mmarshall

IN A NUTSHELL: IMO unfairly panned in the auto press, and a return to the size of the original Mustang.


Much has been written in the auto press over the years (mostly negative) about Ford’s downsized Mustang II. For the most part, I disagree…..for reasons which I will explain in this write-up.

The original Mustang, unveiled in April of 1964 to some of the greatest hype ever given to an American vehicle-introduction, was designed as a compact sport-oriented-coupe, based on the Ford Falcon platform, and sharing much of its frame, running-gear, engine/transmission, suspension, and steering wth its more mundane Falcon stablemate. The Mustang differed mainly in the (IMO) excellent-looking body and interior, which attracted buyers in droves. Later on, the term “Ponycar” would be used to describe the Mustang and its Camaro, Barracuda/Challenger, Cougar, Javelin, and Firebird competitors….the term “Pony” of course, as a reference to the Mustang’s galloping-horse-symbol.

Over the next decade, however, the Mustang grew in length, width, weight, and power, particularly after Carroll Shelby, who had reworked the original high-powered AC Cobra and had helped Ford so much, with the GT-40, to compete against (and beat) Ferrari on the Formula One race-tracks, reworked the Mustang into a truly high-performance machine with its distinctive blue and white paint job and stripes. Additional high-performance versions of the Mustang, like the Boss 302/429, Cobra-Jet CJ, and Mach I, were introduced in 1969/70, along with even more size and weight.

In the early 1970s, the Mustang grew even longer, but build quality/solidness declined somewhat, the rear fastback grew ridiculously flat (which greatly impacted rear visibility and made it easy for snow to build up), and it simply was not the same car anymore that it was originally designed to be. Lee Iacocca, who by this time was President of Ford, ordered an all-new Mustang for 1974, shaved back down to more or less its original dimensions. Originally, the 1974 Mustang was going to use the Maverick’s compact platform, but it decided to use the Pinto’s instead.

And this is is where the auto press started panning the new Mustang II….using the Pinto’s platform and markedly downsizing the engines from those of the previous 7-8 years or so. Auto writers laughed at it and basically called it a toy. I disagreed….for several reasons. First, with the possible exception of Pontiac’s Trans-Am, virtually all of Detroit’s muscle-cars of that era, as a result of emissions, CAFE regulations, and increasing insurance-premiums, if not dropped altogether, were being either downsized, de-powered, or both….and the Mustang II was obviously not going to be any different. Second, after the original 2.3L in-line four and 2.8L V6s were offered in 1974, starting in 1975, people who wanted more power could order the 4.9L (302 c.i.) V8 in the Cobra and Mach I packages. No, it was not the same as the big tire-shredding V8s of 69/70 before they were also de-powered from emission controls, but the 302 had enough spunk to at least get out of its own way. Cobra II and King Cobra packages became available later. Ghia and Stallion trim packages were also available at various times in the model-run. Third, although it was done on the Pinto’s platform (and the basic body styling was somewhat similar), the Mustang II had more attention paid to its rear frame and structural strength, and was more resistant to the fuel-tank going up like a Roman candle in a rear-end-impact. Fourth, unlike the auto press, I saw it as no big deal that Ford decided to use the Pinto platform for the Mustang II…..as long as they didn’t cheap out on the proper engineering like they did with the Pinto to try and save weight and cost. Fifth, one reason the Mustang II looked less-sleek and more bulbous in front compared to earlier versions was because of the Federal Bumper Standard of 1973, which, with the technology of the time, required those large heavy extended bumpers that messed up the looks of many American cars of the period.

So, given what the economic circumstances of the country were at the time, the strong regulatory climate, the high insurance premiums for sporty and high-performance cars, the lessening-demand for this type of vehicle as many buyers were either starting to look at compacts and sub-compacts for gas mileage, the still-small but steadily-rising tide of Japanese imports, and the better engineering of the Mustang II compared to the Pinto, personally, I think its design made sense, and I liked its looks apart from the large heavy bumpers. In fact, I liked it a lot more than the later versions which were built from the late 1970s through the early 2000s. I thought they were all super-cheaply done inside and out, and none of those versions (even the Cobras) really interested me, although I did test-drive a new Cobra Mustang with the Hurst manual transmission in the 90s (I don’t remember exactly which year). Ford was advertising each Cobra engine as hand-built and signed off by a Factory Technician, but I wasn’t impressed with its actual on-road performance, and Ford later admitted publicly that the power-level of those engines was somewhat overrated. In 2005, once again, came a REAL Mustang, that, although slightly larger than the original ’64-66 Mustang and later Mustang II, restored much of the vintage-Mustang’s pony-good looks and power-levels under the hood….not to mention a much better interior than the late-70s-early 2000s versions. From then on, the Mustang became a real American icon again….the rest is history.

And, as Always, Happy-Vehicle-Memories

MM

DaveGS4

iTrader: (2)

My least favorite mustang

I've got to agree to disagree on that one!

Power (hp) 140 hp @ 4,200 RPM Torque (lb/ft) 234 lb/ft @ 2,200 RPM

mmarshall

I respect your point of view, Dave (and I understand where you're coming from), but, even with the bulge-bumpers of the period, that was a much lighter Mustang than today's...so 234 ft-lbs. might (?) go a little further than one might think. However, like I said in the write-up, you are correct that it was obviously a far cry from the late 60s.

BTW......any Mustang from the late 70s up through 2004 is my least-favorite Mustang LOL.

Margate330

I remember this car well.
Mine was a 1978 Mustang II with the V-6 and manual transmission.

Not very powerful but didn't stop me from revving it up and dropping the clutch to do burn outs. haha
Blew 2 engines in it and sold it when I knew the 3rd engine was on it's way out.

Doing around 100+ mph I blew the 2nd engine and it scared the hell out of me when the rear wheels locked up and skidded to a stop.
Popping the hood I could see a hole in my engine with a rod sticking out.

I loved that car since I was just a teenager and I must've delivered a couple thousand pizzas in it for my job and cruising with the chicks just being a dumb kid. lol


Yeah not a whole lot of power that's for sure but it was a racecar compared to my previous rusted out VW rabbit, what a piece of junk beater that one was. lol
Had to rev the Mustang up to 5,000k rpm and drop the clutch to get some burned rubber. Woo hoo

mmarshall

You must have had enough cash to keep replacing those engines and clutches. That can get expensive.

Yes.....Tachometers have red-lines for a reason.

How long ago were you delivering pizzas? You said it was a '78 Mustang II. From what I remember, the pizza-delivery business did not start until sometime later in the 1980s...maybe even early 90s. Of course, it may not have been a new car, but several years old when you started delivering.


Those first VW Rabbits, in the mid-70s, spent more time in the shop than out. The Rabbit (and the 1974 Dasher) were VW's first attempt at front-drive products.....and it showed. And VW wasn't alone......the first FWD products from a number of manufacturers back then (including GM and Chrysler) were troublesome. I owned some of them myself.

Striker223

I have never been near one of these in real life, seems interesting though and a fun candidate for a 2.5 eco boost swap.

mmarshall

Here, then.....you might enjoy this video. It's about as close as you will get to a real-life experience.

Margate330

I bought mine in 1988 so it was 10 years old and I paid $1,500 for it.

My friends all had 1960's Mustangs with the rear end geared for the 1/4 mile or the newer Mustangs dropping in roller rockers and hot cams, etc but their daddy's had money $$$.
I bought this car on my own with money saved up from cutting grass after school.

Like Davegs says above, it was a least favorite Mustang but for a kid like me it was awesome. lol

To show how ignorant about cars I was when I bought it- car had Ice Cold AC and air blowing thru the vents would freeze you.
Well... some idiot friend who knew less than me said my AC was robbng me of horsepower even when I don't use it.

So I pulled the belt and AC compressor and drove with windows down and guess what, car wasn't any faster but I sure sweated A LOT!

Learned more about cars when I blew that angine and installed a junk yard donor engine by myself and taking lots of trips to Napa on my bike for tools and parts and a chilton manual.

Interestig that this car is supposedly built on the Ford Pinto platform because I had a friend that had a Pinto and it was a real world class POS and this car drove nothing like it.

mmarshall

OK...I suspected you had bought it later as a used car, but wasn't sure.

Problem is.....those late-60s Mustangs with the big heavy 390 and 428 Cobra Jet motors in them had torque, but wouldn't handle. The weight of those big cast-iron V8s made the front ends quite heavy, and they would tend to plow straight ahead instead of responding to the wheel. Old-style recirculating-ball steering, with its free-play in the center, didn't help any, either.

Good....I see you had a work ethic. Too many kids expect their parents to give them everything (even expensive BMWs) on a silver platter.


Even with the compressor turned off, the extra weight of the A/C components alone does have an impact on gas mileage, but it is VERY minor. Your friend, for all intents and purposes, was wrong.

But also consider this: driving with the windows down increases turbulent airflow in and around the vehicle, and that turbulence can also make the engine work a little harder to overcome it, using a little more fuel. So there are benefits and trade-offs to doing either one.



Yes, I mentioned in the write-up that it was much better-engineered than the Pinto, despite the common platform. Perhaps the most important difference, is that the Mustang II was a lot more resistant to fires from rear-impacts.

timmy0tool

iTrader: (7)

oof to be frank, that's not a great looking mustang.
here in CA i have never seen 1 driving around, and we have the most diverse car culture in the US. i bet i just wasn't looking for it - but now i will!

mmarshall

Not to be offensive with this question, but are you old enough to have been around when this car was on the market? (I am). A fair number were sold here in the D.C. area, so I can't see why it would not have sold in car-culture California, particularly in the L.A. region. In fact, in its first year alone, Ford sold some 400,000 of them...vs. 170,000 of the larger and more bulbous 1973 model.

I'd bet on your last statement.......you either weren't looking for it, or you were too young to have remembered its heyday.

Jezza819

Even Farrah couldn't make that car cool.

Felix

At the time, this was the right size car Ford needed. It was also a place holder for the Mustang name. Super heaviley reworked Pinto platform. The front cradle was U shaped called the ''toilet seat'' included a rack/pinion, disc brake front. As yiou know that all the rodders were using the ll frontends. For '75 Ford reworked the grille opening for the v/8. I looked at these, but no v/8, passed on the v/8 Maverick, Ford dropped the Sportsroof Torino & I didn't want the Starsky/Hutch hardtop, so I went w/ the 'chero instead.... At the time my brother & I stopped by Holiday (Sunnyvale) Ford & they had a Red w/black vinyl roof Ranchero GT, 351c, Hurst 4spd in the showroom, went & told pop's, to cancel the order on the Ranchero I ordered from Lutz Ford. He said to late as the vehicles he ordered are due in a few days. Anyhow in the mid eighties I had a change to get a v/8 Mustang II, but passed for a box fender '82 Capri RS, lot more mods as the aftermarket was going gang busters for the Foxbody's...btw, 1974 M/T's car of the year.....These Mustang ll's always remind me of Farrah, RIP Farrah.... Really would be cool to have v/8 ll, nowadays as you roll up to a C&C you'd have the only one......Ford really did know how to do interiors......

timmy0tool

iTrader: (7)

no offense at all. i'm in my early 40s so yeah i wasn't even born when this stang was sold. i would like to see them in the wild so my eyes are peeled!

mmarshall

Farrah or no Farrah, it's hard to beat those blue and white Shelby paint jobs. They are a classic.

BTW, if my memory is correct, she also appeared in some ads for the Pontiac Trans-Am...but what really sold the T/A, of course, was Burt Reynolds, Sally Field, and the Smokey and the Bandit film.