(first posted 2/10/2017) My CC on the Mustang II Cobra II was maybe a wee bit over the top, going so far as to call it a Deadly Sin, which doesn’t quite apply, since Ford never died. A venial sin, in any case. And a fair amount of my ammunition came from this C&D review of the all-new Mustang II Mach I (a rather awkward name).
But note how rather gently the oft-acerbic C&D gets to its conclusions. After all, the MII was a very big deal; America’s first ‘super coupe’, whatever that was supposed to mean. And it was of course compared heavily to the original Mustang, which had arrived just a decade earlier, and turned the automotive world upside down. The MII had some big shoes to fill with its undersized feet.
I’m not going to try to paste the two halves of this foldout together; you know what its front end looks like.
A lot of history and background here. The MII was clearly designed in response to the sporty import coupes that were hot in the early 70s, like the Toyota Celica, Opel Manta, and the Capri (sold at Mercury dealers) and no less than the #2 selling import car at the time. Meaning: these imports all came quite decently equipped with nicely-trimmed interiors and exuding a level of quality unlike the typical cheap small car, or like the base Mustangs of yore. So the MII was noted for its “feel” in that regard.
The MII’s engines were the new SOHC 2.3 L “Lima” four, an Americanized development of Ford Cologne’s SOHC fours, and an optional 2.8L version of the Cologne V6. The tested Mach I had all the performance goodies, including the V6, the new four-speed manual transmission, and even a “competition suspension”, which was a real stretch, in terms of it name.
The interior gets a fair amount of praise, although the overly-soft and unsupportive bucket seats were clearly designed more for the luxurious Ghia than a genuine sporty car. And it was relatively quite, thanks to soundproofing that must have included lining the cabin in lead sheet. Because the MII weighed in at a very porky 3100 lbs, a full 700 lbs more than its German cousin, the Capri, which was so well received because of its performance and handling. And not only was the MII heavy, but a full 57% of it sat on its undersized 13″ CR70-13 tires. Not a recipe for success, or for being a genuine ‘super coupe’.
The Capri and the Opel Manta had largely invented that genre, thanks to their superb balance, steering and handling. The MII was a clumsy mini-Clydesdale in comparison.
Performance was decidedly dull, with a 12.2 second amble to 60, and over 18 seconds to the end of the 1/4 mile. Even the Manta with its 1.9 L four was faster. Never mind a V6 Capri. And the new American-made four speed was called out for not being as smooth-shifting as the Ford-UK unit used in the Pinto.
“Body lean was present in all handling tests”, despite the ‘competition suspension’. The brake system, adopted wholesale from the Pinto, had rear wheel lockup.
The final verdict: although the MII gets good grades for its interior, comfort and finish, “its acceleration and general engine performance simply doesn’t match expectations.” And the handling is just plain “flaccid”.
More: CC 1976 Mustang II Cobra II – Ford’s Deadly Sin #1 PN (obviously)
in 74 i was 5 yrs old and knew nothing about cars. but by 78 i knew a bit about cars and thought this was the ugliest mustang. i remember thinking how bad ugly and small the engine was. i remember thinking… geez if it’s this horrible now how bad will they be later on…. then the 79 302 came out. even though the new fox mustang was much better…. i still never liked it as much as the one i always knew and thought mustangs were all about… the 71 boss 302…. and not even the ‘boss’ variant… even the mach 1… and even the 73 coupe. 74-78 i don’t consider them mustangs…. more gussied up pinto’s.
All valid points, but I have to ask about the “gussied up Pinto” comment. You may be right, but if the Mustang II is a gussied up Pinto, the original was just a gussied up Falcon. The myths and mystique of the Mustang are legendary, and the car is a classic, but in the end, it was a marketing miracle, not an engineering miracle, that propelled its popularity. The Mustang II outsold the previous model by a huge amount, and as a function of it’s time, it was not a bad choice, especially instead of outright killing the model, which was a viable option at the time.
Over here the Capri was often referred to as a ‘Cortina in drag’. Didn’t stop Ford selling over a million in four years though.
true on gussied up falcon…. but, in 64 the mustang was a cool car… not a muscle car. only when the gt fastback v8 came out did it become a muscle car. how does ford go from being a legend with that mustang and later the mach 1 styled mustang and cobra jets and boss’ and then think it’s ok to use the pinto chassis and still call it a mustang? if anything they should have used the maverick chassis with the gas crisis. the corvette during the same time was turtle slow. couldn’t even spin the wheels. but it looked good. how on earth did ford think this was worthy of the ‘mustang’ look.
Ford put a considerable effort into trying to make the Falcon sportier in the years leading up to the Mustang, the Mustang was essentially a tailored suit to the futura/sprint packages. The Pinto pretty was econobox out of the gate whose dynamics only got worse leading up to 1974.
Correct. And as I have said before the Mustang II was closer in concept to the original then the 1973 was. Its sales sucess ensured that there would a Mustang when a newer platform was developed. For that, ‘Stang fans should thank this car.
The first Mustangs WERE gussied up Falcons. The difference is, that platform was a solid all around piece and while it may not be by design, it still responds well to upgrades. The Pinto is NOT regarded as a good all around platform, at least not for anything with aspirations beyond cheap econobox.
The Pinto had a decent career as a racer, and the chassis also responded well to upgrades.
The Falcon platform is quite a mess in terms of suspension, weight distribution, steering, and rigidity. Most performance solutions applied to it between Ford and Shelby were ride compromising band-aids or purely straight line focused. It was light(V8 powered 65-66 Mustangs were sub 3000lbs) but that’s really where any inherent advantage ends. The “Pinto platform” really was a victim of it’s times, total performance was over right as it launched.
Agree! Well written, JFrank.
Rick, with all due respect, I never considered those bloated 71-73s as Mustangs. I thought they were ridiculous at the time considering what they had been before.
It’s probably the difference in our ages, so no offense meant.
The 74 went back to the Mustang’s origins [sporty car based on a mainstream compact] , but went a size too small. They at least “looked” like a Mustang, rather than a compact Torino.
The trend to “improve” something and lose the plot was in full force back in the 60s and early 70s. I hated it then as now as it always means bigger, wider, heavier to no great benefit.
I guess you know in a way I don’t disagree with u. My point is ford shud have used the maverick chassis instead of pinto. Its such a far cry to go from the Shelby and boss and machs and cobra jets snd those hertz rentals to econo box. The mustang name was now synonomous with power and guts and masculinity. Ford already had the Capri ghia to compete with euro jap sport coupes. Today this wud be like the viper going to a dodge dart chassis. Its just wrong. The maverick chassis is what they shud have used is really what I mean.
Actually Rick, the Maverick was riding on a Falcon platform, so it would have been no real change. The move to the Pinto platform was a calculated risk, and downsizing from the 73 “Clydesdale” Mustang was the only thing that saved it from death by broughamization. Remember what they did to the T-Bird. Add more doors? Check. Bloat it? Check. Make it unlike what it had been and yet not quite what it should become? You would have seen 4 door Mustangs and Mustang wagons with di-noc’d sides. Checkmate, end of game. The Mustang II, for all of its faults, was more in tune with the original than the 71-73 version ever was. The Fox version corrected most of the faults, and the name has lived on since.
We’ve had that conversation here before. Everyone basically agreed that the Maverick would not have been the better choice. And I’m glad they didn’t because it would have drove up Maverick values to the point I couldn’t have afforded them.
Bunkie Knudsen upsized the ’71 Stang to compete with 2 door Chevelles, Chargers, and GTO’s. In case anyone was wondering. Heard this in Mustang history books.
That might be true, But that SHOULDA been the Torino’s job.
I love how people talk about how huge the 1971 Mustang had grown. With the descriptions I read on here you’d think it was basically an intermediate. Heck, sounds like it was closer in size to a Torino than the original Mustang.
The fact is the 1971 Mustang grew a mere 2″ longer from 1970, going from 187.4″ in 1970 to 189.5″ in 1971 (a 1965 Mustang was 181.6″ long, a 1971 Torino was 206″ long). It did grow 2.5″ in width, but this wasn’t Mustang’s biggest growth period. The car grew more between 1968 and 1969, but that rarely get’s mentioned. Furthermore, the 1971 Mustang is virtually identical in size to the 1971 Camaro, nearly the same length and width.
On top of that, the 71-73 Mustang was still smaller than the Javelin and the Challenger of the same era. The 1973 Mustang did grow some length from the new bumper but the 74 F-bodies were about same or longer. By the late 70’s F-bodies were still larger yet, pushing close to 200″ in length, and virtually identical in size to an early 70’s Chevelle 2-door. FWIW, the 2015 Mustang is about an 1″ shorter but 1″ wider than the oversized, and massive 1971 Mustang.
I think the styling of these cars didn’t do them any favours in making them look small and that the turret like greenhouse didn’t help. I have never minded the styling on this generation of Mustang. While not my favourite and far from perfect, I still think a 1971 Boss 351 is a good looking car and is very representative of the styling trends of it’s time.
Since I loved driving my Mom’s ’65 Mustang, I bought a brand-new ’73 convertible (6 cylinder/3-speed…?…I know, but it was the same drivetrain as my Mom’s) and although I did like how it looked, it drove and handled nothing like the ’65, plus it had lots of factory defects. Within a couple of years it was starting to rust through the front fenders and the dealer never was able to correct a trunk leak. Kept it for 5 years, but it kind of soured me on Fords for a while.
I don’t disagree that by 1971 the Mustang went off track from it’s original concept, but my post wasn’t about that. I am just tired of the gross generalization that this generation was massively oversized. My point was that although it was large, the competition was also the same size or larger and that much of the Mustangs growth occurred in 1969.
I also don’t disagree that the quality of early 1970’s Fords, especially for rust resistance. That said, your Mustang did look very nice!
I actually liked the Mustang II, having owned a ’78 Ghia. With some engine work, and exhaust work the 2.3 was pretty quick, and fun to drive. And damn near bullet proof. Also one of the best cars I ever owned in snow! Not just light snow, but pretty deep unplowed snow At any rate it was a vast improvement from the last gen Mustang circa 71-73. They where like Elvis in his awful, fat, Liberace wanna-be Vegas era. Big and bloated.
Around 1978 or so, a good friend bought a 74 MII Ghia after his 68 Cougar got hit and totaled. The Cougar (and Mustangs of that era, of course) always felt light and “thin” to me. That Mustang II Ghia felt heavy and thick, not at all like a smaller version of the 72 Mark IV that my father had driven earlier in the decade.
I recall the interior as being very nicely done, giving off a very expensive vibe, much like a mini T-Bird or Lincoln. When even expensive GM cars were using huge swaths of injection molded plastic on their door panels, the Ghia used thick padded vinyl, carpet, woodgrain and chrome pieces for a very pricey look, certainly for that segment.
The rest of the car? I was never in love with it. That big 2.3 four never ran smoothly and I never warmed to the styling. But if Ford could have built all of their cars as nice as their high-level interiors, they would have sold a lot more.
When my brother started driving in 1978, my dad bought a ’75 Ghia from a friend of his, thinking size and fuel economy would be more with the times (replacing a ’69 Olds Delta 88 Convertible. At the time, this seemed like a good idea.).
A few years later, I learned to drive on this car. It did have a very nice interior, no question about it, even if it was vinyl and fake wood, But otherwise, complete suckage. I think it had a six, rather than a four, but it was slow as can be, and handled horribly.
It was replaced by a ’82 Celica, which was 1000 times better in every way.
What’s up with those head restraints? Seem awfully wide. Growing up in the era in an area filled with Ford middle management and a sea of company lease cars, I never saw such wide headrests on a Ford (this was typically a Chrysler thing mounted on two posts, where Ford mounted on one.)
Everything “wrong” with this car was “right” according to the conventional wisdom of that era. Americans loathed small cars because they were “light” and interiors on imports were cramped and barren compared to a mid-level American midsized or larger car, which is what was selling en masse. Result? Offer up a fat little car. Was it a dog, performance wise? Yes, but not so much in comparison with what else was being offered. The “deadly sin” in this case was not thinking of reaching out to the european arm for an answer that would have worked, and worked quite well. The German and English Fords would have been a better option in the long run, and the captive imports from just a few years later proves the point. If nothing else, we should love the Mustang II just for the front end, as that is still used by hot rodders everywhere on all sorts of applications.
I realize the MII wasn’t the only car to suffer this problem, but what’s up with the tiny wheel/tire sizes used back then? It seems like 15″ rather than 13″, perhaps with a little less sidewall and a little more width, could have helped the handling and also helped the look of the car.
Cost cutting, Chris M. Most all small cars rode on 13 inchers back then.
I had a devil of a time getting new tires on my 63 Valiant which uses the 13″ tires.
14″ tires for the ONION seem to be getting more scarce as well, and it’s an 05.
And here we are six years later, and the choices for a 15” tire for my 2000 Ford Ranger are limited to two or three options.
I could never get past the bloated styling of the Mustang II. In hatchback form, it looked like a mini Gran Torino Sport. Which as a design basis, was already too overstyled to translate successfully into a sub compact car.
And as I mentioned three years ago with another Mustang II article, I thought the coupe looked like a bloated mini Monte Carlo. With cartooish mini brougham proportions. As this Photoshop attempts to show.
IMO, from 1971 through 1977, was one of Ford’s darkest design eras.
Maybe you had to be there (I was born in ’74 so I wasn’t really “there”) but to my eyes the MII looks better than the Gran Torino sportsroof, especially since the latter’s most attractive version had the ’72 anteater face that the sedan/wagon/Ranchero pulled off and the shorter-wheelbase coupes didn’t. The Mustang II was at least in proportion except for the too-short wheelbase the Pinto also suffered from.
The only domestic Ford products produced or introduced between 1972 and 1977 I didn’t think were over styled were the 1973 F Series truck, 1975 Econoline, and to a lesser degree, the ’73 LTD, ’77 Thunderbird and the Granada/Monarch. Combined with Ford’s corporate fixation with faux luxury, floaty handling, overweight and oversized bodies with cramped interiors, and struggles with serious rust issues, Ford’s of this era never appealed to me. I’ll add that Ford probably did the poorest job of of any manufacturer of integrating the new bumper standards in 1974.
If one thing especially stands out, it’s difficult to forgive Ford for the very serious rust issues during this era. They were true rust buckets.
For all of it’s issues, the Chevy Vega was so much cleaner in design. While the ’74 Scirocco made the Mustang II look like it had more in common with the early 70s.
The 73 Torino nose was essentially a four headlight/chrome bumper preview of the Mustang II. Since we’re already doing photoshops…
Nicely done. Not the first car that would come to mind as the inspiration for an efficient subcompact design. Ford’s designers did a good job of maintaining the ‘pudge’ as well. 🙂
I know the 1972 and newer Torino’s don’t get much love here, but I don’t think it shares much with a Mustang II. The rear window shapes are similar and while both share a similar roof profile (the angle is not as “fast” on the Mustang), I think that’s where the similarities end. The proportions on each car are quite a bit different.
I also have never heard of the ant eater reference before? Tom McCahill said it had a mouth like Namu the killer whale, but he also said he like the styling overall. He is often misquoted as a calling saying it looked like a “land locked tuna.” The fish reference I can see, but not the anteater.
Daniel, that photoshop is a scream. And so true. Never made the connection before.
Ford ruined the back window on that year Ghia, as the 74 was pretty much the same size as the “lesser” MII models. Much wider rear side window area than this “opera” version.
Thanks! I give Ford credit for resisting the temptation of featuring a landau bar option on the Mustang II’s half vinyl roof. 🙂
Um, yeah. You’ve made a Mustang II even uglier.
Once again, I would not depend on, or even expect Car and Driver, Road and Track, to give a thumbs up to any American car, since it always seemed to me they were biased toward European or Japanese cars. My sister had a 74 Mustang, and Ioved that thing! It was a 4spd. Yes, interiors were nice, but even to this day I love the styling of the 74-78 Mustang. Very clean design. Those baby Ansen Sprints were good looking, should have been 14’s, and I wasn’t a fan of the 4 lug system. As far as handling, I didn’t think it was bad, but I wasnt taking corners at 50mph, and most normal people weren’t. If skidpad numbers were that important, then buy a Ferrari,…. it’s a economy Ford for God’s sake. I saw one on the Mustangs this morning, black with gold stripe, a little over the top, but overall a damn good looking car, and to this day I would still like to have one.
Considering this particular one was called “Mach 1”, the namesake of some of the fastest Mustangs ever built until the last decade, maybe one would expect above economy car performance in at least one metric?
You hit the nail on the head with your comments, all of them.
The rear seats in the Mustang II are more cramped than those in the contemporary Capri II (I’ve travelled in the back of both), though I did appreciate the leg recesses moulded into the seat back.
More and more when Mustang II comes up in modern conversation I hear man has that car aged well. I always thought it looked good and learned fairly recently that the Mustang II was designed in Europe by Ghia which may explain things.
The performance wasn’t that great in the first year but then came the 302 V8 option in 1975 and all was good.
The car looks a little fat in the pics because of the small wheels. Go to a 14″ and problem solved.
Ghia submitted their own designs early in the process, and there was a Ghia package, but the final design was totally in house. There’s more similarity in Ghias proposals to the 1979 than what actually became the Mustang II
One of their proposals is at the bottom of this page http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang1.htm
Thanks for posting that Matt, had not seen before and thought the Ghia angle was an internet rumor. I can clearly see the genesis of the MII in the Ghia proposal in that link. The basic proportions, the dipping front fender line, the chamfered rear decklid. For sure the iconic bumper design came from the Ghia. Before the MII bumpers were chrome metal with rubber inserts. Ford made the bumpers plastic covered and the rub strip metallic on the baby Mustang. it was a very fresh idea and had to come from outside.
I don’t think it looks anything like a Fox Mustang. The rear quarter windows are way too small and not flat enough at the top. The rear glass doesn’t wrap around. The only similarity to me is that they are both three box designs.
The article remind me of what a great leader Lee Iacocca was. Putting the studios against each other and making it a design competition like that probably didn’t make him many fans in the Dearborn studio but it sure made for a very successful car.
Jack Telnak used the Mercedes 2 seater as inspiration for the Fox bodied Mustang.
Not my claim, not an internet rumor, but reported in styling studies by the rags at the time as well as interviews.
He had been Ford Europe’s design chief prior to coming to the US.
Now I’m curious– what’s a “Dyno-Tune” kit?
A seventies phenomenon-
An aftermarket tuning kit that typically re-jetted the carburetor and re-curved the distributor advance and was designed to lessen the evils of emissions tuning.
I recall Motor Trend was a big proponent, but it seems C & D dabbled in them as well. Never tried one, but they were all over the place at the time.
And those Geraghty Dyno Tune kits made a difference. They would do before and after dyno pulls. Sometimes they would find 20 or 30 hp. Especially on the Datsun and Toyota’s.
Thanks guys!
The continuation of the Mach 1 package into 1974 was the a real deadly sin, 5.8 liters to 2.8 liters overnight. The Mustang II may not of killed Ford but it did kill any remnant of the total performance era, and drove those buyers straight to F bodies. The name debasement only continued from there with the sullying of the legendary Cobra name. Both sub models would be dormant for decades because of the damage caused by this car.
The interiors may have had nice materials but the design of it certainly is uninspired, the double hump dash design arguably was one of the most distinguishing features of Mustangs up to this point, but these just look like a mini-gran Torino inside.
Brings back memories.
As a kid, our college-age neighbor had a 74 V6 auto, some problems.
Then in the early 80s in HS, I installed door speakers in my friends Mustang II. I remember it was hard to cut through the metal trim in the door pad..
Then, in the late 80s in the AF, a woman I worked with had one. it was 14 years old, and she was too ‘frugal’ to get a better car, so I would occasionally give her a ride or go ‘rescue’ her. But it was 14 yrs old….
I know these were gutless lumps. But… as a kid of 8 and a car nut, I thought the M2 looked pretty good. I liked HotWheels and Matchbox cars too. Even today, I think it looks good. Seems to me these would be old enough to be modified with current tech into quite a ride. Just use the old shell and go to it. Street Rodders have been using the M2 IFS for years as a “go to” front snout.
Are we complaining because it’s the “right” thing to do to throw off on the Malaise Era? I am honestly intrigued by the design of the cars from this era. Probably because I was an impressionable kid then. 57 Chevies were cool, but old. Yes, the Pinto looked like rat skull I thought. But Dyno Don and Gapp & Roush had Pintos and M2s. Grumpy had Vegas. My uncle had Camaros- a 69 6 with PG and a 74 with a 350 and auto. There were 60s Impalas in the family as well. 63 wagon, 63 SS, 64 4 dr, 65 SS, 66, 67 or 8. Those were nice cars. But cars were all around and I rolled with the new stuff as well as the old stuff. At that age, I really liked some of the design features of many of the cars. I would look at the lines and study them.
Performance-wise, everything was strangled by the regs and the tech of the time. Rust proofing was barely considered. Build quality was iffy. Put it all together and it was a recipe for Malaise Era cars. BUt looking back can be fun. Good and the bad.
Back in 85 when I was working at ServiceMaster ( 18/19 years old), one of the houses we worked had a mint low mileage ( the son had died) 76 Mustang II (with MPG on the front fender) in Black that I fell in love with. Ooohhh I wanted that car. To me at the time when I was driving a 74 Maverick the Mustang II looked good to me. So I don’t hate on them like most of you folks do. I know what their mission was at the time, and it wasn’t to replace the original Mustang. It was to make small cars acceptable to Americans with plush interiors and smooth and quiet rides.
Serendipity, in the form of the 1973/1974 OPEC oil embargo with gasoline shortages/distribution nightmares made the Mustang II a sales success at the time. Virtually anything with a four cylinder engine would fly out of the dealership doors while big V8 sedans languished. Yes, serendipity is, at times, the father of success, and so it was with the Mustang II.
During that era, I was driving a 1970 Opel GT 1.9L which was rightly criticized for stock understeer and rear axle roll causing the inboard power driven wheel to lift like a dog lifting a leg to relieve itself, thereby limiting power delivery and minimizing the possibility of power induced oversteer. . At least the GT’s understeer was made easily manageable by the addition of a rear roll bar which I installed on my car. A limited slip differential delivering power to the outside wheel would have done the same.
In contrast to the Opel GT, as a comparison, the Mustang II that I test drove in the autumn of 1974 was the poster child for terminal, unrelenting UNDERSTEER, really HEAVY understeer, unforgettable, with the V6. What the understeer was with the later Windsor V8’s weight up front must have been unimaginably dire, I hate to think of it, and fortunately I never had the misfortune to experience a V8 Mustang II.
During initial development of the Opel GT the racer Hans Hermann was given the opportunity to test drive developmental mules, one with the engine positioned as it was with the standard Opel Kadett and one with the engine positioned in the chassis with a an approximate near 16″ rearward position shift. Hermann recommended the mule with the rearward shift for better handling, and Opel to its credit complied with that recommendation making a better handling production car.
Paul N. has previously speculated on the positioning of the engine and front axle line of the Mustang II, and based on my experience, Paul was correct in his assessment that the appearance would have been improved and the weight balance deviating from the originating Pinto chassis engine position would have done wonders for the Mustang II, improving its appearance by decreasing the front overhang , then secondarily reducing, but likely not eliminating, its horrific understeer to more manageable levels.
Would that Ford had repositioned the front axle forward like Opel for its GT. In comparison the Opel GT understeer was significantly reduced making it feel like a ballerina compared to the heavy handed understeer of the Mustang II. I remember how delightfully light in feel and handling the Opel GT was after that Mustang II test drive, an astonishing difference, experienced courtesy of that one memorable test drive
Additionally the interior of the Mustang II had the heavy design look so loved by Lee Iaccoca, but that is another story unto-itself.
Because of serendipity in the form of OPEC, the very heavy understeering Mustang II became a surprising sales success.
I suspect that significant understeering handling has contributed to the current unloved status of the Mustang II.
Good lord, 3100 lbs?! That’s veering into Volvo 240 territory (3300 lbs. IIRC)!
Let’s not forget that before the Mustang was a muscle car, it was a “secretary’s car.” As this C&D article attests, unlike its Falcon-based predecessors, it wasn’t a suitable platform for performance upgrades. That doesn’t make it a failure, though. Ford nailed the tastes of that era for the secretary’s car segment, as strong sales numbers confirm.
The MII is just one of many ’70s fashions — like bell bottoms, broad lapels, platform shoes, and disco — that don’t suit our tastes today. But at the time, for a young (or young at heart) woman who wanted a car that had a little flair and maybe turned a few heads, the MII fit the bill perfectly.
Another great point. Speaking of 70s fashions, I wonder if Tom Tjaarda had a hand in the Mustang II. He was an American designer working at Ghia and had just done the DeTomaso Pantera, another Ford project. He would have been a natural to work on it and bring in some fresh thinking.
Ford Australia didnt listen to C&D and built performance Falcons anyway, true their platform was considerably beefed up compared to the American original but it was still a Falcon
Awkward styling- Check
No V8 option- Check
Rude crude 4 cylinder- Check
flaccid handling- Check
Underpowered- Check
Garbage German V6- Check
Pinto brakes- Check
Yup it’s Deadly Sin status is very well deserved for what this lackluster car did to the Mustang name! Even Ford saw the writing on the wall and a year later put the V8 engine back and made other upgrades that didn’t go far enough to get this into greatest hit status.
C&D’s mantra was critical reviews, especially for American cars of the day. While this is better than sycophantic support of Detriot, it’s not always honest.
It’s popular to criticize the Mustang II but its typically cheap shots and disingenuous labeling taken with no real understanding of the car, the mission and the market.
The M II was a brilliant and perceptive marketing decision, a mass market small practical car that did more than just be cheap and economical. Ford deserves credit for committing to the project when fuel was cheap, when big, profitable cars sold well and small cars were viewed as money losers.
The results were excellent market timing, and millions of units sold. The package is attractive the styling, beautiful, sleek, sporty, with a nod to practicality. A wide range of options helped tailor it to a wide range if applications. So the mechanical components seemed ordinary, so what? They were reliable, proven and durable.
This car was really well done under the circumstances, and still looks cool today. In retrospect some parts could have been better, but you can say that about any car. Sure a rev happy new engine and IRS would be nice but its delusional to think Ford should have risked the extra expense to do so, and still hit the intended price points.
EDIT: CC occasionally takes gleeful pleasure in wholesale retroactive criticism of car designs. This is depressing and unpleasant. I come here for interesting discussion, research and views on all kinds of cars. But many articles, especially anything with “sin” in the byline invites hateful flippant rants that diminish the joy and and interest I have in the subject. Maybe I’m not alone here. Perhaps a bit of editorial redirection might make this site more inviting.
The M2 was as ugly as a hatfull of assholes when it came out of all the two door sporty Fords on the market at the time and there were several including cars not available in the US it was the ugly sister, Paul is remarkably kind to this rolling turd.
“CC occasionally takes gleeful pleasure in wholesale retroactive criticism of car designs. This is depressing and unpleasant. I come here for interesting discussion, research and views on all kinds of cars. But many articles, especially anything with “sin” in the byline invites hateful flippant rants that diminish the joy and and interest I have in the subject. Maybe I’m not alone here. Perhaps a bit of editorial redirection might make this site more inviting.”
I agree. Although for me it’s usually the comments that I find a bit much. I don’t like the Mustang II, and I can recognize it’s shortfalls, but I can still respect it’s place in history. Further, I would still look at one at a car show and probably compliment the owner for keeping a car that many would dismiss.
Comment’s like KiwiBryce’s description of the Mustang II are unnecessary. If you don’t like the car, that’s fine but lets keep this an adult discussion.
The irony is that cars like the Mustang II and the Lincoln Versailles demonstrate perhaps as well as any Ford car, the cynicism of Ford towards consumers during the mid 1970s.
Rather than putting their product planning money into half vinyl roofs or Ghia packages, perhaps Ford could have invested in reasonably rustproofing their cars? At least to the then meagre standards of the industry at the time.
My family owned LTDs, Thunderbirds, Mavericks, a Mustang II, and they all consistently rusted significantly faster than any other cars in our possession. Before or since. Rust that prematurely compromised the road safety of two of these Fords after less than 7 years of ownership.
No early to mid 1970s domestic cars rusted like Fords.
And they were the subject of a large class action lawsuit in Canada at the time. It was very public, and made the national news regularly.
Ford developed a rustproofing process in the 1950s called ‘E-Coat’. Yet Ford was very slow to adopt it. As they were slow to invest in the expensive process.
The disdain felt by many for Ford products from this era is largely Ford’s own doing. By focusing on profits ahead of durable cars.
And before you say, ‘They all rusted back then’, Ford was actually considered the worst in the domestic industry. And had to take public relations measures in the late 1970s to improve their image as rust buckets. Including greater use of galvanized steel and rust inhibitors to attempt to restore their reputation.
I agree that Ford’s rust resistance was horrible thought most of the 1970’s and it was definitely the worst of the big three. That said, GM and Mopar may have been better, but they were terrible as well. GM had some pretty bad cars, the 71-76 fullsize cars, Colonnades and the 73-80 GM trucks were all very bad rusters. The cost cutting was happening industry wide in this era.
I still have a couple of Phil Edmonston’s old used car guides from this era, and he harps hard on the Ford products and mentions the class action suits because of rust. I remember him talking about how some Ford’s that he thought were actually pretty good, but he wouldn’t recommend them because of the severe rust problems.
One thing Ford did do was make drastic improvements to their rust resistance by the late 1970’s, By around 1977-78 Ford started using a lot more galvanized metal and other rust proofing treatments from the factory that made massive differences in rust resistance. I specifically remember that late 1970’s Ford cars seemed to be much better than early to mid 70’s Fords in Canadian winters. Even today, there are many more late 70’s Ford survivors while the early to mid 70’s cars are pretty much non-existent (unless they were not winter driven).
I think this is why I am hesitant to let my heart rule my mind with certain cars, and certain eras of cars. I think it’s clear that back then a number of manufacturers didn’t place nearly as much emphasis on fit and finish, quality control, rust resistance and durability as they needed to. It was experiences like this that helped lead buyers to others brands. And consumer groups were started. Like Phil Edmonston’s consumer protection group and his ‘Lemon-Aid’ series of books. Ford was known to be dragging their heels on rustproofing. Slower than GM, in installing ‘E-Coat’ in factories.
I think many are negative on this era in cars as it was probably the biggest time when there was the greatest chasm of cynicism both ways between domestic manufacturers and buyers. Car makers cheaping out in the worst ways, as consumers were getting more informed and speaking up. I known my dad spent thousands on premature and fruitless rust repairs during this era. It was a good thing manufacturers were finally being held to account. Rather than passing this cost on to buyers.
I think any reader at CC loves old cars and nostalgia, but we all know too about that dark side where profits take priority over a better product. Some have good memories from this era, many don’t. It was a very polarizing period. There is some cathartic reaction to people’s comments, good and bad.
While this period was definitely had some serious issues in the way the industry operated and how cars were made, our family always had decent experiences with these cars of this era. My dad had a few of his cars from the 1960’s rust out prematurely He became an early adopter to rust proofing and also became pretty meticulous on caring for his cars. As a result, we never really had any cars in our family that ever needed major rust repair, even the very rust prone 1970’s cars. I learned from him and still am very diligent at auto body care to this day.
Further when I started buying cars, big American 1970’s cars were cheap and plentiful. I got many of them at a song and they were reliable and cheap transportation for me. They may have not had the best quality control, but the mechanicals were solid and they were very and easy to fix for a DIYer like me. Of course I only bought cars with decent bodies. So for me, although I am well aware of the short comings of these cars, they were always a positive experience overall.
But I do know how many people had major rust problems with cars, especially Fords from this era. So I can understand your disdain for them.
Interestingly, I opted for the “Dura-Coat” rustproofing the dealer recommended (and was dealer applied) on my ’73 Mustang. However, when I took it back to them when the rust started, the Dura-Coat rep said the rustproofing was incorrectly applied, so the rust damage was not covered…but I did get my $108.00 back that I paid for it! I was a young guy, so I didn’t fight it like I probably should have. Live and learn!
I wonder why no one at C&D took credit for this article?
Maybe it was written by Bob Brown, less than illustrious editor of the magazine back then.
This was the era when C/D was still sort of easing into individual bylines. The columns and special features did, the road tests still generally didn’t. (Even when they got them a couple of years later, the bylines were usually at the very end rather than upfront.)
My parents had a brand new baby blue 74 Mustang Ghia notchback. They didn’t have it very long. My Mother decided she wasn’t going back to work, so it went, as it wasn’t needed.
But it was nicely turned out.
I remember the ads at the time advertising it’s low base price, the wide range of options and the “jewel like” quality of the car.
Less room in the back seat than a Pinto. Even less than a Gremlin.
The early 70s were not a good time for rear seat passengers: fixed rear windows, made worse by ‘opera’ versions, no leg room, no head room, dark, cramped dismal places to be.
Ford certainly did hit all the notes in terms of sheer numbers with this car, it was the right car for the times; but that doesn’t objectively make it a good car. Take it or leave it styling aside, the best and most innovative thing about the Mustang II was it’s front suspension, beloved by hot-rodders for decades now. I wish they would’ve spent the money on creating a dedicated line to build the Capri II here- there’s little doubt in my mind that Dearborn’s decision not to was based in large part to the hubristic idea that “we can do it better”, which was never true in terms of small cars- Ford of Europe and Mazda were better at it. Nobody fondly remembers any US Ford small car from that era for their subjective dynamic/ergonomic qualities, only for the memories attached to them. Ford would’ve eaten GM/Chryco’s lunch in the small car market if they hadn’t insisted on spending millions “going it alone”. I appreciate these cars for managing to keep Ford afloat, but that’s about all, thankfully Ford got the message eventually and started using (better) foreign developed platforms- the Mazda-based Escort/Tracer was the first Escort we got here that was worth having, and the proof in that is shown in the fact there are many of those still running around while the most likely place to find a gen 1/1.5 Escort is in a low-turnover salvage yard
The Mustang II didn’t look too bad without the padded vinyl roof and the interiors were pretty nice.
If only the Mustang II HAD been an Americanized Capri. 3100 pounds! A nicer interior and better sound proofing wouldn’t add 700 pounds (though the 5-mile bumpers were probably good for at least an extra hundred) Having owned a ’68 Opel Kadett and Ford Cortina GT, I was always amazed at how much more fun those were, compared to the Pintos, Vegas, Mustang IIs, Chevettes and Escorts, that I got to test-drive and work on in those days.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Maybe it’s not loved today but it was right for its times and the market. Sold very well. I think it would have looked so much better with bigger wheel openings and larger tires, those tiny Pinto 13-inchers just didn’t do anything for this car’s looks or handling.
These cars were driven by the chicks on “Charlie’s Angels” – says a lot about their intended market IMO.
FWIW, the classic 65 was aimed at women too, with the “Six and the Single Girl” ads.
As I have said in other posts, I will always have a special place in my heart for these Mustang II’s – I had a 1977 notchback as my first car. Granted it was my sister’s hand-me-down, but I loved it nevertheless. It was aqua blue with a white top and aqua vinyl buckets – yes – a girl’s car all the way – and the 2.3 4-cylinder to boot! I didn’t care – it was my first car and my freedom! My Dad had it repainted the same color (I wanted black but he said it would have looked horrible with aqua interior) and a new white vinyl top put on it. Man, it looked great! People asked me about that car all the time. I guess by 1985 these were getting somewhat scarce! I even put a set of factory wire wheel covers on it that were like brand new. Made that car look special. It was a horrible 4-cylinder, though – unrefined and a pig on gas too. It shook horribly at idle and was an absolute dog trying to get up a hill with any passengers in the car! There was a constant humming sound that came from the rear-end at any speed above 45 mph that drove me crazy. Like anything else, eventually you get used to it. I can still remember driving that car like it was yesterday. No power steering or brakes. No A/C. As basic as you could get. And it was like sitting on the ground, literally. Long nose – not much interior room – and totally unrefined – but it was mine. And as I said before, for the times, I still think it wasn’t a bad little car.
M-II wasn’t meant to be a ‘muscle car’, as the previous Boss/Shelby/etc. I think they should have dropped Mach 1 trim for it, but this was a Celica competitor.
It sold well and kept the name going. There would be no Fox Mustang if the II flopped.
Yeah, quality was low, but then look at the rest of new cars for sale then. Japanese cars got good MPG, but rusted like crazy. What got buyers to come back was continuous improvements.
That was part of the problem. Iacocca had noted the growing popularity of small sports coupes, and correctly figured out that they were stealing buyers from the domestic pony cars.
Instead of coming up with a small “Super Coupe,” however, he trotted out a miniature Continental Mark IV. In my opinion, these cars come off best as Ghia notchbacks, and this test proves it. These aren’t “Super Coupes.” They are pint-sized personal luxury coupes. The hatchback – let alone the Mach I option – seems superfluous.
So right Geeber. As a result, Ford made the Mustang II to try and fit the needs of the small car luxury buyer, the sporty buyer and everything in between LOL. Honestly, I like them in all the different versions. These sold incredibly well so obviously Ford did their job hitting the right demographic. The previous generation never really sold nearly as well, so in my eyes these cars were a hit.
The most you can say for these is they made the best of a bad situation (gas crisis) so ‘the right car for the time’, is a very optimistic outlook. I prefer to judge it by its position in the hierarchy of Mustangs. The Mustang is one car that Ford absolutely HAS to get right. In essence the Mustang is to Ford what the Wrangler is to Jeep. In retrospect this one sits down with the ’93-’04 Blobstang in my book.
Respectfully, no, the F-Series truck is what Ford has to get right. As the number 1 selling vehicle for many, many years now, the F-Series pickup is the base of Ford. They can sell any other crap and still be profitable based off the trucks.
You aren’t wrong, the F-150 is the bread and butter. But I’d argue that the Mustang is Ford’s best salesman. How many people got sucked into a more practical Ford while lusting after a Mustang? For many Gen-Xers, the Fox Mustang was THE car to have. Many attained them and had a great experience. When life demands a family car or a pickup or just a cheap commuter they’re set up to come back to ford based on the strength of that Mustang. Ive seen it play out over and again.
In my own case (and im NOT alone) my lust for Jeeps saw me in 5, between CJs and Wranglers…all served me well and kept the gearhead flame burning. That (and a certain ’84 Power Ram, still in my family since I first had it in HS) has led to 4 more Mopars for me.
Obviously, the halo car effect won’t work on cerebral spreadsheet enthusiasts who are only trying to squeeze a nickel til it cries for mercy. But those types probably aren’t buying ANYTHING that isnt japanese or Korean in the first place.
All good points, but I don’t think the Mustang brings people into Fords, just keeps them there if they are already hooked. The same goes with Toyota, or Honda, in that once you get an ass in the seat, as long as the product is okay, they keep coming back for more. You tend to buy what you know and understand. That is why Toyota has not deviated from the Camry or Corolla name, and Honda keeps selling Accords and Civics, and why Ford, GM, and Chrysler keep bringing back names from the past. It is all a way of letting people know what the car is, and what to expect. However, when you change up to another type of vehicle, like from a small car to a CUV/or SUV, you often see folks cross shop and move to another brand altogether. The F-Series will probably continue to be the top selling vehicle unless Ford changes the name or trucks suddenly become unfashionable, as buyers know what they are getting when they go to purchase the next one.
The only time Ford broke a sweat about F-150 was with the Femmy F-150 they chucked out there in 1997 and even that sold well. It’s not a vehicle you can really get wrong.
Now, if Ford introduced an all new Mustang based on the Focus chassis tomorrow I bet they’d be in for a world of hurt.
Hey, I like the Mustang, but it really does not sell in volume, at least compared to other models, and certainly not compared to the trucks. Ford really does not spend much in developing the Mustang (or any other car, really) as much as they do on SUVs and pickups. Were they to relaunch a new version of the Mustang, they probably would use the Focus chassis, or even the Fiesta chassis, but WHY? They would never sell enough to fully recoup the investment. Europe will quickly tire of the few Mustangs sold over there and go back to the Focus RS or a new version of the Fiesta, as the Mustang does not appeal to the mass market, at least like it did back in the day.
The current Mustang – and by extension the vast majority of sporty looking cars in general, including sedans – are just horribly compromised by design now a days. A 65-66 may have hardly been the paragon of space efficiency, but in coupe form it had a large trunk opening and visibility was decent, that’s why they always outsold the fastbacks. At some point the Mustang became defined by being a fastback, because movies, and Ford responded by making it ONLY a fastback, turning off anyone who may just want a nice looking personal car they can actually use.
“as the Mustang does not appeal to the mass market, at least like it did back in the day”
I think I know where you’re going but I’m not sure here. Mustang not having Mass Market appeal? That’s a bit off. Mustang sold around 68,000 fewer units than Focus and around 57,000 more than Fiesta last year. Pretty appealing for a one trick pony.
I’ll never understand the hate the 94-04s get these days. Better than the retro 05-14 as far as I’m concerned, which look like soft edged 1968s that ate a 1971.
To my eye, the ’94 Mustang is again a victim of excess ‘bloat’. It doesn’t really succeed at creating a unique style, or as a homage to the iconic Mustangs.
It looks as much like a Toyota as a Ford. Not especially memorable.
I can understand the dislike for the 94-08 cars. Ford was trying too hard to be “organic”. The soft round shape didn’t hold up well even then. The 99+ “New Edge” Mustangs were much better. I would take a New Edge Mach1 over any 05-14 cars.
I agree with that, I’ve never not liked the “New Edge” era so I don’t like seeing them lumped in with the 94-98s, which took some time for me to appreciate, admittedly. I think they’ve actually aged better than they get credit for though, and with a set of lowering springs and wider wheels(to fill the rather tucked in track) most of their visual problems go away. The 94-98s really remind me of the 15-current design.
In 1974, if you wanted a Mustang, you’d be better off getting a Maverick.
After reading all of the other comments it looks like I am about the only one that is actually old enough to have owned one of these as a new car. Well, I did.
In the fall of 1975 I bought a new coupe, blue inside and out with the 4 banger, 4 speed, and those Magnum 500esque wheels. It was a pretty car and, as others have said, it had a very nice interior, especially considering it wasn’t a Ghia. I had dealer installed AC added and that item was the most troublesome thing on the car. Later, I also had trouble with it running out of gas after about 100 miles. It turned out that the gas tank had sort of imploded. I think that must have been due to the retrofit by the dealer after all the Pinto scares. Any way it was a decent car that ran good and gave good MPG. I honestly don’t remember much about how it drove. I do remember that after driving it to work for the first couple of weeks I decided to let my wife use it to drive to work and I went back to driving the ’67 Mustang we had decided not to trade in. We had the MII until 1979 when we traded it off on the ’79 Malibu that I still own. By then it was a little small with 2 kids.
Then in 1988 I bought a similar 1978 MII for our two teenage girls to drive. This one was red with white vinyl top , auto trans, and factory air. What a tough little car! It was badly wrecked ( by others) twice and stood up very well compared to the other vehicles in the accidents. We fixed it both times. By the time we sold it when the girls had gone off to college the hood was the only part that had not been repainted. It served us well.
The Mustang II has suffered a lot of criticism over the years, a lot of it undeserved. Is it the kind of car I would buy today? No, I like things that perform better. But it was the right car at the right time just like the original. Besides, it was at the very least a placeholder . If not for the Mustang II we would not have the Mustang today.
Well said Rick.
I remember when these were new. It was one of those cars that I really wanted to like, but it just never quite worked the way it was supposed to. I really did like the styling, especially of the fastback/hatchback. My understanding is that the Mustang II was one of many Fords that ended up weighing a lot more than had been intended when it was on the drawing board. The 4-cylinder and V-6 engines should have been able to deliver performance comparable to the Capri, but because of all the extra weight, they didn’t and the V-8 was added into the mix the next year. (Other Fords that ended up weighing much more than originally planned include the ’89 T-Bird/Cougar and the ’96 Taurus/Sable.)
The Mustang II was also quite cramped with the back seat being almost unusable. I remember reading an article that listed different cars based on their interior and cargo space and the Mustang II was near the bottom of the list. The 2-seat Datsun 260-Z had more interior and cargo space than the Mustang II and the only cars that had less were all 2-seaters.
This road test article is another example of why “Car & Driver” was the “go to” car magazine in first my Father’s house and then my own.
“C&D” helped to form my automotive opinions from grade school to today. Usually (but not always) I would test drive a new car that I was lusting over and then read a “C&D” road test and think to myself, “Yeh, Yeh, Yeh, agree on that!”
With the above mentioned often acerbic words of Brock Yates & Patrick Bedard, edited by the editorial steady hand & guidance of David E. Davis, “Car & Driver” was, in my opinion, America’s premiere car magazine for at least 30 years.
Sadly, the current “C&D” is barely a ghost of it’s former self. When my family’s over 50 year subscription (First Dad and now me) expires this year, I will NOT renew it.
P,S, After reading this Mustang road test; I purchased a used Opel Manta, highly recommended by “C&D”; my first of 3 Opel Mantas. Loved ’em all!
I fell for the reclining corduroy bucket seats in the Manta Luxus in the Buick showroom. Sadly, I was too young to test drive a new one, and stupidly didn’t think of them when car-shopping in the 80s. I’m not sure how the seats would have worked with my usual corduroy cold-weather pants, however. Locked in place?
Ford sure did like using that plain steering wheel with the single horizontal spoke, didn’t they?!?
I think MII’s are pretty little cars, especially the hatchback, but the plastic/vinyl/urethane bumper covers, whatever they are, didn’t seem to hold up very well, and the little plastichrome strip in the covers also faded and peeled quickly.
I have never ridden in one of these…was in a high school carpool with a guy with a Capri II, 4 cylinder automatic, that was beautifully built, with a terrific black cloth/corduroy interior, but it was SLOW as hell with 4 teenaged boys inside…which might not have been a bad thing, in retrospect.
You bet they did. Aussie Falcons were lumbered with that cheap looking wheel for years. Develop a new one just for Australia? Not Henry.
I think we have found our Ford allegory to the Cadillac Seville paradigm. While the Seville did not replace a beloved nameplate with something much smaller than what we had come to expect, it did present a smaller car in place of a larger car.
As many have said, the M2 was the right car for the right time, although the timing of the 1973 oil embargo had to help immensely. While I’m not a fan of the car, I do agree with folks, had the Mustang died after 1973, it may have followed the Challenger and Javelin and not returned at all. The Challenger did return, twice now. But alas, no Javelin.
Like others have noted and I remember as a kid, *anything* with a 4 cylinder engine was flying out of the showrooms back in 1973-1974. The M2 was uniquely positioned among all of it’s competitors to cover all that ground, between the gas miser, the secretary’s car and in the Cobra II and King Cobra, the quasi-race car.
As such, there were lots of compromises because the car really couldn’t be the best at any of those roles. I have respect and a little nostalgia for these cars, but not a lot of love.
My 1 Uncle bought this Mustang style but was not even close to my other Uncle’s car, a 1967 Barracuda Fastback 383, 4 on the floor with drag racing gears in diff. This Mustang Uncle of mine turned out to be a jackass with a camera. Once he told me “the only person I care about in that household is your mother” — doesn’t say much about me, needless to say I never got along with this jerkoff — guess he should have bought a better car, not some phony impostor.
Mustang, Poo
Boredom, you Zero!
The Mustang name is magic and it was saved by being turned into a Brougham “sports” ride. It fit the times. It also sold by the boatloads and was a big success during the fuel shortage. If you don’t like the II – then you probably didn’t like the other rides during these years.
I’ve been asked before – what car would I have bought back then – NONE.
It was so bad, the US market started buying narrow little recycled Folger’s Coffee cans with Datsun written on them and Toyotas. Beetles were everywhere and that isn’t much of a ride. It was really a bleak time to drive.
The Plymouth “Road Runner” was a restyled Coronet with an appearance package. The Pontiac “GTO” was a Nova. Starsky and Hutch slid around in a Torino and that passed for a sporty car during this time. Buyers were getting intermediate personal luxury cars that had the performance of a Checker taxi cab.
It was freaking bleak.
That’s why I was so happy to see the Omnirizon, the Fairmont and the Escort. Really new cars. It was such a relief to see our domestic manufacturers catching up.
I agree the pickings were slim and grim, but not to the degree that there was no good car available in 1974. A Saab or a Volvo; a thoughtfully-specified and carefully-tuned Dart/Valiant/Duster or Colonnade car…any of those would’ve been a solid new-car pick to drive around until more and better offerings came round in the later ’70s.
I guess it’s the high belt- and front fender-line that makes both the MII and Pinto look like too much of the car is higher than the wheels–an ungainly, top-heavy effect. The small wheel diameter, long front overhang, prominent side moulding, and two-tone paint just make it worse. A small car is difficult to shape elegantly without compromising interior space (Vega & Monza).
As an Aussie teen I remember being terribly disappointed when I saw these in the magazines. I could agree with the downsizing, but this much? And that long long front overhang just looked all kinds of wrong. Still looks goofy today. Pinocchio comes to mind.
Several decades later when I saw one in the metal (a non-Ghia but nicely specced notchback), it didn’t look too bad. I guess if you were in America and wanted a comfortable little notchback for tooling around town it wouldn’t be too bad. Horses for courses, and all that.
But I wonder whether Ford was trying to cover too broad a market with these, shifting the marketing focus too far in the luxury direction? It seemed such an abrupt break with the Mustangs of yore; instead we got what seemed to be Ford’s version of a Celica. Which would be no bad thing if it was well done. But I can understand hard-core Mustang fans feeling let down. As first released, the sporty versions weren’t sporty enough, unlike in ’64 where the Mustang had a set-back engine and cowl, and you could credibly make a Mustang be just about anything. And it looked so right.
Maybe they needed to add a beefed-up Maverick to appeal to the old-Mustang crowd as well? Add an HO351 and call Ford Australia for chassis tuning advice. But then you guys had that fuel crisis.
Didn’t stop me building one.
To look at the MII, you have to look back to the ’73 Mustang. Which is better and worse, the bloated monstrosity the ’73 had become, or the Pinto in drag that was the ’74?
Just imagining an internal conversation at Ford.
Marketing. Yeah, I can sell it. It’s smaller, fuel crisis, it’s all good.
Accounting. Price is right. That new 4 cylinder engine, you guys did a good job on it, it came in on budget. And I hear it’s a big 4 cylinder, so we can put it in bigger cars.
Engineering. Uh, that’s not a great engine, with a little more resources we could have done a lot more. There’s smaller engines out there that put out more power and run better, we could do better.
Accounting. No, it’s on budget, it’s good. And engine is an engine, right?
Marketing. Just give me a number to advertise with. I can sell it.
Upper management. We need it now. Is it ready to go? We can fix details later, lets roll.
Not a great car, but if something hadn’t been done, in a couple of years the Mustang would have been LTD size and weight. But it did sell and they did make money. And their goal was to make money. Selling cars was all fine and well, but as long as they made money, all was well.
It was NOT developed in response to the fuel crisis, though, lead times are too long for that. Ford actually bet pretty heavily that the market was shifting enough that they’d have a better chance with a small Mustang, and the fact that it arrived just in time for the 1973 OPEC embargo was a coincidence.
The Mustang II was a car of it’s times. It was launched in the immediate aftermath of the first oil crisis and sold like hotcakes(if memory serves me 1974 sales were 385,998).
It gets reviled because it was a Pinto in a party frock. So what??? It was the right Mustang at the right time and allowed the Mustang to see it’s 1979 move to the Fox platform….