(first posted 6/16/2016) It was a real “Whoa! What’s that?” moment when I spotted this ’74 Mustang II on a Sunday afternoon, six years ago. I was on my way to play some Euchre (a popular card game in the Midwest) with friends. I’m not exactly sure why, but the first year of Mustang II holds some genuine intrigue for me, being as it was the purest form of Papa Lido’s “Little Jewel” that was introduced in September of ’73.
After snapping a few pictures but also needing a quick bite, I ducked into the local Subway sandwich shop for a toasted roast beef on wheat. There was another customer in line in front of me who appeared to be in his early- to mid-twenties. While I was waiting in line, I kept glancing through the windows across the street at the first street-parked, non-show car Mustang II I had seen in probably twenty years or more.
Having seen me snapping pictures out there, the restaurant’s proprietor, Mr. S., asked about my interest in the car. I explained I was something of a car fanatic, and that I couldn’t remember when I had last seen a Mustang II like this on the street in such great condition. I also mentioned I was hoping to get a few more frames of this car before it and its owner disappeared (as in, Please hurry with my sammy!). Part of me had hoped it belonged to Mr. S., so I could get some back story, but he didn’t bite, so I left it alone.
Overhearing our conversation, the customer in front of me exclaimed, “That’s a Mustang??” Mr. S. went back to making our sandwiches, as I managed to rattle off a few, basic facts about this generation, including the ’74 model’s unique, deeper front grille and the lack of the V8 option. The guy in front of me just shook his head incredulously. This was a “Dang, I’m old” moment, for sure.
If I had correctly guessed the other customer’s age, he would have been born in the mid-80’s, at which time our featured car would have been about at least ten years old. It’s true that most of the second-generation cars had probably disappeared long before he would have easily recognized these as Mustangs, with Fox-body ponies still positively everywhere by the time he would have graduated high school shortly after the turn of the New Millennium. It does actually make sense to me how the original Mustang styling cues, in their melted, ’70s guise of our featured car, would not shout “Mustang” as strongly to a Millennial as the lean, angular, athletic lines of Jack Telnack’s third-generation model.
I was seriously lost as to when I had last seen a Mustang II (any Mustang II) that wasn’t at a show, before I remembered having seen a bumper-less, brown notchback parked not far from Eppley International Airport in Omaha, just a couple of months ago. Before that, though?
I can think of only two such cars, going back to the early 90’s when I was in high school. My friend, Michelle, had purchased a peach-colored Ghia notchback with a tan vinyl roof. It had the Cologne 2.8 V6 / three-speed auto combo, so it wasn’t the quickest thing, but it had been advertised by the used car dealership as a “southern car”. It still ended up rusting badly in short order after just two Michigan winters.
My high school best bud, Fred, had bought a non-running, black ’78 King Cobra with T-tops that sat in his parents’ garage for a year and a half before they made him get rid of it. His dreams of dropping a modern 5.0 into it came to naught, though he had managed to change the brakes as his only project before the tow truck came.
Shifting back to our featured car, I did manage to get a few more pictures of what I considered to be some of this ’74’s more memorable features: its deeper grille and the standard wheel cover discs (all of which were present and accounted for). I far prefer the hatchback’s sloping, fastback profile to the notch’s stubby trunk, though I don’t find our white car unattractive.
Hopefully, the past six years have been good to this little, Shetland pony. Many folks dog these cars now, but as has been said many times before, Ford sold plenty of these and thus kept the “Mustang” name alive. Let us never forget this, though it is as true of the Ford Mustang as it was said on print ads for Virginia Slims cigarettes from the same era as our featured car: Mustang, you’ve come a long way, Baby.
Wrigleyville, Chicago, Illinois.
Sunday, April 18, 2010.
Related reading from:
- Ed Stembridge: Curbside Classic: A Tale of II Mustangs – What A Difference Five Years Makes
- Dave Skinner: Curbside Classic: 1974 Mustang Mach 1 – The Soul Survivor.
- Paul Niedermeyer CC 1976 Mustang II Cobra II – Ford’s Deadly Sin II
- Paul Niedermeyer: What If: CC Builds A Better Mustang II
Odd ball kinda car not sold here new but as usual some arrived used, theres a green Mustang11 around locally I’m not sure of the year but it has a V8 motor whether Ford installed or some backyarder Ive no idea but Ive heard it and it matches the badging.
What a find! I am not against the Mustang II and what it represented in an era of ever increasing bloat and glut. I cannot think of any other Domestic of the era that foreshadowed, made the proper metamorphosis, and thus succeeded in what the mid 1970’s would be like better than this car here.
Too many people focus on what the Mustang was, using rose colored glasses, and fail to see how critical this car was for Ford at the time. Machs and Bosses were the halo ideals, but made such a small dent in overall sales of the Mustang brand when they did exist. For Ford to ignore that fact in late 1970, as this car was in gestation, would be a critical error. Capris and Celicas became hot commodities in the early 70’s, and this success was prior to OPEC. A bunch of people who had prior secretary special Mustangs were up in arms as to what the Mustang had become, were vocal about it, and they were stockholders. Iacooca was wise enough to take heed and attempt to recreate what those folks found appealing in the first breed. OPEC or not, after the initial super high-spec cars hit the ground and Ford saw their error, the II became a very nice success. It had to be. Crappy build and weak performance aside, would you really have had an equally weak performing and crappy built Monza? (This obviously implies both manufacturers had glaring faults, and were not truly addressing the looming threat of ever improving import contenders)
I am really glad I stayed up late and got to throw my two cents in, because boy ohh boy, here comes the inevitable hate…
No hate coming from here! I was a middle school kid when these were everywhere, and even then I knew that they were closer in concept to the original Mustang than the Torino sized ’73s. Buddies would point out it’s lowly Pinto origins,perhaps not realizing the first gens relation to the Falcon (and thus,Maverick!). The Mustang II was the right thing,at the right time (rare in the 70s) and is a valid placeholder untill Fox (Fairmont,,,guys LOL!) came to be. My only beef is Ford not having the “stones” to call it just “Mustang” the “2” thing makes it seem “less” somehow.
In hindsight, the II suffix is a detraction. But at the time it made sense. Ford hit the reset button and returned to the compact, affordable Mustang roots, hence the II designation.
This concept was familiar to the public at the time. Popular culture of the early ’70’s used this concept elsewhere, such as the movie “Genesis II”.
Also it was named after the “Mustang II” show car of 1963 that pre-dated the original Mustang.
Don’t forget the LTD II and Bronco II. Henry the Second had no qualms..
LOL, I suppose not, although I won’t count LTD II as a ringing endorsement! I mean they didn’t call the Torino based Thunderbird “Thunderbird II”, although in hindsight, they should have!
Henry Ford II, aka “Hank Deuce” liked Roman Numerals, so Ford slapped them on many cars in 70’s. Capri II was one.
The Fox era ‘Stang was almost the “Mustang III”
Well said! This car played a crucial role for Ford at a challenging time. Even the styling, which is often lambasted, was interesting to me. It is arguably one of the first “retro” cars, as it tried to update the looks of the original Mustang after the “Clydesdale” years. The front-end treatment and side detailing in particular hearkened back to the original, while the tail lights were a very fresh take on the Mustang look. The interior was nicely trimmed as well and pretty posh for the segment. The Pinto-based mechanicals were not the best for performance or handling, but as a high-style economy cruiser it was right on target. Lido really does deserve credit for this one. While the Mustang II is mostly forgotten, it should join the ranks of cars that served their purpose well by being hugely popular and timely, even if not the fodder for an enthusiast’s dream 40 years later…
I totally agree with the II being a retro car, ironically the 2005-2010 Retro Mustang would use an updated Cologne V6 as well.
Course, I personally have similar attitude towards the styling of both….
Yeah, I think the sales numbers speak for themselves. This may not have been what kids talking about cars in the school cafeteria wanted, but it was what consumers wanted. They could have and should have been better, but conceptually they were right on the mark.
Credit needs to be given where credit is due. Lido pulled another rabbit out of his arse with the ’74 Mustang II based on an existing platform (Pinto) for pennies on the dollar. He did the same rabbit trick 10 years earlier with the original Mustang (based on the Falcon).
I was not a big fan of the II, but they sold well and Ford made a pocket full of money to get thru the worse recession since since the Great Depression.
By the way, I think your photo car may be a model year 75 or 76. In order to cram the V8 under the hood, the depth of the front grill was made slightly shallower. I’m sure our panel of experts will keep me in line. My observation is based on an IPad at 4:30 in the morning with no coffee yet.?????
Mustang II still holds the record for most ‘Stangs sold on the tails of the first generation.
Even as a kid, where these (and their Pinto sibling) were everywhere in Northern Virginia, I never particularly liked them.
I didn’t really like the Fox Bodies, either, but those are growing on me.
Of course, my tastes may be off because I liked the SN95’s and sought out and owned a beautiful 1994 GT Premium Convertible.
Cheap canvass for masterpieces if you have the inclination and patience and can’t stand the Fox’ angularity.
The use of first-gen Celica Liftback taillights on the example on the lower-right was a stroke of genius, IMO!
Is that what it is? I would not know…
The revised wheel openings (and fender flares) make a word of difference in the appearance of these ‘II’s”. As originally designed,the wheel well placement (and the O.E. inky-dinky rolling stock) make them look like a life-size weeble-mobile.
I love these. Slightly off proportions aside, they look great, both inside and out. I like the 2+2 the most, just in regular guise and not the tarted up Cobra.
The worst part is the front wheels being set too far back, but IIRC someone ‘fixed’ that in a prior post on the Mustang II.
I agree with 6 speed auto:
Car being featured appears to be an other than 74 model.
According to at least one of the many Mustang reference books I have, the notchback Mustang II almost didn’t happen. About 2/3rds of the way through development the case was made that the iconic Mustang shape was a 2 door notchback hardtop. Until that point, only the fastback was going to be produced.
In 1974 2 of my sisters and I bought new cars. I bought an Audi Fox, one sister bought a V6 Capri (at my overwhelming urging), and another sister bought a Mustang II Ghia…..one of those triple silver cars that featured heavily in Mustang II ads. That Mustang was one of the worst new cars anyone in my family ever owned while the Capri was one of the best….until rust (eventually) caught up with it and the windshield came close to falling out due to the rust.
Suprisingly, I still see these on Craigslist here in Florida but always as these “base” model hardtops with 4 cylinder engines and automatic transmissions.
Yes, the notchback II nearly did not happen. At a consumer clinic in Anaheim, California, the proposed notchback got overwhelmingly favorable response after a glut of so-so. As you can see, it changed quite a bit once the final product was fully baked. That said, this is the car that convinced Iacocca to move forward with the notchback bodystyle:
Shame they didn’t go with the cleaner lines. I’m no stang purist and I get why the II, but they could have made it a little less cartoonish. This below example is probably too clean and too far away from the Mustang look but I like it a lot.
In a perfect world, I wish they chose the hardtop Ghia studio concept; a 1970’s Fulvia interpretation:
very, very nice
That’s a good-looking car–though rather than a Mustang proposal, it almost looks like a Fairmont coupe with hidden lamps.
The car in the background corner is interesting–very suggestive of the ’70, especially in the grille opening and the scooped leading fender edges, but with a late 70’s angularity about it.
Whoa…..maybe I’ve seen this before and have forgot it, or maybe I’ve never seen it. It’s a shame that Ford didn’t pursue this bodystyle, because I think that it looks bloody great. The front end, for an American car, would have been very original in that day and age, with it’s hidden headlights, narrow grille and sleek, sexy lines. Most likely, the car cost too much to build and Ford suits said to base it on something in their lineup to save money. I get the impression that after Bunkie’s era of Mustangs, Ford wanted to save in both size and with the sheer amount of metal and iron that they were putting into the cars and engines. Lee had probably did the best with what he was given.
The greenhouse on this prototype was much ahead of its time, and it looks like they had saved it for the ’79 Fox body version. Perhaps they felt that it was too advanced for the time, and too European looking?
I see a hint of the Granada 2 door in the fenders.
Actually, I see a hint of the ’79 Fox Body Mustang notch-back in that prototype’s formal roof line. I don’t like the double headlights, although I thought they were cool on the ’79.
I made the mistake of trading a ’74 Capri II V6, which had epic electrical problemsm, for a ’75 Mustang II with the same engine and transmission. The electricals were fine, but every other thing that could go wrong did. A wretched car that ended a 41-year streak of Ford purchases in our family. I traded it after 3 years for a 1978 Toyota Corolla.
I always had thought a quick and easy mnemonic device on the the ’74 was the grille: the ’74 is the only year where turn signals have that horizontal bisector. The grille also sits further back in its housing than later years. I researched this, but could be wrong. Would love to see what others say!
Agreed. Also, it cannot be later than a ’75 due to the lack of the under-chin spoiler. If this was a Ghia model, it could only be a ’74 as it does not have the “opera” rear window treatment (but this one is not so..).
The entire header panel is shallower on the ’75-’78 cars. Note where the “FORD” letters are located on this ’74:
And here’s a ’75-’78:
Makes you wonder why they would make such a slight change to a panel that hardly anyone would notice.
Larger hood opening to accommodate the new-for-’75 302 V8? That extra inch or so probably made the difference in access to the fan and fan belt when the car had the V8.
Yes the change was to allow for the v8 not only is the header panel thinner the core support is different to move the radiator mounting farther forward to clear the 302.
Yup!! Awesome – I thought so. Thanks, Roger, for posting those pictures.
Wow, Joe – what a find! Every single one of these is either a perfect show car or a cheap BBQ grill by now, having been recycled out of a junkyard carcass about 2003.
I spent oodles of time around these. My best “car-friend” during and after high school had a baby blue 74 Ghia and a law school roommate had a red 75 base model, both 4 cylinder stick cars. The Ghia was a really nicely trimmed car.
Everyone talks about how the 77 GM B bodies were the first successfully downsized cars, but it is actually these. These came out at the perfect time and were, in many ways, the ultimate 70s-mobile. It also occurs to me – was this the first US car to go away from the chrome bumper look? Body color bumpers have been the norm for decades, but that was a radical look in 1974.
The ’77 GM “B/C”s were considered “clean sheet” (Panther, also), Hence, credit for “downsizing” a prior model/series. This credit never is given to the “R” body MoPar, because, Like the Mustang II, It was based on an existing platform. Ironic due to the “R” body being based on a true downsizing program: 1962 Plymouth & Dodge.
Well, the Panther and R body came 2 years after the 1977 GM B. I get what you say about them being “clean sheet”, but I am thinking in terms of a popular car being replaced by a smaller version. It is true that the MII was derived from the Pinto, but there was precious little that interchanged between them.
I think that the real answer is that these never got any respect from the Mustang crowd, which preferred to ignore them or consider them to not be “real” Mustangs.
No Pontiac did that first with their line of “Endura” bumper cars : GTO, 70-73 Firebirds.
Good point, I had forgotten about them. But didn’t those early 70s Firebirds and Grand Ams still have chrome bumpers out back? I know that the 71 Firebird that I crashed my bike into the back of did. I am trying to think of there was anything else that did front and rear clad bumpers before these, and I have not thought of one yet.
For ’74 the Firebird got a new plastic covered rear bumper to go with the revised plastic front, all to meet the new, more stringent 5-mph standards. So it joined the Mustang II that same year as a leader in the new look.
The Chevelle Lugana S3 comes to mind. The car pictured below is a 74, but the 73 looked the same….
Didn’t the “73 have the big round headlamps and the round taillights as well? Got to go look but thinking the rear “fixed” windows were the big triangular ones.
And also the 1970 Oldsmobile Rallye 350, though its bumpers weren’t Endura, but a painted urethane foam coating over metal. But the look was still unconventional in 1970, particularly in Sebring Yellow, which is the only color the Rallye 350 came in.
Honestly I feel the Mustang IIs bumpers would have looked better had they been chrome. They may be body color but they still fit the car as terribly as the rail road ties used on every other Ford in the lineup. Painted they just look even cheaper, like all those half baked restorations and restomods that seemingly can’t afford to replate the dulled chrome bumpers
@XR7Matt, dude – good quality chrome plating is effing expensive!
Heck even crappy chrome plating is ridiculously priced. I never judge anyone for a lack of chrome on a restoration that ISN’T aiming at “like it just came out of the showroom.”
I won’t judge against just keeping the pitted or hazy chrome, on an otherwise mint car, but I just cannot stand when big clunky bumpers are painted, it looks like the cheap solution that it is.
To round out the timeframe when each of the domestics got into the painted-bumper theme, Ford was the final holdout, not using (optional) painted bumpers until the 1971 Mustang arrived on the scene.
was this the first US car to go away from the chrome bumper look? Body color bumpers have been the norm for decades, but that was a radical look in 1974
1971 Charger and Roadrunner both had body color front AND rear bumpers as an option.
And
Oh and the AMC AMX with the “big bad orange/blue/green” in 1969. Totally forgot!
Re: body colored bumpers
1970 Chrysler E-body cars had both front and rear as an option (very rare, and also ugly IMO).
I’d add the 1968 GTO (Endura optional front clip) and 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass (Rallye 350 package) for an early sampling of GM body – colour bumpers.
The ’73 Mustangs had body color 5-mph bumpers in front.
Actually, I see an unmolested/unrestored example every month or so (a different one) in Northern California. I think every town with a halfway mild climate (Sacramento, the Bay Area, the North Coast) has two.
> Everyone talks about how the 77 GM B bodies were the first successfully downsized cars, but it is actually these.
1961 Lincoln Continental! About 15 inches shorter than the 1960.
Nice find. I am a little older than the gentleman owner so my formative years were the late 60s, Fords that I coveted were 428 Cobra Jet Torinos and Mach 1s. I can remember when these 74’s were introduced – it was the start of the “Dark Time”…
That being said, they sold very, very well – you’d see them everywhere.
Interesting find. As time passes I find that cars I once considered too-little, too-late, and too-bad are now objects of interest to me. Such as this Mustang II, the (well still awful) Vega, the Studebaker Lark, the Rambler American, and a few others.
Well actually I always liked the Lark. Something about using Roman numerals on the engine call-out.
Not sure but, doesn’t the front of this Mustang II and the Vega seem similar?
Maybe I need more coffee.
The one true spirit of Mustang that the II captured was the youthfull, mainly female car of independence. What a great car for a girl in her first real job in 1974. I bet the base engine 4sp take rate was much higher than the 3sp/inline six of the older Mustang. The lima 2.3 was more economical and probably faster than the old and future 200 six. The interior was more comfortable and quieter than a Pinto. Power steering, modern rack and pinion, was much more common on Mustang than Celica, Capri or Manta.
The 2.8 60 degree V6 gave a smoother experience and dare I say fit the car more than the extremely low output V8 later available in Mustang II and also Monza. It was miles ahead of the early 90 degree V6s in Monzas and the other Hs in a sporty car application.
Critics point to the extra weight versus Capri, but refinement had to be added to differentiate from the cheaper Pinto. My 1974 Consumer Guide recorded the Mustang II as five decibels quieter than a Pinto at 60mph, and quieter than a Celica and a 400 Firebird Espirit, 2 barrel single exhaust.
The really lucky thing was Ford realized not to go smaller than this. Not many redesigned for 1979 cars had a longer wheelbase than the cars they replaced. An Escort EXP Mustang could have been the cars fate
As I pointed out in my earlier comment my sisters owned a Capri and a Mustang II, both with V6s….though the Mustang had automatic. I got to drive both cars and have driven/owned several 4 and 6 cylinder Capris.
The Mustang II drove/felt like a compacted Thunderbird (and yes, I once drove one of those 70s “boats”, too). It was as though the designers were given the choice of leaning heavily towards the Grande Mustangs or the Mach Mustangs….and went overboard in the direction of the Grande.
The 72 and 73 Capris were fairly sporty, I actually prefer the 4 cylinder powered models, but that 74 V6 Capri felt heavy….not quite ponderous. It is telling that Capri IIs would add power steering, even for 4 cylinder models.
But compared to them, my Audi Fox felt like it was made of aluminum, it was so “light on it’s feet”.
In my 74 consumer guide, your Fox weighed 2017 pounds for a two door auto and the auto two door V6 Mustang II at 2708 pounds. It seems strange to me to have them both listed as low priced sports cars, perhaps the first American Foxes were all two door.
Since the Capri was a Mustang for Europe, it’s a wonder that Ford chose to Reinvent the Wheel with the II instead of simply domesticating the more appealing Capri, but the Pinto was evidence that adopting European relatives was not in their playbook.
Agree, those MIIs felt, um, substantial. They were vintage 70s FoMoCo, with those heavy, solid doors and the quiet ride (at least for that class of car). My friend’s 74 Ghia really was like a mini Thunderbird. It was the most luxurious small car I had ever seen when he bought it around 1978 or so.
Of course the other part about it being vintage 70s Ford was the way that thing began rusting with a vengeance in our northern Indiana climate. The car also had a cracked head (which he discovered right after he bought it) but was otherwise pretty trouble-free for him. He kept it for quite a few years, until he bought a new Cougar in 1983 or 84.
If Mary Tyler Moore had started a few years later she might have been driving a II in the first season opening credits.
Jaclyn Smith also drove one in Charlie’s Angels.
It’s was widely known that Farrah Fawcett drove a Cobra II on the popular Charlie’s Angels television show, which almost certainly helped increase sales to young women.
Cheryl Ladd got the Cobra after Farrah left the show.
What is also interesting is the “Angels” kept their 1977 models through the 5th season, 1980-81. Didn’t get newer cars, as usual with cop shows of the time.
Growing up, our neighbour across the street had two of these parked in his driveway for years. One was in decent shape (according to my 9 year old eyes), but the other was a pile.
The father was a bit of an angry drunk, so there was a lot of yelling going on over there most days. He would sometimes get so drunk he’d take a baseball bat to the Mustang II that was in the roughest shape. I guess it was his beatin’ car. I suppose it’s better to hit the car than his wife (maybe he did that too, but I never saw it).
They moved out around ’87 or so and took their junk with them.
I guess I have a bit of a soft spot for the Mustang II, seeing as I frequently witnessed one being beaten.
The most literal example of a “beater”.
A friend’s dad had a white ’74. 4 cyl auto. We were on our way to see a new movie that had just come out, and on the way steam started to come out from under the hood. The heater hose had split just past the hose clamp. I had a dime and he had a pocket knife. I cut the split end off and used the dime as a screwdriver for the clamp. there was enough slack that the shorter piece still reached the hose fitting.
A quick stop at a gas station for water and we made it to see this new movie called “Star Wars”.
A family member had $500 to spend on a car, and wanted a Mustang. This was around 1987. Found a ’75 Ghia with 302 automatic for $300. It barely ran, had blown head gaskets and a leaky radiator, but made it home under it’s own power. Managed to pull the heads, get them resurfaced, changed the gaskets and got the radiator repaired for $200. The once red brougham interior was faded to various shades of purple, and the once maroon paint job was a chalky mess. But it ran well afterwards, although the carburetor ran rich and it took a friends help to get it to pass smog. Her car connected to the emission machine and another better running car connected to the tailpipe sniffer. 15 MPG was the best it could do, but it lasted for 3 years until she could afford something better.
“…this new movie called Star Wars.” – and what an experience THAT was! Totally ruined me for any other genre of movie. The only one to come close in impact was The Matrix.
Great find! The Mustang II and its story has always fascinated me, for its “unloved oddball” status. If it’s possible to love a car even though I don’t aspire to own one, then the Mustang II fits the bill.
Amazingly, I did see a Mustang II last year, in downtown Vincennes, Indiana. I’m still kicking myself for not stopping to photograph it, but I had two hungry kids in the car and was running late. Yes, I know… I still should have stopped.
Although I haven’t seen one nor have I driven a Mustang II in a long time, I do see them from time to time. I’ve never understood why the car is so disliked by Mustang enthusiasts.
Because it’s a “Pinto” with some fancy clothes on.
If the Mustang II had been released immediately after the beautiful and powerful ’69 – ’70 models, I could understand much of the vitriol thrown its way, but it didn’t. It came out after what can only be described as the “unfortunate” 1971-73 models, which were big, ugly and slow. I consider those Mustangs as the nadir of the nameplate, not the II. I was 21 in 1974 and I remember what a breath of fresh air these cars were at the time. It’s only Mecum generated revisionist history that holds them in such low regard.
Yes those 71-73 Mustangs were kind of like the Beatles in their final years. At the time, everyone said that they had jumped the shark and that they just weren’t the same as they had been 5 years earlier. But after they broke up and a few more years passed, their late stuff was just as accepted by Beatles fans as all the rest.
I think it’s the same with those Mustangs, only it has taken a little longer for the Big Horses to gain acceptance. The Mustang II is kind of like Ringo Starr of the mid 70s, who sold a lot of records, but few consider much of his output to be great music. 🙂
Insightful comparison, JP! But I’ll say this about Ringo: “The No No Song” is kinda my jam.
I’m probably in the minority, but I think the material the Fab Four did after their breakup as solo artists was better than the stuff they did as a group. George and Ringo certainly were able to get out from under Paul and John’s shadow and prove they were equally as competent and talented.
Yes, you are in the minority and, no, nothing Ringo and George ever did as solo acts proved they were as competent and talented as The Beatles as a group. That being said, John and Paul, without each other to act as complements to each other, were both pretty dreadful on their own.
JP writes: “but few consider much of his output to be great music.”
Wait, what? Starkey’s first co-writing credit and long loved by a few is a golden moment in music history.
I’d love to post proof, but Beatles music is hard to get on the net. Even the Beatles themselves tried to get “Here comes the sun” on the voyager space craft gold record, but they no longer had the legal right to do that. So aliens got Chuck Berry instead. No complaints from them so far.
This will have to do.
This reminds me of an old SNL Weekend Update by Dan Akroyd in which it was reported that a reply had been received from aliens who had gotten the Voyager record in outer space.
The reply from the aliens was simply, “Send more Chuck Berry”.
I would never consider the II as being great. I think it was more of the plexiglas principle in action. Keeping in mind that the 71-73 Mustang was released right during my wheelhouse as a young car enthusiast, I remember clearly how openly reviled it was. And Ford knew it immediately. Like many (or most) corrections that are made, they tend to go too far in the opposite direction. So the answer to the bloated Mustang was a low calorie Mustang. Not great, but at least a recognition that a change needed to be made. And honestly, I believe the oversized and underpowered Mustangs still have not gathered much steam in the collector marketplace.
Hahaha, great analogy!
The 351 CJ cars weren’t too slow, 😉
As a Mustang owner I give the Mustang II respect. It was largely a return to the old formula. Small and fairly lightweight, based on a budget platform – the “Pinto-stang” saved the name and made the Mustangs that followed possible.
There are certainly darker automotive moments in the Malaise than the Mustang II.
Oh my a Pintostang.
Why not say “A Falstang” when you see a ’65 model? They both shared underpinnings with a lower tier car.
The Falstang hid it’s way roots better for one. That and the lower tier car the Falcon was when the Mustang debuted did have some sporty and stylistic cred in the V8 Sprint hardtops, so it’s hardly as much of a dirty little secret, the Mustang was the tailored suit for what had become an attractive well rounded Falcon.
True. With the cowl being further back and lower, the lineage wasn’t so obvious. The Pinto cowl position doomed the MII’s proportions from the start.
And the Falcon was more of a ‘traditional’ American car with the six and optional V8 – it gave the Mustang a readymade credibility, as you say. The four-only Pinto base lacked that, even with V6 and later V8 upgrades for the MII.
Was the Falcon a better handler than the Pinto? Hmm…..
FYI, there were factory V6 Pintos later in the 70’s.
Remember though that no Pinto had boxy, family car styling. They were all long and low and aimed at the youth market. This was done in the hope that the Pinto would not bleed off sales of higher margin cars up the line.
Even adding a notchback, the Mustang II managed being a half inch lower than the Pinto, at 49.9 inches high. The current Mustang V (?) is 54 inches high.
My neighbor had a later Ghia version with the 2.8 V6, which was the first V6 I had ever laid eyes on. It was a very narrow V, with all sorts of vacuum hoses everywhere. Under its low profile air cleaner sat a “variable venturi” carburetor, which caused the owner more headaches than his teenage daughter.
During the several years I witnessed that car going up snd down my neighbor’s driveway, never once did it run properly. There was always some “chuffing” sound coming out of the exhaust..as if it was idling fast, but the engine was being forcibly restrained by the brakes at walking speed. The catcon odor of sulphurous rotten eggs was ever present.
One day, the Mustang disappeared..replaced by a new Nissan Maxima, with a silky smooth straight six under the hood. The car never, ever “chuffed” through its exhaust pipe, and served as a perfect illustration of how Japanese quality products gave Detroit a very serious challenge in the early 80’s….and to this day.
Besides the Mustang II, keep in mind that model year 1974 also saw another “reset” of a very successful 1960s car that had lost its way: the Pontiac GTO. While Ford should get credit for a timely reinterpretation of their old formula (granted it skewed too much toward economy specials and Grandes), I think the ’74 GTOva was utterly pathetic. Was the idea of a smaller, nimbler GTO a good one? Absolutely! But the poorly executed, badge-engineered ’74 GTO was a travesty, both in sales and in what it represented. At least the Mustang II was highly differentiated from a Pinto and was a huge sales success…
A very good comparison that I had not thought of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Road_Runner#1976.E2.80.931980:_F-body_trim_package
Just as pitiful when the Road Runner became a trim package and the Slant 6 was actually the standard engine in 1979.
As I said above, there are darker chapters in the Automotive Malaise than the Mustang II.
I think you are wrong, the 74 GTO was a neat package, besides what was so special about earlier GTO’s? Larger engines and special badges and trim on a regular coupe, sounds just like the 74 GTO.
My problem with the ’74 is that the 2-door in question was a Nova. As a Nova SS, it would have been fine. But it wasn’t a GTO.
The original GTOs had been based on a legitimate Pontiac–sure it used the corporate A-body, but was highly differentiated versus its corporate cousins. For most model years, the GTO was also well differentiated versus “lesser” Tempest and LeMans models, including unique Endura front-ends or modified tail lights, etc.
I do agree that the package size was right, and I feel that GM really botched an enormous opportunity by not developing better and more unique divisional identities for the X-bodies in the 1970s. Had the Ventura been more of a legitimate Pontiac instead of virtual Nova clone, then the ’74 GTO could have been based on a “normal” (and “real”) Pontiac coupe and would have made for a great car.
I always look at the Holden Monaro GTS as an example of what could have been done to make a really unique Nova-sized car for Pontiac. A GTO that looked like this might have been a huge hit…
Here is the Monaro GTS interior–looks like it should be in a Pontiac, all the way down to the Trans Am-style inserts on the instrument panel and buckets that look like they came from a Firebird Esprit. This would have been a legitimate GTO interior, unlike the 100% Nova dashboard that was found in the bastardized ’74 GTO.
Those Monaros do look a lot like a mini 70-72 GTO, it’s kind of ironic it’s long later descendant did become the basis for the GTO
I agree. The Nova badge job it was was the problem, it was a SIX year old design that everyone knew was a Nova from the grille back that suddenly had one of the most legendary names of the previous decade unceremoniously attached to it.
GM didn’t spend the $$ to divisionalize the X bodies. I agree. Seemed like the Buick Skylark/Apollo was the most “different’.
For the 75-79 era, Pontiac pushed the Ventura towards Buick/Olds market, with Phoenix trim later on.
The Seville was a K body, btw.
But also, at least the ’74 GTO had a Pontiac 350 motor, versus a ‘corporate’ V8. One other reason GTO package was dropped was the ’75 was to have the Buick V8 due to emissions.
The Ventura-based GTO wasn’t bad. The thing that likely did it in was the same that took out the E- and B-body Mopar musclecars: the Duster 340. It’s hard to ask a higher price for a ’74 GTO than a Duster 340 when you can get a faster car for much less.
But the Ventura GTO owners may have the last laugh. I’ve read that an engine swap from the Goat’s standard 350 V8 to a 400 (or even 455) Pontiac isn’t all that difficult. I personally know a guy who did exactly that to a ’73 Ventura, swapping in a 400 without any trouble at all.
Actually, Er, Yeah…..I think it was the move from the “mid-size” to the”comoact” platform? But everyone gets “religious” about “muscle” cars of the ’60s as if they were a special breed, Hell Buick did it in the ’30s! The 60s “goat” was a “built” Tempest, and the 74 was a “built” Ventura. Am I missing something? For 1974 it was a valiant (pardon the pun) effort.
What’s so special about the earlier GTO’s? Well, try 400 cubic inches and 350 standard horsepower for starters. These were more than just cars. They personified an entire lifestyle. Hit songs were written about these iconic cars, which were featured in one of the greatest advertising campaigns of all time (Google “The Humbler” sometime). It vaulted Pontiac to record sales and cemented John DeLorean’s reputation as an automotive genius. I, and practically everyone I knew, lusted for one. Not too shabby for one model.
The ’65 – ’71 GTO’s were muscular, tough and had attitude, with the horsepower to back it up, The ’74? Like a pathetic, aging athlete trying to relive the glory years – but with the performance long gone.
The HP ratings were Gross vs. net. 350 gross was maybe what 250 net? Now, we can buy a car with 300 net hp + Also, the Chevelle SS 396, 442 Olds, and Buick GS were “tough cars” too.
Also, full sized Pontiacs paid the bills and sold well before the GTO. What did occur was the mid sizer got Boomers attention, but Pontiac didn’t “get vaulted to record sales” in 1964. They had increases starting in the 50’s with Bunkie Knudesn and the Wide Track era, to the early 60’s with #3 in sales. Some forget that they had family wagons and sedans too.
The Pontiac Ventura was out since ’71, not new for ’74. GTO version was meant to compete with Duster/Dart 360. Gear heads were moving to lighter compact V8 cars and Pontiac wanted in.
But, purists only wanted 64-72 LeMans. And even within those years, some only like the 66-67, or 68-69.
To some who didn’t grow up in 60’s [not me] the GTO could be called a badge engineered Chevelle. [blasphemy!] 😉
Bingo. If the GTO had debuted along with the Ventura (or an all-new Ventura for ’74), it might have been better accepted…but after three years of seeing the Ventura, having one show up with GTO labels just felt fake. The target audience knew they’d be better off buying a clean ’70 Nova SS.
The car featured is a ’74. The giveaway is the placement of the gas filler cap…low on the left fender. For ’75, and through the rest of the Mustang II’s run, it’s up higher. That, it turns out, is because in ’75, they added the 302 V8 and, to give it extra range, added a 3.5-gallon additional fuel tank for the V8 models only. But that required moving the fuel filler neck and gap, and it made sense to do it for all models.
Thanks for the update on the model year. I know there was some discussion about front spoilers and the depth of the grill, but this is a hard point that can’t be disputed.;-)
Wow – Michael, thanks for this identifier and back story! I’ve read much about Mustangs (including the II), and I don’t remember having read this cool fact.
Joseph: The identifier came from experience. I thought the ’74 looked wrong when it came out…but that the ’75 refinements (higher fuel cap, different wheels/wheel covers, slightly longer hood and shorter grill surround and one-piece turn signals) made it look less dumpy.
That mattered, because, as noted above, I made the mistake of buying one. If they’d left it alone, I probably would have bought something else…though, since I was still a Ford loyalist and all of 19 years old, God only knows what that would have been. Probably a Maverick Grabber with a 302. Which might have been a better choice than the Mustang II notchback V6 with a 4-speed, which hands down was the worst car I ever owned.
As for the back story on the relocated fuel filler, that’s something I didn’t know until I Googled “1975 Mustang II fuel filler” and found a Mustang II chatboard, which discussed the subject at some length.
60 comments by 8AM! (PDT). That has to be a record. But I’m not surprised, given how strong the feelings run on the MII.
But they’ve been almost unanimously positive today. Well, I hated the MII from the first time I set eyes on its very mal-proportioned body. The way too short wheelbase and huge front overhang, for a RWD car, are just terrible, one of the poorest styling jobs to come out of Detroit. But most folks seem to just see the styling themes that have been laid over the Pinto-esque inner structure.
And there’s the fact that the MII had very mediocre dynamic qualities, in terms of performance, handling, braking, etc. But obviously folks didn’t care.
Well, I’ve had my say on the subject way too many times, so I’ll just shut up and let the MII love-fest continue.Carry on!
It may have had terrible styling and mediocre driving dynamics, but it was perfectly right for the times, and the market rewarded it handsomely. I remember this notchback coupe being a daily driver of one of the Charlie’s Angels TV show, don’t remember which Angel. That show was heavily promoted by FoMoCo and also featured the new Panther LTDs in later episodes.
Ford’s product placement guys did an excellent job distracting from the fact that the Mustang II was a less-than-stellar car. Car? Where’s the car?
Jaclyn Smith’s character drove a Mustang II Ghia notchback.
And Kate Jackson….got a Pinto! And always wore a turtleneck or a parka. I think I was the only boy in the country with Kate Jackson poster.
Anybody notice the ’75 Torino in that picture of Jaclyn Smith?
Yeah, didn’t think so. ;o)
That ad for the Mustang II brings back memories of the TV commercials at the time.
I’m going to add to the positive commentary on this one. For some reason I’ve always liked these. It probably has something to do with 2 high school age female cousins who got these as first cars when they were new. I was about 7 years old, and it was exciting that kids in my “generation” in the family got cars of their very own. My cousin Sue had a dark green notchback with white vinyl roof and white interior, and my cousin Sherry had a later (maybe a ’75) silver Ghia notchback with the opera window treatment and maroon velour interior. That one had a 302. These were the go-to first car for kids in my neck of the woods at the time, just as the original Mustangs had been ten years before. Ford sold a ton of these to exactly their target market.
I have a bizarre soft spot for what I refer to as “mini-broughams” to this day, probably as a result of my early affinity for these. I can rarely spot a Mustang II notchback, a Monza Town Coupe or a K-based LeBaron 2 door without just wanting to go up and give the silly little thing a hug just for trying so hard to emulate the big boys in their respective family lineups. For what it’s worth, I think Ford did a great job on the interior styling and content as well as the details of the exterior sculpting on these. Yes, the proportions were a bit off in some respects, but they still managed to get that long hood/short deck look right, as well as incorporating the essential cues of the first generation. I look at it this way: compared to the later downsizing efforts that Ford put into the Thunderbird, Cougar and Mark VI, the Mustang II was a real triumph. They never quite recaptured that magic in any of their other efforts.
Since this has turned into a Mustang II love fest, I may as well share my brief experience with a ’78 fastback with a 351 swapped in. I wanted to like this car, but it certainly didn’t like me. I bought it from a drunk guy at a nearby trailer park for $500 back in 2000 so things were off to a rocky start. Before I drove off with it, he requested one final drive with his baby. I rode shotgun as this drunk fishtailed it through the ditches next to the trailer park. Scary, yet strangely exhilarating for my 17 year old self.
It needed some work, so first thing I tackled was the brakes. Parts were either stupid expensive or unavailable. I spent a lot of time scouring the junkyards as there were a few relics still left there. Parts were way more expensive and harder to find then the Gremlin that preceded it. WTF?
Things went further downhill as I started to tackle the electrical problems and realized that the past owner favoured the trial and error method of connecting random wires with wire nuts until something worked. Never did get it sorted out before throwing in the towel.
I didn’t get it on the road legally but had a chance to rip around the back roads a bit. Pretty scary to drive, way too much power for a one-legged rear end with skinny tires and terrible weight distribution. Nothing seemed to fit properly and the more I looked at things, the more I realized it was a mess.
I eventually got my revenge on it but fully disassembling it, and selling off its parts. I even cut the body into small enough pieces to fit in my truck and haul it off to the scrapper. I got my $500 + parts money back the hard way.
I still like these things for some reason though. I guess I’m still a sucker for weird little oddball cars.
I’ve never harbored any ill will to this generation of Mustang as some enthusiasts do.
It a) kept the name going contiguously; b) was absolutely the right car for the times; c) returned the Mustang to proper proportions (although I liked the big ‘stangs that preceded it); and d) returned some of the design cues we look for in a Mustang like the hockey sticks on the side and such.
Sure the performance was not great, but what car during the Malaise Era retained the high performance of a few years prior? And since we were in the midst of the Great Brougham Epoch, some of the styled up packages spoke to that customer desire of the times.
Have you guys ever noticed the pony emblem in the grill of that generation? The horse went from a gallop to a trot. Check it out sometime. It’s as if the guys at Ford said, “Well, there’s no more V-8, so I guess we’ll make a new grill ornament.” As it turned out, they brought the V8 back for that generation anyway, although it was hardly a “Boss 302″… but again, what car was hot from 1974 to 1978? Not too many.
I do remember commentary about the emblem from when the SN95 Mustang appeared on the scene. The fact that the horse was galloping again was mentioned many times, after slowing to a trot on the II and then disappearing entirely from the Fox ‘stang.
It’s funny how many folks made sure the pony was represented on their Fox Mustangs with aftermarket things like windshield decals and such. Heck, I even remember Ford itself doing a special addition Fox (in like ’79 or ’80) that was in silver & black with yellow, orange, and red ponies all over the side of the car.
I’d always wondered why the emblem went away from 1979 thru 1993, but it was back for 1994 and up. Perhaps things like hood ornamentation and such were so passé by this point as we were coming out of the Great Brougham Epoch, that Ford just decided to do away with the pony on the Fox.
Ford brought it back in 1993 on the SVT Cobra. The silver one you describe was the 1979 Indy 500 pace car
Before the ’94s had come out, I had an ’88 2.3L 4-cylinder model in college. I had mail-ordered chrome-pony front fender emblems for a ’68 that I had paid a body shop to install, which required drilling holes in the front fenders. I didn’t care – I was looking to add more “Mustang” identity to what had become by then a fairly generic-looking car (in 4-cyl. hatchback form).
When I first saw pictures of the new ’94s, I was both pleased and disgusted that all new Mustangs had them, as I felt like just another guy who was trying to make his old car look newer. (With me, it was the opposite – I was trying to bring some retro flavor to a newer car.)
Going back to the original, redesigned ’79s, I did like the round, “pony” hood emblem on those cars with the red, white and blue.
I have a soft spot for these. They were a breath of fresh air after the Torino-sized 71s. I had an offer to trade my Karmann Ghia for a ’73 Mach but refused it. Maybe it’s because the II was thick on the ground when I was in high school, or that a buddy had one that we both bought back from the dead with bondo and rattlecans or that it held the promise of decent styling for the time with 30 mpg vs the competitions 20 mpg. I rode in both these and assorted Pintos, the II was definitely quieter and the interior was plusher.
That II with the 351 was probably just as wild as the Pinto that a friend stuffed a 302 into to replace the V-6.
One of my aunts, who lived in Albuquerque, learned to drive in her 40s. Her husband, a lifelong Oldsmobile man…he died before the marque was buried but in reality, Oldsmobile had already been dead for several years…bought her whatever car she wanted, within reason. She chose a Mustang II, a white over orange coupe. She let me drive it when I visited in the late 1970s. I took it down back roads in the desert and in the foothills toward Lamy and Santa Fe in search of locations for train photos. It felt sturdy and well put together.
It lacked speed, though. One afternoon out by the Santa Fe partway to Gallup, I noticed the daily passenger train approaching a few miles off on the horizon. I had found a photo spot about ten miles east and figured that between the straight, fast Interstate and the lack of police patrols (and what there were had been rumored to be lenient unless you were drunk), I could get there and set up ahead of the train.
WRONG. Between the track speed of 90mph and the Mustang II’s lack of top end, the train handily overtook me. Being able to sustain a steady 90mph for mile after mile on open track, and perhaps fudging a tad faster…this was even on a slight uphill toward the Continental Divide…that train would probably ultimately defeat most anybody who might try it today even in a current car. But for the Mustang II? No contest.
I had a similar feeling in a rented Plymouth Reliant, about five years later in eastern New Mexico, the Texas Panhandle and Oklahoma, only there it was freight trains at a track speed of 75mph, and with the Reliant’s wheezy 2.2. The Reliant did allow me to lose in comfort, though. It had air conditioning. My aunt’s Mustang II did not.
A friend of my mother had a MII fastback. It was a good looking car, white with red stripes and red interior, a fairly high-trim model. It was the first time I drove one of these with an automatic. At the time, I pronounced it as the slowest car I had ever driven in my life, and I had driven some pretty slow cars (like a 60 Comet 144/3 speed and a Scout II with a 258 AMC 6/Torqueflite.) That thing must have had some pretty tall gearing.
Our family owned one for a while (with the 302), and I’ll admit to lighting up the rear tires a couple times. No other particular memories, except that it didn’t seem small in its day (cars were plenty long then, but there weren’t all the *tall* SUVs/trucks out there in traffic with you).
Part of their “what happened to all of these” legacy (like the Lincoln Versailles and its disk brakes, IIRC) is how the hot rodders loved to stick its front suspension under all kinds of rods/customs (even some trucks, I seem to remember):
The old adage, “Time heals all wounds” would seem to apply to the Mustang II. The thing that usually quiets critics is one word: sales. For it’s time, the Mustang II sold very well (at least at first). It looked okay and, compared with other domestic cars of the same time period, didn’t have any particularly glaring design or engineering flaws (which was rather strange when one considers how the gas tank location was in the same place as the similar Pinto).
In fact, it’s worth comparing the Mustang II to other, brand-new cars that had stellar first year sales, but are now reviled as some of the worst cars ever built, i.e., Chevy Vega and Citation. Compared to those two, the Mustang II is a veritable Toyota.
These may not have been the greatest Mustang ever, but as they debuted around the time of the 1973 oil crisis, Ford happened to have the right car at the right time. Any compact car – even the aging Beetle – was in demand.
Count me in the surprised category for the many kind, or at least neutral comments on this car.
As many have said, Ford nailed it introducing this car for the times, and to some degree it helped Ford weather the bad times of the ’74 – ’84 period. I know the car was done after ’78, but anything that gave Ford some financial footing in the ’70s helped save it during some very dark years at Ford.
My sister had probably a ’74 version for a few years. Bought in ’82, it was surprisingly clean, and had no real rust – very fortunate since we live in rust country. Mileage was probably around 60k.
Hers was a base car with quite a few options. Automatic, power steering, power brakes, AC, and AM/FM radio. Perfectly equipped for somebody that was downsizing from a larger American car that typically would have had that equipment.
Unfortunately, all the equipment was too much for the base four cylinder engine. With the AC on, the car was almost impossibly slow, and seemed to have a top speed of about 40 mph on any sort of steep hill. I was driving 350 / 350THM equipped Oldsmobiles at the time, and the little ‘stang swore me off 4 cyl. cars for a lifetime – I’ve still never owned one. The drivetrain proved to be pretty spent at 8 years of age and 60k miles. It was in the shop constantly and leaked a prodigious amount of oil, I’d swear even the battery leaked oil. My dad banned it from his driveway for fear our house would be declared an EPA Superfund site. A neighbor started throwing kitty litter on the ever growing oil slick on the street.
Really unfortunate for my sister, of course. It was yellow with a very nice looking black interior, and the body hardware and trim bits proved durable and looked great. So, she had a cute good looking car that was a complete headache to own. She sold it during college and went without a car for a few years.
Upon graduation with a fresh electrical engineering degree she studied Consumer Reports like it was a final exam. Not surprisingly, she and her husband bought a couple of Honda Accords for their early years out of school.
I should have held my last reply until after your comment. My mom’s friend’s automatic MII was the slowest car I had ever driven. It did not swear me off of 4s (any more than the V6 77 LeSabre swore me off of 6s) but it did swear me off of 4s mated to automatics. That rule held until I test drove an automatic Honda Fit. That 5th gear made all the difference, and made it the first auto/4 I could drive without a constant jaw clench.
I don’t mind the Mustang II in concept–it was the car needed for the times. And I think that, in hatchback form, it had reasonably good looks (viewed in Ford’s curvy mid 70’s idiom). But the notchback I cannot stand. It just makes the car look almost comically short, exaggerates the rear hips, and in general brings out the worst qualities of the design.
That having been said it’s good to see a survivor like this, even if I don’t care for the looks compared to its hatchback alter ego.
Not the Mustang’s lowest point (that honor goes to the 1979-82 Ford Mustang), I agree the fastback Mustang II’s were far better looking than the notchback Mustang II, especially in Mach II and Cobra trim.
I like the Mustang II in full brougham Ghia mode. With vinyl half roof, wire caps and whitewalls. My Dad bought my younger brother a nice red one with a four and manual transmission. The car had a white top and red vinyl upholstery. It had the plushest carpet I had ever seen. I don’t recall that it gave much trouble, though my brother managed to slide into a curb and bend a suspension arm. My Dad fixed that and on it went. It was the right car for the times, even if by happenstance. I think the base Mustangs were always the heart of the model, I bought a new ’07 with the six and it has been a great car. The new six is even better. I think that six cylinder Mustangs have always been considered “real” Mustangs by the buying public.
Ugh. These pigs are ugly from any and every angle. Very bad drugs flushing around the Ford, uh, “design” studios in the 1970s.
I’m glad someone else agrees with me! But we’re clearly in the minority, it would appear.
Which surprises me, since when you go to most Mustang forums, posters there usually have the same disdain for these cars.
I think the love we’re seeing here today is that these cars, just by surviving if they really are that poorly built, have truly become “Curbside Classics”.
Of course; we love them all now! It just took about 40 years to get over the initial nausea. 🙂
If there was a topic titled “which cars commonly regarded as ugly do you find legitimately ugly” the Mustang II would top my list.
I’m sorry but come on, the downsizing of the Mustang after the 71-73s isn’t the problem, it’s not even dropping the V8s or the bad handling that made the Mustang II the whipping boy for every car guy since the 80s, they just don’t look good. The proportions for one, as Paul has pointed out, but those are merely the the tip of the iceburg, a good looking car can overcome long overhangs if properly executed, but these have teeny tiny wheel openings, tall 4×4 stance, the swoop of the fenders make the body look bowed in the center, the nose is completely dimensionless, as if a 68 ran into a wall, the bumpers look like the same ugly railroad ties affixed to every other Ford of the era(why couldn’t they do what Pontiac did with the Firebird??? This was a clean sheet car for god sake!) but in mandatory body color so the lumpiness and cutlines are even more obnoxious, plus that weird chrome strip set into them – were they trying to fool people into thinking these have thin bumpers with them? LOL – the lack of hardtop(yeah yeah yeah the not-rollover standards, blah blah) couldn’t look clunkier on the coupe, and just the general execution is crap. I mean, let’s have a look at the back, look at the trunklid and the teeny tiny strip of exposed bodyshell between it and the taillight filler panel – The trunk lock crashes right into it – and the presence just looks unnecessarily busy. Why is that there? Why did they not simply extend the trunklid to said filler panel like they did on literally every first generation Mustang and every Mustang to follow until 1993? Same with the hood to grille area to much lesser extent
I think that 20 years of K cars, 80s Cadillacs and Fox body Thunderbirds have softened many of us on the MII’s styling. 🙂
Excellent point! The Mustang II was a car for its time. I had one. Still better looking than the alternatives (1974). The Monza and other GM mini me pony cars came out a year later! I liked the II’s looks better than the Duster/Demon. (In hindsight the Duster and company was a vast improvement over the Dart/Valliant.) And lets face it, the Vega didn’t have much going for it. As mentioned in other threads/replies, the II added that stigma. And compared to the horrendous IMHO Fairmont-Stang the basic interior still looked nice. Didn’t look bargain basement like the ’79 lame Fairmont lame horse Mustang. Better quality control, a 5 speed and sportier handling options would have gone a long way to getting rid of much of the stigma of this little pony. Summing up, the best of the small American cars for model year 74. And they sold in ’74 which wasn’t the greatest year for new car sales with the Gas Crisis, economic stagflation. ETC. And really going out on a limb, a drop top Mustang II would have been cool and maybe sold well.
CC Effect: saw one yesterday, a fastback. It was backing out of a space at a strip mall. Wish I had had time to go back and check it out. The notchbacks are dorky, but I’ve always had a soft spot, perhaps in my skull, for the fastback.
Alway liked the Mustang II, and IMHO there’s nothing wrong with the Mustang II’s proportions that a slightly longer wheelbase and slightly larger wheel openings wouldn’t fix.
A previous CC from a while back had some photoshopped Mustang II pics that actually addressed this very issue and, true to form, it did improve the looks considerably.
But here’s the thing. I’m not sure Iacocca and company ‘wanted’ the car to look like it was sitting on a longer wheelbase. The wanted the stubby look to distance it as much as they could from the previous ’71-’73 car. It’s even conceivable that the prevailing thought was a stubby, sawed-off Mustang would have more appeal as a fuel sipper, even if a longer wheelbase (and better looking) Mustang would have gotten exactly the same fuel mileage.
IOW, maybe it was a conscious and deliberate effort to not distance the Mustang II too much from its Pinto origins.
Perhaps that WAS the intent. I liked the notch back better because it looked more “Mustang” and less “Pinto” though!
I’m about the same age as the restaurant patron that didn’t recognize the car as a Mustang. I had a variation of this problem – when I was a kid I had a very hard time telling the Mustang II and Chevy Monza notchbacks apart, and I normally had a pretty good eye for that sort of thing. The fastbacks were similar in profile, too, but the nose and tail treatments of the two were substantially different.
Good point–there was definitely a similarity between the MII notch and the Monza notchback. And personally, the Monza was another car I quite liked in hatchback form and detested in notchback form (though the Monza notch/”Towne Coupe” was almost completely different sheetmetal from the hatchback.)
“0” personified.
Just as the 69 mustang became the Celica lift back. The mustang II became the Corolla sport coupe.
…which is what I traded my ’75 Mustang II notchback for—a 1978 Toyota Corolla SR5 Liftback.
Just because it sold well and kept the Mustang name alive doesn’t mean I have to like it nor does anyone else.
Why are there so few left on the road? Could it be that they just weren’t that good?
Yes, it absolutely could.
No one says you “have to like it”, but keeping the bigger body would have led to the badge’s demise.
Last time I saw a Mustang II was in 2009 and it was also a notchback with a black vinyl-covered roof, but it was brown and had some modern wheels that didn’t really match so well to it.
I 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 a 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! I still remember driving that car. 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 for its day, I still think it was a great little car.
I stumbled across this. Garaged with 23,000 miles, gift from the gods?
My first car was a 1974 Silver on Silver Mustang II Ghia Coupe/Notchback. Especially the 74’s I really and still do like the styling. It’s a shame for 75 onward the Ghia got it’s vinal roof chopped in half and the Mustang style rear quarter window stubbed into an opera window. Now, that one doesn’t look too bad. Amazing how Ford dressed up the exploding Pinto! The Mustang II improved upon the looks of the bloated 71-73 and to me still looks a thousand times better than the Fairmont knock off 79 to 93 which was way too long to retain that style. I even feel the II outdid looks wise the 94-2004 generation. It’s a shame Ford didn’t take some ques from the Celica: 5 speed, sportier driving characteristics. Even the standard stripped interior looked substantial at least by 70’s standards. I dare anyone to compare pictures of the stock/basic interiors of a 74 and a 79. The 79 interior especially black looks cheep and 5 steps backward. And, that indentation for the window crank on the 79 really added insult to injury shaking the ugly stick.
[img] https://i2.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/023.jpg%5B/img%5D
Not the best pic but you get the idea. ’79 base interior
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_G3DjZetEqK8/SXCVKaKnK4I/AAAAAAAAC_E/Bs6lxRIrPQ8/s1600/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang-8.jpg[/img] And here’s the ’74 stock basic interior.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_G3DjZetEqK8/SXCVKaKnK4I/AAAAAAAAC_E/Bs6lxRIrPQ8/s1600/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang-8.jpg ’74 Mustang II interior
https://i2.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/023.jpg?resize=600%2C450
Depression era standard ’79 Stang interior
As a little kid, styling and concept-wise, I knew the Mustang II (and Granada), were mostly scaled-down interpretations of their large luxury cars. But one small element, that surprised and impressed me about both, was their use of amber rear turn signals. More so than the other domestic makers, it gave me the small hope then, Ford may have been following trends on the Continent more than I thought.
I’m just not a fan of the Mustang II, try as hard as I can. Problem is, I remember them too well and they were a normal part of my early driving years.
They looked cute. They looked upscale. They were better than most of the competition. But the quality and the engineering of these cars were pretty bad. That cute car fit a lady’s frame well – but not a guy over 6′. I had a college girlfriend with one that I drove and my cousin twin had a red one I rode everywhere around South Chicagoland in. Its Pinto roots just couldn’t be fixed and always a disappointment. Sorry, but the Mustang II was a glorified Pinto.
Its biggest competition volume-wise was the Chevy Monza. The Mustang II was better. Whatever shortcomings the II had over the Monza, it made up for in Mustang panache. GM played it safe by keeping and gelding the Camaro during this time instead of naming the Monza the Camaro II. This ended up being a very good move on GM’s part when Burt Reynolds resurrected the Firebird/Camaro. Let’s not talk about the quality of those cars either, because I know them too well as my mother LOVED her Camaros. Sheesh.
I would be rather hard-pressed to name a 70s Ford I would have wanted before 1976. During this time we were a Ford family and a Ford was the last thing I would have wanted new. I, and my brothers, were all tooling around in a different Valiant during these years and we liked cars that weren’t all looks, soft poor handling, and stuffed with fake wood trim.
The MII gets a lot of vitriol but the truth is, it wasn’t so bad (at least for the time). The problem is the comparison with the muscle Mustangs that went before, and that’s really not fair. Ford simply switched the demographic focus when the performance car market fell off a cliff.
Someone earlier mentioned how the MII hatchback looked a little too close to a Pinto. The MII that’s really a better example is the notchback coupe, particularly when a loaded-up Ghia to make it something of a mini-Thunderbird. One of those with a 302, while not a hotrod, would have been adequate and stylish enough for, say, young, single (or young and single at heart) women, a market that was always a target for the more sedate (yet still sporty) Mustang versions.
In short, machismo found a home with the f-body, helped in a big way by guys like Burt Reynolds and James Garner. Mustang II buyers tended more to dream they were Jaclyn Smith or Farrah Fawcett. For this latter group, the Mustang II was just fine.
Honestly, I think the most troublesome comparison for the Mustang II was the Capri. The Capri was obviously the same kind of thing and had some of the same powertrain options, but it was tidier, handled better, and seemed less compromised.
Funny, I always considered the Mustang II to be a glorified Pinto also!
It was a glorified Pinto, though as is often pointed out, no more so than the earlier Mustangs were glorified Falcons or later ones glorified Fairmonts. I think the Falcon and Fairmont-derived ‘Stangs go down better because at least those were larger platforms that comfortably carried V8s, and don’t draw the mockery the Pinto often does. Conceptually, the MII couldn’t be more on target, with many buyers looking for a hint of luxury and style but wanting a small, fuel-efficient car, and strong sales proved that. It should have been better, but it was good enough. The Mustang II was the opposite of the Mopar E bodies (Challenger/Barracuda), which are vaunted today but sold terribly during their lifetime (which overlapped the Mustang II’s) and were simply wrong for their time. They may have sold well a few years earlier.
I’ve got not just eye time, but seat time in those. My Dad and his second wife had one for a time ~’80 when I made a visit back to see them. Might have been her car, bought new, vinyl roof, auto, Cruise Control and a dog. Pinged at anything over half throttle, I tweaked the timing back a little bit and then it was full sulfur.
A few years later when I met my wife to be she had a M II, fastback. 4 speed, red, horrid job of shadowlining by her ex. Horribly overgeared and consequently slow, didn’t handle too bad and with the missing black on the trim painted over and a fresh wax job, actually looked pretty good. I felt it could have been a full mediocre with just a bit of work from the factory, if they’d cared.
In retrospect, it was probably the right car for the time, the original Mustang had grown so much something needed to be done, and it was. But it was just a collection of parts, not a full car.
I can’t say anything positive about these cars. Not after spending the time I did in Mustang II’s in the ’75 to ’77 period. Three of them, to be exact. All three were owned by the girlfriends and later on, wives of friends of mine. I don’t remember why anymore, but my one friend Bill, who recently passed away, was driving his soon to be wife’s blue MII hatchback for a fairy long period of time, like a couple of months. He just hated it, too small for his and my gorilla like build, too gutless, and there was the whole “Chickmobile” thing, as it was definitely considered one. His little brother had a ridiculously modified Pinto with a big block V8 stuffed into it, and for whatever reason, we hated it less. We still didn’t like it, but we didn’t dread riding in it, mostly because it was scary fast. It being so nose heavy meant it didn’t stop all that well, but hey, a lot of cars didn’t back then.
The other two MII’s were tan and black, both higher priced ones, and I rode in the tan one from Vegas to Phoenix once. Just the one way, I was in a ’77 GMC pickup going back. So much more comfortable! The black one got hit and totalled by a drunk at the infamous Vegas “drunk driver alley”, AKA the area around the intersection of Las Vegas Blvd and Oakey streets. No real injuries to my friend’s fiancee, but the car was trash. I was kind of shocked to see what replaced it, a ’78 Trans Am, a blue one without T-Tops. It didn’t take long after the 12,000 mile warranty expired for it to be hopped up and it was probably what made me replace my totally POS ’77 Power Wagon with a T/A.
I just can’t with these. They’re hideously ungainly from any and every angle. Bad drugs going round the Ford styling studios in the ’70s, as it seems. Too many random lines and curves and melted-bar-of-soap shapes (quarter glass, ugh; grill, double ugh) all mashed together unfittingly. The proportion—long front fenders and hood and stubby short quarter panels and trunk—worked well on the original Mustang, and on the early Toyota Celica, but not on this car.
(Also, slapping a “II” on a car like this has always struck me as lame and lazy)
Aside from all that, I like ’em just fine.
Henry Ford II was into the Roman Numerals. And Lee I. But glad the Fox Mustang was not a “III”, as it was planned!
Anyway, so many forget that not all 60’s Mustangs were High Performance muscle cars with 390/427/428 motors. The intro Spring ’64 season, no fastbacks and I6 or 260 v8. Meant to be a stylish car, not all “drag racers”.
So, the II was a hark back to the ‘small stylish compact’. In response to some stockholders asking to bring back the ’65 around time the ’71 came out.
Brother had a “74” , lift back version.The 4 cylinder was thrift but provided no actual power. (just propulsion)
Was “ok” in winter though; not enough “rev” to get the wheels spinning.