(first posted 2/13/2012) Take a close look at this 1976 Mustang II. Notice anything different? Does it look less like a Pinto in a clown suit; with that ridiculous long overhanging nose? Does it look a bit less impotent, having ditched its 13″ training wheels for some proper wheels and rubber? Yes, it’s easy (and fun) to rip apart a poorly designed car like the Mustang II, as we did the other day. But George Denzinger (geozinger) and I have teamed up to turn the clock back, and do it right.
The first step is to take a closer look at what Ford did. As is all-too obvious, the (real) Mustang II started out as a Pinto, the cheapest little car that Ford could possibly build. Although its mechanical aspects were simple and reasonably durable (unlike its main competitor, the Vega), the Pinto’s body structure came in for pretty thorough criticism.
The big question is why Ford went with the 94″ wb Pinto platform, and not the 103″ wb Maverick platform, for the MII. Some have suggested that Ford seriously considered just that route. Stay tuned.
Some have pointed out that the MII was a response to the energy crisis. If so, it must have appeared like magic, because the MII arrived in the fall of 1973, exactly when the Energy Crisis started. Even if the MII’s development time was shortened because of its Pinto basis, it still would have taken a couple of years. But there’s no doubt that the MII’s arrival was highly fortuitous: 1974 sales soared (386k), but crashed again by over 50% in 1975, and stayed at that lower level for the rest of its run. The energy crisis was its short-lived boon.
Was Lido clairvoyant? More likely just cheap. He specifically wanted the MII to chase after the new small sporty coupes that were hot. Ford’s own Capri, sold at Mercury dealers, had arrived in 1971 and was the second best-selling import car in the US during part of its run. The Opel Manta was selling fairly well too.
But the growing threat was of course from Japan, which had discovered that the sporty car market was ripe for the picking, one size below the American pony cars. The Toyota Celica, with its Mustang-esque fastback, was hot. Datsun was also moving in, and some of the others too.
According to one source, Lido said he wanted the MII to ride on a wheelbase of 96-100 inches. By designing a new front suspension and subframe for the MII, they were able to add two inches to the Pintos 94″ wb. Any more would probably have compromised the Pinto body’s known weakness. The result is a significantly shorter wb than the Capri’s 101″. The Capri was able to recreate the iconic long-hood, short tail that the original Mustang established as the pony-car “look”; the MII didn’t.
I’ve already argued that ideally, the MII should have been a properly “Americanized” Capri, with Mustang styling cues. The wheelbase and excellent chassis were all there, ripe for the picking. It might have cost more to invest in new tooling. Or more likely it was just the usual “not invented here” syndrome.
We could have based our Better MII on the Capri, but for this exercise, let’s assume that Ford had chosen the more realistic Maverick alternative. The Maverick was itself a development of the original Mustang/Falcon platform, and the cost of adapting it would have had to be very low indeed. The Maverick body would only need a fairly light re-skin, as the basic proportions and shape are all there.
The new front suspension and rack and pinion steering Ford developed for the Mustang II could have been scaled easily to the Maverick platform, potentially endowed the resulting MIIv.2 with superior handling. The real MII was cursed with severe understeer, among other handling shortcomings. Much of that was due to its nose-heaviness, because of the short wb and the long front overhang. The V6 Mach I had a 57/43 weight distribution; the V8 probably pushed that to 60% in the front. And with the Pinto chassis’ small wheels and tires, the MII was simply overwhelmed.
But what about weight? A key design/marketing goal was to offer a four cylinder in the MII, for economy and competitive reasons. Not really a problem: the 1974 MII weighed 2700 lbs for the four, and 2900 for the V6. The Maverick, in 1974 form with big bumpers, weighed 2700 lbs, the same as the four cylinder MII, and that’s with the straight six. It’s quite obvious that the (real) MII had no weight benefit from its heavily re-worked Pinto platform. Based on the Maverick, a four cylinder “What If MII” would actually have weighed less than the real thing.
And there’s certainly no doubt that the V8 would have worked much better with a Maverick-based MII. It appears that Ford didn’t intend to make a V8 MII, as they had to re-work the front end of a brand new car to do so, resulting in the v8 appearing a year later. That undoubtedly ran up costs too.
Engine line-up of our “better” MII: the 2.3 four, either or both of the 200 and 250 inch sixes, and the 302 V8. Bigger tires, brakes, rear axles, and other upgrades were all in the old parts bin. And the 351 would also have fit like a glove, with that new front suspension. The Cobra II would have had teeth instead of gums. Even with only 162 hp, the 351 would have been more than a match for the 155 hp 1975 Camaro 350.
So there it is, a better Mustang II, and one that would undoubtedly have enjoyed much greater long-term following by the go-fast/collector/Mustang crowd.
I’m not claiming it’s as beautiful as the Camaro, But it has a certain raw charm and puppy-like eagerness that makes it a worthy competitor. Oh; just one more change: call it just “Mustang”. The “II” affirmed that even Ford didn’t think this was the real deal. This one is.
Dave Skinner did a similar forward stretch of the front wheels on this coupe, and the results speak for themselves.
Ford initially planned to build the MII on the Maverick platform, and there are several styling concepts including this one, which of course is lacking the shortcomings of the Pinto-based version. Nice hefty wheels, properly placed in relation to the body. CC didn’t have to build a better Mustang II; Ford already did.
[thanks, George and Dave, for realizing my ideas so faithfully]
A four-cylinder entry level Maverick and Mav-Stang would have been possible — with the right engine. Ford sold Mavericks with a 2.3 liter OHC four in Brazil starting in 1975. One site says the four delivered an 0-10 time of 15.3 seconds.
Noting the comments, I would throw in that I don’t think the Mustang II was poorly designed. I can describe it as a ultra higher quality Pinto, with a sporty design. As a commuter car with sporty good looks, it did pretty much what it was supposed to do, sold well, made Ford money, in spite of the compromise of what Ford had to work with using the Pinto, and the end result of weight, handling, fuel economy. Most people that bought them were happy with the quality, the solid construction, and they went from point A to point B without much drama. Could be that Ford was privy to the GM H bodies on the way, and this was their economical competitor. As well GM made the H bodies from the Vega, another economical method to make a whole new line of cars from existing design.
Almost all of American Ford’s 1970s cars, from the MII to the Mark V, could use a stretch between front axle and firewall.
My big issue with using the Maverick as the basis for a new Mustang were the huge shock towers in the engine bay that severely constrained engine options. The Maverick’s full unibody design needed those towers to fit the front shocks, springs and control arms. I don’t know how much converting to a front subframe design like the Pinto would have cost in terms of time, money or weight, but that conversion is NOT trivial from an engineering standpoint. One of the reasons that I think that the Maverick’s competitors from GM and Chrysler handled better than the Maverick was the use of the front subframe architecture, which provided more rigidity for the front end.
The Maverick’s body design was also not the greatest. The rear seat was narrower than the back seat in my Mom’s 1961 Buick Special, the car Mom’s 1972 Maverick sedan replaced. The rear headroom, even in the sedan, was less than the competition, although that would have been less of an issue for a Mustang based on the same design. The Maverick also suffered from a high belt line and hood line, so driving one felt like sitting in a bucket. The unibody itself wasn’t the stiffest one out there, not by a long shot, so adding reinforcements to the Maverick to make a Maverick-based Mustang handle acceptably would also have added both weight and cost. I’m certain that the bottom feeder dash design of the Maverick, without even a proper glove box, wouldn’t have cut it with the Mustang faithful, so there’s more cost added to the design.
With all that said, the Pinto-based Mustang II was a new design, with an emphasis on chassis rigidity and quality that the bottom feeder Maverick would have had a tough time matching. The Maverick was a twice recycled design, based on a first-generation Mustang, which was in turn, a recycled Falcon. I don’t know if a Maverick based Mustang would have handled any better than the Maverick itself, but based upon my experiences with how bad my Maverick handled or used interior space, I have serious doubts about Ford’s ability to make that happen. The Maverick is like twice reheated frozen pizza. Mediocre the first time, and virtually inedible by the third sitting, LOL! Trying to stretch that design a fourth (4th) time into a new Mustang might have been the kiss of death, IMHO! BTW, wasn’t the Mercury Cougar based on the same platform as the original Mustang? How’d that work out for the Cougar during the “Bunkie” era?
With my wife to be, came a ’76 Mustang II hatchback. I at the time had a BMW Bavaria and a ’75 Toyota Celica. Pretty direct competitors, the Toyo and the ‘Stang, the BMW is just for reference. Screw the numbers, my recollections follow.
Appearance/styling. Washed and waxed, with poorly applied black trim, courtesy of her ex, the red MII hatchback was head and shoulders over the Toyo notchback.
Handling. The Mustang was no sports car, but the Toyo was embarrassingly bad. Scary in even mild cornering.
Drivetrain. The MII was slow, gutless and overgeared. Ran ok, but not well in an era when many didn’t run well at all. The Toyo, admittedly with 14 miles of vacuum tubing under the hood, ran great. Started easily, idled smoothly, ran great, but needed a 4th gear. Oh, it had one, well a fifth gear then. It was ridiculously undergeared. Reminded me of a ride in a very early Honda car in the early 70s. Not sure if it was a 360 or a 600. Ran great, the girl driving ran thru the gears, 1, 2, 3, 4. And we were still only doing 30MPH. OK, the Toyo wasn’t quite that bad, but reminiscent. In soft commute the Ford got 19-20. The Toyo 22. On the road the Ford got the same but the Toyo 25-27 as undergeared as it was.
Ford tranny, shifting wasn’t bad. The Celica was better than my BMW. Talk about snick/snick, it had it nailed. Problem was, Ford put 4 gears in where there should have been 5, and Toyota put 4 in where there should have been 3. Guess which one was more fun to drive, the undergeared Toyo.
Similar engines, both SOHC 4s, 2.2 for the Toyo and 2.3 for the Mustang II. But the Toyota did everything better, engine wise. More power, but not as much more as it might have seemed given the gearing, better idle, better MPG, just nicer to drive.
After all that, I’ve got to think Ford just flat out blew it. Not the platform, but the execution. The detail stuff that gets left ’til the end. If Toyota made a 2.2 engine run that well in that era, Ford should have been able to. If only by reverse engineering!!!
The MII was not a dud, but I’m guessing with just a little more effort, could have been a hit.
I’m a II fan, but I have to say the lead picture is a great improvement!
Ford and GM must have learned early on that with rising inflation and labor costs, they couldn’t make money at Pinto and Vega prices, so producing cars based on them that could sell at higher price points made financial sense and must, or should, have been in the works. The key risky decision was slapping the Mustang name on it, with the ’74 Cougar going midsize to hedge the bet.
Didn’t Ford turn the Maverick into the upscale, broughamy ’75 Granada, more successful as a four door than two? Where does the Granada program fit on the MII development timeline? Did Ford know about the upcoming ’75 Monza and GM about the MII in ’70-1?
The high front fender and tiny tires ruin its looks for me. The stubby wheelbase is less of a factor.
Ford would have been better off producing Australian/South African-inspired North American adaptations of the European Mk3-Mk5 Cortina/Taunus TC-TC3 and Mk1-Mk2 Granada in place of both the Pinto and Maverick, the European duo were said to share much mechanically from an economies of scale perspectives.
Something which was carried over to their Sierra and Mk1 Scorpio replacements, that were sold as Merkurs in the US and in the case of the Sierra would later be used to develop the Escort RS Cosworth.
Had the above come to pass (where the Cortina-based Pinto is available as a 4-door), it would have made sense for what became the “Mustang II” to be based on the Taunus TC Coupe and sold as the Capri. While the actual Mustang replacement, drawing upon the Maverick-based proposal would instead be based on the European Mk1 Granada Coupe.
The Australian Cortina was able to receive the 3rd gen Straight-Sixes and the same should apply to the larger Granada, while the South African- built Granadas was able to use the Windsor V8s and sold as the Perana Granada V8 by Basil Green Motors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_Green_Motors
The European 1st generation FORD CAPRI (sold at Lincoln Mercury dealers from late 1970) was a much better car in my opinion than any 1965-1973 Mustang, with a few exceptions:
Exceptions:
***Until very late in the 1971 model year, you could only get the 1600cc ohv “Kent” engine, with 4 speed stick and that engine Was Not Available with Air Conditioning.
Although the Kent engine is of British Ford Origin and dates back to about 1964, it is dependable, but underpowered in stock form, and the German 2000cc ohc engine was far better, newer in that it dates back to 1967-1968, if I am not mistaken.
You could get A/C with the optional 2000cc engine which only became available around May ’71 if I recall correctly, and I tried but I could not find a dealer that had one until the 1972 model year, as the Capri had strong sales, and pre-deposits had reserves on the 2000cc 1971 models as the came on the scene.
I wanted a nimble, road handling , good looking sporting car that was fun to drive that delivered about 24 miles per gallon, and not a road wandering, road floating piece of crap from Detroit with bad steering, terrible brakes, terrible seats, terrible 15mpg fuel economy and poorer than average reliabilty.
The 2000cc German engine was a necessity both to get A/C and to deal with the 75mph and 80 mph Interstate / Fla Turnpike speed limits in 1972 and 1973.
The 2000cc engine did power my Capri as fast as I wanted to drive.
I drove it across the country twice in four years, and many times up the eastern coast, once driving from Miami to Macon Georgia to Nashville TN to St Louis to Buffalo NY during the same week in July 1972. Yes, gasoline was only 35 cents a gallon but travel thousands of miles in a week and hell yes, you’ll wish that you were driving something getting 25mpg rather than a Mustang/Camaro that was getting 14mpg or a Ford LTD/Chevy Impala getting 12mpg or Cadillac/Buick/OLDs/Lincoln/Chrysler, or any big block v8 car getting 8 to 10 mpg.
The Capri was about as good as it ever got for any Detroit offering even though it was a captive import from the European subsidiary, but I am convinced that the Opel Manta was better than the Capri. Both my younger brother and my older sister bought new 1973 Opel Mantas. GM europe (OPEL) again beat Ford europe with their slightly better imports to the USA of Manta to the Capri offerings. Sure Ford beat GM in both the ’60’s and ’70’s with Falcon/Corvair and Pinto/Vega, and Mustang II/Camaro, & Mustang II /Sunbird-Monza-Starfire.
All of those American offerings were POS compared to Japanese products like Datsun 510, Toyota Corona, Toyota Corolla, from 1971.
The 1970 Maverick which arrived in April 1969, exactly five years after the Mustang, sold like hotcakes and set new sales record, breaking the 1st year sales mark of the Mustang. The Maverick was a POS in that it essentially recycled the 1960 Falcon -sixties falcon/mustang unibody chassis and suspension, nothing was different except the front spindles came equipped with front disc brakes and you had a dual circuit master cylinder in the brake system as all the 1967-on cars were federally mandated to have. The Maverick sold like hotcakes because it was a proven old entity that though crude was reliable as a Timex watch and just as extremely inexpensive too. Hell, Ford revived the weak underpowered 170 six as the base engine. This engine delivers good MPG but is so weak that 1600cc dual port aircooled VW Beetle engine has much more highway passing power speed than the awful 170 which is similar in power to a pre 1967 VW Bus on the expressway or Interstate. Ford dropped the 170 from the Mustang after early 1965 and not long after that from the Falcon.
The CORTINA was a helluva lot nicer than both the POS Maverick and dumpy but mechanically solidly engineered Pinto* . (excepting Ford’s decision not to make revisions to the Pinto fuel tank design and protection of Pinto tank)
The Maverick was a POS. Ford was so damn cheap, it didn’t originally have a glovebox, and I don’t think it got one until maybe 1973. FORD was also damn cheap with the Capri as they didn’t originally have a glovebox in the Capri either. Ford probably saw that GM didn’t put a glovebox in the 1968 Corvette, just a cheap, crappy poor excuse, and Ford probably thought if Corvette folks accepted crap, then surely low cost-poverty buyers would accept junky crap too. It was such a shame, especially in the 1971 Capri because the dash, the seat upholstery design, steering wheel, door panels, headliner, sunvisors, and everything had an upscale appearance, with just a stupid hole where there should have been a latched glove box. The Maverick was piece of crap looking thing that was not as nice on the interior as a 1967, 1968, 1969 Falcon had been. Do you want to know exactly how you can tell the early Mavericks that were built and sold between April 1969 and late 1969, well the early cars have ignition switch in the steel dashboard, just like ’67-’69 Falcon, ’65-’66-’67’68’69 Mustang, as federal law required locking steering columns after 1969.
Mavericks were durable and inexpensive but too damn cheap.
The 4 door Maverick which was exactly the revived 1965 Falcon chassis with 109.5 wheelbase. You all know that Ford re-used this 4 door Maverick (’65 Falcon chassis) with reskinned body sheet metal(new exterior body shape on ancient chassis) to make the upscale 1975 american market(USA) FORD GRANADA. It was a 1965 Falcon chassis with maybe better bushings, and better ball joints and front disc brakes.
The 4 door Maverick was 109.5 wheelbase, The 1965 Falcon was the last Falcon with 109.5 wheelbase, and the 1975-80 Granada/Monarch, and the renamed Granada as Cougar for 1981-1982 are all just a 1965 Falcon chassis. It wasn’t a bad chassis, it was okay for a usa made car of the sixties. Disc brakes gave adequate stopping power and modern radial tires improved the driving experience.
Now the EUROPEAN Ford Granada mk1 which was introduced in the spring of 1972 in Europe as the Ford Granada / Ford Consul was light years much more advanced than the Falcon, Mustang, Maverick, & American market Granada.
The European Granada was also built and sold in South Africa in addition to the UK built and sold versions. The EUROPEAN GRANADA has a 107 inch wheelbase and rear wheel drive with independent rear suspension. The front suspension is MacPherson struts with rack & pinion steering. It is closer in appearance, size and interior quality to a Volvo, BMW, Mercedes, Jaguar. It is about the same size an XJ6, or ’66-’69 Falcon, ’64-’69 Rambler American etc but the four door version of the European Granada of 1972 looks more like a 1990 Nissan Maxima or something from General Motors from 1985 than anything US made from the seventies with the exception of perhaps the 1977 Chevrolet Caprice, the 1976-1979 Cadillac Seville.
FORD did use some of what the European Granada’s suspension had as the basis of the 1978 Fairmont / fox chassis which formed the 1979 mustang and plenty of other us fords for the decade of the eighties. NONE OF THE US MADE CARS FEATURED INDEPENDENT REAR SUSPENSION UNTIL AT LEAST THE 1989 THUNDERBIRD( except the ’63 up Corvette and the ’65 to ’69 Corvair and ’63 Tempest.) The European GRANADA had independent rear suspension back in 1972. European Fords also had Bosch fuel injection by the mid to late seventies, long before US Ford offered crude throttle body efi in the early eighties.
GOOGLE: European FORD GRANADA
It just goes to show that Ford had the engineering in place overseas, yet they continued to offer the same road wallowing POS antique technology here in the USA because the public didn’t know any better yet. In hindsight if they did and succeeded, they may not have lost as much market share to the Japanese who were building the best cars in the world by 1976 or 1977. In fairness to Ford though, you must remember that at least a third of the USA population lives in the SNOW/RUSTBELT where roads are salted and the icey sludge/brine is extremely corrosive and damaging. MacPherson Strut front suspensions are 100% dependent of integrity of steel strut towers and unibody, otherwise you have a junkyard car no matter how robust the engine, trans, and differential are. I have spoken to former automobile engineers and they mentioned that serious rust protection measures did not appear to be a priority until at least 1978 because prior thinking was that most people would not hold on to cars for more than 4 years. As inflation went crazy between 1971 and 1984, and high interest rates/high inflation/high unemployment occurred between 1980 and 1982, most people could no longer afford to trade up as soon, and many folks began keeping cars for nearly a decade or more, although in the rust belt it is hard to pass safety inspection when the car has so many rust holes that it looks like swiss cheese. Yes, think about it, the bulletproof mechanicals of cars having struts in front during the seventies kept on going perfectly but if you’ve ever driven a rusted/metal fatigued front strut suspension car and experienced shimmy in the steering wheel at some point between 55mph and 70mph, it can sometimes nearly be impossible to resolve without welding new structural metal to stiffen the flexing, weakened, fatigued structure. This is rarely worth doing because there is no guarantee that it will be an effective or lasting fix depending upon the severity of rust corrosion and flexyness of the damaged/fatigued sheet metal.
Perhaps this is why that Detroit resisted in using strut front suspension until probably the 1978 Ford Fairmont and the ’78 omni/horizon rabbit copies. I may be wrong on that but I don’t recall any earlier US built cars other than the captive imports and the US built cars of foreign design such as the Chevette which was an OPEL and GM do Brasil design that had been in use there since the early seventies before Chevrolet began building it here in the US in ’75. Maybe that is partly why GM engineering developed an all new “small 108.1 inch wb” (G body) full perimeter frame chassis for the ’78 cutlass/monte carlo/grand prix/regal/malibu, a superb full frame chassis and the smallest full frame chassis since the 1950’s which had a long lifespan of 1978 thru 1987. Perhaps it was easier and less expensive since GM had great experience with body on frame construction and likely they used the expertise gained from the new downsized 1977 full size Chevy (IMPALA/CAPRICE etc 116wb superb full perimeter frame chassis to help quickly develop the equally great 108.1 full perimeter frame G body chassis for the Cutlass etc.
The MUSTANG II was a much nicer handling car than any 1965-1973 mustang, no matter how you modify an early mustang with the exception of installing a mustang ii front suspension and rack and pinion steering. Ford engineers did a tremendous job with the mustang ii and the “toilet seat” to isolate road vibrations.
The Mustang II would be a much better car if it had the Toyota 20R or Toyota 22RE from the 1976-1983 Celicas and the 5 speed from the same Celica as the engine.
The late seventies Buick 3.8 V6 (1978 and later, once GM engineering changed the firing order and smoothed out the previous vibrating/shaking nature of the earlier versions, would make an excellent power plant in the Mustang II.
The Cologne 2.8 v6 is a POS. Other Ford v6 engines tend to be problematic pieces of doo key with few exceptions. The Vulcan 3.0 v6 that powered the front wheel drive Taurus is excellent, and I do believe that it was used for at least a year in the Ford Aerostar minivan which is rear wheel drive. Other than that, I would avoid Ford v6 engines like the plague. I’m not certain if fitting a Vulcan 3.0 is even possible but it is an excellent Ford engine.
I might just build a 1977 Ford Mustang II hatchback with a GM 2.5 liter Pontiac IRON DUKE 4 cylinder , stock from mid eighties complete with GM TBI throttle body electronic fuel injection and 5 speed, just to piz uff Ford fanatics.
GM throttle body efi is so simple to work with and if you want to modify it you can, or keep it bone stock. The Pontiac Iron Duke puts out decent torque and is as durable as the Lima 2.3, if it is much more crude example of simple Detroit crap that actually works. Yes remember the Corvair engine, the Vega engine, Pontiac’s OHC version of the 230 ci chevy inline six, the caddy high tech 4100, the 4/6/v8 piece of garbage too, as those are just a few of GM’s failed shoot for the moon and it failed and flamed out and crash landed in the lake, and sinking…. it never amazes me that with all the engineers that companies as large as Ford and GM (USA, Detroit automakers) have a challenge each and every time to make a decent small displacement 4 cylinder engine that is smooth, fuel efficient, oil tight, durable and capable of going 300,000 miles as what you see today from the tiny Honda L-15 engine (1500cc from Honda Jazz/Honda Fit ) which delivers more than 105 hp and 35mpg overall from combined city traffic.
Toyota, Subaru, and even Mazda with the miata powerplant have superb smooth powerplants that are great. An oil leaking Chevy V8 or an oil leaking Ford ohv V8 such as 5.0 / 302 /289 might be durable enough for 165,000 miles but those pieces of crap deliver less than 22mpg at best if you have an overdrive automatic transmission or T-5 with a .67 fifth gear, you can expect 14 to 15 mpg at best if you have an ordinary C-4 or TH-350 automatic or a 4 speed manual.
My wife does not like oil stains on our fancy brick and concrete drive so she had a sign made that she places out whenever we entertain a large number of guests for a party, and the sign reads: Old Classic Cars That Leak Oil Must Park On The Street.
She has a saying that life is too short to drive junkmobiles. I have a saying that life is too short not to be working on project junkmobiles. She says well fine but don’t park that s— in my driveway at least until they are fixed enough not to junkmobiles anymore, otherwise I am gonna call the junkyard tow truck guy and let them have that piece of hunk of junk!
Your comments were spot-on, with one exception. The Maverick only offered front disk brakes as an option on six cylinder cars, and required that you purchase the disk brake option when you checked the box for the Windsor 302 (5.0L) V8 option. Lesser examples received drum brakes all around, with power assist as an option (manual drum brakes were standard). Mom’s 1972 four-door Maverick was equipped with manual four-wheel drum brakes. It was the car I learned to drive in, the car I took my Driver’s license test in, and I haven’t driven a car with worse brakes, either before or since then! Pedal effort was high, which was to be expected, but even worse than that, the pedal was completely devoid of feel, and the brakes seemed to have only two (2) modes: off or locked up, with almost nothing in-between!