MustangII.Org
74Ghia.com
FordPinto.com
|
|
'75 NEW from Ford MUSTANG II V8 The Larger Engine Improves Ford's Ponycar. By John Dinkel FIRST DRIVE TEST RARELY CAN AN automobile company take a car designed for a 4- or 6-cyl engine, stuff in a heavier, thirstier V-8 and have us liking, much less praising, the results. But that's exactly what happened with the 302-equipped 1975 Mustang II prototype the Engineering Editor recently had a chance to drive at Ford's Dearborn proving grounds. Those close to the automotive scene will probably find such a move somewhat anticlimactic: Mustang IIs with the 302 V-8 have been available all during 1974 in Mexico. There it was a question of necessity, not need. Ford builds a 302 V-8 in Mexico but not a 4-cyl or a V-6. Because a certain percentage of each car must be local content, that is, contain parts made in Mexico, using the V-8 was a prerequisite for building cars. Emission regulations are less restrictive south of the border so lack of cooling (one of the primary reasons a V-8 wasn't available in U.S. Mustang IIs in 1974) is less of a problem. A necessary compromise, however, is that air conditioning can't be ordered in Mexican 302s-an untenable situation to comfort-conscious North Americans. Fitting the 302 to U.S. Mustangs wasn't just a case of yanking out the 4-cyl or the V-6 and stuffing in the V-8. Several modifications-some major and some of a more subtle nature-were required. Structural changes include moving the radiator yoke forward, strengthening the side rails on the second crossmember and bringing the grill flush for better cooling as well as providing space for the longer V-8. The heavier V-8 (it's 213 lb heavier than the 2.8-liter V-6) also required an upgrade in suspension components: spindles, lower control arms and compression struts are all of heavier gauge material. To facilitate assembly and for common use of parts all 1975 Mustang IIs incorporate these changes. Larger tires are needed with the V-8, too : 195/70-13 radials on 5 1/2-in. steel rims are standard with 6-in. aluminum wheels optional as in 1974. To compensate for the additional engine weight, spring rates have been increased front and rear. The 302 gets 375 lb/in. coil springs up front compared to 350 lb/in. for the 1974 2.8-liter Mach I with air conditioning. Rear leaf springs are rated at 106 lb/in., an increase of 5 lb/in. over last year. With either the competition or rally suspension options (an option the enthusiast should definitely order), 124 lb/in. rear springs and a heavier front anti-roll bar plus rear bar are standard. Brakes are the same size as in 1974 but the linings are of harder material for less fade and improved stopping distances. Because of the additional front-end weight, power brakes and steering are standard. Those who expect the 302 Mustang II to usher in a new era of mini-muscle cars should head back to their 396 Che- velles and 383 Roadrunners post haste. The Mustang's engine is in a low state of tune and stresses smooth, quiet acceleration rather than brute horsepower. But it's no slug in a straight line. We clicked off a few 0-60 mph times in the 10.5-sec region; that's about 3 sec faster than the Mach I we tested last January  As appeared in Road & Track, 1974
©1998-2014 The Mustang II Organization, ©1997-2010 D'TechnoArt Designs, & ©1999-2014 Lee Lafountain |