Take a close look at this 1976 Mustang II. Notice anything different? Does it look less like a Pinto in a clown suit; with that ridiculous long overhanging nose? Look a bit less impotent, having ditched its 13″ training wheels? Yes, it’s easy (and fun) to rip apart a poorly designed car like the Mustang II, as we did the other day. But George Denzinger (geozinger) and I have teamed up to turn the clock back, and do it right.
The first step is to take a closer look at what Ford did. As is all-too obvious, the (real) Mustang II started out as a Pinto, the cheapest little car that Ford could possibly build. Although its mechanical aspects were simple and reasonably durable (unlike its main competitor, the Vega), the Pinto’s body structure came in for pretty thorough criticism.
The big question is why Ford went with the 94″ wb Pinto platform, and not the 103″ wb Maverick platform, for the MII. Some have suggested that Ford seriously considered just that route. Stay tuned.
Some have pointed out that the MII was a response to the energy crisis. If so, it must have appeared like magic, because the MII arrived in the fall of 1973, exactly when the Energy Crisis started. Even if the MII’s development time was shortened because of its Pinto basis, it still would have taken a couple of years. But there’s no doubt that the MII’s arrival was highly fortuitous: 1974 sales soared (386k), but crashed again by over 50% in 1975, and stayed at that lower level for the rest of its run. The energy crisis was its short-lived boon.
Was Lido clairvoyant? More likely just cheap. He specifically wanted the MII to chase after the new small sporty coupes that were hot. Ford’s own Capri, sold at Mercury dealers, had arrived in 1971 and was the second best-selling import car in the US during part of its run. The Opel Manta was selling fairly well too.
But the growing threat was of course from Japan, which had discovered the the sporty car market was ripe for the picking, one size below the American pony-cars. The Toyota Celica, with its Mustang-esqe fastback, was hot. Datsun was also moving in, and some of the others too.
According to one source, Lido said he wanted the MII to ride on a wheelbase of 96-100 inches. By designing a new front suspension and subframe for the MII, they were able to add two inches to the Pintos 94″ wb. Any more would probably have compromised the Pinto body’s known weakness. The result is a significantly shorter wb than the Capri’s 101″. The Capri was able to recreate the iconic long-hood, short tail that the original Mustang established as the pony-car “look”; the MII didn’t.
I’ve already argued that ideally, the MII should have been a properly “Americanized” Capri, with Mustang styling cues. The wheelbase and excellent chassis were all there, ripe for the picking. It might have cost more to invest in new tooling. Or more likely it was just the usual “not invented here” syndrome.
We could have based our Better MII on the Capri, but for this exercise, let’s assume that Ford had chosen the more realistic Maverick alternative. The Maverick was itself a development of the original Mustang/Falcon platform, and the cost of adapting it would have had to be very low indeed. The Maverick body would only need a fairly light re-skin, as the basic proportions and shape are all there.
The new front suspension and rack and pinion steering Ford developed for the Mustang II could have been scaled easily to the Maverick platform, potentially endowed the resulting MIIv.2 with superior handling. The real MII was cursed with severe understeer, among other handling shortcomings. Much of that was due to its nose-heaviness, because of the short wb and the long front overhang. The V6 Mach I had a 57/43 weight distribution; the V8 probably pushed that to 60% in the front. And with the Pinto chassis’ small wheels and tires, the MII was simply overwhelmed.
But what about weight? A key design/marketing goal was to offer a four cylinder in the MII, for economy and competitive reasons. Not really a problem: the 1974 MII weighed 2700 lbs for the four, and 2900 for the V6. The Maverick, in 1974 form with big bumpers, weighed 2700 lbs, the same as the four cylinder MII, and that’s with the straight six. It’s quite obvious that the (real) MII had no weight benefit from its heavily re-worked Pinto platform. Based on the Maverick, a four cylinder “What If MII” would actually have weighed less than the real thing.
And there’s certainly no doubt that the V8 would have worked much better with a Maverick-based MII. At appears that Ford didn’t intend to make a V8 MII, as they had to re-work the front end of a brand new car to do so, resulting in the v8 appearing a year later. That undoubtedly ran up costs too.
Engine line-up of our “better” MII: the 2.3 four, either or both of the 200 and 250 inch sixes, and the 302 V8. Bigger tires, brakes, rear axles, and other upgrades were all in the old parts bin. And the 351 would also have fit like a glove, with that new front suspension. The Cobra II would have had teeth instead of gums. Even with only 162 hp, the 351 would have been more than a match for the 155 hp 1975 Camaro 350.
So there it is, a better Mustang II, and one that would undoubtedly have enjoyed much greater long-term following by the go-fast/collector/Mustang crowd.
I’m not claiming it’s more beautiful than the Camaro, But it has a certain raw charm and puppy-like eagerness that makes it a worthy competitor. Oh; just one more change: call it just “Mustang”. The “II” affirmed that even Ford didn’t think this was the real deal. This one is.
[thanks, George, for realizing my ideas so faithfully]
All interesting thoughts but Maverick was the most logical choice.
Nice work, Geo! What if? indeed. I still don’t like, though, because at that time, I hated Ford and am still not a great fan, but I do like a few of their current offerings.
Zackman: I should have made a hardtop version for you…
That’s not fair, it’s hitting below the belt!
Given your logic (which is very good), it sounds like on Day One of development somebody decided, “We’re going to base it on the Pinto platform. Period.” Given usual development times, this was probably back in ’71 or ’72 when the Pinto was still riding about as high as it ever did and the line of thought was to use it as the newest and most modern platform they had.
Which makes Ford come out at least as dumb as GM back then, if not dumber.
Why the botch-job that became the Mustang II? A question for the ages. As tempting as it might be for us to consider the Maverick as the new Mustangs basis, this concept would have taken the Mustang back to 1965, and not towards 1975.
In 1965, the Mustang was based on Ford’s smallest car. By 1971 or 72, the new Maverick was, in fact, the original Mustang. I think that Lee saw that smaller sporty coupes were a growth market (which they were). It is too bad that the MII was among the worst of them ever made. As for the excessive front overhang, wasn’t that mandatory on anything built by FoMoCo in the 70s?
I’ve been trying to find sketches or photos of the Maverick based MII for a long time. As much as I love the 71-73 Mustangs, I never thought of them as Mustangs. The Maverick should have filled that spot in 71.
Fascinating, very clever work on the photo, nicely done! I knew it looked better but I had to look close to see the front-end slicing and dicing. You’ve proven the case for the Maverick-based Mustang.
History is so clear in retrospect. What’s funny is, if they had known somehow that the Energy Crisis was coming, it would have been Pinto-based for certain. Maybe Lido had a mole in the oil monopoly (just kidding, imagine that, ha ha).
I wonder how much finance drove all this:
1) Did the Pinto platform give them a cheaper base cost-to-manufacture, and more room for high-profit options?
2) Was international exchange a factor in not basing Mustang on the Capri? Labor and materials in Marks or Pounds more expensive than Dollars at the time?
Bean-counters generally took over in this era, and ran the Big Three into their various ditches by the Eighties.
As per the article, the Maverick weighed well less than the Mustang II, so there’s no weight advantage in using the Pinto-based body. So even if they knew the energy crisis was coming, it wouldn’t have made any real difference. And if they were that clairvoyant, they presumably would also have known that the ’73-’74 crisis was quite short, and that folks would soon be clamoring for V8 sporty cars! Or something like that
At the risk of what-if-ing the what-ifs, top brass must have expected the Pinto-based Mustang to be lighter at project start. Then it turned out to be heavier once development was finished with trying to make it a Mustang.
I have to chime in here, while doing the photo chops on this car, it was weird how the MII morphed into other cars.
There was a version I had done with a longer tail (behind the rear wheels) that made this car look somewhat like a 1975 Duster. Another one with an elongated area behind the doors reminded me of the original Capri, too.
The one huge drawback to the MII was the use of the Pinto chassis as we’ve already outlined. But particularly when you stuff a Windsor small block between the wheels and somewhat ahead of the front wheels. That just makes it a little understeering pig. Not that many of these cars of that time were going to take on Porsches at the Nürburgring. Maybe a 1979 V8 AMC AMX, but not these things.
Now that I’ve completed my little exercise, I can’t really look at these cars the same as I did before. I wasn’t all that enthusiastic about them in the first place, but I really like them less now.
“I really like them less now”
Sorry; sometimes it’s hard making a purse out of a sow’s ear, even with PS!
Everyone lays the blame for the Pinto origins of the 1974 Mustang at the feet of Iacocca, but I think it was more the fault of none other than Semon E. ‘Bunkie’ Knudson.
Bunkie was the guy who Hank the Deuce scored a big coup by luring him away from GM in 1968 to become Ford’s president. Besides the styling faux pas of tacking a Pontiac-like beak onto the 1969 Thunderbird, Bunkie’s other big mistake at Ford was enlarging the 1971 Mustang to more easily accept the biggest Ford engines (the 429). As everyone now knows, the 1971-73 Mustang, while not exactly a disaster, definitely wasn’t a success, either.
Imagine if Knudson hadn’t been made president of Ford and Iacocca had gotten the job much sooner, instead. Iacocca may well have foreseen the demise of the musclecar market and reeled the 1971 Mustang back to being based on the Maverick,
It could be said that the Pinto-Mustang II was a backlash against the gross tank the 1971-73 Mustang had become at the hands of Knudson. While a 1971 Maverick-Mustang certainly doesn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t have been a Pinto-based 1974 Mustang II, the prospects against it happening likely would have been much better if the prior Mustang had been sized closer to the original.
Iacocca’s formula was to dress up basic platforms to make more profitable versions–original Mustang & Lincoln Mark III and K-car variations at Chrysler–so is it possible that one of the justifications for building the Pinto platform in the first place was to be able to build a slightly larger but more expensive version to make the project more profitable? Even at the volumes they sold Ford couldn’t have made much money from the Pinto because they sold for such low prices. But to be able to build a slightly larger, much more expensive car from the same basic pieces would certainly make the whole Pinto project much more appetizing to executives looking for even greater profits.
It’s simple, Ford loved overhanging noses:
LTD II
Ever looked at the overhang of a 73 Charger? Or a Matador coupe? It was common for the time.
LTD
T-Bird
Mustang II
Ford did like long overhangs and plenty of understeer in their 70s offerings.
/\ space maximization rather than utilization…
Great article, you have to wonder why they felt the need to go so small for the Mustang, much smaller than the original, rather than the more logical Maverick-based item given the need to “reset” after the excessive 71-73′s (three iterations of gaining 2-4″ length and ~300lb each time).
I’d go a step further – why go clean-sheet on the Pinto rather than build a local version of the Cortina/Taunus whether the Mk3/TC or carry over the old Mk2 platform which was a bit smaller and could have been cheaper. That would give a sedan to start with, they could have still done a shorter wheelbase hatch like the Pinto if wanted, or just used the TC1 coupe. If a smaller car was needed, there was the original rwd Escort… That old NIH is a powerful thing.
A lot of Maverick owners in recent years have effectively built the Maverick-based Mustang. Pretty much everything that makes early Mustangs go, stop and handle better can be bolted onto a Maverick.
Well…hindsight is 20/20; and nobody disagrees that the MII was a turd. How highly polished, we can quibble.
But…let’s magically step back to, oh, say, December 1973. I can; because my folks were in the market for not one, but TWO new cars. And the prices at the pump were rising to the terrifying level of…(drum roll) FIFTY-SEVEN CENTS A GALLON.
(In fairness, that converts to $2.83 in today’s funny-money…)
Anyway…Vegas and Pintos, slow sellers in previous quarters, were flying off the transport trucks. Japanese imports were selling as well…even second-tier units like the Mitsubishi “Dodge” Colt. Honda was off to a fantastic start with their new Civic.
Now…into this mix, imagine the “new” Mustang II…Maverick size, with a 250 six or a 302. Would it sell?
I think not. Four cylinders were hot then. My old man got a reasonable deal on a four-door Maverick; that after quickly looking at a Pinto and seeing just how cramped and low it was inside. It was to be his commuter car…and at the same time, a two-for-one deal, he got a leftover ’73 Torino marked down. A THOUSAND bucks! They couldn’t give V-8 rigs AWAY…
A “sporty” Maver-stang with the typical Ford power lineup of the time…simply would not have sold. Maybe in eighteen months; but as likely by that time the New Mustverick would have gotten an Edsel-like aura of a loser.
A Capri-based MII wouldn’t have been handicapped that way. But with the much higher costs entailed by the (required; no other source) German-built engines and on a German design…would have had limited appeal. A Mustang’s niche wasn’t as a sports car; but a “sporty” car. An image car…for a price.
This was probably a no-win situation for Ford. With hindsight, maybe the best thing would have been to give the marque a hiatus; but nobody saw the oil crisis coming or knew if it was permanent.
I guess you didn’t read it properly then. I specifically point out that the “Improved MII” would weigh the same or less than the real one, and that the four cylinder would be the base engine.
Nothing really changes, except the front wheels move forward. The car is still the same length and size overall. Economy is the same. Same lineup of engines, except the in-line sixes could be used instead of the little V6.
Handling is much better, thanks to better weight distribution and availability of bigger tires. The V8 would work much better in it. And most of all, it looks better. All gain; no pain.
You’re right that I skimmed over that…a quick read before turning in for the night.
But, that given…I don’t see how it could be. Most of the weight added to the MII over the Pinto was in sound-deadening and premium interior materials – something to justify the added price over an econobox stripper.
A Maverick-based Mustang would need as much; or would get as much. Take the difference in weight between MII and Pinto; then add that to the stripper Maverick curb weight; and you have a rough approximation of what this thing would weigh.
I don’t see how they could have come in with a LOWER weight then the Maverick without re-engineering the chassis – which would defeat the purpose of using it as a base.
Would you credit Ford with forecasting the oil crisis in about 1970 and developing the MII to deal with it? Like the Probe in the 1980′s perhaps they would have been better off calling the MII something else and going with the Maverstang. Then again probably not enough room in the line up for both.
No, because the oil “crisis” in 1973 was 100-percent political. Nor was it a permanent or sustainable situation for the OPEC states – the embargo hurt them more than the Western customer-nations, at that time.
A reasonable person could have predicted such a problem at some point in the future. But pinpointing the exact time this might happen would be impossible.
Timing is everything with such products – CC is filled with recollections of models ahead of their time; or too late to the party; or answering the question no one was asking.
I’ve always wondered about Ford’s apparent clairvoyance on this. There was reason to expect some oil supply problems from the spring of ’71 (when US output started declining) on and it must have looked scarier after August (declining production and price controls are a bad mix). There were also hints between that time and October of ’73 that the Arabs might try to make better use of oil as a weapon in the “next conflict” whenever that would be. The White House was running scared about energy during this period and I’m sure some of that made its way into corporate boardrooms. The big three had a battle-induced skepticism of such thinking; they had already been burned in the post-Suez-crisis downsizing efforts of the late-50s and early ’60s. But I’d be surprised if it didn’t play a factor in the decision. Iacocca had always had an affinity for small cars anyway and must have wondered why the ’71-73 Mustang, which was essentially a 2 person (+ 2 watermelon) car, had to be the size of a midsized sedan. Since the Pinto was his baby anyway, he had all the more reason to want to make use of it. My thoughts on the use of the Maverick were similar to those of JustPassinThru: would the Maverick still be anywhere near the target weight after the body stiffening, sound proofing, beefed up wheels, tires and suspension and whatever else it took to make a respectable Mustang were added? If the straight 6 (probably a huge cost savings VS the German V6) were made the base engine, they could probably have gotten by with less soundproofing (not that that would save a lot). And with post-’73 hydraulic bumpers, the weight saved by moving the front wheels into Pinto-position was probably reduced some, compared to what it would have been in the ’60s. But just because it was bigger in every dimension, I suspect that a Maverick based car would still weight more. So, maybe a further-stretched Pinto, with better weight balance and less overhang, would have been a little better fit for the role. But even that leads back to another of Ford’s dilemmas during those years, the long hoods on their cars were not always just for show; I believe they needed the extra “crush space” for some models. Otherwise, there would have been no rational reason to add 6 inches to the front overhang of the already comically-huge ’74 Continental for the ’75 model year. If that was a factor, a stretched Pinto with an inline 6 might have given them crash-test troubles, but the V6 or inline 4 might still have worked. Whatever the reason, they went with the barely stretched Pinto, which was probably the cheapest option, at least, aside from the cost of the V6. They were probably hoping for better luck with power plant development than they actually had (I remember one point in ’73 when the EPA was threatening to halt some of their production). Holding off on the use of catalytic converters until 1976 (except for the CA V8s, I believe) and relying on engine tweaks for EPA compliance just made matters worse.
JUSTPASSINTHRU: “Well…hindsight is 20/20; and nobody disagrees that the MII was a turd.”
I’ve been on here long enough to disagree! I disagree. Here’s an excellent history of the Mustang II
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1974-1975-1976-1977-1978-ford-mustang4.htm
“Not Just a Sporty Pinto
At announcement time, some observers suggested Mustang II was just a sportier Pinto. Of course, that was how it started. And sure enough, a good many components were shared. Even wheelbase was the same.
But the Pinto was actually upgraded for ’74 to take advantage of components and features designed for Mustang II. For example, both models employed unit construction — another first for the pony car — and shared a basic coil-spring front suspension with unequal-length upper and lower arms.”
An obviously warmed over Mustang II, but not a photoshop. ditching the silly 13″ wheels helps a whole lot!
I liked it then (I had one, after a Demon 340 no less!) and I still like them.