Even in this 1978 Ford Mustang’s rather worn state, you don’t need 20/20 vision to recognize this one as a Cobra, or actually, a Cobra II. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first Mustang II that I’ve covered. And there’s a reason for that, but I’ll hold off on that for now. The goal here is to be objective and present what I find in an unvarnished fashion – like the car or not. Hailing from Collinsville, Oklahoma, this weathered ‘Tang II has been sitting for seven years and the seller now wants to move it to a new home. Here on eBay is where you’ll find it, and it’s available for an opening bid of $2,500.
Some considered Ford’s notable 1974 downsizing of their iconic Mustang to be heresy. The fact of the matter is that the Pinto platform Mustang was a huge sales hit, with a 286% increase over the outsized, outgoing ’73 model – 385K new ’74 Mustangs to be precise. Our subject is an end-of-the-line model, as in ’79, Ford went back to a proper Mustang in the form of the uber popular Fox body version. Mustang did well in ’78 with 192K copies, the second highest model year tally for Mustang II – pretty good shootin’ for the final production year. Body styles included two-door notchback coupes and a fastback two-door (three-door?) liftback. Trims were standard, Mach I, Ghia, Cobra II (our subject car), and King Cobra.
As stated at the outset, you knew a Cobra when you saw one. The seller tells us, “The vehicle is straight and only has one dent in the quarter panel. All rust and rough spots have been primered and have been painted with a decent cover for a temporary job of reducing rust… Minus the last 3 years, the car has been kept in a shop.” The finish’s appearance makes me think those last three years involved parking this Cobra under a tree – it’s moldy looking. Beyond the cosmetics, the car, overall, appears to be pretty solid.
Cobra power was pretty fangless in ’78, with the top option being 139 net HP 302 CI (5.0 liter) V8, and that’s what we’re dealing with here. The seller notes that it hasn’t been started in seven years and then adds, “I would suggest the motor be pulled and rebuilt. The car ran when I brought it home, but it wasn’t great.” A three-speed automatic transmission puts the power, when available, to the rear wheels.
Well, here’s the interior – I suppose a picture is worth a thousand words. The seller states, “The interior was stripped out and you will find all the pieces inside the car when you purchase it, minus the carpet, which needs to be replaced.”
There you have it, so far a no-bidder. I’ll admit it, I’m not a fan of these Mustang IIs; they just never seemed like they were worthy of the esteemed Mustang moniker. Now, obviously, many were fans as they sold in total, about 1.1 M over the edition’s five model years – significant! This car’s biggest advantage is probably its V8 engine, as not all Cobras were so equipped. Is there a buyer out there for this Cobra II? At the right price, absolutely; there’s always a bottom for every seat. Parting thought? GLWTS is mine, how about yours?
Thanks Jim for the write-up, even though you admit you don’t like the Mustang II. This one is obviously rough and incomplete, and I’m not sure it has a future. Perhaps being a 5.0 and having some desirability (these are called the “billboard Cobras,”) maybe someone will give it some love.
And, by the way, the Mustang II is not on the “Pinto platform.”
https://mustangforums.com/articles/60-years-of-mustang-mustang-ii-2nd-generation-1974-1978/
Bob:
Note the seventh paragraph – “Pinto based.“.
JO
Individuals who I consider to be quite credible on this issue (I know them personally) would say it is not “Pinto-based”, in the way the typical person would understand the term. I admit there can be shades of meaning around the phrase.
I’ve been struggling with that Bob. Three sources that I accessed claimed “Pinto Based.” Now, it’s not the body obviously, the panels aren’t remotely similar. The suspension? Pretty similar, unequal A arms up front and a live axle connected to leaf springs out back. Both used rack and pinion steering. Base engine? 2.3 liter in-line four but you wouldn’t consider a car to be based on another due to the same engine being employed. If it’s not these things mentioned, then what else could it be? The Pinto has a two-inch shorter wheelbase and is about a half inch shorter (five MPH bumper edition) in overall length, so they’re close in that regard.
Now, here’s a difference, the Mustang II used an engine/front suspension subframe that the Pinto didn’t use, so that’s notable but the research I did indicated that the subframe was fitted to the Pinto platform – the purpose being to isolate out vibration and roughness. OK, so that’s a bolt-on difference and maybe it’s the “shades around the meaning” that you reference.
JO
Jim and Bob. I have to admit, I admire all the time and research you BOTH have done. I have to admit, when I was younger and didn’t know better, I thought they were closely related, mainly because of the 4 cyl, the transmission etc. But it wasn’t untill I joined Barnfinds that I started learning about the differences in the Pinto and Mustang II. I just want to say thank you for all the time and research you do Jim I have learned a lot on here, and not just about these, but other vehicles as well. And I want to say thank you to Bob too. You are a treasure trove of Ford knowledge as well. And I’ve learned a lot from you as well. I enjoy coming on here, after a long day at work and unwinding and enjoying the cars, the write ups, and the comments as well.
-Dave
Thanks for your kind comments, Dave.
Much appreciated,
JO
It’s true that the Mustang II is much more differentiated from the Pinto than the original Mustang is from the Falcon. However, the Pinto and Mustang II were built in the same plants on the same assembly lines, so there was definitely a great deal of similarity. I once heard the Mustang II described as having a 2nd-generation Pinto chassis, and I think that’s a pretty good description for it.
It’s undeniably Pinto based. I’ve built and modified and or restored almost 30 Mustangs in just over 35 years. I always steer clear from these under performing, uninspiring econo-stangs or Pint-stangs, as I like to call them. Just not my cup of tea. Anyhow, take a look at Hot Rods article, like the title?
https://www.hotrod.com/news/why-ford-mustang-ii-was-not-terrible
Farrah Fawcett drove one in the hoaky yet entertaining( for guys) hack, “Charlies Angels”. I heard she was a wonderful person, died of cervical cancer, she was 62. In fact, they all drove Mustangs or Pintos. Jill( Farrah Fawcett) drove a blue Cobra ll for only one season, but cemented her as the hottie we all had posters of in our garages. When my ex-wife had her V8 Monza, a good friend had a blue Cobra ll, V8, automatic. While it had all the characteristics of the Monza, front heavy, poor handling, winter, FORGETABOUTIT, but it was a much nicer car. In a drag race, the cars were dead even. This car horrified true Mustang lovers, in fact, I remember in classic car ads, ’73 was as far as they went. The “forgotten” Mustang, these were called, and only recently, have gotten some attention, if any left, that is.
I beg to differ with the author, and “Uber popular” Fox Mustang is subjective, and I disagree on “fangless” too. These cars actually were called Trans-Am killers, because by 1978, Trans-Ams had become so castrated, dads Oldsmobile could keep up. These would do 0-60 in 9.8 sec and the 1/4 mile in 17.4 at about 80,( 4 speed a tick faster) almost exactly the numbers for a Trans-Am. The V6 I thought was a better choice, but I liked this car over the V8 Monza any day. How many Cobra lls remain today? You’re looking at it.
2.6 M Fox body Mustangs is subjective?! There were 370K alone in its inaugural ’79 model year.
Performance-wise, I’m comparing this Mustang to what the Mustang once was, not to some other car offered by a competitor. Specifically, I stated, “they just never seemed like they were worthy of the esteemed Mustang moniker.“.
Your cited performance statistics are yawn inducing. A sign of those times Howard? Yes, probably so but they seem fangless compared to what anything wearing the exalted “Cobra” badge was once capable of and known for.
JO
Oh please, Jim, let’s not start, I promised Bob I wouldn’t. I read, the Mustang ll sold over 390,000 the 1st year, it was what America needed at the time, and put a huge dent in potential foreign car buyers. No question the popularity of the Fox, but even in its final year, the Mustang ll still sold more than the Fox. The Mustang ll was a simple, affordable car that had power to pass. I do agree, calling this a “Cobra” is a bit misleading, but hey, anything was capable of the Cobra and Ol’ Shel got a kickback on everyone sold.
Jim, people vote with their wallets. The Mustang II’s have largely been forgotten, yet the Fox body Mustangs, especially after 1986 have always been sought after. Prime examples of 93 Cobras are in the $50,000 range and nice 5.0 5spd LX’s often change hands in the $20,000 range (or more). That differential is only going to widen over time.
Steve R
Steve:
I understand the lure of the Fox body. I bought, new, a 1992 LX 5.0 convertible with a five speed. It wasn’t without its issues, but it was fun and fast.
JO
The story ends for the Mustang II in a noble fashion. Wasn’t the front-end a popular parts car for many hot rodders?
Gents I for one remember the II more fondly, maybe because I was a child lol.
But the loud King Cobra 🐍 graphics on that exclusive model, seemed cool to this kid, and any car w a stick shift and rwd is going to be a fun driver.
Yep, the Mustang ll rack and peanut[sic] steering was a common choice for any straight axle update and worked well for some reason.
I seem to recall the front suspension was popular in kit cars.
Yes, largely because it was compact, readily available and American. In the 1970’s what were the alternatives.
Steve R
I’m with you Stan, as a young kid in the 70’s my Dad had a friend that had a Cobra Mustang II. I thought it looked cool. And agreed, in its day, everything was strangled for emissions, it was about as good as you could get. Trans Ams with the Pontiac 400 was definitely quicker than these. But probably not much else ( from that time
period). And Howard, even as a kid, I totally remember Charlies Angels. Not only the Mustang 2s but the Pintos looked pretty cool too.
-Dave
I had a 77 Trans AM with the 400 and it was quicker because I beat a kid who had a black and gold version of the one featured here. But I didn’t smoke him, a couple of car lengths, which surprised me. Charlie’s Angels, along with 3’s Company, helped many of us teenagers back in those through puberty. And they could all driven 1950 Packard 4 doors and still been cool!
Considering the low market demand for these you can find a.very good example for a lot less than what it would cost to re-do this one. But for the one that wants one to rebuild at least its complete. Why is it each time i see one i see that pic of Farrah sitting on the hood of that white and blue one
King Cobra is the only version of this generation of Stang that I can appreciate. Like all Mustangs 1974+, the wheels & tires look too small for the body, IMO.
Very early ’65 mustangs also came with 13 in wheels – those with v8 got 5 lug 13″ wheels!
The pack rats that have invaded this Mustang II, don’t care about the quibbling over it’s origin, or it’s sales numbers. It’s called home.
These were pretty much an insult to the original but then to say the Fox body was an improvement? What have you been smoking. Fox mustangs are the most boring designs short of a Yugo. Must have been the Ford designers vacation week. I’d walk before i drove one and would only accept one if i had a customer dumb enough to buy it. Ewwww!!!!!!!
My opinion is these things were just a pinto with a different body and every time I make that comment I get a lot of people who argue with me or think they are trying to correct me that I’m wrong. I make this connection based off the really high drive line tube just like the pinto, the circle gauges just like the pinto and if you have a automatic the gear selector looks same as the one in the pinto. The big difference is you can get this with the V8 instead of cramming A V8 into a pinto. I think this one may be to far gone to rescue but it would be fun to see if you can get it running again.
IMO, based off a Pinto is better than earlier Stangs based off the Falcon with its eventual sqeaky front end & archaic power steering.
Use it as a parts car for a Pinto!
The gauges in my 1979 Pinto were completely different. And my 1968 Mustang has the same automatic floor shifter. And it’s definitely not Pinto based.
That’s because your 68 was before this thing
I had a 76 hatchback with the almost unknown Stallion package ( decals only) V-6 and 4 speed purchased used in 79 for $2,700. It was a fun and reliable little car for a teen. I had no trouble with similar priced economy cars out performing it. Everyone would like them if they had drove one in the day and if Ford had given it a different name. As owner of at least a dozen Fox body coupes and convertible 5.0 cars and my wife’s 67 she had when we married, it is unfortunate that these cars, a product of that time, are named and compared together. I think this is what Jim was saying.
I had a ‘76 Stallion also! White with black interior. 2.3/ 4 speed- so all show, and no go. However, it had a very nice interior, and got phenomenal mileage.
An engine swap from an SVO Mustang or a T-Bird Turbo Coupe would wake a Mustang II up in a hurry! The turbo 2.3L four from one of those, while not a direct bolt-in, would not be a huge undertaking to tackle. Most of the fabrication would be for the intake to feed air into the turbo, along with wiring for the ECU, but certainly doable.
If you really want to go crazy, there’s always an Ecoboost crate engine, LOL! 300 hp and 300 lb-ft of torque from 2.3L. Whee!
I’m not going to get into the Pinto/Mustang II argument. The Mustang II front suspension/sub-frame assembly was a boon to the kit car and hot rodder set. (not the Pinto since that was not removable in “one piece”. A lot of us here are hot rodders and many of us prefer unequal wishbone, rack and pinion for suspension and steering v/s a straight axle and worm gear setups. So the Mustang II was a huge jump forward for us. Even the mighty Fox body cars (I currently have 3) don’t have the suspension “complexity” of a Mustang II. So I still watch for Mustang IIs for one I can place a “proper” 5.0HO engine with 5 speed into. And yes, I know, a stronger rear differential will be required. As will “proper” sized wheels and tires. The best part is that it will be a “hot rod” (different engine, transmission, differential, wheels and tires. BUT IT WILL BE EASY TO DO, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WILL JUST BOLT UP! (Except the rear diff.) and have to make sure to use the front sump oil pan from a Mustang II V8. 300 horsepower in one of these has to be a hoot!
An interesting item is that we in the dealership (and maybe it was just us) didn’t start calling the 302 a 5.0 until it started using roller lifters. (about mid 1985) There may have been some Ford service/parts designation that caused this change. Also, the change happened just before SFI, that really perked up the 302/5.0. Those were good days back the dealership. 5.0 fuely GT and LX Mustangs, SVO Mustangs, TurboTbirds & SHO Taurus and Mercurs. Not to mention fuel injected pick-up trucks. I lucked out in what brand of dealerships I worked at. Also in college at a Pontiac store when mid to late ’70s GTOs, TransAms, Honda Civics that we “perkedup” and BMW when the 318!, M3s and M5s came out. I also worked at a Toyota Mazda, BMW store when the MR2 came out, the heyday of the FJ40, Landcruiser, The RX7 and MK II Supra. I saw the demise of Bricklin, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Plymouth and GMC as a commercial sales force to be reckoned with. I miss the car business, because I had fun and received many awards and perks both from the factories and the dealerships. It also made many of morgage payment. The way things are now, I wouldn’t like to go back.
I had one of these. Lived in the south at the time. Had a 70 mile round trip commute on interstate that was smooth as a baby’s butt. Got great mileage. Good performance. Maybe I was lucky, but one of the best cars I ever owned
I like these. There. I said it. With that said, this one is pretty rough, but could be the basis for a nice build, with a sufficient application of time and money. Even at $2500, this one is a stretch, as the work required to whip this puppy into shape will cost many times the purchase price, even if you do all of the work yourself. If you have to pay someone to whip this bad boy into shape, you will be underwater so fast, you’ll be like Chrissie Watkins in “Jaws”: Dead within five (5) minutes of the opening credits, LOL!
All the same, someone with the time, tools and skills might want to take this on. I’m just not that person, because I don’t have any of those things at my disposal. Just be clear. The chances of getting your money back when you go to sell are somewhere between slim and none! GLWTS in any case.
Although I was way too young at the time to drive a car, I remember cars like the Mustang II. I’ve known people who drove Mustang II and most, if not everyone, loved them.
I still cant figure out how this (& the Pinto!) have room for 4 inside – while the bigger modern stang has a useless back seat.
“Mustang II – boredom zero”.
Ended with 0 bids.