Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Conversely, my nephew bought a Mustang II with the turbo 4 banger.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiffer E38
No MII came with a turbo 4 banger. The turbo didn't start until '79 and the Fox body cars.
tiffer is right, the mustang ll never came with a turbo.
as for the mustang ll vs the monza clones, both are good cars, both have a range of engines from four cylinder to V6, to a V8. and all of them do well performance wise for the 70s.
both cars are comfortable to drive, and handle well for the average driver in stock form, and under normal driving conditions. but when you get to the limits, the monza clones rear suspension tends to bind under cornering at the limit and causes unpredictability in the handling. the mustang on the other hand tends to under steer at the limit making for a more predictable handling car.
i like the look of the monza clones better than the mustang ll, and i like the fact the monza clones can swallow a small block chevy, though it is a tight fit, and there are service issues, like getting to a few of the spark plugs when tuning the engine.
in the end though it comes down to personal preference in which one you choose. i prefer the mustang ll myself, but i wouldnt reject a monza clone, a buick skyhawk or pontiac sunbird would be my choice, but a monza or a starfire would also be acceptable.
[quote=M3 Mitch;52742698]Trapper, I think you are talking about the Vega engine, was used in some Monzas too, it had an aluminum block and an iron head. Now an iron block and an aluminum head can make some sense, but the other way around was just because it was cheap to do, I guess.
I disagree with your knocking GM's Vega engine. It had problems, but it was ahead of its time (alum block, front discs, low stance, an overhead cam engine, and decent handling.) GM should have spent the extra $8 per engine and put iron sleeves in the Alum block. The car was rushed into production, seeing all the competitors' new models coming out. And then there were labor problems, sabotage on the adsembly line.
It's initial cooling system was inadequate and had no overflow reservoir (corrected in later years.)
Overall a rather sad story. The first time I saw one on the dealer lot, I thought it looked like a Camaro, scaled down.
I got 200K on my '77, then junked it when the water pump broke.
Quote:
"That was a really dumb design, and these engines usually were at best turds."
REMEMBER: It was 1971!!! Easy to knock old engines compared to present day ones.
Trapper, I think you are talking about the Vega engine, was used in some Monzas too, it had an aluminum block and an iron head. Now an iron block and an aluminum head can make some sense, but the other way around was just because it was cheap to do, I guess.
I disagree with your knocking GM's Vega engine. It had problems, but it was ahead of its time (alum block, front discs, low stance, an overhead cam engine, and decent handling.) GM should have spent the extra $8 per engine and put iron sleeves in the Alum block. The car was rushed into production, seeing all the competitors' new models coming out. And then there were labor problems, sabotage on the adsembly line.
It's initial cooling system was inadequate and had no overflow reservoir (corrected in later years.)
Overall a rather sad story. The first time I saw one on the dealer lot, I thought it looked like a Camaro, scaled down.
I got 200K on my '77, then junked it when the water pump broke.
Quote:
"That was a really dumb design, and these engines usually were at best turds."
REMEMBER: It was 1971!!! Easy to knock old engines compared to present day ones.
the vega engine was a turd, plain and simple. the problem was in part the lack of iron sleeves. it also had an open deck, and when it was machined, the cylinder from teh factory were left slightly proud, but when the blocks were machined outside the factory everyone machined them as flat and equal to the top of the block. and that caused continuing head gasket problems.
also the difference in materials between the head an the block tended to abrade the head gasket shortening its life. sorry my friend but the iron duke was a big improvement over the vega motor.
The Mustang II wasn’t a performance match for the Firebird and Camaro. GM released the Chevy Monza and its other GM clones. The power, engine sizes, and body size were close enough to be direct competitors. Anyone ever drove these two back to back to compare them with similar size engines? Was one better handling than the other?
Both were losers. The MMII was a lame attempt by Ford to downsize the Mustang into a Pinto-like car, and the Monza had all the appeal of a rock. A friend of mine had a Monza, and the engine had to be raised up to remove certain spark plugs, unless you hole sawed a couple of holes into the underside of the splash apron.
There is a reason you don't see many, if any, of either car on the road today.
There is a reason you don't see many, if any, of either car on the road today.
Actually there are a LOT of MIIs on the roads, mostly because there were a LOT of them sold. But all you have to do is a google search on them and the MII pages are filled with owners taking pride in their cars.
Both made excellent drag cars, too and you saw a lot of them converted to that use...
Two mid 70s turds. One a little browner, the other a little yellower. I was there at the time. No one who was there and remains rational would ever want to relive what those days were like automotive-ly.
Two mid 70s turds. One a little browner, the other a little yellower. I was there at the time. No one who was there and remains rational would ever want to relive what those days were like automotive-ly.
I take it you've never modified a car and that the way they are, stock, is the only way they can EVER be, right?
The question was not whether a Monzega or Pintang II could serve as a starting point for hot-rodding. After all, a lot of crappy cars have been used to make good modified vehicles. Once you replace the drivetrain and modify the suspension, you can make a car pretty much what you want, if it hasn't rusted away.
But both of those cars as produced were cheap tinny poorly made junk, and even the "high performance versions" with their V8 engines shoehorned into engine compartments where they didn't fit, were dogs in performance compared to even the cheapest econobox of today. And with the V8 they pushed like pigs. Let's not forget the quality of the interiors with dashboards that cracked in a few years and all the plastic bits that would UV-embrittle and crumble into dust.
I have driven and ridden in these objects and many others like them, and I know whereof I speak.
At the time, just a few years before the Japanese small cars started their inrush into the US market, pretty much the only marginally acceptable small cars for sale in the US were the VW Rabbit and the Ford of Germany Capri, and those were pretty lousy - but less horrible than the GM and Ford USA options.
Last edited by turf3; 08-09-2018 at 09:33 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
