Fred Oliver posted these shots of a ’77 Mustang II he found in Lisbon, CT. This shot from the front has the unfortunate effect of making the MII’s intrinsically poor proportions look even worse, due to the effect of the camera’s lens. The poor thing looks like it had a Torino front end grafted on to its little body.
I admit; I’m never going to reconcile myself aesthetically to the Mustang II. Feeding a little Pinto steroids was just never going to work out well.
But at least I did something about it.
Back in 2012, CC reader geozinger realized my ideas about how to make it a real Mustang, not just a Pinto II. With proper-sized wheels located where they should have been, it’s a whole different animal.
But at least Ford admitted it wasn’t a genuine Mustang by calling it the Mustang II. And although folks like to point out that the MII sold well, let’s put that into perspective: it got the typical Ford first year bounce, thanks to the energy crisis, but after 1974, in its second year already, sales plunged by over 50%. And they continued to drop, to 154k in 1977. There’s no way that can be seen as a sales success.
Meanwhile, GM’s F-Bodies were making hay, with combined sales in 1977 of over 375k, and were still heading upwards.
But it’s nice to see that there’s still some survivors out there.
I may have had two of the worst Fords ever, but at least I didn’t have one of these! Said this Ford guy.
I was surrounded by these things when they were common, but I never liked them – either the driving experience or the looks. My best car-friend bought a baby blue 74 Ghia notchback about 1978. I never saw the attraction, but it was nicely fitted out. My law school roommate had a red 75 low-trim notchback. Those were both sticks, but a friend of my mother had a 75-76-ish hatch with an automatic – I drove it once and it was maybe the slowest thing I had experienced to that time.
I agree completely on the proportions, but for some reason Ford was the land of excessive front overhang in those years, which ruined a lot of cars as far as appearance went.
I drove a ’74 almost 30 years ago. I remember three things:
The interior was comfortable and attractive, especially in blue.
It was slow.
The front end plowed forward during every turn, an unpleasant sensation. Driving in the rain felt especially dangerous.
I still like the looks of these. However, I believe Ford should have gone with their original plan and made the Maverick coupe into a Mustang, which wouldn’t have been difficult to do.
I agree with whatever paul is about to say.
It’s amazing that Lee Iacocca didn’t figure out what Aaron Spelling did – All the Mustang II ever really needed was a good hood ornament.
The stripes, and the ornament, make quite a difference.
It’s a good thing I was only 12 when this came out. Had I been old enough and had the money, this picture would have made me think that the car was pretty cool.
Though, even then, I think I knew that these weren’t “real” Mustangs.
On the other hand, my grandmother had a Mustang back then. It was only many years later, on this website, that I learned of their Falcon heritage, and this made more sense. Grandpa had an LTD, Grandma got the gussied-up Falcon.
There are stripes? 🙂
Even Farrah couldn’t save this turd…
Even “in person,” these always looked better from some angles than others to me; the lens just seems to exaggerate that.
My 1980 Pinto with the 4cyl/auto was indeed slow on entrance ramps and passing, but I got along OK. Our family’s ’76 Mustang II with the 302 was more front-end heavy, but darned quick in the same situations. I wonder what it’d feel like to drive one today?
Somehow all this makes me just want to find a clean Maverick as a fun car…
I think we need a nod of recognition to the Mustang II. It was utterly clairvoyant of Ford to buck the bigger-is -better trend of 1970 when they started developing this thing. Yes it got oil embargo boost for sales, but that’s the reward for some people hedging the company’s bet on big cars.
The “II” suffix was a fashion in the early 70s and was used elsewhere in popular culture and marketing of the day. It wasn’t an acknowledgement the car wasn’t a Mustang, I realize Paul is being ironic here but plenty of people have misunderstood this point. It was indicating a reset to the original Mustang concept of 1964 after years of bloat, smallish, relatively inexpensive and sporty, with a long list of options to individualize the car to suit personal tastes.
The comparison to the F body isn’t entirely accurate. GM’s direct competitor was the Chevy Monza and its Skyhawk, Sunbird and Starfire siblings, a car line cobbled together to meet the Mustang II threat.
Overall, the Mustang II was exactly what America needed at the time, a sensibly sized smaller domestic car built to be something more than just cheap economy wheels as seen on other subcompacts.
The concept of a smaller Mustang was good – the ’71-73 had clearly become too bloated. It’s the execution that leaves me wanting. A shortened Maverick would have worked better, or perhaps something based on the Capri. Collectible Automobile ran a story on these several years ago and showed several alternate candidates for the ’74 design, some that were much more chiseled and looked more like the Fox-body Mustangs than the Mustang II they wound up actually building.
As for sales figures, Ford would love if the current Mustang sold in these kind of numbers.
A case could be made that the Mustang II was the forerunner of the retro styled look.
Mustang II certainly looked more like the original Mustang than it’s predecessor or successor. And sales did increase, but I’m sure not due to styling alone.
Maybe that planted a seed for the retro look PT Cruiser, HHR, New Beetle etc. that followed decades later.
I was 13 and at maximum car magazine consumption mode, when these came out. I was a fan of the whole Mustang thing, having watched it color my automotive childhood. I really wanted to like the new Mustang II, and perhaps aspire to owning one in a few years, when I got a job and my driver’s license. But I just couldn’t. The whole combination of looks and features just added up to way less than the sum of the parts, once the car was presented as a whole. I couldn’t options list out something that was worthy. This was the exact opposite of the original Mustang, which somehow added up to a lot more than the sum of its mostly plebeian parts.
sat in the back seat of a coupe a couple of times. was horrible like sitting on the floor.
The more I look at the Mustang II, the more I see lines that remind me of the original Mustang but in a mid-70s flavor. It’s too bad the consensus of this model will remain negative.
To me, the MII is another one of those great ‘what if’ stories, i.e., what if Henry Ford II hadn’t hired Bunkie Knudson. It was Bunkie who championed the bigger 1971 Mustang. I can’t imagine what the ‘Father of the Mustang’ Lee Iacocca thought about someone messing with his car and I’d be willing to bet that, if not for Knudson, Iacocca would have, indeed, carried on with the Falcon platform for the 1971 (and later) Mustang.
I bought one when I was 16 years old. It had a 302 in it and I wished I still had it today. What a fun car to drive as a teenager.
Thanks for using my photos, and for the information about the car.
I came across this one during my travels buying and selling bicycles this past summer. Traveling through towns outside of my typical orbit exposes me to a lot of interesting vehicles. Though I don’t typically find these Mustangs very compelling (especially without Farrah Fawcett), something about this one drew me in. It has clearly seen better days, but is not yet junkyard material. It looks as though someone has tried to revive it, though its position by the street rather than behind the house suggests that it may be on the market, albeit without a sign. It is not visibly rusty, as cars of that vintage tend to be, and does not seem to have been hot-rodded, though the dislodged instrument panel and exposed wires may indicate some degree of hacking. Perhaps another optimistic soul will take on this project and put it back in service. Hope springs eternal, even for cars that don’t get a lot of love.
IIRC, the t-bar roof was newly optional in ’77. I still like the Mustang II in an “Ameri-Capri” sort of way. I hope this one gets some love.
Was there a Mustang II Cobra II 2+2, too?