https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pxg90JdtPFQ
I don’t know how I missed this back in 2013, when Ford produced it as part of the Mustang 50th Anniversary celebrations. It’s a conscious effort to ameliorate the “black eye”that the host acknowledges the MII got, but the way he goes around it is pretty shockingly inaccurate considering it was produced by Ford. It’s almost wall-to-wall fibs. Let’s take each one on.
1. “The Mustang II sold so well in its first year…with over 600 thousand sold.”
The first year 1974 MII sales were actually 384k cars. And several other cars sold as well or better than the first year Mustang II, or even the 1965 Mustang. The 1980 Citation comes to mind (800k), as well as Ford’s own Maverick.
And those first year sales were a result of the energy crisis, when everyone rushed to small cars. Subsequent year MII sales averaged under 200k per year; reasonably good, but not spectacular.
2. “When something’s small and light and you put some horsepower in it, there’s nothing better to drive”
Admittedly, that’s somewhat subjective, but the MII was roundly panned by the magazines for being too heavy (more than the original Mustang as well as all of its competition), which along with its weak-chested engines resulted in disappointing performance. Never mind the poor handling.
3. “What a lot of people don’t realize is that the Mustang II and the Pinto are as far divorced as just about any of Ford’s family of vehicles.”
Right; the MII is much closer to the LTD than the Pinto. Or is it the Thunderbird?
4. “They call it the ‘Pintostang’ as if it were based on the Pinto….they don’t share the same platform. You can’t bolt any sheet metal off of a Pinto on to a Mustang II, or vice versa….nothing is the same”
That’s because the definition of “platform” is the underlying aspects of the car, primarily the floor structure and possible some other body hard points and suspension design, and specifically not the exterior sheet metal. The MII was definitely based on the Pinto; that was its starting point. Of course changes were made, given the early Pinto’s rather notorious weak body structure. And many of the MII’s changes were then adopted on the later Pintos. The two cars are very much interrelated, in many ways, regardless of exterior sheet metal.
5. “All these typical long-hood, short deck, kickup, spoilers, fastback design…was all integral to the original Mustang design“.
The original Mustang came only in a notch-back coupe; the fastback came later, and spoilers didn’t appear until some years later.
6. ” The first car to ever wear this metric badge, for nomenclature of its engine, was the 1978 Mustang II King Cobra. On its hood, instead of saying ‘302’, it said ‘5.0’“.
I guess Ford has forgotten about its own 1966 Galaxie 7 Litre, or the 1967 Cougar 6.5. Ironically, the ‘5.0’ was of course incorrect, as the 302 had 4.9 liters. I wouldn’t brag about that.
7. “Even though this car got the black eye…it really re-energized people to see…how can we get back the horsepower. It took several years for the Ford engineers to do it.”
Yes, it was quite a job stuffing the 302 into the MII; unfortunately, they forgot to stuff in any real horsepower itself. The 302 was initially rated at 122 hp (1975), then 134 hp (1976), and then topping out at 139 hp (1977 and 1978). So it took several years for the Ford engineers to boost hp from 122 to 139. Jeez; I wouldn’t brag about that either. Meanwhile, the 1974 Camaro Z-28 was making 245 hp, and the Camaro was consistently cheaper than the Mustang II. But I’ve covered all of that already here already.
Yes, the Mustang II was a sales success. But then so was the Vega. And the Maverick. And the Citation. And the Pinto. Sales success alone does not make a superior car. Nor does a video full of misinformation.
Well, at least they made a video… I’m surprised they didn’t just overlooked it altogether.
I love how they write off the 70’s Camaro as a complete sales failure. The disappearance of the Camaro after generation four had nothing to do with the Mustang II.
Ouch…that was hard to watch. Whoever green lighted that production needs a demotion. To make those claims distancing it from Pinto insulted any viewer who noticed every front suspension and brake part number was shared between Pinto and Stang…not to mention the Lima and 2.8 drivetrains…..
Some sleeping dogs should remain sleeping. Marketing can spin a little, but nobody likes being lied to.
guys, it was part of a series looking back on each Mustang generation. view it as “well, we have to say something nice about the Mustang II.”
Unsung hero, my quarter panel. Those who identify with the underdog are always going to defend the Mustang II, but let’s call it what it is: An underpowered, fugly botch-job. I’d rather have a Pinto, because at least that car is what it is. Bottom line – you can’t polish a turd.
A-Team Racing LLC in Oregon might disagree with that assessment. They recently built a 1978 Mustang II with a custom chassis, a Triton V-10, and a Corvette Z06 transaxle. They call it the Mustang Evolution II.
I’d wager that they’d be interested in this video, especially since they’re working on other Mustang II projects, including one with an Art Morrison chassis.
You can learn more about the Mustang Evolution II here:
http://www.stangtv.com/news/mustang-evolution-the-ultimate-mustang-ii
Sounds like they’re trying real hard to expunge its Pinto origins 🙂
They expunged the Pinto bits, that’s for sure. Maybe they should have been in charge of the Mustang II’s development, because they clearly have taken it to a new level. 🙂
The flubs, it seemed to me, come down to two words that differentiated this video from a true car guy video: “Sales…sold…sales…sold…sales…sold…sales…sold…”
To a car guy, sales don’t make a car. Some of the best sell the least, and some of the worst do very well…in sales.
“To a car guy, sales don’t make a car.” Tell that to our resident Camry fan(s)…
Revisionist history at its finest.
I needed a raincoat with all the dung being flung in this video.
PR like that reminds me of the proverb of cynical jailors (sorry, “correctional officers”):
“How do you know a convict is lying? His mouth is open.”
I remember Popular Science’s Mustang II vs. Monza test, and they got completely opposite handling scores. It was hard being a Ford bigot back then.
Some friends of mine bought a Mustang II fastback in the spring of 1974. Unless I’m mistaken it was the first new car that either one of them had ever owned, including their parents. It didn’t take very long for them to become disenchanted with it, possibly because it seemed to spend a lot of time at the dealer getting various minor problems corrected. I wasn’t in the car that often and what I remember is how underpowered the thing seemed, and I was driving a Vega at the time. The Mustang II had the 2.3 liter four and it was all it could do to accelerate from a stop if the A/C was running. I do remember that the couple didn’t keep the car very long, IIRC it was replaced with a lightly used Nova by late 1975.
IIRC from researching the Cobra II article I wrote a while back (link), the MII shared about 10% parts content with the Pinto, mostly in the front suspension.
A. That doesn’t really mean much. And What was the source: Ford? 🙂
B. That might have been the case for the V8 Cobra II. But I’ll bet you it’s a lot higher with the 2.3 or 2.8 versions of the MII and comparable Pinto. The whole drive train is the same, as is the whole braking system.
C. That may also depend on what years are being compared. The 1975 (IIRC) Pinto was substantially revised throughout with many changes developed for the MII program.
D. Odd you mention the front suspension as that was one of the things that was specifically changed in the MII.
Don’t remember the source, but a few minutes searching did turn up a C&D article from September 1973 (link) that stated: “Underneath the sheetmetal, the Mustang II bears less shared relationship with the Pinto than its appearance indicates. Brakes, steering gear, rear axle and a portion of the floor pan are the only major components which are current Pinto parts.”
Also ran across numerous posts in enthusiasts sites (some with pics) showing similar-looking parts that in fact were dimensionally different between the P and MII, thus not “shared content.”
The Pinto did indeed benefit from the (re?)design work that led up to the MII so you’re correct about the “late” Pinto having more in common.
It would seem that there’s less in common between the two cars (from a direct-fit standpoint) than is “common knowledge.”
What about power trains? Are you suggesting that the 2.3 four and 2.8 V6 used in both, as well as the transmissions behind them are different? I don’t think so.
When you add up the floor pan, steering gear, brakes, rear axle and the whole drive train, it does rather amount to some sharing, in my book.
But yes; it’s quite obvious that the MII is not just a Pinto with stripes on it. Nobody has suggested that. So yes, one wouldn’t expect body parts to fit.
Anyway, the whole issue is silly, trying to pick which parts are the same or not. The whole point is that the MII is based/derived from the Pinto. That was well established at the time, and history has confirmed that over and over. And it’s self-evident, except to someone with deeply-blue-colored glasses on. But this video tries to disavow that, by saying the MII is as similar to a Galaxie as it is to the Pinto. That’s utter BS.
As the current owner of a ’74 Mustang II (V-6 driveline), and having owned several Pintos back in my youth, I’m very familiar with the dirty bits under the car, and there are differences between the two drivelines.
In 1974 (first year of the II), the Pinto only offered a the European 2.0 liter and the Lima 2.3 liter, while the Mustang II offered the 2.3 Lima and the 2.8 Cologne V6. So in year one, the two models only shared the 2.3 four cylinder, and each offered a unique engine that was not available in the other car.
In most cases, the manual transmissions were also different- All Pintos used a European built four speed, while most Mustangs used a US built Borg Warner (the SR-4). These transmissions shared no parts, and even required different bell housings.
I’ll concede they both offered the same automatics, but while Ford developed the C3 for the Pinto, the C4 was available in the ’65 Mustang, so I would argue on the V-6 cars, the Mustang II had a Mustang transmission.
In terms of structure, the Mustang II firewall, dashboard, and cowl are also different from the Pinto, something that could not be said for either the earlier Falcon-based Mustang, or the later Fox body ‘Stangs.
I agree this video is laughable, but I will say the Mustang II used unique driveline parts that never appeared on the Pinto. D/S
The big consideration in platform sharing is not shared parts and it’s definitely not shared sheet metal — it’s shared tooling. The real expense in building cars is not in components, but the equipment necessary to make the components (and of course the labor involved in putting them together). It’s like a hammer; if you have a claw hammer, pounding in carpet tacks isn’t significantly more expensive than hammering in nails because you already have the tool.
The same is true for engines. Some closely related engines of different displacement actually share very few parts other than some minor bits like bolts and fasteners. However, they’re still based on the same design architecture and are designed to be cast and assembled using the same equipment.
My dad bought my mom a brand new MII with the 2.7L in the fall of 74. She actually enjoyed the handling but that thing spent more time in the shop than all their other cars put together. Nearly every component under the hood was replaced and some twice. The factory air never did work and the miserable 12 month warranty expiration came way too soon. Finally gave up on it and got a 77 Delta 88.
And so begins the Malaise era……..That Cobra ll is a sheep in wolf`s clothing.
My sister owned a Mustang II while we were all still living at home. I have both wheel time and repair time on the car.
Her ownership experience was pretty crappy, in part because it was both old and had something approaching 80,000 miles – I take that into account before labeling a vehicle itself to be crap.
I’ve been a bit of a defender of the Mustang II. Ford knew the Mustang had lost its way, and lost most of its sales in the process. They reinvented the car on the Pinto platform, and the Mustang II got stupid lucky with the timing of OPEC I – the car sold itself.
But, I can’t defend that video. Sheesh.
The strange thing is, they could have embraced its return to an economy car with sporting pretentions and have focused on how it was the right car for the times, and that it adapted and offered a number of cool looks, options and features as its time went by.
You nailed it Paul. And out of all the “sales successes” you mention, I will take a ’70 Maverick.
Anyone who actually DROVE both the Ford Pinto and the Mustang II knows more than the producers of this video want to admit.
Consider also that only a minority of Mustang II buyers got the higher performance engines and packages. Most got weak-kneed four-cylinders that drove…like a Pinto.
Some sources say that the Mustang II had the same gas tank design as the Pinto. If so, how did it escape recall and the accompanying black eye?
Don’t know about the ‘Stang, but part of the Pinto controversy was a notorious Ford trade study with a cost/benefit analysis. However, the FDA & drug industry do this all the time, so why single out carmakers? No vehicle can be made completely safe, let alone at marketable prices, so a cost/life trade-off is inevitable. Maybe Ford was a bit cynical, but cost/benefit trades are inescapable in engineering, & I think the Pinto tank controversy was overplayed by populist media eager to vilify another Big Bad Business (even though the media itself is Big Business with serious integrity problems, maybe worse than the car biz because they’re harder to sue).
Ford did learn from this & hedged their bets: Our ’78 Fairmont had a plastic shield on the front of its under-floor gas tank.
ALL of the Falcon line along with the Fairlane, Mustang, Torino and Maverick prior to 71 model year had the fuel tank as the trunk floor. In a rear end collision the tank would crush and spray gas on the rear seat cardboard divider and catch fire. That’s why Ford put strap on tanks on all models for the ’71 model year.
In addition this was at the request of the Government, during the time of the early safety regulations.
Paul this article is so beneath you–every promo film made for every car or truck can be picked apart like you just did–very immature stuff that belongs on Mustang hate forums.
This could be said for interpretative comments such as those about styling features. But verifiable statistical falsehoods such as the ridiculously inflated raw sales figures defy belief, except as an illustration of the Principle of the Big Lie.
Keep in mind that this is not what you called it (“typical promo film for every car and truck…”); this was specifically produced by Ford to address the Mustang II’s “black eye”, a conscious attempt at rehabilitating it. And it was not aimed at the buying public at large; it was solely aimed at the enthusiast community. And it clearly backfired.
It’s below them, not me.
Oh, just noticed your user name….never mind….my profound apologies!
What Ford should really be ashamed of is not the Mustang II or other ’70s follies, which buyers at least had the liberty to refuse, but lobbying for Voluntary Export Restraints, along with other US makers. That was a disgusting example of protectionism: we can’t win, so hobble the competition.
Now the Japanese made lemonade out of that lemon, but it was still foul play. Funny how American men are so concerned about fairness in team sports, but not in economic life.
There is a little more too it than the one thing you put on the table.
The Japanese government has long interfered in its industries, including its auto industry. It effectively protected certain players (Toyota, Nissan, etc.) in order to let them thrive, grow, and reach critical mass to be players internationally. They also had various restrictions that made it very difficult to import cars into Japan. Even if the Japanese didn’t want Cadillac DeVilles, their industry didn’t have to compete with Mercedes or VW either.
The American government is hardly free of interference in matters that affect trade – the “chicken tax” and Voluntary Export Restraints among those that affect(ed) the auto industry. But, the reality is that we comparatively play dead at times and just let the competition roll over us.
Slave or near slave labor in China along with near zero restraints on polluting ring a bell? Sometimes our restrictions are just belatedly holding foreign industry to the same standards we hold our domestic industries to. That only seems fair to me.
What’s always bothered me is that not many of our products are made here in the USA or even Canada. Many of the clothes we wear, many of the appliances we use, they’re made in China, in India, in Japan. I’m not against importing products from other countries. It gives us an idea of what other countries are capable of making. But I am *so* against importing from other countries and not being allowed to export our goods to other countries. That’s hardly free trade, nor is it fair trade. If we have to trade with any country, I’d want my products to be made in a country that’s willing to trade back and forth. How about countries like Germany, Canada, or Australia. Perhaps Norway and Sweden?
That’s Tu Quoque: The other guy plays dirty, therefore I can too. Detroit’s failures at the time were of their own making, not MITI’s.
So long as we continue arrogantly believing that English-speaking workers deserve higher pay than foreigners for the same labor, we will continue exporting factories instead of finished goods.
Neil, who said anything about believing English speakers deserve better pay? Countries representing many languages have good systems that provide fairly widespread opportunity.
Some countries have figured out (imperfect though they may be) systems where many / most people get a shot at a decent living, and a stable opportunity over a lifetime. The Chinese system has been one of misery since WW II, with some unique improvements as well as severe new problems over the past 20 years.
I don’t think it is necessary to crash 85 or 95% of the American population to conditions from the 1870’s to prove some global egalitarian point. Helping other countries to rise to our standards makes a hell of a lot more sense.
I would be somewhat less bent out of shape about China if our trade policies with them weren’t so lopsided. If- for example- Ford wants to build cars in China for that market, the Chinese government requires that they enter into a joint venture with a Chinese firm before they’ll be allowed to do anything. We have no such restrictions here.
Dave, I’ll rephrase: Your position is, we Westerners know best what’s good for Chinese workers. Our social system is much more fair.
It was a sad day in late ’73 when these came out. You could order a V8 in a Maverick (Economy car mind you) but could not in a Mustang II. These were derived from the Pinto, no question. The engines came from the Pinto and Capri lines!! Just like the original Mustangs used parts from the Falcon. Simple economics, use existing components from other models to cut costs.Sad that ford had to “make up” history.
It is so sad, I get it, the Mustang is the most horrible car ever made, why did they even try, I guess they should have given up………..please, I think everything turned out alright.
Nope. The ’75 Granada was worst car ever. In my opinion. I owned one. Still bear the scars…
Close. This is by far the worst……
Hardly. A Versailles is worse than a Vega? On what planet?
I owned a 75 Granada with manual everything and it was actually one of the best cars that I’ve ever owned, and I’m not even a “Ford guy”!
Agree. Granadas were excellent cars. Very well built.
I think that guy is channeling Lee Iacocca (or at least trying to).
And it is, Paul, don’t know if I would call it “fun” but just weird to love and hate a car company at the same time. You laugh at the Mustang II while loving your ’66 F100; The biggest POS by all means that I had was my ’75 Granada, yet my ’83 Ranger 4X4 with its swapped in 302 I did back in ’91, has been awesome. Fords can be great; sometimes you just have to pick and choose the right parts and build your own. Being a professional mechanic, I had that luxury.
Mustang II is a easy target , ,in fact it was a product reflective of it’s time. A time of crappy cars.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head, however..does not excuse this video. I don’t see the point unless this is made for persons who have never experienced nor are likely to experience a MII in person. Sure the time period was a experiment in wretched wretchedness but there is no way they are referring to a MII in this video…no…couldn’t be…
Not a bad looking car (IMO) but a rolling turd none the less.
Thanks for posting. Although I’ve never cared for the Cobra version of the Mustang II, I’ve always liked the Mustang II. I also like how Ford switched to metrics in the way they measure engine displacement, instead of 302 cu. in., they use 5.0, as in 5.0 litres. That’s becoming more international.
But Ford did it inconsistently on a given model, forcing home mechanics to keep both SAE & metric wrench sets. My ’81 Escort was like that, despite their calling it a “World Car” at the time.
GM was just as guilty.
“That’s becoming more international”
As well as more inaccurate, as the 302 had 4.9L displacement.
But Ford already HAD a 4.9L engine and they needed to differentiate the 300 six from the 302 V8. Why the heck would Ford advertise having two completely different 4.9L engines? Cripes… it’s a whopping (less than) 1/10 of a liter… let it go.
GM had several 4.3s, 5.0s, many 5.7s; 6.0s, 6.6s, 7s, and 7.4s.
Do you really think anyone looking at the hood scoop of a MII Cobra might think there was a 300 six under there?
Or maybe have it say “4.9 V8”.
My whole point here was that the guy was making it sound like it was somehow more accurate or concise by going to a metric call out, when the opposite was the case.
Remember Paul… never round DOWN 😀 ! You have to think of it in a marketing sense. Five litre just rolls off the tongue better than Four Point Nine Litre!
Admittedly, Ford was certainly not the only one to quote a slightly different nominal displacement than actual size for the sake of marketing. There was the late Chevrolet 396, which was actually a 402; there was the Pontiac 301, which was actually 302 cid; and so on.
Ah! Ok. So it’s a 4.9 litre V8. Although I’ve never owned a Mustang II, nor have I driven one, I have ridden in one as a passenger a friend of mine bought used, and I actually enjoyed it.
It’s 4,942cc (301.6 cid) by its nominal bore and stroke. Occasionally, I see people trying to quote bore and stroke with the maximum manufacturing tolerances (4.002″ by 3.002″) to bring the displacement to 4,950cc — presumably to rationalize rounding up. The aforementioned 300cid truck engine is 4,918cc.
Well at least it kept the nameplate alive until Ford came to its senses.
The biggest ding against the late mid to late 70s Mustang is that the Camaro was a better handling all around better thought out car.
(I say this as a huge fan of the Mustang. I’d own a Mustang II but only extensively modified – not stock and I wouldn’t have wanted one new.)
the 70-71 Camaro was a copy of the 67-68 Mustang fastback except with the lines all rounded off like a stone model was put in a rock polisher. This should tell us two things:
1. How awesome Ford was when they made the 67 ‘stang
2. How stupid Ford was when they screwed up the 69 ‘stang
In my opinion, the 70 Camaro is a logical improvement on the 68 mustang and approximately what the 69 mustang SHOULD have looked like.
The Mustang II is a disgrace that should be erased from history.
Dont be so mean, y`all…..Farrah Fawcett drove one! 😉
Well, the Mustang II was as good as the acting and writing on ‘Charlie’s Angels’!
To be fair nobody watched “Charlie’s Angels” for the acting…
Indeed…they actually acted?? Newsflash!
Not exactly “Masterpiece Theater”, but it was nice eye candy.
Jaclyn Smith, too–and Cheryl Ladd in the Cobra II. With Kate Jackson trailing behind in that weird orange Pinto with the plaid seats.
Ready for action!
Love this video!! All I can think to say is …”liar, liar, pants on fire!!” I think this video could be used for a drinking game. The guy driving has obviously been drinking or smoking something.
I don’t disagree with what Paul stated…whoever wrote this was trying to feature the Mustang II in the best way possible. And failed.
Having said that, back in the day I had experience with two of these. A friend had a ’74 2.8 V6-4-speed (very rare to see in CA back then, as it was only sold here for that one year, I believe) that was a decent enough little car for a college student. For the two years that I “knew” and drove that car, it was a reliable, if somewhat uninspiring daily driver type car that got decent mileage. My aunt bought a loaded ’77 V-8 Ghia — aqua with white half vinyl top/interior, a very sharp looking car. The workmanship and quality was certainly good for the day — in particular, it had a very nice paint job. She drove it about 9 blocks to work and back every day, and it took about a year to break it in because of that. I don’t know that I fault the car itself too much for that, as it never had any other problems. Anyway…when new and when it had been broken in, it was able to burn rubber rather easily. It as, for the day, a powerful little car, even if it didn’t handle that well — it seemed “over-engined” and too nose heavy. She kept it for 12 years, and I drove it fairly often during that time. My main point here…viewed today, it was not one of Ford’s best efforts by any means. Viewed in the lens of the times, it was not so bad.
This video was playing at this year’s Carlisle All-Ford Nationals. It was playing in a hall that featured a display of the full line-up of 2014 Fords. As Paul states, it was clearly aimed at the enthusiast crowd, which makes all of the fibs and half-truths more than a little baffling. That audience would most likely be able to sniff out that sort of stuff from a mile away.
As for the car itself – it carried a name that was already well on its way to legendary status at that point, so it automatically gets dinged for that alone. Ford was phoning it in on many fronts by the mid-1970s, and this car seemed to embody a lot of what was wrong at the company during that time.
The Mustang II did keep the name alive until the all-new Fox-body Mustang arrived for the 1979 model year. Pony car sales had dropped dramatically in the early 1970s. The AMC Javelin, Dodge Challenger and Plymouth Barracuda were all dead by 1975. It’s therefore not unreasonable to assume that the Mustang would have met a similar fate if not for the switch to a smaller, more timely platform. The real problem was the half-hearted execution of the concept.
“As Paul states, it was clearly aimed at the enthusiast crowd, which makes all of the fibs and half-truths more than a little baffling. That audience would most likely be able to sniff out that sort of stuff from a mile away. ”
Mustang II enthusiasts? It was a pretty safe bet.
These were awful cars.
I’ve been very disgusted at these attempts to make it a car like any other Mustang. It is just flat out lying. I’ve driven a lot of Mustangs in my life and two of them were Mustang IIs. They were horrible.
Please – in the future, just ignore these years. Lying about the Mustang II and trying to present them as something other than what they were – BAD – is wrong.
I love how he tries unblackening the eye of the Mustang II by trying to distance it from the Pinto it is indeed based on. The Pinto has an even bigger black eye than the Mustang II, yet the MII brag points all came squarely from the Pinto, if Ford wants to reprive the MII they need to acknowledge the Pinto, there’s no covering up the roots.
This vid would have been much better if it was a Ghia being featured instead of a Cobra II, which accounted for what? 2% of production? Try talking up that tarted up brougham disaster now a days!
Oh and Pontiac started using Metric 6.6 decals on the shaker of the 77 Trans Ams. A car the 78 King Cobra owes quite a bit of it’s graphics package to, including that little detail. Another thing not really good to brag about
Yeah. It’s like the (European Ford) Capri — a lot of people loved the Capri, some still do (if a bit more ironically than years ago), but it’s based on the Mk2 Cortina and there’s no getting around that. It’s really just that the name “Pinto” still arouses snickers, even if at this point a lot of people couldn’t tell you why, while “Cortina” really doesn’t.
I’m really . . . afraid of his car. Wow! all that tacked on plastic junk makes a DiNapoli look tasteful.
Well, do you ever meet someone, and they have a wedding ring on, and you think, Who the hell would marry YOU? Even something as awful as a Mustang II deserves some love. Just perhaps not so many LIES.
The whole era was awful and the Mustang II may have been the worst example, largely because it took a good name and debased it so badly.
I actually loved my ’77 Mustang II. It was my sister’s hand-me-down. Even though it was a 4-cylinder and it shook violently at idle, was totally underpowered and terrible on gas, it was my first car and I didn’t know any better. It wasn’t until I got my ’80 Honda Prelude that I realized just how crude and unrefined that my Mustang II actually was. Still, I would love one today. Give me a nice black mint condition V-8 Ghia or Cobra II. Cars weren’t very good in the ’70’s so what we had to choose from left a lot to be desired. For the money, the Mustang II provided decent transportation and nice styling. There wasn’t much else out there that did the same at its price point.
I find it hard to join the chorus of condemnation for the “Mustang II Enthusiast” who appears in this video, because he sounds exactly like many people that I have met who have pet interests that are ignored or ridiculed by most people: grasping at non sequitur or entirely made-up statistics (the sales figures) and meaningless “firsts” (calling it a 5.0 being innovative), mis-descriptions of history that hardly anyone remembers and will correct (Mustang II horsepower), hyperbole about why something is great to the beholder (“there’s nothing better to drive”). I have to cite one of my favorite philosophers, Mr. T: “I don’t hate him, I pity the fool.”
Ford producing and releasing the video, on the other hand, does deserve criticism — it makes them look silly.
Well the latter point is the problem, there’s plenty of enthusiasts for red headed stepchild old cars that aren’t fawning fanbois over them Ford had to choose from, I have actually randomly met a MII enthusiast at a show once who talked about all it’s faults as much as why he’s so into them. Some people get waaay too defensive about ridiculed or unappreciated cars they like/have, it’s one thing to defend their merits with context but to outwrite revise history and tout something as insignificant as say a metric badge as this innovative thing we should be thanking the car’s existence for, well, it’s pretty delusional. He agreed to make the video afterall.
> 6. ” The first car to ever wear this metric badge, for nomenclature of its engine, was the
> 1978 Mustang II King Cobra. On its hood, instead of saying ‘302’, it said ‘5.0’“.
>
> I guess Ford has forgotten about its own 1966 Galaxie 7 Litre, or the 1967 Cougar 6.5.
> Ironically, the ‘5.0’ was of course incorrect, as the 302 had 4.9 liters. I wouldn’t brag
> about that.
It’s not all that wrong … MII was the first to wear the “5.0” badge. Yes, Ford used metric badge before, but not on the 302, neither on the entire drivetrain range of a model, though that happened only in 1978. From 74 (V8 was available on the MII in 74 … but only in Mexico) to 77, while other 2 engines were already nomenclatured metric, the V8 was still nomenclatured in CID.
‘5.0’ was incorrect … but back then, calling it ‘4.9’ while the 300 L6 was still in use would have been a bit confusing … and ‘5.0’ sounds better anyway 😛
It is wrong. You conveniently left out the part right before, where he said “all throughout history Ford’s engines have been measured in cubic inches…”
He’s not saying that the MII was the first to wear “a metric 5.0” badge; he’s clearly claiming that the MII was the first Ford to wear a metric engine badge, period. Not true.
Some might think it’s the 7 litre Galaxie, that first wore metric badges, but it goes back to the first Shelby Cobras, IIRC, and probably even earlier, given Ford’s presence in Europe. The clown in this video is full of crap.
In Australia, Ford put 3.6 Litre badges on some six cylinder Falcons around 1967 or 68
Despite us not being a metric country back then
Considering what else was available from the domestics in the seventies, the Mustang II was pretty typical. It wasn’t that great, but certainly not the worst. Really, what were the best domestic cars introduced in the seventies? Aside from the downsized 1977 Impala, I can’t think of many others. Ironically, maybe the Mustang II’s successor, the Fox-chassis 1979 Mustang. It really was a sad time for domestic automobiles and the only reason the Mustang II gets a pass.
I for one love the Mustang II, all versions. I dreamed about owning one back when they came out less than 2 years before I got my drivers license. Yes, I loved most of the Mustangs that came before it, I but in no way did I see the Mustang II as a step down. The styling was gorgeous, and it seemed to be a more attainable car than the earlier Mustangs. If I could buy a Mustang II today brand new, my money would be on the table. I do wish they had just called it a Mustang, rather than the Mustang II. To me the really low point in Mustang history were the Fox body models. They were so ugly it really didn’t matter to me how they performed. I was so happy when the 1994 Mustang came out. Finally, a car that actually resembled a Mustang. Then when the ’05s came out, I thought they hit the nail right on the head. All it really needed styling wise were louvers over the quarter windows, and the aftermarket provided those. But Ford just couldn’t leave a good thing alone, and blew it again with the 2015 model. It is not as ugly as the Fox models, but definitely does not look like a Mustang to me.
I *so* agree. The Mustang II is so maligned by most people, it’s unforgivable. No car is perfect, no car company is perfect. But I’ve always liked the 1964 through 67 Mustang, and then the Mustang II. Why Ford added the II to the Mustang is beyond me.
To each their own. My least favorite mustangs throughout it’s history have been the 74-78 IIs and the 05-14 S197s. Both were compromised imitators of the first gens, the Foxbodies were what they were, they were the right size, had the right proportions and good performance. The Camaro had clean sheet restyling 4 times now, I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to accept that with Mustangs.
My least favourite Mustangs are what’s being offered today. It’s one thing to offer a retro styling for a new car, but I find the most recent Mustang to be the ugliest things offered by Ford. 🙁
I agree. They Fusioned the front – making it look cheap.
The needed to lighten it up but didn’t. Looks more bloated than before.
LOL! I agree.
It’s very clear that the design brief for the new Mustang was “keep recognizable heritage design cues while tying the design stylistically to the rest of Ford’s current lineup to emphasize the Mustang’s role as our flagship.” I think they accomplished that, but it made the results feel awfully self-conscious. Looking at it, you can almost hear the management presentation bullet points.
I too like the Mustang II. And the Pinto. Knew many people/family’s back in the ’70s when I was growing up, who had Pinto wagon’s. They were tough solid cars that worked well here in the Pacific Wonderland. And as stated above, no automaker is perfect; when you have union thugs running your plants, build quality is essentially out of your control. Saw it first hand with my ’75 Granada. How could a one elderly woman owned since new car, with a mere 55K on the clock, be such a POS? But it was. Worst. Car. Ever. Yet I still like them 🙂
I agree with Paul, this is kind of a shame that Ford let this be published with what appears to be little fact checking. I guess the main points about the platform sharing could have been stated differently, while others like the inflated sales numbers and the whole 5.0L/metric labeling are just silly. This looks far to well-produced to be an amateur video and with the misinformation, it just reflects badly on FoMoCo.
I get the fact that Ford wants to show there was/is enthusiasm for all of the Mustang labeled models, but they really should have done a better job with this video.
As somebody currently resurrecting a Pinto, I can definitely tell you the Mustang II and Pinto have A LOT in common, including identical part no’s. And thank goodness they do, because mustang parts are much easier to find.
I watched this cringe-worthy video last year and I was quick to pick up on the inaccuracies. My Dad bought a brand new Mustang II Mach 302 in 1975. He thought it was a decent car for the times. I wouldn’t pass on a good one if it was bargain priced, but now people want too much. Same with Mavericks as well.
Paul, I just posted a reply here and it came up with username “undefined”. Clearly not me.
I am surprised Ford would endorse this video. As they should know better. From a journalistic viewpoint, the video is comprised entirely of one person’s opinion, so it wouldn’t be considered very credible. Especially given he’s obviously a fan of the Mustang II. And his credentials in the video are ‘Mustang II Enthusiast’. lol
With the ease for virtually anybody to produce a slick Youtube video today, it’s possible to put a spin on any subject matter. Reinventing cars, topics or people.
Nice that Paul spotted this, and called out this gentleman’s opinion, and Ford for endorsing it.
Theres a Mustang 2 sedan/coupe around here drab green with turd coloured vinyl top its a V8 which is its only saving grace ugliest car on the road age has not improved them.
Paul, if I were a Ford guy I’d be ashamed and a little angry.
For them to endorse this guy’s opinion – with the “Go Further” tag line – if you lived thru that era, it automatically casts, at least, a small measure of doubt about the credibility of the company’s current line.
A line which in reality is arguably the strongest in FoMoCo’s history. And I’m sure will only get better.
At least in Chevrolet’s 100th anniversary TV special, they actually, tacitly APOLOGIZED for the Js, Xs, Vega, et. al., stating “we didn’t have our heart in it”.
Ford shouldn’t forget Mustang II the way GM wiped Corvair from its historical records – at least for a time – but be honest about the car and the times from which it came. There’s still enough positive in the true story to weave into the Mustang narrative without shame.
My Dad bought a three or four year old Mustang II Ghia coupe for my younger brother. I must admit that my reaction was envy, it was a beautiful car. It was red, with a white vinyl half top, dark red vinyl interior with the plushest carpet I had ever seen. Whitewalls and wire caps. Four speed manual and four cylinder. It was beautifully built, really a little jewel. I thought of it as a plush economy car so the fact that it was kind of gutless was irrelevant. I had owned a 66 Mustang coupe with a 289 and four speed as my first car back in 75. At this time my older brother was driving a 76 Trans Am. I was driving a 77 Pontiac Astre with a four speed.. I figured that the Mustang had just moved on. I didn’t think that it had disgraced it’s heritage. I thought that it was a sensible evolution of the series. it was right for the times. Mustangs moved out of my awareness. Most Mustang IIs were purchased as economy cars. Probably because even the V8 models were dreadfully slow. Those 302s were so smog strangled and there was no real improvement in performance. There was never a real strong running Mustang II. When the Fox body arrived I still thought of it as an economy car. By then I was driving my dream car., a 77 Coupe de Ville. Still I’m not a Pinto Stang hater.
It’s funny how they ignore all the ugly ones on their official youtube channel. Even the ’50 years of evolution’ video only shows the ’65, ’67 and ’69 models, then skipping directly to 2005, ’13 and ’15.
Call me crazy, but I’ve always preferred the Mustang II than either the current Mustang or the later 1st generation Mustang, between 1968 and 1973.