I don't know why I like it so much. What makes it good? I contacted put my ringer on it, but a lot people seem to like it. Can you tell when what it is that makes it good?
>>17288061
*Can't and *finger, damn phone
>>17288061
At the time the styling was far too soft and the wheels much too small. Now the styling fit in better and the large wheels complement it to modern eyes. He also went for monochrome look which also helped.
>put a fucking Excursion V10 in it
No, OP, that car is not good. Body looks sexy though, as it should with all the one-off work put into it.
>>17288105
Well yeah, that was pretty fucking gay, though interesting. Unique doesn't always mean good
>>17288103
Supposedly the wheelbase was stretched by 12 inches but I can't see where from for the life of me. Middle of the car? Stretch the roof/ doors?
>>17288175
The front overhang is certainly a lot shorter now. Those front wheels are practically kissing the bumper. Rear is probably the same situation.
>>17288105
Eeesh, bummer. Those are smooth engines, but about the only thing I've ever wanted to do with one is make a batmobile out of a stripped dually chassis.
>mustang II
just get a fucking maverick or a falcon
>>17288877
Nah, bro
>>17288175
Looks like the stretch is mostly between the front of the door and the front axle but the rear axle is back a bit too. Regular MII fastbacks have the rear axle center just ahead of the rear point of the quarter window while this thing has it even with, or just to the rear a bit.
I realize it's a show car but jesus christ that's way too much effort to make a Mustang II look awesome. I'll bet that steel tube intake chokes it pretty good and that steering wheel it has is a joke compared to all the other work done.
>>17288877
Show me some good looking navericks then
>>17291764
Not sure if you'd call this good, but unsuprisingly some mustang stuff fits in a Maverick with a little cutting
>>17291058
Literally the Meg Griffin of Mustangs.