.
                Always regretted that.
                Now I regret it even more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The stock 302 is like 140hp
            Unless you were in California, those had a different carb and only had 134hp.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Question: did the Mustang II every come with a hatchback variant? This is vital information, anons.

    • 2 months ago
      TOBI

      idk?

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those things were total shitboxes.
    Nothing more than a rebodied Pinto.
    Only reason they sold is because Ford had nothing else, so people bought it for Mustang name.

    • 2 months ago
      death to israel.

      you do realize that the pinto was a good design, it would've been better with a 4link rear but still

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Its unfortunate that the pinto became a joke thanks to Ralph Nader's book.
        It dominates pony class racing for a reason.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Naders book was about the Chevy Corvair, not the Pinto. The Corvair just flipped over in hard turns. The Pinto was a fuckin firebomb on wheels.

          https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/fatal-ford-pinto-crash-in-indiana

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Check out brochure
    https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/ford/77m2/77m2.html

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous
  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The good ones aren't the ones that look good.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you know nothing about cars, DO NOT buy an older mustang, especially not a 2nd gen

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why are they so fucking ugly?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because Bloatstang. Look at that next to a '68 and you begin to wonder how Ford got it so wrong. by the end of the 1st gen.

Your email address will not be published.