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.
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.
Don't forget that the Vega would rust away in months. I had a 74 Vega in 1978 (4 years old!) and it had rust holes in Texas! It also burned a quart of oil every 75 miles, routinely stalled in the middle of intersections when trying to accelerate off-idle, and the AC failed at - again - 4 years of age.
There's no sugar coating it, the Vega from top to bottom was a routine design (except for the Al engine without liners) that was abysmally executed.
The Mustang 2 is just ugly. After years of good and even great looking Mustangs, Ford produced something stumpy that looks like they mated a Pinto with a Maverick. Yuk. They drove ok, but the build was crap.
I never really considered the Monza as competitor to the Mustang, but I guess it was in the same market. The Monza looked much better, but, same as the Mustang, they drove ok, but the build was crap. These 2 cars are really a low point for American "fun" cars. At the same time, you could find Datsun 240/260/280/ 510s, Ford Capri 2, Toyota Celica (actually looked like a Mustang)/Corolla, VW Scirocco in roughly the same price range that actually looked good and drove well. Even GM's Camaro/Firebird looked great and ran ok.
For me, the Mustang 2 was a horrible step. I drove and rode in both the Mustang 2 and the Monza quite a bit. If I had the money to buy a car at the time, it would have been a Camaro, Scirocco or a Datsun Z.
Both were losers. 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.
That was probably intentional to keep the mechanics in business.
Besides. Weren't pretty much all the cars of the 70's turds?
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.
Well, I have my parent's old 1971 Impala, 400 SB, with over 200K on it, they bought it new, so I know the engine has never been opened up, outside of replacing a timing chain.
The aluminum block, made from the same alloy as Porsche 928s, would have been a good idea, the $8 savings you quote is probably not doing the acid wash or whatever it is that Porsche did, (Nikasil, Alusil). The Porsche engine has aluminum heads and block, and the surface treatment, they can easily go 200, 300K, or more.
I still say the iron head on an aluminum block was dumb. You get the differential expansion, without any benefit like you would get with an iron block.
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.
one thing to remember though is that if not for the mustang ll, there would be no mustang today.
something else to note, before the camaro was dropped and then reborn, the camaro outsold the mustang a total of eight times, and NONE of those times was during the mustang ll era.
as i have noted both were pretty good little cars back then, and would be today as well.
Maybe because I like smaller cars in general, to me the Mustang II can make up into what IMHO is a sweet little ride, you can build a 302, just for reference say a target HP of 340-350, nothing too radical, put a modern 6 speed manual behind it, some bigger sway bars, some good light wheels with sticky tires, but that fit without flaring fenders (or, at least not much). Or maybe a modern 4.6L would fit? I mean, anything will fit if you have a big enough hammer, but, maybe a 4.6 would fit without a lot of beating and cussing. If not, I know the 302 will fit because some came with it from the factory.
How about white, with that blue stripe package that the Mustang II Cobra came with?
I mean, it's not a GT-40 or a C-7, but, a damn decent ride, "built, not bought".
Maybe because I like smaller cars in general, to me the Mustang II can make up into what IMHO is a sweet little ride, you can build a 302, just for reference say a target HP of 340-350, nothing too radical, put a modern 6 speed manual behind it, some bigger sway bars, some good light wheels with sticky tires, but that fit without flaring fenders (or, at least not much). Or maybe a modern 4.6L would fit?
How about white, with that blue stripe package that the Mustang II Cobra came with?
I mean, it's not a GT-40 or a C-7, but, a damn decent ride, "built, not bought".
What's wrong with that?
Bit like the one I pictured on the previous page. That driveline in this car:
Yes, exactly. Thanks for providing that photo, to replace the "customized" Azteks previously residing in my short term memory...
You would be the guy to know - will the 4.6 fit in the Mustang II without "excessive" beating and cussing? Of course "excessive" is subjective, one guy will say it's a piece of cake, another will regret ever trying it.
Yes, exactly. Thanks for providing that photo, to replace the "customized" Azteks previously residing in my short term memory...
You would be the guy to know - will the 4.6 fit in the Mustang II without "excessive" beating and cussing? Of course "excessive" is subjective, one guy will say it's a piece of cake, another will regret ever trying it.
The 4.6 will fit widthwise, as the MII doesn't have bit shock/spring towers. It might be really tight lengthwise, however, as the MII engine bay is not very long.
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.
