Let’s return to a favorite polarizing topic at CC, the much beloved and maligned Mustang II. I’ve said my piece on it here, so I’m going to leave it mostly to Road and Track to clarify the MII’s development, a technical analysis and some driving impression. The relationship of the MII to the Pinto is clearly spelled out, as a direct development but with considerable changes, many of which went right back into the 1974 Pinto.
As to the driving impressions, not surprisingly, R&T was generally disappointed. They were of course expecting a genuine sporty coupe in the vein of Ford’s very successful Capri and other compact sporty coupes like the Celica and Opel Manta. The Mustang II weighed some 400-500 lbs more than these lithe and lively sporty coupes, severely blunting any genuine sporting ambitions. The reality is that Ford’s priorities were a quiet cabin and a smooth ride. That may have disappointed those looking for lively acceleration and tight handling, but it was exactly what a huge raft of Americans were looking for in 1974 in the gale of the energy crisis: a 7/8 scale Torino.
R&T notes that the origins of the MII was of course a response to growing disenchantment by fans of the original Mustang with the way it kept getting bigger and fatter every two years as well as the rapid rise of the import-brand sporty coupes, which offered much of what the 1965 Mustang did but did it even better.
R&T didn’t recap the various stages of the MII’s early evolution, but we know that some of the early concepts were a bit larger Maverick-based designs, like this rather handsome one above. But undoubtedly for pragmatic cost-savings, the smaller Pinto was chosen as the starting point for the remodeling effort. That had practical benefits, but not stylistic ones, as the MII’s length quite overpowered its 96.2″ wheelbase as well as its petite 13″ tires.
The resulting visual effect was far from ideal. It’s not that the MII didn’t have styling elements that were dynamic and appealing; it’s just that they were squeezed into too short of a package with undersized wheels.
We tackled and fixed that issue back in 2012, with a wheelbase stretch at the front and larger 14″ tires (top). It goes some distance in restoring the proper relationship between the elements of the front of the car to maintain the dynamic quality that the original Mustang rather pioneered in its class and other front engine RWD sporty coupes all had.
R&T points out that “the relationship between Mustang II and Ford’s Pinto is a touchy subject at Ford; early reports of the new Mustang being a spinoff from the Pinto caused hard feelings there“. Well, it all gets down to semantics, but “spinoff” seems appropriate to me. But ultimately, it doesn’t matter what the MII was based on, related to, stretched from or spunoff from. The real issue is what the end result was. There’s no doubt or debate that starting with the shorter Pinto did compromise its proportions and visual balance.
If anything, Ford strayed too far from the Pinto in making it so soft, quiet and plush, as the early Pinto was a decidedly sporty little car, outfitted with the 2.0 four and 4-speed manual. And the Pinto looked like its wheelbase and tire size fit it, unlike the MII. So there’s no need for anyone to be defensive about the relationship between the two; it’s what they made of it that some disagreed with. It would have been easy to turn the Pinto into a domestic Capri, but that was not the brief or outcome.
The weight penalty was a heavy burden, one that the MII’s standard new 2.3 L “Lima” four or even the revised 2.8 L Cologne V6 could overcome. Not unlike the relationship of the MII to the Pinto, the new 2.3 SOHC four was a development of the European Ford 2.0 four, dubbed the “Pinto” engine. In the process, almost no parts were carried over, but its architecture was very clearly based on the 2.0. The 2.3 would turn out to have a long life. The V6 had its displacement increased from 2.6 L and had new heads with improved breathing. Not surprisingly, the V6 still didn’t yield lively acceleration, with a 0-60 time of 13.8 seconds.
R&T’s driving impressions were brief, and strictly on Ford’s Proving Grounds. But we have two proper reviews of the MII in our archives (links below), and as is almost universally the case, they are more negative than the initial impressions.
The argument is commonly made that despite any possible or perceived shortcomings, the MII was a big hit. Well, it was, in 1974, and the reason is easy: it was the depths of the energy crisis and resulting recession, and folks were desperate to ditch their LTDs and Gran Torinos and Megabirds for something small and efficient, and the MII fit the bill perfectly for these folks looking for a relatively quiet and comfortable ride, not zippy acceleration and zaggy handling. The Pinto and Vega also had their best year ever in 1974.
But sales cratered by 50% in 1975, as folks realized that the world was not ending and they shifted their attention to mid-size coupes like the Cutlass Supreme, which quickly became best sellers. The MII gets an A for timing.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1976 Mustang II Cobra II – Ford’s Deadly Sin II
Curbside What If? CC Builds A Better Mustang II
Vintage R&T Review: 1974 Mustang Mach 1 – “Neither Fast Nor Particularly Good-Handling…”
Hated by many, but I found the Ghia version interesting. A change of look compared to previous Mustangs. The interior was very well detailed and quality.
“4-5 year”, quality. After that, not so much.
“But undoubtedly for pragmatic cost-savings, the smaller Pinto was chosen as the starting point for the remodeling effort.”
Cost wasn’t the primary driving factor, and considering the reworking of the Pinto bits that was determined to be needed (and resultantly then shared), it probably was costlier.
The reasons cited in the past revolve around Iacocca being determined to downsize the Mustang, as noted in the article, and that various Maverick-based proposals of this idea all did rather poorly in consumer clinic trials. It is important to note that prior to Iacocca being appointed President of Ford’s US operations in the fall of 1969, there was no work completed for this project, therefore Maverick-based and Pinto-based proposals were green-lit for development at approximately the same time and shown alongside one another at these consumer clinic trials. There was consistently stronger preference towards what were the smaller Pinto-based proposals. Simply put, there was no real way to stylistically mask the physical size of a Maverick-based car. Eugene Bordinat, Vice President of Ford Design Studios regarding Advanced Design chief Don DeLaRossa’s Maverick-based “Ohio” clay models: “(he) put his studio to work on a clay model showing how big the Mustang would have to be to accommodate that I-6 engine. He got me to call Lee over for a look at it. Don became, shall we say, very forthright and told Lee if we really wanted to make a smaller car, we had better start with a smaller engine. Lee agreed with us and that was the end of the I-6.”
Only really know the Mustang 2, from the clip of Jill (Farrah Fawcett) & Kelly’s (Jaclyn Smith) cars parked outside the Charles Townsend Agency.
I have never understood Ford’s fetish for long front overhangs in the 70s. It may have been a cheap way to add length, but it came at the cost of really bad proportions all up and down the line. This car and the Mark IV were some of the worst, but were not alone.
I will say that the rough and slow 2.3 aside, the Ghia version provided a pretty nice car for someone who wanted a mini Thunderbird or Mark IV. Ford certainly knew how to trim an interior for that sort of car in the 70s.
I agree on all points – I don’t think a longer wheelbase would have made it a pretty car, but the overhangs are a big detriment. The original Mustang had a whole extra foot of wheelbase. Granted, it was longer, but only by half that. More wheelbase would have allowed more interior space and helped it fit the “mini T-bird” bill better in Ghia trim too. I’m guessing they did what they could to add a little (looks like it gained two inches over the Pinto), but would have had to do a more extensive re-work of the Pinto’s structure to add more. Pity, because it would have added a lot in looks and comfort – and some weight, but it was too heavy to be a truly sporty car anyway. Hard to say if it would have helped the car’s sales though.
Don’t think a longer hood helped. Long hood, short deck theme, just dates the design to the late ’60s. The visual bloat and flabbiness, especially in the notchback, compromised their looks for me then. And now. They look porky. Larger wheels and tires, and a wider track filling the wheel wells, help. Trying to meet two different markets, sport and luxury, really compromised the design. Pinto meets Monte Carlo. Short term, stopgap solution, that did not age well, is how I remember them.
Larger wheel-tire combination, and filling the wheel wells makes the body look leaner/tighter. Combats the bloat. This owner gets it.
Not great in the MII but quite good for fot-rodders . At least this is the only heritage she left otherwise there would not be so much restoration with the Mustang II front suspension with its rack-and-pinion steering.
I dated a woman who had a Ghia notchback in the mid-eighties. It was a horrible car to drive, at least for me, but what really stood out was how quickly the exterior trim and interior had deteriorated. A less than ten year old car, that had spent its whole life in California, was just falling apart.
So much said about the Mustang II.
However, cannot deny that Lido’s timing was impeccable with a debut just as the ’73 Oil Crisis hit the US. This was the cash cow that paid for the Granada which paid for the Fox Body platform.
Hat’s off the Lido!
The Mustang II was the right car at the right time. And then it wasn’t. No surprise sales tanked beginning in 1975.
I vaguely remember reading the R&T article because 74 would be the year I graduated from my post-secondary and a new compact car would be a grad gift. A basic M II hatchback was considered but at just over $4,000 it was a little on the high side. A well optioned Vega GT priced out at $3,800 was better value at the time and that’s the way I went. . My rich friend’s sister had a loaded Ghia coupe and she was happy with it, but there weren’t other young people I knew who were buying Mustang II coupes or hatchbacks.
Make that red h/b in the lead pic “cobalt blue”. Was my brothers “almost new car in “76”. I believe his was a “74”.
Was a “4 sp” though.
He like it for a short time; got tired of shifting and went back to “auto”.
Was quite a nice, underpowered, car though.
The “4 cyl” kept it from spinning, in the snow though. Help propel it forward..
I’m in two minds about this thing.
I hate it for its bloated looks and weird proportions we’ve all complained about already: the tiny wheels, the narrow track, the short wheelbase, the ridiculous amount of front overhang that seemed to infest Ford cars back then. Add to that, from today’s read, that horrendous curb weight. Near enough to a quarter ton more than a Capri? Why? Did the Pinto platform need that much structural reinforcement?
Would Ford have been better off basing it on the Capri?
But I have to acknowledge it was a sales success.
Bottom line: I guess they didn’t build it for the likes of me.
I bought a used ’74 Mustang II coupe with the V-6 and automatic when I graduated from University of Illinois in 1976 and needed a car with AC to get me to my first job in Florida. I didn’t kid myself that I was getting a sports car. It was simply a comfortable little car for getting around — slowly. It lasted about four years until the engine died. By then I could afford something a little better, which turned out to be a used 1979 Toyota Celica coupe with a 5-speed. I found that car a lot more fun. I broke with U.S. makes at that point and really haven’t been tempted to go back.
The Mustang II was indeed the right car for the times, as proven by its sales. It was interesting that Chevy kept their traditional Camaro around and supplemented it with the Monza (and likewise Pontiac with their Firebird and Sunbird). GM’s approach eventually paid off, while the Monza/Sunbird didn’t sell as quite as well as the Mustang II, Camaro/Firebird sales came back with a vengeance after 1976.
Historically speaking, the MII was a swing and a miss for Ford – one that could have been a hit, even if it couldn’t have been the kind of fire-breathing Mustang many enthusiasts wanted – it couldn’t have been a car worthy of the “Boss” or “Cobra Jet” badge (though Ford did open that box when sales slumped). It was too small to be personal luxury in a slim package. It was too heavy to be a sporty car. The styling, short wheelbase, and massive “safety” bumpers conspired to make it rather ugly.
Obviously, it wasn’t going to be very fast, since they market didn’t want a big V8, and it’d take a decade for Detroit to figure out how to make some power in the face of mileage and emissions mandates. So you’re left with making a car that’s luxury in a small package, or with superior driving dynamics, or at least a good looker. Ford tried to offer better handling and some luxury, and they succeeded in bettering the previous Mustang, but that’s a low benchmark. They did do well with the front suspension, but the improvements to the live axle in back seem to have blunted that.
Dynamically, Ford ham-strung the car by trying to split the difference between sportiness and luxury. The article puts it well: “…it’s difficult to know whether it’s a small car with big car feel, or a big car trying to act small.” Ford could have helped it in both the looks and luxury department by adding four inches or so to the wheelbase. They added a bit – mostly in suspension and sheetmetal tweaks, it seems. I suspect more would have required significant re-engineering of the Pinto structure. That investment might have been a good idea, making the car a lot more livable (especially if the back seats were used regularly). But let’s say it would have been too expensive to be practical. In that case, Ford should have leaned more heavily on being sporty. So, less sound deadening, less rubber in the suspension and steering, and probably ditch the hatchback (the article mentions that the notchback carried a weight penalty because it shared the same structure required to handle the loss of rigidity). Instead, keep it as light as possible, and offer a notchback and a traditional fastback. I think the market wouldn’t have cared about the NVH, or not having a hatch, and they still could do the Ghia version with most of that stuff added back in.
Ultimately, the sales boom the MII brought was purely timing, in my opinion. There’s just nothing great about the car. The styling is a big let-down no matter how you cut it; fix that, and maybe it holds up better. I think the effort Ford put into softening and isolating the engine and suspension was wasted to some degree: if it’s too cramped, your mind doesn’t go to “luxury” no matter how quiet or well-appointed. Finally, as I eluded to, making it truly fast was a non-starter, and the handling was clearly compromised by the insistence on a certain level of isolation.
They say a camel is a horse designed by committee. Obviously, camels are adapted to a certain environment, but aesthetically speaking, it makes sense. The MII was a horse designed by committee, with too many compromises to make it all things to all people. It did nothing particularly well, and capped it off by being uglier than your average camel. I don’t hate it; in many ways, Ford was trying to do that right thing, and without the brief sales boom it brought, the Mustang might have withered on the vine, and they may not have had the resources to develop the aero T-bird and Taurus and such. So it’s not a total failure of a car, but it’s interesting to see how clearly the writing was on the wall – that R&T spelled out from the beginning how it did nothing particularly well.