Time To Buy A Classic Pinto?

"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/2/2011 18:46, dwight wrote:
>>
>> "D E Willson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>>> Thus spake NoOp > :
>>>>>
>>>>> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. Of course,
>>>>> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>>>>> Vegas. :-0
>>>>
>>>> I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>>>> the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>>>>
>>>> Patrick
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>>> or not.
>>>
>>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>>> original 4 bangers?
>>>
>>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>>> Pinto?
>>
>> My first car was a Pinto. That's why I've gone on to buy six Mustangs
>> over the years.
>>
>> Two of those six Mustangs were Mustang IIs. Anybody want to try and
>> convince me that the II is a "collector car"?
>>
>> dwight
>>
>>
>
> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>
> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf

Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older piece
of crap.

dwight
(more photos of IIs from the Valley Forge Mustang Club show Memorial Day:
http://www.tfrog.com/events/vfmc/052911/index.html)

....including a beautiful black '93 Cobra, that the owner tells me he picked
up some years ago for $10,000, with 10,000 miles on the clock...

On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>
<snip>
>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>
> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
> piece of crap.
>
Was the Mustang II built on a Pinto frame? I had a '76 Mustang II with
the V6 engine and it was fun to drive, but it certainly was not a nice
handling machine. I eventually handed it down to my Son, who drove it
until it rusted out and the sheet metal on the doors started flapping
in the wind. Regardless, I still liked that car.

Dick

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:04:58 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:

>
>"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
>> On 6/2/2011 18:46, dwight wrote:
>>>
>>> "D E Willson" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>>>> Thus spake NoOp > :
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. Of course,
>>>>>> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>>>>>> Vegas. :-0
>>>>>
>>>>> I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>>>>> the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>>>>>
>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>>>> original 4 bangers?
>>>>
>>>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>>>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>>>> Pinto?
>>>
>>> My first car was a Pinto. That's why I've gone on to buy six Mustangs
>>> over the years.
>>>
>>> Two of those six Mustangs were Mustang IIs. Anybody want to try and
>>> convince me that the II is a "collector car"?
>>>
>>> dwight
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>
>Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older piece
>of crap.
>

In Lee Iacoca's book from 10 or so years ago he talks about the
development of the Mustang II. They put quite a bit of work into it
to try and make it a nice car and separate it from it's humble
beginnings. Considering the times, it may not be all that bad a car.
Also consider how generally poorly handling almost all Fords were back
then unless you ordered a handling package, which few people did (same
for Chevy).

On Thu, 2 Jun 2011 19:46:18 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:

>
>"D E Willson" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>> Thus spake NoOp > :
>>>>
>>>> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>>
>>>> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. Of course,
>>>> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>>>> Vegas. :-0
>>>
>>>I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>>>the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>>>
>>>Patrick
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>> or not.
>>
>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>> original 4 bangers?
>>
>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>> Pinto?
>
>My first car was a Pinto. That's why I've gone on to buy six Mustangs over
>the years.
>
>Two of those six Mustangs were Mustang IIs. Anybody want to try and convince
>me that the II is a "collector car"?
>
>dwight
>
I guess technically, if it's at least 25 years old, it's a collector
car. :0) And I have noticed that some of the classic car parts places
are beginning to cater to their needs.

On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 03:22:11 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
> wrote:

>On Jun 2, 3:34*pm, D E Willson > wrote:
>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>
>> >> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>
>> >> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. *Of course,
>> >> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>> >> Vegas. *:-0
>>
>> >I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>> >the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>
>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>> or not.
>
>Here are the details of Chevy's 305.
>
>The 305 5.0L variant of the small-block Chevrolet introduced in 1975
>had a displacement of 305 cu in (5 L) with a 3.7350-inch (94.869 mm)
>bore, and 3.4803-inch (88.4 mm) stroke. Many performance enthusiasts
>shun the 305 because of the availability of 350 engine, along with the
>fact that the same parts will yield much more power in a 350 cubic
>inch package. Due to the popularity of the 350, items like rebuild
>kits are more expensive for the 305. Still the 305 has considerable
>power potential to the high selection of aftermarket parts that are
>readily interchangeable with the popular 350. Not all cylinder heads
>apply to this engine due to valves having bore interference or
>shrouding issues with the narrow bore of the 305 engine, but there are
>many LO3 setups that can produce over 300 horsepower from the right
>combination.
>
>Induction systems for the 305 included carburetors (both 2 and 4-
>barrel), throttle-body injection (TBI), tuned-port fuel injection
>(TPI), and sequential fuel injection (GM Vortec).
>
>The 305 was used in the following cars:
>
> 1976–1992 Chevrolet Camaro
> 1980 Chevrolet Corvette (California only)
> 1977–1996 Chevrolet Caprice (includes Impala)
> 1977–1986 Pontiac Parisienne
> 1976–1979 Chevrolet Monza
> 1976–1979 Chevrolet Nova (also GM X-body clones after 1976)
> 1976–1988 Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet El Camino, and Chevrolet
>Monte Carlo
> 1978–1992 Pontiac Firebird
> 1978–1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (US Market only, Canadian market 1978–
>1987)
> 1991–1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
> 1981–1987 Pontiac Grand Prix
> 1975–1979 Buick Skylark
> 1977–2003 Chevrolet/GMC Trucks, SUVs, Vans
> 1991–1992 Cadillac Brougham
> 1978–1987 Buick Regal
>
>After 1996, its usage was limited to light trucks and SUVs until the
>2000 model year (vans and commercial vehicles until 2003) as the
>Vortec 5000. Currently still in production as a marine powerplant for
>Mercury Marine.
>
>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>> original 4 bangers?
>
>First it was the 260 and later the 289.
>
>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>> Pinto?
>
>That and many of the popular classic 60s/70s cars have been
>overexposed -- at big car show you're just one of many if you have a
>regular 442, GTO, Chevelle, Mustang, etc. But show up in a Pinto,
>Gremlin, or old stationwagon and you will get noticed.
>
>Patrick
Had the 305 in my 85 Camaro. Good power, and economical. A lot like
the 289 in those respects.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 16:34:35 -0700, D E Willson
> wrote:

>On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 03:22:11 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
> wrote:
>
>>On Jun 2, 3:34*pm, D E Willson > wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>>
>>> >> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>>
>>> >> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. *Of course,
>>> >> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>>> >> Vegas. *:-0
>>>
>>> >I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>>> >the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>>
>>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>>> or not.
>>
>>Here are the details of Chevy's 305.
>>
>>The 305 5.0L variant of the small-block Chevrolet introduced in 1975
>>had a displacement of 305 cu in (5 L) with a 3.7350-inch (94.869 mm)
>>bore, and 3.4803-inch (88.4 mm) stroke. Many performance enthusiasts
>>shun the 305 because of the availability of 350 engine, along with the
>>fact that the same parts will yield much more power in a 350 cubic
>>inch package. Due to the popularity of the 350, items like rebuild
>>kits are more expensive for the 305. Still the 305 has considerable
>>power potential to the high selection of aftermarket parts that are
>>readily interchangeable with the popular 350. Not all cylinder heads
>>apply to this engine due to valves having bore interference or
>>shrouding issues with the narrow bore of the 305 engine, but there are
>>many LO3 setups that can produce over 300 horsepower from the right
>>combination.
>>
>>Induction systems for the 305 included carburetors (both 2 and 4-
>>barrel), throttle-body injection (TBI), tuned-port fuel injection
>>(TPI), and sequential fuel injection (GM Vortec).
>>
>>The 305 was used in the following cars:
>>
>> 1976–1992 Chevrolet Camaro
>> 1980 Chevrolet Corvette (California only)
>> 1977–1996 Chevrolet Caprice (includes Impala)
>> 1977–1986 Pontiac Parisienne
>> 1976–1979 Chevrolet Monza
>> 1976–1979 Chevrolet Nova (also GM X-body clones after 1976)
>> 1976–1988 Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet El Camino, and Chevrolet
>>Monte Carlo
>> 1978–1992 Pontiac Firebird
>> 1978–1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (US Market only, Canadian market 1978–
>>1987)
>> 1991–1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
>> 1981–1987 Pontiac Grand Prix
>> 1975–1979 Buick Skylark
>> 1977–2003 Chevrolet/GMC Trucks, SUVs, Vans
>> 1991–1992 Cadillac Brougham
>> 1978–1987 Buick Regal
>>
>>After 1996, its usage was limited to light trucks and SUVs until the
>>2000 model year (vans and commercial vehicles until 2003) as the
>>Vortec 5000. Currently still in production as a marine powerplant for
>>Mercury Marine.
>>
>>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>>> original 4 bangers?
>>
>>First it was the 260 and later the 289.
>>
>>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>>> Pinto?
>>
>>That and many of the popular classic 60s/70s cars have been
>>overexposed -- at big car show you're just one of many if you have a
>>regular 442, GTO, Chevelle, Mustang, etc. But show up in a Pinto,
>>Gremlin, or old stationwagon and you will get noticed.
>>
>>Patrick
>Had the 305 in my 85 Camaro. Good power, and economical. A lot like
>the 289 in those respects.


Had a 305 in my 86 Caprice and it was a dog. Great car but terrible
engine.

"Dickr" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>
>> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
>> piece of crap.
>>
> Was the Mustang II built on a Pinto frame? I had a '76 Mustang II with the
> V6 engine and it was fun to drive, but it certainly was not a nice
> handling machine. I eventually handed it down to my Son, who drove it
> until it rusted out and the sheet metal on the doors started flapping
> in the wind. Regardless, I still liked that car.
>
> Dick

Traded my bright purple Pinto in on a used* '74 Mustang II Ghia coupe, with
a six under the hood and manual trans. I absolutely loved that car and
enjoyed the hell out of it, but much of that may have been relative, since I
was coming off of the Pinto.

Of course, I also bought a 1978 light blue hatchback (six/auto), that was
"our" first car when we got married, and it served us for about 11 years. As
with all my cars, it was my baby until it wasn't or until the next baby came
along.

But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want to
go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies had the
emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back that up.

It's funny, buy my '93 LX 5.0 is now a comparative piece of crap, when
looking at what's being built today. But my '93 is far better than either of
my Mustang IIs. I may be blinded by my Fox loyalty, but I would consider the
Fox 5.0's as far more "collectible" than the Mustang IIs.

dwight

* In 1974, second-hand cars were still called "used." The term "pre-owned"
was not yet invented, and I remember thinking how utterly stupid that word
was, when it first came around. Pre-owned. Y'know, if you think about it, a
really good meal is nothing more than pre-****.

"Ashton Crusher" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 18:04:58 -0400, "dwight" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"WindsorFox<SS>" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 6/2/2011 18:46, dwight wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "D E Willson" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 08:05:48 -0700 (PDT), NoOp
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:46 am, Dillon Pyron > wrote:
>>>>>>> Thus spake NoOp > :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >http://www.npr.org/2011/05/31/136824...collectors-key...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And do what we did in the mid 70s, drop a 302 in to it. Of course,
>>>>>>> this was in response to the guys who were putting 305s into their
>>>>>>> Vegas. :-0
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I recall them dropping in 327s & 350s in the Vegas, not 305s. Didn't
>>>>>> the Chevy 305 come out in the 80s?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Patrick
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> My ex had a 72 Nova Hatchback with a 305. No idea if it was original
>>>>> or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> What was it? The Tiger that had the 289 dropped in in place of the
>>>>> original 4 bangers?
>>>>>
>>>>> The classics like Mustangs are so priced out of the average person's
>>>>> wallet that even Mustang IIs are becoming collector cars. So why not a
>>>>> Pinto?
>>>>
>>>> My first car was a Pinto. That's why I've gone on to buy six Mustangs
>>>> over the years.
>>>>
>>>> Two of those six Mustangs were Mustang IIs. Anybody want to try and
>>>> convince me that the II is a "collector car"?
>>>>
>>>> dwight
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>
>>Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older piece
>>of crap.
>>
>
> In Lee Iacoca's book from 10 or so years ago he talks about the
> development of the Mustang II. They put quite a bit of work into it
> to try and make it a nice car and separate it from it's humble
> beginnings. Considering the times, it may not be all that bad a car.
> Also consider how generally poorly handling almost all Fords were back
> then unless you ordered a handling package, which few people did (same
> for Chevy).

I don't doubt that Ford tried to build a "nice car," but the II was a victim
of the times in which it lived. After all, this was the successor to a
highly successful line of Mustangs, and it was important that the redesign
do well in the marketplace. If I remember correctly, the sales figures for
the IIs were not bad at all. But it was a piece of crap.

If the goal was to build a car that could assume the badge AND become the
answer to the OPEC-inspired desire for fuel economy, the IIs failed
miserably. I won't deny that I had a great time with both of my IIs, but the
same is true of my old Honda 360 motorcycle - enjoyed it, but it was a piece
of crap.

Maybe this is all just through hindsight, though. Certainly, in 1978, when I
took delivery of a brand new Mustang II hatchback (for $5,000), I didn't
think that was a piece of crap then. Maybe, as I sit here typing this in
2011, it's just that looking back, I can't believe that anyone would ever
want to go back to the suspect automotive creations of the mid- to late-70s.

dwight

On 6/5/2011 7:23 AM, dwight wrote:
>
> "Dickr" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6/3/2011 5:04 PM, dwight wrote:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>>> Dunno, this looks collectible to me...
>>>> http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-19...King-Cobra.jpg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/626oyf
>>>
>>> Hah! It was a piece of crap when new, and now it's just a much older
>>> piece of crap.
>>>
>> Was the Mustang II built on a Pinto frame? I had a '76 Mustang II with
>> the V6 engine and it was fun to drive, but it certainly was not a nice
>> handling machine. I eventually handed it down to my Son, who drove it
>> until it rusted out and the sheet metal on the doors started flapping
>> in the wind. Regardless, I still liked that car.
>>
>> Dick
>
> Traded my bright purple Pinto in on a used* '74 Mustang II Ghia coupe,
> with a six under the hood and manual trans. I absolutely loved that car
> and enjoyed the hell out of it, but much of that may have been relative,
> since I was coming off of the Pinto.
>
> Of course, I also bought a 1978 light blue hatchback (six/auto), that
> was "our" first car when we got married, and it served us for about 11
> years. As with all my cars, it was my baby until it wasn't or until the
> next baby came along.
>
> But I'm honest about Ford's build quality of the day (heck, all
> manufacturers' build quality), and there's no way that I would ever want
> to go back. It really wasn't until the early 1990s that car companies
> had the emphasis on quality and the manufacturing techniques to back
> that up.

For sure, build quality was an oxymoron. My '77 Mustang (V6 4-speed)
only went through a car wash once; the rear window leaked some, and the
passenger door leaked in sheets. I took it back to the dealer several
times complaining about rough running at low speeds in traffic; the
dealer fiddled to no avail and suggested that I remove the air pump,
which helped some; after it was out of warranty, I discovered that the
EGR valve was defective and blocked it, which solved the problem.
Handling sucked, but I still liked the car -- Four on the Floor beats
Three on the Tree every time.

But times change. I bought a new 2011 Fusion Sport AWD in December,
fully loaded, and the build quality is outstanding: the fit and finish
is great, the steering is excellent, the handling is very good for a
sedan, and I've not found any defects yet. It seems that Quality really
is Job One, at least in Ford's Hermosillo (Mexico) plant.

My only complaint with the Fusion is that I really wanted a new Mustang
GT. My wife observed that since I was retired, I should grow up; she
coerced me to get a car with an automatic and with a back seat big
enough for adults.

--
Cheers, Bob

Who wants to admit trading in a V8 Mustang for a pinto because they thought
the oil was running out in '73?.....