I know these are Fords but can you name them and what year they are. They are all different. There isn't really a real name for the last one other than it was a Mustang. There was, however, a nickname for it. What is it?

Are they Torino Talladegas or Torino Cobras for 1971?

I know the 1st 2, but the Mustang one: not coming to me right now...

The blue Mustang looks like a Shelby, but it isn't. It has to be '69-'70...

The Torino and Cyclone have to be FoMoCo's answer to the Superbird and Daytona.

Name them though. The first two have full names and about 3 or 4 made of each. The last one is one of two. Ocnblu is on to something about the Shelby front though.

White car is the '70 Ford King Cobra prototype/concept. There is also a yellow one still existing.

Red car is the '70 Merc Super Spoiler II. The one in this pic has a clay nose, but I believe another was built.

One of the two (perhaps a clone) has 'covered' headlights- really smooths out the look.

Ocn is right: they were Daytona/Superbird responses.

Still puzzled by the 'stang, but I never studied up on them much. It's a '69-70 body with a '71 nose. Is it the styling proposal for the '70 Shelby? The 'production' '70 Shelby Mustangs were left-over '69s; no SMs were built in '70.

Bathazar is right for the first 2. That Super Spoiler II is a clay model and it was the King Cobra I believe that had the covered lights. Do you guys give up on the 'Stang? It is kind of an awkward one.

Those Torino Taladegas with 240Z noses are ugly as sin.

I saw a Speed Channel special on those one time. As far

as the Mustang it's a 1970 unibody with the 69 Shelby

nose so I'm guessig it's a prototype or whatever.

Yet another time the Mustang was trying too hard to look

like an F-body. After 1967 the Mustang was always

playing catchup with the Camaro and more so Firebird/TA.

Plagerism is still better than the Mustang II. WTF was that

all about? Uglier lunchbox full of puke.

Edited July 25, 200619 yr by Sixty8panther

Those Torino Taladegas with 240Z noses are ugly as sin.

I think they look more homogenous than the Superbird/Daytona did. They look less "kit car" than the Chrysler products.

Sixty8 got it right. They were 1970 bodies with the 69 front fascia and were supposed to be the replacement for the 69. They were known as "Composite" Mustangs and as something else. What was the other name given to them?

Edited July 25, 200619 yr by american_revolution_2005

I just think that a big long full size American car like that looks

super goofy wearing a tacked on 240Z style nose... the weird

"nose-cone" on the Daytona/SuperBird was a lot more smooth

& it not only looked better but was more aerodynamic. As far

as the goofy super tall wiong? Well it's quite timeless since so

many rice rockets wear similar ones today. For some reason

though we refer to that style as an "F40 wing" after Ferrari

instead giving credit where it's due.

Should I say what it is now?

Go ahead, AmRev- what's the Mustan nickname?

hudson+ >>"I think they look more homogenous than the Superbird/Daytona did. They look less "kit car" than the Chrysler products."<<

I disagree. The KC/SS nose looks so heavy & droopy, and somehow it's too 'soft-edged' on the production Torino/Cyclone shell. The Daytona/Superbird noses were sharper & rode higher; IMO they were much better integrated.

Go ahead, AmRev- what's the Mustan nickname?

hudson+ >>"I think they look more homogenous than the Superbird/Daytona did. They look less "kit car" than the Chrysler products."<<

I disagree. The KC/SS nose looks so heavy & droopy, and somehow it's too 'soft-edged' on the production Torino/Cyclone shell. The Daytona/Superbird noses were sharper & rode higher; IMO they were much better integrated.

The nose on these Fords looks more integrated to me. With the seam on the front of the Chrysler products where the original bumper was, that nose always seemed to be "tacked on." The "sharper" and higher position of the Chrysler nose, I always felt it made it look less integrated. The Ford nose goes all the way back to the A-pillar while the Chrysler nose is just a nose.

To each his own but in terms of aerodynamics the Mopars

seem to have an edge... now if you put glass headlight

covers on the Ford/Merc like an E-type Jag then we'd be

splicing atoms in that degree too.

These Mustangs were known as the "Quarterhorse" Mustang as well as the "Composite" Mustang. There were two built and they still exist today.

The nose on these Fords looks more integrated to me. With the seam on the front of the Chrysler products where the original bumper was, that nose always seemed to be "tacked on." The "sharper" and higher position of the Chrysler nose, I always felt it made it look less integrated. The Ford nose goes all the way back to the A-pillar while the Chrysler nose is just a nose.

I'll give you the MoPar seam- true dat. But the best stylistic flow of the two camps' efforts I still must give to MoPar. Not quite as polished but works better (to my eye).

The nose on these Fords looks more integrated to me. With the seam on the front of the Chrysler products where the original bumper was, that nose always seemed to be "tacked on." The "sharper" and higher position of the Chrysler nose, I always felt it made it look less integrated. The Ford nose goes all the way back to the A-pillar while the Chrysler nose is just a nose.

I'll give you the MoPar seam- true dat. But the best stylistic flow of the two camps' efforts I still must give to MoPar. Not quite as polished but works better (to my eye).

As 68 said, to each his own.