(first posted 10/25/2016) CC reader Lee J. donated a couple of decades of his Road and Track collection to me, starting with January 1975. It’s been quite a trip down memory lane rereading them, as I was an avid R&T reader back then. Now that I have a new scanner/printer, I’m going to start feeding them out to you, chronologically. So without any further ado, lets check out how these two mini-ponys sporting V8 engines fared.
There’s a bit of irony in the names involved here, as the Corvair Monza directly led to the creation of the original Mustang. Back then they were hard to compare directly, as they were so different in their conception, the Corvair with its little rear engine boxer six and very sporty handling, and the Falcon-based Mustang with its modest handling ambitions and available V8. I wonder if there are any comparisons between them?
Well, in their reincarnated forms, they were quite similar. The MII “based on the Pinto” (R&T’s words, not mine) was of course the first American subcompact sport coupe, and the very-much Vega-based Monza quickly followed and gave it chase.
Of course, the Monza was supposed to be as radically different than the original, with a Wankel rotary engine. But for a number of (wise) reasons for a change, GM aborted its rotary shortly before it went into production. Instead, it came with the Vega’s rough and flawed 2.3 four, and optionally with the 4.3 L (262 CID) small block V8, making all of 110 net hp. That was just about the only V8 engine that could make the Mustang’s 133 hp 302 V8 look powerful. Curiously, my Encyclopedia of American Cars says the 1975 MII 302 V8 was rated at 122 hp.
R&T said that visually, the Monza was a “knockout”. Maybe fro some angles, but its slim Vega-based body looked too narrow from the rear especially. And the front is a matter of taste.
0-60 in 13.4 seconds. For just about the smallest and lightest V8 sporty car available at the time. The only consolation was that swapping in the 327 from Aunt Mildred’s Impala under the cover of night could be done very quickly and easily. And she’ll never know the difference, right? Maybe she’ll even wonder why her Chevy is running extra smoothly and whisper-quiet.
Although the Monza’s handling was hardly brilliant (and its Vega brakes were deficient), that quality was decidedly better than the Mustang’s. Yes, the Mustang was faster, but it came in for all kinds of harsh criticism for its noisy engine, harsh-shifting automatic, rough ride, crappy steering, poor directional stability, a very poorly controlled leaf-spring rear axle (the Monza had a four-link coil spring rear axle) that made it a buck like a bronco under challenging situations. Having 59% of its weight on its little 13″ front tires didn’t help either.
The Mustang was of course faster, and provided greater visceral thrills and sensations.
But for every day driving, the Monza’s solid body, more polished chassis, better ride and handling, and quieter engine was the preferred choice. Oddly enough, the outcome is not all that different than it would have been back in 1965 if a Monza and Mustang were being compared, except that the Corvair Monza would undoubtedly have had much better braking than the original Mustang. And the handling differences would have been much greater too.
As a little bonus, there’s this Styling Analysis of the Monza. Yes, there’s a lot of Ferrari in its profile.
If you’re interested in my take on the MII, here’s my rather acerbic CC of a 1976 MII Cobra.
Is it just the scan, or is the Chevy’s driver’s side front bumper drooping a bit?
That’s how cars came from the factory in the 70s: panels and trim misaligned, crooked hoods and grilles. The public will never notice, dontchaknow.
Even Motor Trend recognized it with a very long article on automotive quality, with photographs of some of the most
egregious examples.
yep, my 77 Chevelle’s never had a panel re-aligned or replaced on it, and the doors don’t line up well (hinges are good), the trunk lid isn’t square in the opening, the fenders and hood don’t meet the front end caps worth a darn, and well, nothing lines up worth a flip on it. and it only rattles with the windows down! (Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?)
It’s amazing that they wouldn’t even bother to check that on a review car!
Assuming the review car wasn’t factory-prepped. Consumer Reports claims they always buy from a dealer.
The variances in panel fit are inexcusable, as Statistical Process Control was old news by then. I remember reading that Mazda helped Ford figure out that slotted panel holes (e.g. for fenders) were no longer needed, as tolerances could be maintained within narrow enough bounds. Hence, less time wasted by workers adjusting the fit (assuming they cared).
While CR does buy their cars, the big magazines didn’t and don’t. Both the Monza and the Mustang II came from manufacturer press fleets and both are wearing manufacturer plates. That should have been addressed.
Right. Consumer Reports used to have a section in their auto reviews for “Sample Defects,” and the tally for 70s-era cars was often 20+. Panel misalignments, distorted glass, you name it.
But I still find them appealing and still drive ’em. Geez, what does that say about me?
I’ll never forget the Car and Driver article on quality – with the word lopsided and more out of focus one side that the other.
In the 77 Vega catalog there are misaligned panels everywhere.
I checked out the brochure. The top of the front fasica doesn’t quite line up with the bumper.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1977_Chevrolet/1977_Chevrolet_Monza_Brochure/1977-Chevrolet-Monza-08
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Chevrolet/1977_Chevrolet/1977_Chevrolet_Monza_Brochure/1977-Chevrolet-Monza-04
That second one is amazingly terrible.
Even worse when you consider they’d probably specially prep the car used for a brochure shoot. Of course there’s always the chance that nobody at Chevy or their ad agency noticed it…..
They unquestionably build them a lot better today, but there are still a few glaring faults that are endemic among certain models. For example, I’ve yet to see a new Fusion with properly-aligned fenders and doors, errors made even more noticeable by the mess of creases and character lines (that don’t match up between panels) along the side. And don’t get me started on the sloppy dash/door trim fitment.
Interesting to see, The Mustang II has as much db at 30 mph as the 75 Continental have at 60 mph. To completely different cars though, but still, a lot of noise in both the Mustang and Monza, but compared to even BMWs and some MB from the same era they are about as quiet as they where.
At the Norwegian car magazine “Amcar” the “forgotten Mustang II” was presented a couple of moths ago. I think it was a picture of this comparison in the magazine.
I don’t think it’s the scan, I think it’s the driver’s weight possibly. You can see the Monza listing to the driver’s side in the rear view picture as well.
There actually looks to be a gap above the headlights on that side to me, as if the bottom front fascia is loose. Might just be me though.
Wasn’t this same test posted by GN a few months ago?
I knew I had seen this before…
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-review/vintage-review-road-track-comparison-mustang-ii-v8-vs-monza-22-v8/
Whoa! I better check myself in to the nearest memory care facility.
Let’s just say it was a whirlwind summer, and some of the smaller details of what happened have obviously fallen through the crack. My bad.
I remember this review too. What overweight barges these were! I think even the initial Fox Mustang V8 weighed less than this porky Pinto Mustang.
Buick V6 would’ve been sensible for the Monza; surely it’d be lighter.
That went into the Skyhawk and Sunbird later, Neil.
Lots of V6 conversions for the Vega were done as well
I thought so, thanks. Too bad Ford’s only V6 at the time was the 2.8 Köln; they needed the Buick size badly (as with the later Canadian Essex).
The Buick V-6 went into the Buick Skyahwk, Oldsmobile Starfire and Pontiac Sunbird. As I recall from articles from the time, the Buick V-6 still weighed a lot and the Skyhawk, Starfire and Sunbird models equipped with it were nose-heavy and did not handle well.
Later on the 2.8 liter Koln V-6 was bored out to 3.0 and 4.0 liter displacements and found its way into the Ford Bronco II, Ford Ranger, Ford Explorer and Mercury Mountaineer, and then the 2005 Mustang. They were powerful, but kind of rough and noisy.
Ford had the UK 3.0 Essex all the way from 66 but not invented here would rule that out.
While I like the styling of the Mustang II and the power and performance of its V8 engine, I found the Monza’s interior more attractive than the Mustang II.
Truth be told, I didn’t much care for either of these when they were common. The Mustang was pure 70s Ford, for good (interior trim) or ill (handling, rust). The Monza was pure 70s GM (cheap interior trim in a car that felt like it weighted 500 pounds more than it really did). I never found either one of them very good looking.
Two law school roommates had the 4 cyl/stick versions of these two in the mid 80s. The 80 Monza felt crude and cheap while the 75 Mustang had not aged well. I never for a moment would have considered trading my well-worn 71 Scamp for either of them.
In ’75 the Monza was among the first domestic cars to sport the new rectangular headlights, and as such the design was considered really sleek, new and “modern”. My mother owned one of the first Monza 2+2’s in our area (light metallic blue over black, pretty sharp looking car actually) and I remember a lot of people complimenting it or asking about it. As much as these were just Vegas with a few key upgrades, they were well received as a breath of fresh air when they came out.
After a while it became clear that it was nearly impossible to keep the front end of the car aligned (it chewed through tires like crazy), and the 262 V8 developed a valve knock pretty early on. Not to mention that those plastic wheel covers loved to fly off into the weeds at just about every rail crossing they encountered.
A real hit piece on an awesome car. Quick history lesson: When it came out in 1974 the Mustang II got panned but sold like crazy. That made the journalists look bad and they’ve had a h***on for the car ever since.
When you understand that context it’s no surprise that the ’75 Mustang 302 V8 received the reviews that it did. Back then the car magazines controlled opinion, it’s not like today where the internet gives you plenty of pros and cons on any issue, brand or model. Even as a pre-teen I could think for myself and judging by the sales of cars l liked I was right most of the time.
Just look at the specs. The Mustang spanks the Monza all over the course: 30% quicker to 60mph, faster through the slalom, more gs on the skidpad, way shorter braking distances. Then there is the engine sound that R&T complained about, like a Ford 302 sounds bad? So what if it required a little more skill to drive fast.
Ford knew it had a winner with the ’75 V8 and priced it accordingly. Folks anytime the more expensive car outsells the cheaper one 3-to-1 there is a reason.
I thought it was hilarious when GM had to add the notchback Monza after boasting what a masterpiece it had with the fastback. The popularity of the Mustang II notch is what forced that to happen, though there were BS reasons floating around to the contrary.
I love you, calibrick; a day just wouldn’t be complete with one of your highly objective and accurate takes on reality. 🙂
I try my best Paul. My belief that there was an Automotive Illuminati of sorts controlling car-guy opinion like yours is subjective, that’s true.
But my position on the Mustang II V8 is both accurate and objective and supported by road test data, sales volume and price. People forget that the Mustang II was priced as high as a Camaro and those who remember could never accept the fact that there was a Pinto underneath.
As time marches on and we forget what your heroes said in the ’70s, Mustang II is able to make new fans.
I like the Monza’s styling, but the Mustang’s superiority as a car isn’t really a question. The Mustang II’s front suspension is THE component suspension set for custom builds and kit cars. The Monza’s V8 engine installation is THE reference point for unserviceable design mistakes. I remember reading that Iacocca intended for a high quality interior and good fit and finish to be Mustang II selling points. I don’t really recall the Mustang II’s of my childhood rivaling Honda Accords for class, but they certainly sold like crazy. I do remember the way Monzas and their rebadges crashed and creaked over bumps.
I agree. The Mustang proved to be better by most of those specs, but the Monza is preferred? Back in the 70’s I used to get Car Craft, Hot Rod, and Super Stock magazines. The bias by the mags was too obvious. Always for Chevy. Ford and Mopar would rarely, if ever, come out on top in the comparisons. And the car builds featured then was always a Camaro, a Chevelle, Nova, 57 Belair, ect. A Demon or AMX article was an extreme rare treat. As far as these two cars go, back then I thought they both looked good, but as time has passed, I think the Mustang has held up. I like the 6014 headlamps. It has a cleaner look. The Monza fastback design does not hold up as good as the Mustang fastback look. The Mustang interior was nice, very straight up, but the idiot lights, like most 70 built cars, was irritating. One good thing about the Monza, as the article said, was that the lame 262 could be tossed for a nice 327, but other than that, in stock form, give me the Mustang.
idiot lights? All Mustang IIs had a full gauge package, including tach, standard.
“The Mustang spanks the Monza all over the course: 30% quicker to 60mph, faster through the slalom, more gs on the skidpad, way shorter braking distances. ”
R&T only conducted one handling test, the skid pad test. This is just a measurement of maximum cornering grip on a smooth skid pad. They just posted two results. The maximum speed attained and the lateral g forces. Of course, the lateral G forces are calculated from the maximum speed and the skid pad’s diameter. No car magazine publishes the speed around a skid pad anymore, since the lateral g’s and maximum speed have a linear relationship.
Most magazines from this era did not publish slalom test results other than Popular Science.
Ah you are right. It’s hard to read the scanned article in places — I saw the word “Speed” under the heading “Handling” and just assumed it was a maximum speed through the slalom course because, as you point out, it doesn’t make much sense to show max speed on a radius when you have lateral g.
In any event the skidpad performance of the MII was clearly superior to that of the Monza.
Also keep in mind that skid pad results are greatly affected by tire size. This case the Mustang has significantly wider tires than the Monza. The BR78-13’s on the Monza are about equivalent to a 175mm width tire. Compare this to the 195’s on the Mustang.
Also, the Monza inherited the Vega Kammback wagon. I wonder what if the Mustang II inherited a Pinto wagon variant to make a Mustang wagon?
We could wonder how the Monza would had done if GM didn’t pulled the plug on the Wankel engine?
Wouldn’t it have been like the Vega engine disaster, only ten times worse?
Hard to said, however with the GM Wankel engine was also planned to be originally under the hood of the AMC Pacer after GM did a deal with AMC by buying back the tooling rights of the V6 Buick. GM might have development problems but I wonder if they might be afraid then their Wankel rotary engine would had been more successeful in the Pacer than the Monza?
I have difficulty not thinking AMC was INSANE to design the Pacer around an untried, “vaporware” competitor engine like the GM Wankel.
With the Pacer’s short hood, the V6 they sold back to GM would’ve been perfect for it. I think the Buick V6 was the most unwittingly prescient thing GM ever did, for it was good for the forthcoming downsizing, shorter hoods, & FWD.
The Wankel was originally supposed to go in the Vega. The development problems were real. There is no way that anyone at GM, at that point in time, would ever worry that an AMC product would be more successful than one of their own.
The 302 wasn’t a great match for the II…too heavy and too far forward.
The 267 V8 was a crime against humanity…the Monza should have gotten the 305 or the 229 V6.
It did get the 305 later. A 350 would have been better. I have heard of 351W conversions for the Mustang II, but since the block is slightly different, I imagine it was a tight squeeze.
We had a garage back in the late ’70’s and early ’80’s. We did a 351 Cleveland swap into a Mustang 2. Biggest problem was the headers which the customer got custom made.
That X-ray illustration of the Mustang II really highlights the problem – they mounted the engine THAT far forward?
The Mustang II had “name appeal”, the Monza did not.
The 1974 Mustang II came out in fall 1973, just as the gas crisis hit. 1974 was it’s best sales year.
The Monza came out as a 1975 model, just in time for the recession.
By 1975, the Vega was known to be a lemon. The Pinto was simply a cheap car.
Also, from 1974 to 79, if one wanted a sleek car, one could simply get a Camaro (or Firebird). Ford just had the V8 Mustang II
Finally, one of GM’s dumber ideas to save gas were V8s with 260-270 cubic inches.
They might have gained 1-2 mpg in the lab, but in real life I doubt it. They were MUCH more anemic than the 305/307/301 variants of the 350 V8s they came from.
Ford, being poorer, used an off-the-shelf 302, which made 135-140 hp, vs 110.
GM dropped the Chevy 262 in 1976, but it didn’t really help Monza sales. It did however, give the Nova a decent 305 engine (vs the anemic 262).
Note: In 1980, Ford downsized the 302 into a 255, with results similar to GMs
This “right place at the right time” conventional wisdom nonsense sells the Mustang II short every time. To understand that it wasn’t just luck, you need to look at Mustang’s sales history.
Mustang II sales in year #1 were triple the sales of the ’73 and within 10% of the original Mustang’s first year. After that sales decayed at about the same rate as the original for the same reason — copy cat competitors. One of those was the Monza 2+2. Another was the ’78 Celica which had handling as soft as a marshmallow and a high level of refinement like the Mustang II.
Remember the MII had to live its last three years under double-digit interest rates, inflation and unemployment. The fact that it could outsell the Fox Mustang over the first five years with those headwinds is really saying something.
Also consider the car’s staying power. Year #5 Fox sales were about 1/2 of year #2. Year #5 MII sales were almost the same as year #2.
Right place at the right time? Sure, but it was much more than that if you look at the data five years later.
Inflation and unemployment moderated somewhat in 1976 thru 1978–Mustang II era.
As the 70s progressed, more and more Americans were buying Japanese cars–at the expense of US small cars.
From the 1975 to 1979, sales of GM’s F-cars (Camaro, Firebird) increased, further hurting Mustang II sales.
As a middle school kid, I actually liked the Mustang II, but would never consider a Monza.
When the Fox Mustang hit, it had about 9 months before the economy tanked again, beginning with the summer ’79 gas shortages.
ALL car sales plummeted in 1980.
Double-digit inflation and interest rates–that’s a 1980 phenomenon, not a Mustang II era one (OK, when wage/price controls came off in ’74, I think inflation crossed 10%. As Gerry Ford said, by Nov 76, inflation was down to 4.8%). The 1980 double-digit inflation/interest contributed to Carter losing the Presidency
It didn’t help that in 1980, Ford dropped the 302 V8 from the Fox platform and offered only the anemic 255 auto.
The Fox Mustang, for the day, was a very good car, but between changing public tastes, and more importantly, a tanking car market, had a much steeper hill to climb than the Mustang II.
“The Fox Mustang, for the day, was a very good car, but between changing public tastes, and more importantly, a tanking car market, had a much steeper hill to climb than the Mustang II.”
This is exactly why I looked at the whole five year lifecycle run for the Mustang II and compared that to the first five years of the Fox Mustang, to avoid the snapshot in time comparison of first year to first year, or first two years to first two years.
It’s true the Fox Mustang had to launch under Jimmy Carter’s last year and that there was a fuel shock in ’80. But ’83 was the beginning of Reagan’s boom years.
Logically one would expect year #5 for the Fox Mustang (model year 1984 in chart above) to be a relatively good year. But the sales were about 1/2 of what they were for the Fox Mustang in 1980 which we both admit was a difficult year for everyone.
Year #5 for the Mustang II (model year 1978) was nearly as high as it was in year #2 (model year 1975) which goes against the aging you typically see for small specialty cars. It was also higher than year #5 for the Fox car. That’s the point.
The Fox Mustang, as good as it was, had pretty normal aging. And that was with the convertible addition and facelift which the evergreen Mustang II never had nor needed. Think about that for a second.
The Fox didn’t get a major styling update until it had been on the market EIGHT years! (Mechanically, it got many as the horsepower race with GM restarted…from the “Boss is back” 1982 campaign to the 5 speed for 83-84 to the Holley 4bbl for 84 to the roller cam for 85 to SEFI for 1986.) However, 1979 to 1986 was, for styling, essentially the same car. Also, I recall 1984 was the second year for wildly-popular aero Thunderbird, and the first for the Turbo Coupe…that probably hurt Mustang sales.
Also, the base II’s “sporty looking econobox” segment was flled by the Escort GT and the EXP.
The Fox Mustang received a minor facelift in ’83 (more rounded nose, new taillights) and also added a convertible at that time. The Mustang II never needed any of that. Heck it carried on with round headlights when everyone else went square.
Technically the Mustang II was subtly facelifted in 1975, and beyond that The MII looked so 70s it even sported bell bottoms for the King Cobra. I have a hunch had that car continued unchanged after disco demolition sales would have inivetably tanked.
Looking at that chart it’s pretty impressive that Fox sales rebounted to roughly equal that of the MIIs 76&77 lows between 85 and 89, on a 6 year old body no less. I guess it’s a matter of how you interpret it.
Did you even research Mustang II sales figures? You can’t even accurately list numbers that are readily available in your own argument and it undermines your context completely. Those Mustang II numbers you give per your examples are simply not accurate.
1974 to 1975 sales decrease: 51.1%
1979 to 1980 sales decrease: 26.7%
Explain this figure with the II and how it was not in context with a combination of chance, please?
I think Tom was trying to say the Fox Mustang sold in a more challenging market than the Mustang II, looking at the lifecycle as a whole. If so I disagree.
The Fox Mustang faced a tough environment for a couple of years then it was off to the races with the Reagan recovery. And yet it had a dismal year #4 (1983) and #5 (1984). The Mustang II did great in its last two years, in a much less friendly environment. That’s my point.
Here’s how to read the chart. See the field goal shape there towards the left? The left goal post is year #1 of Mustang II, the right goal post is year #1 of Fox Mustang. See how fat the middle is, with Mustang II sales? Now compare that to what’s to the right of the rightmost goal post, a steep decline, in a booming economy and with the addition of a convertible and significant facelift.
That’s not a dig against the Fox Mustang, it’s simply the normal aging pattern for a sporty coupe. The Mustang II defied that, no small feat.
The Mustang II did great in its last two years, in a much less friendly environment. That’s my point.
The Fox Mustang faced a tough environment for a couple of years then it was off to the races with the Reagan recovery. And yet it had a dismal year #4 (1983)
Then I disagree with your analysis. 1983 would have been the last year of the equivalent model cycle II. 1974-1978 total sales were 1,107,718 vs. 1979-1983 at 1,101,531. That’s roughly 6,200 cars. Trends may have shifted, but the overall units moved really didn’t.
I can’t include further year to year sales because the II had a short run, but I think one can see my point regardless. The recession-stricken Fox basically matched the II in sales over the equivalent lifespan.
Yes that’s a more simple way to say it — if we look at the lifecycle average (first five years), the Mustang II outsold the Fox Mustang…
* In a less friendly market environment, generally speaking Carter vs. Reagan
* With a Chevy clone and its sisters aimed at it in year #2
* Without the convertible mid-cycle
* Without the press accolades
Don’t forget many credit the ’83 Mustang GT with ending the malaise era, it got great reviews as did the all-new car in ’79.
So the 82 GT and mid-83 Convertible were saviors along with the good press they were blessed to bestowed upon? You yourself just pointed out how ’83 and ’84 were terrible sales years.
Really? And Carter vs. Regan. Look those dates up again please. We agree to disagree.
The last two years ’82 and ’83 were not bad for the Fox Mustang. Sales were well off the pace of the first two years but that’s always the case for a sporty coupe. It took the ’82 GT and ’83 convertible to achieve even that.
Contrast that to the sales performance of the Mustang II in its last two years, ’77 and ’78. Here we see the ’78 selling almost as well as the second year. Without a GT or convertible.
The point isn’t that the Fox did poorly, it performed pretty well actually. The point is the Mustang II performed great even though it faced heavy headwinds.
Now that I think of it the Fox had one more advantage over the Mustang II, it had a good lead in.
“year #5 for the Mustang II (model year 1978) was nearly as high as it was in year #2 (model year 1975) which goes against the aging you typically see for small specialty cars.”
As much as I agree this is a strange phenomenon, it also explains how little you researched or chose to educate yourself with the topic at hand. I’ll let you figure it out (hint: its the equivalent to thinking model year #5 for the fox body Mustang is 1984). Numbers mean things.
Never said it was a “strange phenomenon”, said it was a remarkable achievement for the Mustang II. Words mean things too.
The right place at the right time thing is not non sense, there is no doubt that it would not have been as wildly successful had the energy crisis not reared its ugly head just as the car was introduced.
That said I do agree that its affect is overblown. IF the car wasn’t as appealing to the consumers of the time they would have spent much less for that un-gussied up Pinto sitting next to it in the showroom.
Fact is followed in the formula that made the original so successful and profitable. People didn’t buy it because it was an economy car they bought it because it was a cool sporty car that was economical enough to afford. Even if all you could afford was the base model it was nicely trimed for the price with things you pay extra for in an “economy car” like full wheel covers instead of hub caps and full carpeting instead of rubber. Even with the relatively generous base equipment people liked them so much that they loaded them up with profitable options.
Plain and simple the MII just like the original was a car you bought because it was desirable, not because you had to, and plenty of people desired them.
I admitted that right place at the right time was part of the story but that wouldn’t explain how well the Mustang II did later in its life. It was more than lucky timing and please remember the automotive press had it out for the MII from day 1.
Car magazines were very powerful back then, without comment sections like these, but the MII was good enough to overcome that. That’s one reason Lee Iacocca was never terribly popular with auto scribes — he proved them wrong time and time again and they resented that.
Iacocca had his issues (particularly during his last years at Chrysler) but there’s no denying the guy had an uncanny ability to read the auto market when he was at his peak. The Mustang II is a perfect example. In fact, I’d go so far to say that the MII sold ‘better’ than the original in its inaugural year since those first year Mustang sales were for an extended year (I don’t think that was the case with the MII). It’s a shame the oil crisis tends to diminish the MII’s first year sales and it would have been quite interesting to see how the car would have sold without that solitary caveat.
All good points I agree. The ’64 Mustang launched into a very friendly environment, economically and in the press. By the mid-70s the automotive media had a different agenda. They felt it was up to them to pick winners and losers and sometimes failed miserably, as we saw with the 1976 Cadillac Seville.
It was October of 1975 that Road & Track finally got around to doing a road test of the Seville. Who waits five months to review a major new model, the Seville came out in May. R&T that’s who.
They passed on a press car in April when GM was trying to give them out because they were not keen on the car’s concept and did not think it would succeed. They longed for a Seville done off of the Opel platform which would have been a disaster. Cadillac could have used the good ink and was not happy.
Fast forward to Fall ’75 and the Seville is selling like hot cakes. R&T begged for a press car but GM wasn’t having any of that because they didn’t need the press; the Seville was sold out and they knew they had a winner in the upcoming downsized B-body.
They told R&T to pound sand and the poor lads had to borrow one from a dealer.
Another example of a magazine trying to tell us (or in this case not tell us) what to like, until the market proved them wrong. They should have learned their lesson with the Mustang II.
Never much liked R&T. Seemed just as sold-out to the auto industry as Motor Trend, but with better writing.
As to Iacocca’s marketing acumen, I wonder if another lucky factor in the MII’s timing (indeed, maybe it’s very existance) was none other than Bunkie Knudson. Consider if Henry Ford II hadn’t hired Knudson, the ’71-’73 Mustang might have been a much different car under an earlier Iacocca Ford presidency. It’s been suggested that it would have been based not on the Pinto but on the Falcon’s replacement, the Maverick, instead.
Would better sales of an Iacocca-championed, Maverick-based Mustang than Knudson’s Torino-based Mustang kept any thought of a Pinto-based Mustang II at bay?
@ rudiger: That’s completely inaccurate and holds no basis in fact with how the 74+ Mustang was conceived in final form. Iacocca specifically fought to have the II not Maverick based, but Pinto based. The I-6 was the point of contention:
Quotes from an Anna Muccioli, at a Ford stockholder meeting in 1968: “Why can’t you just leave a small car small? You keep blowing them up and starting another little one, Blow that one up, and start another one…”. Iacocca was listening.
Then Knudsen was fired toward the end of 1969. Before December, now in charge Iacocca had redirected plans for the next Mustang to go from an even bigger version of the last, into something different altogether. Codenamed “Ohio”, the developing model based on the soon to be released Maverick was one of Iacocca’s top priorities. Also approved at the same time was a smaller car, based off the developing Pinto platform, code named “Arizona”.
Original customer clinics in Southern California showed high approval towards the smaller “Arizona” trials, which were half the reasoning. The other half, as quoted by Eugene Bordinat regarding Advanced Design chief Don DeLaRossa’s “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″
One of the the “Ohio” studies, for reference:
I think you may have misunderstood my theory. Iacocca and the Mustang II came about because, through Knudson’s efforts, the ’71-’73 car had become huge, primarily to easily accommodate Ford’s biggest big-block V8 engines (a la Chrysler’s E-body). I even vaguely recall Iacocca bitching about that logic in his book. He definitely didn’t like the direction Knudson had taken ‘his’ car in 1971.
So, it follows that If Henry Ford II hadn’t hired Knudson as president in the first place, Iacocca, instead, surely would have been in charge of the direction of the ’71 car. The question is simply what would he have done with it under those circumstances. He might not have went with the huge proportions of Knudson’s Mustang, but I’m hypothesizing there wouldn’t have been a Pinto-based, 1971 Mustang II, either. And ‘that’s’ where the idea comes that Iacocca might have thought about using the Maverick as the basis for the early seventies’ Mustang; it just would been for 1971, not 1974.
And if Iacocca ‘had’ used the Maverick as the basis for a much smaller 1971 Mustang, would it have been necessary to downsize it further for 1974?
IOW, Knudson was indirectly responsible for the 1974 Mustang II and, without him in the picture, the MII might not have happened.
I recall the Mav was based on the original Mustang platform. (To the extent many parts interchange.)
The Maverick was a combo of Falcon and 67-70 Mustang parts. Even a few Torino parts also if I remember correctly. After the 70 model year a lot changed. Especially floor and rocker panel. And suspension too.
Totally agree with you CJ.
A stone-age, pushrod inline-6 would have been a disaster not just for packaging but sales too. The V6 was high-tech and newsworthy, it contributed greatly to a fresh start image for the car.
…then they started burning valves. Nobody realized the Cologne V6 had solid lifters!
Knudson’s Torino-based Mustang
through Knudson’s efforts, the ’71-’73 car had become huge, primarily to easily accommodate Ford’s biggest big-block V8 engines (a la Chrysler’s E-body)
This is absolutely false, the 71 was based on the same platform it always had been, the only modification done to house the 429 were revised shock towers, just as done previously in 67 to house the 390. There’s a lot of visual bulk to the design, but in reality the 71s aren’t all that much bigger than the 69 & 70.
This is what happens why you try to reason with the unreasonable. Try to agree, yet “Never said it was a “strange phenomenon”. It was a “remarkable achievement for the Mustang II.”
“Words mean things too” They sure do. Just like numbers. Which are infallible. And universal, regardless of your language.
The Mustang II was styled as a hatchback only, then Lee decided a coupe model was needed and the stylist had to make a coupe from a fastback (opposite of 1965). Thats why the coupes always looked strange to me, I really like the fastback Mustang II. And why 74 Mustangs were V8 less I don’t know, Mexican Mustangs could be had with a V8.
The Monza face makes me want to watch Corvette Summer for some reason.
Well for a different point of view, in 85 I was working for Service Master and at one of the houses we cleaned, there was a mint black Mustang II MPG (said so on the fender) with a automatic I truly lusted after. I mean after 10 years it still looked brand new. Of course at the time i was a few months away from being 19 so what did I know, right? I was still driving my 71 Maverick with the mighty 170!
I remember when these car debuted.
The Monza was dished for being based on the Vega who’s reputation was dismal. The only redeeming value was the V8 because Toyota & Datsun were focused on inline 4’s and a few 6 cylinders at the time.
All knew the Mustang II was based on the Pinto, but it was considered the lessor of the two evils. Also, Lido did a great job of timing and marketing as always; worthy of a CC just for marketing genius. However, the V8 was just a reaction, not necessarily an improvement for the Mustang. I remember horror stories of having to lift the engine in order to replace spark plugs. Or was that for the Monza. ??
These V8’s were to satify the motor magazines and persons with insecurities. The wise ones kept their distance.
The Monza V-8 had the inaccessible spark plugs.
A myth. Only one plug a little tricky to do, but you don’t have to “jack up the engine” to change it. I’ve found Pontiac V-8’s much harder to change plugs.
There was a special tool for that one spark plug. Our techs generally didn’t have one in their personal sets, so we stocked plenty of special tools. They had to sign for them, too.
That said, that infamous spark plug was impossible to change with a standard tool set. It just took flexibility!
Many years ago, I had a boat customer bring me a boat he just bought (got a great deal on it! he said). Hadn’t run in years, and the engine was covered in the type of grime you only see on automotive engines. It is common to see car/truck wrecking yard engines transplanted in boats (complete with their non USCG approved carbs, distributors, starters, etc..) among the less affluent boater segment, at least around here. Scraped off the grime coating the block casting number, it is 360851. The one and only casting number for the 262 Monza engine! Seller told him it was a 350 (go figure). And of course, he didn’t have the scratch to even have me put in a reman marine 350 long block. That was, in fact, the only Chev 262 V8 I have ever seen in the wild. Never expected to see it in a boat!
I would bet that low-compression, low-RPM engine could run WOT for hours and not have a single problem!
So…would an engine that spent a week underwater be something you’d dealt with before, then?
Yup, dealt with a few submerged/sunk engines.
Just reminded me of my cousin’s old ski boat. Got it free after it capsized & sucked water, then sat for a month. Pulled the heads and found the gaskets had been pushed out…but aside from that and looking like a ball of rust, it was intact. He soaked the engine in MMO and Liquid Wrench, did the head gaskets…it fired right up. Close to 4700 hours on it…and that 440 still runs perfectly!
Never mind this glorified Vega vs Pinto shootout.
I want to read about the 300D!
….and what about the Mazda 808 which was the RX3 sans the rotary engine. It might be faster than the Monza or MII??
Paul, we wait in anticipation????????
Sorry 6sp, the manual 808 at 15.6 second 0-60 only managed to tie an automatic 85hp iron duke 77 Astre that C/D tested. It was almost as fast as a first year Chevette. So, as Brock Yates might say, “slower than a shitbox”
Compared to the Monza, only two seconds slower, 3 MPG better, $1,500 less, equal on braking and many light years ahead in quality. And by the way, no need to lift the engine to change spark plugs.
I think your definition of “shit box” stinks???
I loved my ’77 Mustang II – my sister’s hand-me-down. Aqua blue with matching seats and a white vinyl top would not have been my first choice in colors! It was a 4-cylinder and stripped of most options (not even power steering ) but it got me around and in what I thought was a neat little package. Was it loud on the highway? Sure. Was it horrible on gas for a 4-cylinder? You bet. Was the 4-cylinder as unrefined as could be? Absolutely. Did it lack any sort of power? Most definitely. Still it was my very first car and I really had nothing to compare it to, and it was MINE. I always thought the styling was great. And the low bucket seats were cool. If I could grab another one I would in a heartbeat, except this time it would be a much more nicely equipped one, perhaps a V-6 or V-8, maybe a Ghia or 2+2.
Ironically, my wife’s very first car was a 1975 Monza Town Coupe, rust colored with a tan full vinyl top. It too was a 4-cylinder – leaking oil so badly she had to keep an extra reserve in the trunk! She loved that car and drove it literally into the ground, replacing it with an ’86 Cavalier that she also loved! The day she made the sales transaction on the Cavalier the salesman joked with her to take good care of it until she came back to pick up the new car. Well, the next day, as she was driving it in to trade it, the transmission started slipping and she barely made it into the lot! Guess that salesman was a jinx! It had never broken down on her in all the years she had it. Maybe it knew it was being traded!
In a way, it’s a good thing that Ford and Chevy produced these cars. With the technology of today, they can become capable hot rods, like A-Team Racing’s Mustang Evolution II.
This was the dark ages for American Cars. My Brother in law Bought a Mustang , at 30 miles the timing gear went so he traded up (or so he thought) to a Granada it immediately started to fall apart so he bought another Mustang II He just couldn’t win, by then he was so upside down on his car that when he tried to trade it in only Ford would take it but not before adding the difference between his trade in value and what he owed on the loan for the new car. I finally got him into a Datsun (Nissan) 200SX and he never looked back, He switched to Hondas and lives happily ever after. Mustang IIs are very rare around here as most of them ended up in a junkyard or rotted away in people’s back yards were their owners put them after they broke down. Never see any vegas or Monzas ether having suffer much of the same fate. The last two Vegas I saw were Cosworths but that’s another story for another time.
My thoughts & recollections: The Monza was prettier on the exterior than the Mustang, the Mustang had a more attractive dashboard/instrument panel, The Monza was claustrophobic tiny inside for my 6-0, 220 college body, the Mustang had a much better 4 speed shifter than the Monza, The Monza had (slightly)better quality control than the Mustang…
As usual, GM styling was better, the Mustang II just looks sad.
There’s a rare Monza in Providence:
https://providence.craigslist.org/cto/5777895384.html
Its still has the plastic wheel covers that look like metal??
The cleanly styled Monza Towne Coupe was the best-looking of these cars and better-looking than the Monza 2+2 coupe. That said, the Mustang II was certainly more popular and Ford was able to get some good product placement for the cars with Mustang IIs being driven by TV’s “Nancy Drew” and 2 out of 3 “Charlie’s Angels.” (but the poor sensible angels got stuck with Ford Pintos.)
Right! Wasn’t Shelley Hack’s “Tiffany Welles” character supposed to be a little fancy? Why she inherited Sabrina Duncan’s orange Pinto is a mystery. I suppose that was better than sticking her with an LTD II.
Kelly Garrett (Jaclyn Smith) was the “classy” angel who got a Mustang II Ghia coupe. Jill Munroe (Farrah Fawcett) and Kris Monroe (Cheryl Ladd) were the “sporty” angels who drove Mustang II Cobras. After “sensible” angel, Sabrina Duncan (Kate Jackson) left she was replaced by “sensible” angel, Tiffany Welles (Shelley Hack). Tiffany’s backstory was that she was from an upper-class Boston family.
The show was in its fourth year by then, and ratings were starting to decline. ABC TV blamed the decline on Hack. Supposedly her character was not well-liked by test audiences and was seen as being “snobby.” Johnny Carson joked that the show was supposed to be “T and A” and that Hack didn’t have enough of either (which was kind of a mean thing to say).
Hack ended up being replaced by sensible angel, Julie Rogers (Tanya Roberts), whose background story was that she was a tough girl from the streets. But the ratings stayed in the toilet and the show ended up getting cancelled.
I suppose that if they didn’t give the sensible angels, Pintos, they would have had Mavericks.
Mrs. Columbo (Kate Mulgrew) had a Pinto. So did Barnaby Jones’ daughter-in-law and secretary, Betty Jones (Lee Meriweather).
The 1977 cars were kept, so they could re-use stock footage for 5 years. Although, one 1980 episode showed Kelly in a Fox Mustang, with no explanation.
Sure wish someone could find that old Car and Driver article on the California-only, one-year-wonder 350 Monza. It might not have been a complete instrumented test, but they definitely raved about it.
Love the R&T spec illustrations, really shows the ridiculous engine placement in the Mustang, the front axles are inline with the bellhousing, no wonder the weight distribution sucks. I love the 65-68 Mustang as much as anyone but that styling just doesn’t scale down well, especially when the new platform isn’t even reconfigured for it(why was it seemingly so easy to move the wheels forward on the falcon chassis and so hard on the Pinto?!?)
Sorry but that illustration’s engine placement has no basis in reality. The bellhousing is just in front of the firewall which is not that far forward. The end of the tail shaft for the transmission is about the middle of the front seat.
And they did push the wheels forward on the MII vs the Pinto. If you build a V8 Pinto using the MII mounts you need to take a sledge hammer to the firewall to get enough room to get the assembled engine and trans in there. Once the assembly is in there you are not pulling the trans and leaving the engine in place in the Pinto while you can in the MII.
I wonder why it sat so far forward. My ’84 5.0 had a split oil pan with two drain plugs so the pan could clear the frame, perhaps that was the solution the MII needed?
Edit: I see Scoutdude posted while I was composing. That makes sense.
The MII did keep the front sump but it was not the same pan as used on other 302s its sump was modified to allow it to sit further back than it could have with their standard pan. They also had a unique oil pump pickup for that pan.
I didn’t fit in either one. Both seemed very ignorable to me. I new people that loved their Monza and others that hated them. I did actually try to get into a fast-backed Mustang II and couldn’t even get my body into it. Took a ’78 Malibu sedan instead!
“That was just about the only V8 engine that could make the Mustang’s 133 hp 302 V8 look powerful. Curiously, my Encyclopedia of American Cars says the 1975 MII 302 V8 was rated at 122 hp.”
This is the problem with Ford power ratings from this era. Like I have posted before, they varied the horsepower rating depending on the chassis resulting in multiple ratings for the same engine. This makes it confusing to figure out what car had what rating and many books don’t get it correct.
From looking at several sources I have, it looks like there were basically two Federal emissions 302’s power ratings for 1975. One was rated at 122hp, the other at 129 hp. Most sources seem to list the Mustang as using the 129 hp version, while the 122 hp version was used in the Maverick. I am not sure where R &T got the 133 hp rating, no other sources list that figure. The Encyclopedia of American Cars only lists the 122 hp 302 for all Ford’s in 1975, which is not correct.
Just wondering how the Mustang II would have faired had it been based on the Maverick instead of the Pinto. Pretty sure the press would have still put it down. And my Maverick’s would not have been cheap enough for me to buy the 22 I’ve owned because of the Mustang connection. Just curious what everyone’s opinion is.
I posted this a while back, but you may find it relevant to your question:
Quotes from an Anna Muccioli, at a Ford stockholder meeting in 1968: “Why can’t you just leave a small car small? You keep blowing them up and starting another little one, Blow that one up, and start another one…”. Iacocca was listening.
Then Knudsen was fired toward the end of 1969. Before December, now in charge Iacocca had redirected plans for the next Mustang to go from an even bigger version of the last, into something different altogether. Codenamed “Ohio”, the developing model based on the soon to be released Maverick was one of Iacocca’s top priorities. Also approved at the same time was a smaller car, based off the developing Pinto platform, code named “Arizona”.
Original customer clinics in Southern California showed high approval towards the smaller “Arizona” trials, which were half the reasoning. The other half, as quoted by Eugene Bordinat regarding Advanced Design chief Don DeLaRossa’s “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.”
This is one of the “Ohio” studies:
Yeah I see it now..that clay looks too close to the 71-73 models that everyone wanted gone.
Big problem with the Monza was the weak upper control arm box-section mounts. The front end literally collapsed on itself, even with a 4-banger. The V8 only magnified the problem. The front unibody was garbage and not made from thick enough metal, which is why everyone had so much trouble with keeping them in alignment.
I remember this issue very well. When this issue of R&T showed up in my mailbox I was studying for the LSAT, which was coming up in a couple of days. It was a tremendous struggle between the LSAT study guide and the R&T. It didn’t take long for the battle to be decided in favor of the magazine. It didn’t take much longer after that that I decided that being an accountant was bad enough and becoming a lawyer was just another step down the wrong path. I still have that issue in my collection of old Road and Track magazines.
Those HP #’s were brutal due to emissions. I had a late 70’s Monza V6. I kept putting in 1 spark plug for a while + thicker oil, before finally rebuilding the motor. Went for a trip, and something was wrong. It did not overheat, but I did not have a gauge and did not change radiator when machine shop rebuilt it. I sold it to some guy who wanted it for drag racing. The frame was also sagging, but the body was in great shape because it had a hard clear plastic coating on it which started to peel.
It was this car where I had my first stereo system in and rocked the beach! I’ve had big stereos ever since!
Net HP ratings were measured differently then the 60’s Gross HP. more realistic.
Look it up, some assume that the “sole” reason for lower HP #”s was emissions equipment in ’72, but that year wasn’t as much a s ’74+.
Check acceleration times for 1971 lower compression muscle cars and see that they were not “drastically” slower.
Looking at these cars now, they both seem comically under-tyred, like they’re rolling on temporary spares. Fourteen inch wheels would have made a huge improvement to their appearance. And that’s before we even think about the tread width.
195/70R13 I can understand fine, that’s the ‘international’ system we use today, but I never got the hang of the system used for the Chevy’s tyres – BR78-13. In theory I know what it stands for, but… Is there a website or a formula or something to translate this system into modern usage?
Lots of conversion charts all over the internet. Here is one of them. Presumably BR78-13 is a radial version of B78-13.
Shortly after the Monza was released, it was discovered that to replace the right rear spark plug it was necessary to lift the engine off its mounts. It’s hard to believe that something like that could occur without being noticed, but at this time obviously GM was rushing everything into production. These type of issues became SOP at GM through the 70’s and 80’s.
Probably a fair percentage of them had seven periodically-new spark plugs and one increasingly past due.
It’s interesting that GM made the Monza’s headlights about 40% taller with the chrome bezels. If the bezels were taken out the bulges over the headlights may not even be necessary.
Both cars could have been styled to have more presence and muscularity, in GT versions, working with their already basic looks. The IMSA Monza transformed Monza styling into something more masculine and Renault R5 Turbo or Porsche 911-like. The Monza Mirage flaring look rather chintzy, and tacked on. It needed bolder rear flares and wheels/tires. With a lowered ride height. Too much styling emphasis on the front air dam. The extra bodywork looking like add-ons, rather than an integral part of the bodywork, as the IMSA version. So many tape and decal packages offered on the Monza, and its derivatives. None of them looking like genuine sports cars. Typical of the era. The standard 1975 H-bodies looked so docile. It was the IMSA version that looked best.
“… Renault R5 Turbo or Porsche 911 Turbo-like.”
Credit to Ford for offering the lower body two-tone paint scheme, using black. It made it much easier for owners to do their own rust repair, and paint work. Easier to match to the black paint. /s
The Monza’s styling hasn’t aged well at all. I remember thinking it was a knockout when it was introduced; now its only good point seems to be the side profile and even that suffers from excessive front and rear overhangs. The Mustang has actually aged better, IMHO.
Anyone recall that Rob Walker, the Johnny Walker heir and GP correspondent for R&T for several years (and F1 team owner for some of that time) owned a Mustang II in Europe and referred to it occasionally. I always wondered why a wealthy Brit would drive one of those things!
Exoticness, presumably. A Ford Capri was a better execution of a very similar concept, just based on the Cortina rather than the Pinto. Not that the Capri was without flaws (axle location and brakes, to name two), but a British Mk2 Capri 3000 was quicker, handled better, and was a better deal than an imported Mustang II. The latter’s only real advantage was exclusivity, if you could call it that.
Every Ford had distorted windshield glass.
Performance-wise, things weren’t so bad for Monza shoppers for 1975, but only if they lived in California or high-altitude areas. Instead of the 262 V8, those people got a 350 in their Monza (albeit only with an automatic) due to that being the only V8 to pass the more stringent emission requirements of those areas. Considering the times, a 350 California Monza was about as good as it got for cheap speed from GM for 1975. It would have beaten a V8-equipped Camaro and probably came close to matching a much more expensive Trans Am or Corvette. Of course, the top dog musclecar for 1975 was still the tried-and-true Mopar 360 A-body.
For the following year, the V8 for California became the 305, while the other 49 states still had to make do with the 262. From 1977-79, the 305 became available everywhere.
In the Monza’s last year (1980), the 231 Buick V6 was the only engine option. It was okay since it could be had with a 4-speed while the V8s always required an automatic.
Interestingly, besides the automatic, the optional V8 engines did not require any other extra-cost performance upgrade. Of course, that was pretty much just the ‘Spyder’ appearance package, anyway.
I’m not sure about US spec cars, but here in the great white north you could get the 305 with a 4 speed. I saw several come through the Chev-Olds emporium my Dad worked at, and a high school buddy got a plain jane coupe with that combo as a graduation present.
The 4 speed was the wide ratio Saginaw, with a yawning gap from 2nd to 3rd, so by the time you got the wheel spin and hop under control the car fell flat on it’s face when you hit 3rd. I’m sure the automatic was a better way to go.
There are definitely some V8/4-speed H bodies out there in the U.S., am quite sure they were offered in the States as well as Canada. Recall C/D testing a so-equipped Sunbird around the time they were discontinued, noting how much more enjoyable they were to drive than a V6/4-speed FWD Phoenix despite similar performance numbers and the X body supposedly being more advanced technologically.
V8 was dropped due to CAFE for 1980. Only Sunbird and Monza were offered that MY, no Buick/Olds version. Also, H body was built until Dec ’80, no 81’s. Then, replaced in spring ’81 by the much discussed 1982 J body.
“… the Fox Mustang had to launch under Jimmy Carter’s last year…”
Umm, no, it was fall 1978, 2 whole years before the Nov. 1980 election.
You may be correct about the 305 being available in the US with a 4-speed at some point. All I know for certain is that you had to get an auto with the California 350. I just vaguely recall the auto being the only transmission for the US V8 (even the 262) because I thought I once spec’d a Monza to find the largest engine you could get with a manual was the 231 Buick V6.
Regardless, the irony of the wide spacing between 2nd and 3rd in the Monza V8 is that Ford did exactly the same thing when they brought back the 302 in the 1982 Fox Mustang GT. It was described as a 5-speed with a missing 3rd gear.
I had 2 1975 flashbacks just this morning….one was this issue, which I remember reading at the time. I wasn’t really a fan of either car, the Monza was new, and the Mustang II a year old, so were really getting used to them, my opinion hasn’t improved in 47 years though. I had a friend that bought a ’78 Sunbird, and once I saw it in person I didn’t care much for it..and hated that he bought it with a 24% used car interest rate in 1981.
The other flashback..not much to do with cars, but someone mentioned renting an Olds Alero to go to Kings Dominion…which I went to exactly once, in 1975. My cousin picked us up in his Olds Omega, with a friend, in northern Virginia, where we lived at that time, sometime between March and July 1975 (we moved from Virginia to Vermont by mid 1975 so it couldn’t have been later) to take us there. I was a new driver, having gotten my license the year before, so I remember more about the Omega than I do about Kings Dominion (except they repeatedly went up on the roller coaster). Lots seem to
have happened to us in 1975, much more so than does in a typical year to me these days.