My Mom's 1978 Ford Mustang Cobra II

Never seen a Mustang like that before.
 
Well generally speaking you hear of a car having a 5.0 litre engine or a 2.4 litre engine. I'm just wondering why Viper chose to state his engine size like that. No need to belittle me.

Not really.
 
It's just the way they measured engines back in the muscle car era. 302's, 305's, 350's, 427's, 454's, etc.

The Ford 302 is a famous Ford motor. They fit very well in Mazda Miata's.
 
Well generally speaking you hear of a car having a 5.0 litre engine or a 2.4 litre engine. I'm just wondering why Viper chose to state his engine size like that. No need to belittle me.

Because no one here calls engines by their liter value really, especially ones from this era. All engines from this time period were labeled in cubic inch values. Liters didn't come along until much later.
 
I see. Thanks for the explanation x 2.
 
Never seen a Mustang like that before.

No, they are...how to put it...forgotten. People hated the looks of them, the 4 cylinder ones were slow, slow turds, and the styling was a bit too much for most people. Did I mention they had really, REALLY bad 4 cylinders in them?? For most Mustang fans, 1974 to 1978 models were pushed out their memories.

But hey, it has got kitche value, right? And the Cobra II is a badass car.
 
No, they are...how to put it...forgotten. People hated the looks of them, the 4 cylinder ones were slow, slow turds, and the styling was a bit too much for most people. Did I mention they had really, REALLY bad 4 cylinders in them?? For most Mustang fans, 1974 to 1978 models were pushed out their memories.

But hey, it has got kitche value, right? And the Cobra II is a badass car.

Even the V8s sucked. The 302 installed in the Mustang in 1978 made 14o horsepower, that's it. It was the damn smog equipment and low compression.
 
Cool car, but my word, what an ugly paint job:blink:



(Serves you right for picking on my roo bar:tease:)
 
What's the point in using cubic inches anyway? It's so much more confusing than just saying litres.
A) Because that's how it used to be
B) It sounds sooooooooo much cooler than liters! :p
 
Very nice Viper. :)

I actually love this body-type, it's quite nice. Sure, won't beat the 67/69 or 70 body-type, but still, not too many cars look that good. :)

According to google, 1 (cubic inch) = 16.387064 cubic centimeter.

I did make that out myself one time with a calculator, but I don't remember the way to do it, nor how many centimeters an inch is, isn't i 3,56?

How much power did those things have? Wasn't it about 220-250bhp?

Did I mention they had really, REALLY bad 4 cylinders in them??
Wasn't the engine German too? Or was that the six they also put in it? :no:

Because it's more exact. The Ford 427,428,and 429cid engines would be about the same liters, but they're all completely different engines.
That's true. Ford probably will never make an engine for a road car, as sinister and powerful compared with other makes of the time, as the 429 HEIM in the Boss 429. :wub:
 
Last edited:
I'd definitely try to hold on to that, and try to keep it stock, or at least, era-modified.
 
Very nice Viper. :)

I actually love this body-type, it's quite nice. Sure, won't beat the 67/69 or 70 body-type, but still, not too many cars look that good. :)

According to google, 1 (cubic inch) = 16.387064 cubic centimeter.

I did make that out myself one time with a calculator, but I don't remember the way to do it, nor how many centimeters an inch is, isn't i 3,56?

How much power did those things have? Wasn't it about 220-250bhp?


Wasn't the engine German too? Or was that the six they also put in it? :no:


That's true. Ford probably will never make an engine for a road car, as sinister and powerful compared with other makes of the time, as the 429 HEIM in the Boss 429. :wub:

1 inch is 2.54 cm.

BTW, cubic centimeters are cm? (SI), not cc (americanism).
 
We use cc.

It's 2.54, that's a relief. That means my equations were not wrong. Phew.

Haven't had maths in two years, can never be sure. :p
 
What's the point in using cubic inches anyway? It's so much more confusing than just saying litres.
It sounds bigger.8)
 
Vanilla Ice used metric to describe his 5.0 . That's reason enough to use cid.
 
We use cc.

It's 2.54, that's a relief. That means my equations were not wrong. Phew.

Haven't had maths in two years, can never be sure. :p

1 in = 2.54 cm
1 in? = 6.45 cm?
1 ci = 16.39 cm?
1 L = 1 dm? = 1 000 cm? (1 dm = 10 cm => 1 dm? = 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm)

Therefore 302 ci = 4 949 cm? = 4.9 L
 
1 in = 2.54 cm
1 in? = 6.45 cm?
1 ci = 16.39 cm?
1 L = 1 dm? = 1 000 cm? (1 dm = 10 cm => 1 dm? = 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm)

Therefore 302 ci = 4 949 cm? = 4.9 L
That is totally correct.

My aquation where, however, based on an inch being 3.56 cm. :tease:

Dunno where I got it from, must have just popped into my head.

Remember the old days at our cabin, looking at an AmCar-mag Mustang Special, and drooling over the Boss 429, using a calculator to find out that.

Those were the days.
 
Top