It was a beautiful day yesterday in the Middle West, just the excuse I needed to run a lunch-time errand in Eeyore with the top down. The last of the flood waters are finally receding along the Illinois River, and trees and flowers were blossoming everywhere. It was an awesome day for CC-spotting as well, as I scored not one, but II Ford Mustangs while I was out.
While technically considered “First Generation,” this 1969 Mustang GT is an example of the second major restyle that occurred after the Mustang’s introduction in the mid-1964 model year. Almost 700lb. (318kg.) heavier than the ’64-1/2 model, the ’69-70 Mustangs were quite a bit heftier every way you measured them. Engines ranged from the 120hp 200 c.i. (3.3l) six up to the 335hp (advertised) 428 c.i. (7.0l) Cobra Jet/Super Cobra Jet or the 375hp 429 c.i. Boss V8 engines.
A number of trim levels were available, and 1969 was the last year for the GT as the Mach 1 diverted attention and sales—only 5,396 GTs rolled off the lots that year, making this a fairly rare car.
1970 would bring a minor facelift that had the effect of making the car look less aggressive, perhaps a harbinger of sadder days yet to come (stay with us, gentle reader). As a sidebar, be sure to peruse JCP’s 1969 Mustang CC for a more detailed look at the “in-between years” of 1969-1970.
At this point, the Mustang seemed to be trying to “be all things to all people,” evidenced by the introduction of “brand disconnect” options such as the Mustang E (250 c.i. six with very tall gearing for maximum fuel economy) as well as the Mustang Grande, which offered a pillow-soft ride, more than 50lb. of extra sound deadening material and a deluxe interior with fake wood trim.
The writing was on the wall by the early 1970s, as sales plummeted when buyers began opting for more economy-oriented cars like the Pinto and Vega as well as the venerable VW Beetle, which enjoyed its peak production years from around 1968-1973.
Ford’s response was of course the Mustang II, which is often widely panned (as I’ve done myself). Despite popular misconception, the Mustang II shares fewer parts with the Pinto than the ’64-1/2 Mustang did with the Falcon. Engine options in 1974 were limited to an 88hp 140 c.i. (2.3l) four or the 105hp 171 c.i. (2.8l) V6. 1974 is the only year (to date!) that the Mustang has not been offered with a V8 engine.
Our subject car has a Florida dealer badge over the back bumper, and I can’t help but wonder if it was purchased new by someone in their retirement years who passed it along to a family member after their own demise.
The production numbers for 1974 may offer a clue as to how and why this car survived so well: 385,993 Mustang IIs rolled out of the factories in 1974, within 10% of the 1964-1/2 Mustang production total of 418,812. Despite our tendency to sneer at this ‘pony car wannabe,’ it was actually a huge hit for Ford.
The “for sale” sign in the window notes the car has “43,211 actual miles.” It certainly is one of the most pristine examples I’ve ever seen (and it also very closely matches the color of the appliances in the house we lived in during the early 1970s).
I suspect most of us reading this today, given the choice, would jump at the ’69 over the ’74. But in late 1973, folks were three times more likely to opt for the downsized, fuel-sipping (relatively) Mustang II. When you think about it, wasn’t it really closer in spirit to the original 1964-1/2 Mustang, after all?
If that lime-green Mustang II has you all hot and bothered, the number on the for sale sign is 309.696.1786. I do not know the seller so you’re on your own if you call…
That this thing could sell 400,000 units is a testament to just how car starved, and brand loyal, American buyers were in 1974. These cars were total garbage. You couldn’t bolt the stuff back on them fast enough.
A family friend had a 1974 with the V-6. Totally gutless and it disintegrated after the one year warranty was up. I had the misfortune of driving a later one with the 351 V-8 and the nose was so heavy it felt like it was trying to burrow underground when you stopped. The brakes were so bad it was scary.
Horrid, awful cars.
The V-8 in these was the 302, not the 351. The 5.0 was stuffed in there tight enough already, don’t think there was any room leftover for another 50 cubes of Cleveland goodness. (Or even Windsor semi-goodness.)
My mother once bought a used full-zoot Ghia model, complete with opera-window and faux-Italianate badging. I think it was a ’74. It probably was, since it was fully loaded but from what I recall, it was a six-cylinder not an eight, and as the article tells us ’74 was the year that the top-o-the-line topped out at six.
I don’t recall specifically recommending she buy it, but I probably didn’t tell her not to, either. Hers, at least, wasn’t too troublesome for the time that she drove it. And it actually suited her quite well: for a 5’1″ lady of retirement age it was a relief for her — especially after years of straining to peer over the dashboards of Oldsmobile 88s and Buick Wildcats while trying to keep track of 19′ of sheet-metal — to be in a vehicle that fit her better. And yet one that still had power steering and brakes. Now, nobody on this forum would ever order PS on a car this small, but for little old ladies who weigh under 100 lbs, it’s an option-box worth ticking. After we had the body’s choco-brown color repainted to copper (over a butterscotch-colored interior and padded half-roof), the vehicle’s appearance was upgraded from “Eyesore” to “Acceptable.” She drove it quite happily for four or five years before finally Turning Japanese with an ’81 Civic.
I don’t deny that the Mustang II was a dreadful turn-of-events after the first-gen Mustangs (I once owned a ’68 convert). But for certain market segments the II actually made some sense. As the (really pretty stunning) sales figures of 400k/yr attest.
One final Mustang II anecdote: I was once doing my usual 10-over-the-limit on a highway near Niagara Falls when I was passed on the left by a black Mustang II “King Cobra” edition, in full gold-snake-decal regalia, doing a good 30-over. Through the fastback glass I could see a couple of teenage stoner types guzzling beers from an open case of 24 in the backseat with them. Then, a couple of minutes afterward, a Highway Patrol car also whizzed passed me on the left. And then, a couple of minutes after that, I saw the Cobra and the cop pulled over on the right shoulder, with the long-haired occupants all assuming the position and getting frisked.
A common swap back in the day was a 351W. Same exact dimensions as the 302. Add a 4 barrel, a decent cam and headers/dual exhaust and you had a considerably faster pile of junk. Cheap too, since no one wanted either the car or the engines back in those days. A buddy of mine got his into the high 13s, but he broke a lot of parts. It wasn’t quite as fast as my equally junky V-8 Vegas(s), but it surprised many people.
I agree that it was a popular swap, and a bolt in swap (as the bolt pattern was the same) but technically, the 351W is wider and taller externally than the 289/302 thanks to it’s taller deck to accommodate the larger stroke. This is important to note if you are a fan of the early mustangs like me. The 351W won’t fit without mods to the shock towers because it’s about an inch wider overall. Not an issue in a Musatng II with it’s (finally) revised front suspension.
Yep, you’re right. I had forgotten about that. I was actually a Chevy guy with a minor in Mopars back in those days. I had a buddy who knew all the ins and outs (and there were quite a few complications) of swapping various Ford drivetrains and he built a few interesting cars. He somehow got a 351C 4V into a Pinto!
The II has low mounted springs, actually has a very roomy engine compartment.
I wasn’t aware that the Mustang II ever sported a 351… I believe you either thought it was a 351 and made a mistake or meant to say a 302 which arrived in 1976 if I remember right. All I can say about the 1974-78 Mustang II is that they should have called it the Pinto II because that’s what the platform was… the PINTO platform. Anyone feel free to point out my error if my memory is letting me down. I had a friend buy a drive a used 1976 Cobra II with the base white paint and the blue stripes back around 1990 but he stopped driving it after he picked up a Toyota 4×4 truck that was 3 or 4 years old. Eventually, he sold it to a woman who was buying her teenaged daughter’s first car. I just hope that mom didn’t think that buying a Cobra II was going to help the popularity of the daughter out! As for that Cobra II, even though it was quite a bit lighter than my base model 1969 Mustang with the same drivetrain (302 2V, C4 + 9-inch axle), it couldn’t keep up. Both were bone stock but his car actually had better gearing in the axle: 3.00 to my 2.75 to 1 ratio. I drove it a few times and it was OK for basic transportation but it certainly wasn’t worth putting any money into. The Mustang II… definitely worthy of the Pinto II nickname and is definitely a permanent ugly stain on the history of Ford.
No 351 was offered on the Mustang II. Only V8 in the “II” was a 302 2-barrel rated at 138-140 hp depending on sources. The 302 was only offered with an automatic in 1975 but the 4-speed returned for 1976.
If the M-II wasn’t a huge sales success its first year, there would not have been the Fox based Stangs, which brought back credibility.
Many assume that the II nearly “killed the Mustang name”. But, the Fox version was green lit in 1974, and would have been called “Mustang III”. Also, Ford needed to counter the resurgent F bodies. We all know how long the Fox Stang was on the market and its huge aftermarket following.
So, if not for the Mustang II, there’d be no Fox, SN95, and S187[?], afterwards.
Yeah, it was low quality, what wasn’t back then?
If they had dropped the Camaro and called the Vega the Camaro II, would you be saying that? I just couldn’t disagree more. It cheapened the Mustang name so bad that it took years to recover.
I don’t believe that. Mustang seemed to do fine no matter what incarnation was presented. I don’t remember anyone in 79+ refusing to buy a Fox Mustang due to lingering association with the Mustang II. The fact of the matter is that by the early 70s, due to various factors, muscle cars were dead so the rationale for 69-73 Mustang design was a non-starter beyond a boutique model. Ford wanted to get back to a more basic design like the original model to appeal to a wider audience (not just females). It was wildly popular new but it won’t achieve extreme collector status as the low production variants from earlier years precisely for that reason.
The Mustang II is not my cup of tea (nor are any Mustangs really), but it filled a needed spot in the marketplace, Ford made a lot of money off that car, and it kept the name alive. Mustang almost died twice in the 70s and in the 80s when it was almost replaced by the Probe. Imagine if that would have occurred. So I appreciate the uniqueness of the low production specialty models like the Mach 1, etc. but in reality, they are just interesting anomalies in the greater scope of car production. They make for interesting collecting 40 years later, but in 1973, Ford was setup to build cars NOW not worrying about collector values decades later.
As for the Vega, well I do not think the Vegas was ever considered the Camaro II in any capacity as the Mustang II or the Probe, but it certainly was styled and engineered to be a baby version of the car. A lot of buyers in the market were looking for smaller cars, but many buyers might consider an import but were already American car buyers or who would consider an American brand first, would be enticed by a small sporty car with American pretensions. Hence the Vega.
The market in the 1970s changed dramatically from the 1960s. First was the insurance regulations, then emissions, then finally fuel economy standards. People shifted from cheaply equipped performance cars to more luxurious cars of a personal nature and that is reflected in the various models that came out during that time plus the equipment available on existing models. Even the Corvette got into the game by the late 70s being only above average in performance but loaded with goodies and conveniences. The early Fox Mustangs were an improvement over the Mustang II, but no where near the level of performance of the late 1960s. The Mustang only reached respectable performance by the mid 1980s and only until the late 80s with the fuel injected H.O. motors were they able to really put down fast times.
http://www.mustangii.net/articles/mustang_salute.asp gives a good overview of the situation.
The fact of the matter is that, despite our love for the low production unique performance models of the late 60s and early 70s, the Mustang mystique wasn’t happening anymore. A lot of people, in fact most people, purchased their original Mustangs as daily drivers. Cars like the 69 above do not make good everyday cars so that limited their appeal to a select group of (mostly men) who could afford to keep a toy like that. So while I may or may not like a car personally for myself, whenever I reflect back on a car I always keep in mind the intentions and context in which it was built.
I still have to disagree. The Camaro/Firebird sold fine throughout the terror that was the Mustang II.
I think you misunderstood my comment on the Vega. Chevy could have dropped the Camaro and called the Vega the Camaro II. It looks more like a Camaro than the Mustang II from 1974 looks like a Mustang from 1973.
Oh I got your comment about the Vega. GM was never going to replace the Camaro with the Vega, the Vega was planned before the muscle car boom died while the Mustang II was one of the first project Iacocca got started on when he got Bunkie booted and grabbed the Presidency. The Mustang II, in the form that it took, like in 1964, was almost tied directly to him. Almost like a personal pet project.
As for the Vega, it WAS styled to reflect the influence of the Camaro and as may domestic cars were at the time, designed to be baby versions of their bigger brethren. The main influence of the Vega was the Fiat 124 but the comparison to the Camaro in styling and handling was intentional and sometimes outright discussed. At that time, I believe the intention was to capture the cross-shopper market, those that might consider import but were not there yet. I am not sure how much conquest was expected from existing import buyer. People in love with the Beetle and the other air cooled ilk sort of accepted the extreme austereness associated with those vehicles and they were in essence “lost.” Plus, American car buyers were more influenced by styling than import buyers, I mean Japanese cars were ugly as sin for most of the 1970s so certainly that wasn’t their calling card.
The F bodies WERE on the verge of extinction by 1973. It took a lot of lobbying on the part of John DeLorean and others in 1972 to keep the car past MY1973. Muscle car interest collapsed but it was also bumper regulations and crippling strike at Norwood that brought development to a halt. Camaro sales were modest around 70K during this time so it had fallen much like the Mustang and the Dodges. Of course after 1974, Chrysler went full bore into personal luxury, Mustang went to the IIs and even Camaros and Corvettes went personal luxury to some degree. Z/28 sales were a drop in the bucket during the mid late 70s compared to the lesser models. Even six cylinder models sold well given the realities of the time. So yes, the F-bodies continued but the muscle machines were almost an afterthought. I tend to think that if the Mustang would have continued for 1974 in a closer relationship to the 1973 model instead of the Mustang II, it would have sold in much lower numbers and likely would have lumbered on in the same fashion as the F-bodies. I am sure for a purist sounding person that you are you would have preferred that, but again, the manufacturers are in business to sell cars NOW not build museum pieces for later so that is where the business decisions were made.
http://tinyurl.com/c59brxv is a link to a Camaro book by Andrew Young that discusses much of what I talked about.
My comments are not meant to elevate the Mustang II, the Vega, or poo poo the F-bodies, quite the contrary as a semi-retired GM employee I am supposed to care less about whether the Mustang lived or died. But I think you have to look at it from a business perspective as well as a personal prerogative. It is easy to like a 69-70 Mustang because they were unique special and different but they were not the mainstream vehicle that brought home the bacon. Toyota sells 500K a year Corolla and Camry in the US, two vehicles that are about as exciting as the Mustang II was at the time, but was and is a market. So they do it, even though I would never settle for such a vanilla car.
Pontiac milidly did just that to the GTO by moving it down to the Ventura line in 1974. That of course really did kill the GTO nameplate.
I agree, the hypothetical Vegaro scenario is exactly what the Mustang II was, only way better looking. Just throw on some rally stripes and call it a z/28!
I understand perfectly Ford’s position of remaking the Mustang for the masses but building a mediocre car that’s slower and worse handling than any of it’s competition is inexcusable considering the essentially blank slate it started as. Then lest we forget the Mustang II kept the Mach 1 name for a most of it’s run with a base 2 liter V6(as well as those Shelbyized Cobra contraptions). That was name debasement at it’s best and those great names were sent to the history books for decades because of how badly Mustang II tainted them. When Ford actually brought back the 302 with the higher output in 82, what was it christened? GT. Of all names it was GT. The only name that wasn’t debased after being plastered on last minute to horrendous pieces of shits like the Mustang II.
Agree with Craig that the Vega is not really comparable to the Mustang II. The ’75-up Monza, however, in its sportier iterations, is a more interesting comparison. Also a flawed car, but I would rather have one (the Ferrariesque hatchback, of course) than a Mustang II. By ’76, Chevy was doing a much better job than Ford of covering all the market niches with the Chevette and the sporty Monza 2+2 and the more broughamy Monza notchback and Camaros in all flavors from very mild to as wild as cars got in ’76.
I had both the Mustang II then the Big Bumper-Sugar Scoop Camaro. Admittedly the Mustang was more popular with the ladies at first and got much better mpg. It didn’t scrape ovet bumps and dips and was peppy, at least with the stick an V6. But the interior was really crude and although comfortable, the handling was fair at best. The front looks like a product of the mating of the ’73 Mustang and ’73 Camaro, ha,ha,ha. The rear looks like ’69 Camaro might be in the mix too, ha,ha,ha. What Bunkie grew got chopped off and shrunk by Lee, talk about envy! But the inter-corporate tryst had bore it offspring, the Mustang II was the first “metro…” car indeed. The Camaro of the time became the somewhat refined overweight polo-shirt athlete. It sucked gas, underperformed, but actually rode and handled quite well. The interior was better and the restyle was “Mercedes-esk” even before Mercedes started looking like mid-’70’s Camaros. The Vega looks like a Camaro-Maveric cross product with GMC stepside truck tail lamps. The Vega was very practical idea, it was just heavy and underpowered. The sleeveless cylinder bore and tin plated pistons doomed this car from the start. An Isuzu truck motor to appeal to the “4-cylinder is what I want” crowded would have been better for longevity, and an optional V-6 for lead foots.
“it filled a needed spot in the marketplace”
Cars such as this facilitated the process of alienating the American consumer from domestic cars.
In terms of sales volumes, cars such as the Pinto and Vega were quite successful, at least for a time. But that initial success ended up becoming a curse, because those volumes just added to the number of people who could develop an antipathy for the Big 3.
In essence, these cars sold largely on the basis of brand loyalty during a time when three companies utterly dominated the American landscape. The OPEC crisis drove a segment of the population to seriously consider other alternatives, at which they began to realize that the alternatives were actually superior. Until forced against the wall by the scarcity of gas, Americans simply don’t know better or what they were missing.
The 70s served as a transition point when it become increasingly difficult to get away with stuff like this. The blowback started to be felt within about a decade, and by the 90s, the repercussions became inescapable.
and by the 90s, the repercussions became inescapable.
More like the eighties, which is when GM had its most massive market share losses. If anything, the nineties’ SUV boom somewhat masked the Big Three’s fundamental problems.
The SUV boom may have masked it on the income statement, but it was also symptomatic of the problem. Detroit had begun to lose much of their credibility as makers of passenger cars.
Detroit could still sell full-sized trucks, since they harked back to what they did best (simple body-on-frame designs with large motors) and because they didn’t have much competition. (It’s not as if the Japanese or Germans had full-size trucks to import.) But their retreat from the car market should have made it obvious to industry watchers that was something was amiss — mainstream automakers expose themselves to great risk if they rely heavily on low fuel prices for their profits.
Agreed. I meant it was masked somewhat in their P&Ls in the nineties. But it was all-too obvious otherwise, and for quite a few (me included), it was already quite obvious in the seventies.
The Mustang II really appealed to young and middle age women across the board BIG TIME like no other American car that I remember. I had my “69 Chevrolet performance luxury car, a ’71 Ford economy daily driver, but needed a new car for “social” purposes. The Mustang II served that purpose like no other. It had that ability to completely disarm and seduce women second only to Porsche or Mercedes. The social ramifications were significant. Men universally hated you. One became stereotyped as the class of people Crockett and Tubbs went after. The fuzz was always shaking you down for narco. But one thing for sure, when you left for work you always arrived from a different direction. The value of this modest automobile skyrocketed like gold values do when a Democrat President is elected. I dumped this car like a junk bond at its peak and settled into a more conservative Chevrolet for a few years which was then traded in for a FOX V-8 Capri in 1979. Guess what…that Capri had the same magic as the Mustang II, although to a lesser degree as America began to sober up and detox and HIV was the wake up call. The Mustang II body could have been built on an oxcart and it would not have affected its popularity. The FOX Capri should have been the Mustang II successor in namesake as it had much more “sex-appeal” like its predecessor did.
Aside from great timing being introduced with the start of the OPEC I crisis, what the Mustang II did was bring back female buyers into the mix. The original Mustang was popular with females but that waned as the car grew fat and muscly. Female ownership spiked again with the Mustang II and continued somewhat into the Fox platform. I know quite a few female owners of current generation Mustangs with V6s. They like the sporty car but without the need for all the flash and muscle, and the cost.
Did any males buy the Mustang II?
Well, Mary Richards had one. Early product placement to get the female buyer? The Mustang II was featured pretty widely in Charlies Angels too, Farrah drove one. Sabrina (Kate Jackson) drove the Pinto. Oh so practical.
Everyone missed the point of why the Mustang II was a popular choice…It was the ultimate Disco-era bait…I got more (women) in the sack with this car that the Bee-Gees and Travolta combined. Yes from a male perspective I got a lot of grief from my peers for driving a sissy car, but got redemption when I would return to the Pup’n’Taco in my primary car, a 1969 Camaro, filled with hot babes. I sold the Mustang for a whopping $1000 (1976 dollars) over what I paid for it to a coke dealer…There was much, much more to this car that had noting to do with its parts bin engineering and dubious quality.
The car that made a lot of us out here stop wanting American cars it was an ugly POS new and time hasnt improved on it. Putting a 4banger Cortina engine into a Mustang yeah right that got the punters thru the door for a performance buy. Down under they started building better performance cars and we didnt buy this junk at all thankfully.
Keep in coming mate, what a belly-laugh. Don’t invite me to your place because if you do I’ll be there!
This was a bit before my time, but I’m sure that cars such as the Mustang II helped to sell more than a few Celicas, 510s and 240Z’s, and helped to pave the way for the Japanese onslaught of the American car market. That Mustang resembles a Pinto with a trunk, and I’m guessing that it drives like one, too.
To the extent that Americans wanted smaller cars, and then often had bad experiences with the ones from Detroit, which drove them to the Japanese cars, I’d say yes.
In my experience as a midwestern baby boomer, our parents suffered through multiple bad US cars like Mustang IIs, Pintos, Vegas, Gremlins, Granadas, Volares, Citations, Horizons, early Escorts and the like before finally setting foot into a showroom for a Japanese brand. My age group made the switch much earlier, but still after being burned a time or two by the US stuff. By the mid 80s, we had largely converted (likely earlier on the coasts) and our parents were joining us by the late 90s, other than the Buick and Grand Marquis holdouts.
I drove more than one Mustang II, and they were ungodly heavy for a car of its size. The cars were more like mini-Mark IVs rather than upsized Pintos. Only slower and with that rough-as-a-cob 2.3L four. The sticks were tolerable, but still none too fast. The automatics were torture. With all of the sound deadening and the cut pile carpet, they were pretty quiet cars. In a showroom, they looked positively luxurious in the nicer trim levels. Unfortunately, they were nearly biodegradeable in salt country.
Many that bought Japanese cars at the time also had American cars which they used when their Japanese cars broke down from neglect or abuse. It was difficult and expensive to obtain repair parts because of the “just-in-time” manufacturing process the Japanese used to meet product demand and to maximize profits. This made parts scarce and expensive with long waits at dealers and longer for others. Mechanics outside of dealers were lacking in competence and were not equipped to service Japanese cars for decades. Early Hondas were notorious for parts breakage from neglect and abuse because the components were small and sometimes weak, which produced very small, lightweight and efficient cars. Isuzu and Mazda owners (excluding the Wankel rotary engine) enjoyed the service benefits of those brands having a direct relationship with GM and Ford respectively. Those owners had GM and Fords cars with Japanese engines and drivetrains. Toyota and (Datsun) Nissan got wise and built cars for American buyers with robust truck parts and established their reputation for reliability. My 1971 Pinto had a German designed 2.0L 4-cyl. I added a header and a Crane Cams Kit and it would beat the pants off most imports. I can say I wish I kept the car as the only part that broke was the shifter handle from all the exuberant driving. It was green and had a trunk lid, it was the fun to drive go-for “economy” car for 141,000 miles! My first Japanese car was purchased in 1980, the four-eyed Corolla which replaced the Pinto (but I really wanted a 1976 Celica because it looked like…you got it…A MUSTANG!)
The ’74-’78 Mustang II had a lot of potential but they really blew it.
The size was good, as they brought it back to ’64 standards, but with the powertrain choices & horrible materials both inside & out, it was garbage.
The “Ghia” version was too faux-Oldsmobile. The other version was a glorified Pinto.
The ’70s wasn’t all that good.
That Mustang II is in fantastic shape and in such a period colour too. Great find. The dealer emblem is placed rather oddly though.
A degradation of a great name,it would happen again with depressing frequency.
I know I will blow a few transistors in the internet with this, but . . .
From a purely CC perspective, the MII is WAY cooler than that restored 69. First, I have to wonder whether that hardtop was REALLY a GT, or even whether it was really red. With the MII, you know that is just the way it came to a dealer lot somewhere. There are so few of these left, and certainly in anywhere near this condition. We can also be sure that it was always that awful 1974 Ford color.
Offer me one for free, and I surely take the 69. But put one up just to look at, and I take the MII every time, just because it is interesting, and not so overly represented everywhere old cars show up like its older brothers.
FWIW. I spent a lot of time in MIIs in my youth. Both notchback sticks. A friend of my mother had a 76(?) fastback with an automatic, and I remember it as the slowest car I had ever driven in my life. She later traded it on a Granada. Another story.
+1
+2
The 69GT and the 74 II were different cars for different markets. Clearly Iacocca wanted to get the Mustang back to his original idea and while the II was plagued with various things it appealed to the wider market that Ford management wanted. A 69GT was nice for a small group of people who wanted or could afford such a niche product but THEY DIDNT MAKE FORD A LOT OF MONEY. Which is what they were in business for. Hindsight is always 20/20, we could talk about this for the rest of our natural lives and come up with various scenarios of how to make a II better, but it would be doubtful anyone could have convinced Ford management or Iacocca to retain a design close to the 69. Also, remember, the 71 Mustang was heavily influenced by Bunkie Knudsen, a GM guy who had a rocky couple of years at Ford and I have no doubt that many, especially Iacocca, wanted to flush the Ford product line of his influence. The T-bird became a pimp car and the Mustang became the world’s greatest Pinto. But I will say this for sure that no one then cared much for what a car would be worth 40 years later!
Craig, I really enjoy reading your insightful comments, but in this case Jim was specifically pointing out that many people frequenting this website appreciate seeing old cars that are more likely to still be used as daily drivers, and are the way they came from the factory (restored or with original patina).
With very few exceptions (Ferrari? Back when they were independent?), NO car manufacturer cares about what a car will be worth 40 years later. Car manufacturers care about what will sell this year, for what kind of profit per unit. Dealers are worse. They care about this month, at best.
As my late father told me on his deathbed, during one of our long conversations in the final week of his life, “Son, those weren’t classics, fabulous cars, wonderful things to own, or objects of desire. They were units. To be sold. Before the floor planning ate you alive. Period.”
+3 all the way. I very much like the interesting color combo.
I’ll take an eye full of the II as well. I like going to car shows and seeing what other cars appear rather than the usual pony cars and the bog-standard 68-72 Chevelle coupe.
Me too. Love the colors on it! And it isn’t “fakerized,” like so many Mustangs, Barracudas and Challengers that were originally light blue, light green or tan with straight six engines, whitewalls and full wheel covers.
I recall the Chevy Monza eating the MII’s lunch in Popular Science’s road test.
Two good things I have to say: the MII dash was an improvement on the ’69s dark hollows, & its hatch wound up better-looking than the notch. Oddly, the Fox situation is reversed (for gen1); I like its SLC-style notch better than its hatch, which looks too heavy.
I remember reading one piece of Mustang literature where a MII designer commented on how the coupe designs became afterthoughts to the fastbacks starting with the 69. The feature cars testament to that statement. Neither look particularly “right” in coupe guise. The Fox designers went back to the “coupe first” formula as had been done with the 64-1/2 to 68s.
I had one during 1976-1979. 2+2 coupe in that dark red, four cylinder, five speed. Probably put about 50k on it during my ownership. It was a very nice car, a good low budget GT, a bit too heavy to B Sedan autocross (where it’s predecessor, a ’73 Vega GT was quite decent). I was quite happy with it. Biggest complaint was a bit of waviness in the plastic nose.
Having sold my Mustang II (earlier post), I bought a Monza Town Coupe with a 5.7L 2bbl. V8. That week after blowing the doors off of many “performance” cars made during the late 70’s (from a rolling start because of the lack of traction and very, very tall gearing) and power on 4-wheel drifts (the only way to rotate the car because of the understeer) in the Glendale hills keeping up with the Mulholland types, I raced a 390 cid 67-68 Mustang from 55 mph to an estimated 130 mph.
The Monza took the Mustang at the 2-3 shift at 100 mph and the Mustang ran out of top gear at 120. The brakes were so small on the Monza that I missed my off ramp with plumes of brake smoke, and once off the freeway the front pads were completely missing from the backing plates. I had the car towed for “warranty” repair where it sat for nearly two weeks while the dealership ordered parts and had some special Chevrolet people look at it. I requested that they refund my money or else I would tow the car to the “Ralph Nader” dealership for repairs. The promptly traded me straight across into a new Camaro in which I passed the remaining Disco days in…I could actually utilize the back seats now.
Whenever I see a Mustang II (which is quite rare nowadays), I always think of Kelly Garrett’s car in “Charlie’s Angels”. Looking very nice in this pic, too (Jaclyn, not the car).
You, sir, have good taste.
I’ll begrudgingly take the 69, I never liked the 69 coupes.
The Mustang II is awful. A retrograde departure. It was a faux 65 made for the times, much like today’s S197 if you will, and basically wiped away all design continuity garnered from the 69-73s, for better or worse. It was so disconnected from the last 73 and first 79 that no one with a logical brain would ever think the Mustang II would be the missing link between those years. The S197 at least adopted some significant details from the “New edge” and earlier SN95 styles in it’s retro package, the Mustang II just looked like a 65 draped over a pinto with some broughamization. The Fox of course was also a huge stylistic departure, but what it represented was more of a TRUE rebirth than the MII ever could wish for AND I’d dare argue the 71-73 was trending into the smooth “aero” look the Fox so proudly wore.
In addition to the heavy handed styling departure, even the II moniker in the name seems like some Domino’s pizza style admission of defeat. And just like Domino’s, the MII was still awful, but when it’s the only flavor in town, it’ll have to do. That’s the only acknowledgement of success it deserves.
It could have looked like anything, been based on anything, called anything! So long as it came out in 1974, was small and came with all the era’s “features” it would have sold in the same numbers it did.
The lost style of the Mustang was most evident in the post-86 FOX variant. The bland restyling was the ultimate antithesis of the Mustang magic until the advent of the SN95. These were truly boring cars to the senses. All previous Mustangs had styling elements that were classic, jarring, innovative, but never boring. The FOX Capri, although not a Mustang by label, I still consider as my second Mustang purchase after my Mustang II. The third Mustang was an “85 GT and it was not until the S197. twenty years later, did I purchase my most recent Mustang. Although seemingly popular, the SN95 didn’t cut it for me either. During those years I began to appreciate the styling of the Mustang II, but I also like the “big hair” glam look of the 80’s women too.
As a kid in the late 1970s, I was a GM fanboy. But this is why – Ford had *nothing* to offer. The Mark III was long gone. The Mustang II was strictly a secretary’s car. What Ford would I want from 1975 to 1982? I guess a Mercury Marquis.
Ford and Chrysler both, just sort of seemed to have given up after 1973.
After reading your comment, suddenly I thought that a Colonnade coupe wasn’t so bad after all!
The Marquis would be a good choice at time time had I been, say, ten years older, I remember it as a well appointed car, as I removed the disc brake rear axle from one crashed and abandoned. 9-inch rear end it had, and it fit very nicely into my bro’s ’65 Mustang.
OK I gotta go out on the limb. Agree with all that the M II was no high point for Mustang or Ford, but as a teen I remember my parent’s ’74 four speed, 2300 cc notchback with power nothing as a fun car to drive. Fairly low gearing (3,000 RPM at 60 MPH) gave it decent power, and with the small size and manual R&P steering it was WAY more tossable than any other domestic car I was able to get my hands on. (We did not live in a Porsche neighborhood.) In the snow, that car was the parking lot drift champ – bias ply snow tires, opp lock, pedal to the metal in 2nd or 3rd gear – lots of fun.
I got it from my mom for $600 when I graduated engineering school in 1980, but by ’84 it was totally rusted out. Would I buy another? Nah. But the M II was a lot more fun to drive than many cars of the day and, as sales numbers attest, hit a market sweet spot in that era.
I have no comment on either.
Both leave me flat. They’re both nice finds; there’s a tremendous amount of backstory on both; and it’s a fitting contrast. But I just can’t see me in either of those horsey-cars; not now; and not even when they were new.
It is an interesting peek into the dim, dank corners of Lido’s mind. Working around McNamara’s antiseptic patternmaking, he was at his best. Without restraints, his whole world looked like a vinyl-roofed marshmallow.
The Mustang II did serve a very important purpose. It’s front suspension was, and still is, a great way to get rack and pinion steering in your hot rod of choice.
After it’s first owners got tired of it and traded it for a Honda, and its second owners blew it up trying to race a 140 Hp Camaro, it went to the junkyard. And that is where it did it’s best good for the world. Yes, was dead, but it’s front suspension would live on in many a hot rod, and even an occasional first generation mustang. Many aftermarket suspension kits for classic Mustangs and other cars are to this day based on the Mustang II front suspension. Not because it’s great, but because it’s simple and cheap.
All I can say from a styling standpoint is what a strange/funky looking car. What was it with Ford and the oversized taillights? The Fairmont/Thunderbird circa-1980 had the same thing, all strangely out of proportion out back. I guess that was their idea of “progress”- what else could you follow up the 60’s models with without flat out repeating them. In profile it’s so cutesy looking compared to the previous generation, what a departure. Only thing it’s missing is a Landau edition and opera lights and wire wheels, and I wouldn’t be surprised if they could be ordered that way.
The difference with Ford vs. other makes is, here, they started out with giant taillights instead of waiting until the styling got old, as Europeans do. The Beetle, 2CV, & XJ6 are examples of bigger taillights refreshing an aging design.
It’s also an easy way to do Badge Engineering, as with SUVs; Lincoln is an example. And adding taillights is how Chevy distinguished Biscaynes & Bel-Airs & Impalas, & Ford their Custom & Galaxie.
Pinto goes BOOM! after rear collision by leviathan size American sedan (driven by senior citizen, over-bred yokel with offspring, inexperienced new driver, and/or intoxicated professional/party goer/any of the aforementioned). Raise trunk and add conspicuous rear lamps to mitigate collision frequency and effects. Add plastic fuel tank shield in 1979. Those drivers now own full size crew cab trucks and SUV’s. Sometime about 2006 those vehicles bumpers were mandated to a lower height to mitigate crushing small vehicles as they no longer explode.
No one seems to like the 1969 – 1970 Mustangs, but they are still my favorites.
Hey now I love the 69-70s, probably the most of all the first generation Stangs actually, but only in fastback or maybe even vert form. The coupes just never looked right compared to previous years.
The ’69 Fastback was the best looking Mustang ever. Remember Ford chose that one as the basis for the 2004 revival, not the original 65-66. The dash was inspired by the 67-68.
A pet peeve of mine is when folks lump the 69-70s in with the earlier cars as one generation. It went like this: 1st gen 65-66, 2nd 67-68, 3rd 69-70.
Agree with the comment that the original ’74 Mustang II is more special than the restored ’69. I guess yellow was popular back then because Ford also had another less greenish version, my uncle had one.
He showed me the engine bay once and it was one big psychedelic maze of hoses. When he would step on the gas the revs would jump and way later the car would move a little faster. I guess the slip was needed to compensate for the underpowered engine.
It had solid lifters the valvetrain noise was astonishing when it got older, way worse than I remember on the Cologne V6 Capris.
I always based the generations on underpinnings. The major differences between a 65 and a 69 are only skin deep afterall, nothing much changed aside from the shock towers(to fit the FE and later 385 engines) in all those years. If we’re talking generations on a human level, I suppose the 64-1/2-68s and 69-73s could be grouped separately since those years represented something quite different (fun pony car vs. muscle machine). Mostly though I just encompass the 73 and prior years as first because most others do as well.
The secret lies in the “fastback” roof lines. The most appealing Mustangs feature the Porsche 911 silhouette. The 65-66 and 2005-2009. Something similar can be seen in the Corvette Stingray of yore, a bit in the 70-1/2 Camaro and later variants. The French curvature,,,ah oui…and the GM wrapping windshield…c’est formidable.
I saw a 1969 Mustang in a parking lot a while back and was surprised at how small it was. After all the complaining I’ve heard about how bloated the later models were, I was pleasantly surprised.
I still have a 1963 Fairlane on my bucket list. I can probably live without a Mustang.
I share your lust for those years as well. I would spend endless hours examining the “Boss Hoss” chrome Hot Wheels Mustang I received from a Cheerios box-top promotion. The fastback styling, sharp lines and shark nose was a stark contrast to bulbous coupe profile of the Camaros. THESE were the model years that i would buy as my first Mustang…or so I thought. There were many and of all variations to be found as most were left at home by G.I.’s and were up for sale. I could not find one with a Cleveland or big block with a stick AND A/C. I did find a few automatics with A/C units which were apparently added-on from the factory. This made the gloomy dash and interior look even more crude. Driving down Valley Blvd (Alhambra, CA USA) there were more Mustangs to look at, but there was a metallic maroon car caught my eye. It had some kind of chrome vents on the hood, panels that covered the headlamps, black vinyl roof and an SS emblem…what strange Camaro was this? The salesman said the car was deeply discounted and would drop the price even more if I bought it now. Why? I asked, was it wrecked? He replied…It’s a stick and has the biggest motor and disc brakes…in the back…only the automatics with base motors and no A/C sell well. I looked inside to see molded interior panels, (hounds tooth) patterned seat inserts and the stunning restyled dash and console. Has A/C and power steering too, he added. I pointed to a 1969 Mustang on the lot and said…I want that one over there, this car looks like something my father would drive, look see here…these are the prices I got down the street for their Mustangs. After drooling over the the interior, I quickly lost my desire for the Mustang. I bought the car for $2,000…an astounding 50% devalue for a car that was 2 years old with 4,000 miles on the odometer. The Mach 1 that I passed on still remains in my mind, a car that had more head-turning looks than ANY Camaro past or present.
I had a 77 II that was the exact same color. Now I know that it was a piece of crap, but it was my first car and dad was buying, so beggars can’t be choosers. It was a four speed that shifted with the finesse of a dump truck. My 1950 f3 is about on par with it in ease of shifting. But I must admit that it was reliable and never left me stranded. It also took a ton of abuse from a 16 year old with only a broken tie rod to show for it. Apparently driving over railroad crossings in rural ohio at 75 miles per hour dukes of hazard style was not part of the ford design plan. The color was the best though. One time my buddy threw up down the passengers door. It just blended right in…..
“The Mustang II is not my cup of tea (nor are any Mustangs really), but it filled a needed spot in the marketplace, Ford made a lot of money off that car, and it kept the name alive.”
Amen. Two of Ford’s most disparaged cars from the mid- ’70s (Granada and Mustang II) probably saved their bacon.
Personally I’d much rather be behind the wheel of a ’74 II than a ’71-’73 Mustang. We had a ’72 and it was horrible piloting that thing around.
At the right time, Ford shifted direction, redefined the car, and made a shitload of money. In ’79 it was reborn again. Mission accomplished.
This was technically my first car. When my brother started driving, around 1977, he was using my dad’s ’69 Olds Delta 88 convertible, which was the “station car”. Since my dad took the train to work, he just needed a ride to the station, and the car was my brother’s for the day. I guess the Olds either started having problems, or was sucking too much gas, so around 1978, my dad sold it and bought a friend’s 1975 Mustang II Ghia, white with white full vinyl top and tan interior, and I think white letter tires and 8 track tape player. Pretty Broughamy – actually, kind of a mini Mark IV, as someone else here put it. Around 3 years later, when I started to drive, this became “my” car. It was in very nice condition, and now I can hardly remember how it drove, other than it being slow and having this weird hesitation when you stepped on the gas. It did its job for a few years, but I have to admit, I was always conscious of the fact that it was a white on white MII and basically, far from cool or even ironic, just kind of lame for someone into cars.
It’s been fun and a challenge transforming my 1974 Mustang 2 Ghia with a V6 engine basically from a 1970’s Secretary’s Special to a V8 powered Street Rod.
Designed, mocked up, measured, cut, welded, machine and fabricated the 74’s engine bay to fit the 302 Copy Cat Boss motor that a friend and I modified and built.
Dyno test of the 456 cam lift, with headers and 650 CFM naturally aspirated carbed engine peaks out 344 HP @ 5500 RPM.
Plenty of power for me and my little M2 that dry weigh’s at 2754 lbs.
Rebuilt and modified the stock 8″ rear end to a limited slip 3:80 ratio that is beefed up to take 550 rear wheel HP.
Rebuilt and installed a beefed up C-4 auto Tranny using heavy duty Red Line Clutches and Sprags, a C-6 Tranny pilot bushing, number 2 shift kit and little above stock 2100 RPM Stall Convertor.
Fabricated and welded in subframe connectors, rear end lift bars, 1 inch diameter solid front and 7/8 inch diameter rear stabilizer bars with tuned rear shocks and Tranny line lock that plants the 10 inch street slicks down on the pavement while lifting the car’s chassis for a no tire spin quick launch out the hole.
There’s more I can list, but anyway for me this has been a great project and learning experience even after my 40 plus years experience design and engineering in the industrial field..