Mustang II vs. Monza

To paraphrase a Clarkson statement, chosing between a Mustang II and a Monza is like asking which venereal desease you want...

I like the odd and horrible cars from around the world but even I won't take one of those cars.

I'm with those two ^^^^

Neither in this case, both are horrible and if I'm modding, I'd rather have the Pinto or Vega.

93EXCivic wrote: I like the odd and horrible cars from around the world but even I won't take one of those cars.

Luckily, I think they are almost all gone now.

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, but the Monza was a re-skinned Vega and used most of its' underpinnings. The V8 version had clearances so tight the rear spark plugs were under the cowl and nearly impossible to access. R&T tested a V8 version and noted the brakes were standard Vega fare. They were terribly inadequate because the Monza weighed more and the bias was moved further to the front. Heat build-up was so bad that the plastic wheel covers melted and fell off the car during braking tests.

While it was Vega based, I seem to remember a couple accounts that they had planned to offer a rotary option in the Monza. One book I read on rotaries mentioned that GM was planning a downsized rotary Camaro, and as that book was published before the Monza came out, I've wondered if the project became the Monza. Not aware of any specific chassis allowances they made for it, though; it was more of a cosmetic change to the Vega.

One of the reasons I posted this was to see what you guys thought of the Monza. I wonder how many of the critics have had much seat time in one. I had a '79 Starfire (same car) with a Buick V-6 and a 4 speed. It was really a very nice driving and handling car. And once I put a cam, 4 bbl carb, sway bars, Koni's and good tires on it, it was extremely fun and well balanced. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat if it was solid and the right price.

Mustang 2

I really like those cars.

In reply to ThePhranc:

Having owned both, and realizing that neither is a "great" car, I greatly prefer the Monza, and I'm a Mustang guy. The Mustang II, at least in the V-6 hatch form I had, was a pig. It felt heavy and cheap and it couldn't get out of it's own way. My v-6 Starfire was pretty quick even stock and handled a lot better.

The only thing a Muistang II is good for is as a front suspension donor for older Mustangs and Falcons

Those old 70s econo-sport models are all pretty much crap.

Give me an RS3100 and I'll be satisfied

either stock....

or "slightly modified"

This is another one of those "either or" propositions where it boils down to the way the car in question is equipped. The Monza had a hatchback and a 2 door sedan body style while the Mustang II had a hatchback and a "pillared hardtop" body style. To me, the non hatchback Mustang II is a better looking car than the 2 door sedan Monza.

The Monza gave you a choice (in the beginning) of a 4 cylinder or V8 while the first year Mustang II had a 4 or a V6.

But really, the biggest problem/difference is the build quality. EVERY Mustang II looks MILES better built than the Monza. Well, again, specific models are important. The first year of the Monza hatchback, the interior and especially the instrument panel was a decent bordering on nicely done design. But from the second year on...they all took the 2 door sedans cheaper dash design, UGH.

Me? I'd take just about any year, any body style, any powertrain (EXCEPT 4 cylinder auto) version of a Mustang II. Monza? Buy it if you can find one that hasn't rusted away for it's novelty value.

In reply to integraguy:

You aren't seriously saying that the Mustang II wasn't rust prone, are you? Mine rusted befrore it was 2 years old. And while it's subjective, I'd say the build quality of the cars I owned and lived with was about equal. But the Mustang was a '78 and the Starfires were both '79's, so GM had a few years to improve, if they did.

I dated a girl in college with a Monza and it was a dreadful, dreadful car. Nothing at all to recommend. The doors were much too big and when you opened them they dropped a good 2". You had to lift them to close them. Suspension was pure crapwagon Vega. it wouldn't steer, turn or stop. And did I mention it had less than 50k miles was only a few years old? But somehow every girl in school had one, or a Vega, or the Olds version. Awful gastly things.

The Mustang II is not much better, but it is better, so the nod goes Mustang.

Wow, I must have had the only decent one in existence! I think more likely is that the cars some of you have sampled weren't as they should have been.

bravenrace wrote:

jstein77 wrote: You know the Mustang II was basically a glorified Pinto, don't you?

Just like how the Monza was a glorified Vega. What's your point?

And the Gen III Camaro was based on the Monza, and on and on we go.

Mustang II in Cobra II V8 form for me. Looks better, handles better (or has potential to) and easier to work on. The Monza was the car you had to take back to the dealer or remove the engine to change spark plugs. Dealer wouldn't sell the special tool till after Monza went out of production. Of course, that's only if I had to choose between these 2. I'd much prefer the Pinto over the Mustang II.

The Mustang II is as close to a clown car as it gets. The proportions are laughable. I knew someone that had a Monza V8. It was fast, and it wasn't a bad car. If I recall, the Monza was available with a 350 in California.

Monza all the way

MONZA!!!

Monroe had the right idea...

Moparman wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

jstein77 wrote: You know the Mustang II was basically a glorified Pinto, don't you?

Just like how the Monza was a glorified Vega. What's your point?

And the Gen III Camaro was based on the Monza, and on and on we go.

That last one is a pretty big leap, I'm afraid. They shared a rear suspension design and a manufacturer. The third gen was a fairly clean sheet of paper, but it did use GM design philosophy, and shared a parts bin. Lower control arms from Monte Carlo, seats from Cavalier (shudder) interior fitments from "crappy plastics 'r us"...

oldeskewltoy wrote: The only thing a Muistang II is good for is as a front suspension donor for older Mustangs and Falcons Those old 70s econo-sport models are all pretty much crap. Give me an RS3100 and I'll be satisfied

Make mine an RS 2600.

Geeeez. There is a car in my garage that looks pretty much exactly like that- only in red. Damn, I have to get that project done.

Mustang II.

Looks like the Monza by a fender.

I had '77 Monza Spyder with v8. Ostensibly the 305. It had balz. I've owned some "fast" cars in my time but this thing sticks out in my mind. Was too fast for me. I totaled it in '86. I was 16.

Streetwiseguy wrote:

Moparman wrote:

bravenrace wrote:

jstein77 wrote: You know the Mustang II was basically a glorified Pinto, don't you?

Just like how the Monza was a glorified Vega. What's your point?

And the Gen III Camaro was based on the Monza, and on and on we go.

That last one is a pretty big leap, I'm afraid. They shared a rear suspension design and a manufacturer. The third gen was a fairly clean sheet of paper, but it did use GM design philosophy, and shared a parts bin. Lower control arms from Monte Carlo, seats from Cavalier (shudder) interior fitments from "crappy plastics 'r us"...

I thought it was a bit more than that. I seem to remember there was some front suspension sharing as well. The original S10 pickup was also a recipient of H-body tech.

Streetwiseguy wrote: That last one is a pretty big leap, I'm afraid. They shared a rear suspension design and a manufacturer. The third gen was a fairly clean sheet of paper, but it did use GM design philosophy, and shared a parts bin. Lower control arms from Monte Carlo, seats from Cavalier (shudder) interior fitments from "crappy plastics 'r us"...

GM: Body by Fisher. Interior by Fisher-Price.