(first posted 10/12/2017) I’ve been on something of a Ford kick, lately. Looking at my body of contributions to CC, I realize they have been overwhelmingly top-heavy with products from General Motors. It was when looking at pictures I had taken of this cute, little muskrat that the mini-Monte Carlo appeal of the Mustang II Ghia suddenly became apparent. I say “Monte” and not “Thunderbird” because I think that at the time of the Mustang II’s debut for model year ’74, it had a lot more in common, both in content and appearance, with Chevrolet’s personal luxury car than with the much larger Ford. Also, it seems pretty obvious that the Blue Oval had gotten more than a little inspiration from its Bow Tie competitor for its own Monte Carlo-sized Elite, especially up front.
1975 Ford Mustang II Ghia.
I see no visual kinship between the Mustang II Ghia and the sixth-generation Thunderbird, or with the Elite. While the Thunderbird’s pleasingly curved bodysides are apparent from a front or rear perspective, it has no other really interesting exterior surfaces outside of its hood, beak-like grille and full-width taillamps. I don’t find this generation of Thunderbird unattractive (Jason Shafer, don’t tune out just yet); rather, I find it very benign-looking and simply just a lot of what it is. It didn’t help that this Thunderbird shared its basic platform and many styling cues with its upmarket Lincoln Continental Mark IV cousin, somewhat diluting the impact of the styling and air of exclusivity of both cars.
1975 Chevrolet Monte Carlo.
The Colonnade-generation Monte Carlo, by comparison to the concurrent Thunderbird, had highly sculpted bodysides, which is a commonality shared with the Mustang II. It’s true that the Monte Carlo was positioned downmarket from the Thunderbird as a personal luxury car for the masses (and was priced accordingly), but it was also visually distinctive, whether its look was to your liking or not. When it comes to dramatic, visual flair, the subcompact Mustang II seemed to have what the Monte Carlo had, but scaled down in proportion to its external dimensions as compared with the midsized Chevrolet.
1975 Chevrolet Monza Towne Coupe.
The Ghia’s main competitor, the Chevrolet Monza Towne Coupe that was introduced for mid-year ’75, possessed a much cleaner, vaguely European look (its opera windows notwithstanding), but lacked many of the Mustang II’s interesting exterior flourishes. While the Monza hatchback was a great looking car from most angles, the notchback, with its completely different body than the 2+2, always struck me as plain, whether in base form or dressed up. Imagine you wanted the personal luxury style of a Monte Carlo but in a smaller, more efficient, more manageable package. The Monza Towne Coupe, while not bad-looking, seems to lack the Ghia’s upscale panache, with the former lacking any instantly recognizable styling cues.
My personal preference among all vehicles in this class would probably have been the (admittedly pricey) Capri II Ghia that was imported from Germany. If my patriotism was in full swing on the eve of the Bicentennial of the United States and I was intent on buying American (a likely scenario), the Mustang II Ghia might have been the way to go among smaller cars. So what, if the Mustang II’s rear seat, in either bodystyle, is (very) cramped? If you were a twenty- or thirty-something single in the market for a personal luxury-type car, absolutely none of your options had truly spacious rear accommodations.
If you were a city dweller where parking was a consideration, you also might as well have gotten a few more miles-per-gallon with a V8-equipped Ghia than you would have in a Monte Carlo, Grand Prix, or Cordoba, all of which would also have been tougher to maneuver and park. The various, performance-leaning iterations of the Mustang II hatchback (Mach I, Cobra II, King Cobra) may not have been convincing alternatives to established performance heavyweights like the Chevrolet Camaro Z28 and Pontiac Firebird Trans Am, but I feel a Mustang II Ghia would have been a credible choice against a traditionally-sized personal luxury car.
This clean, little example was rust-free, likely related to the California plates up front and out back. Regardless of whether its owner is/was a temporary transplant or a new, permanent resident, he or she was in for a shock to their system with the icy, January winds blowing in off Lake Michigan at the time I jumped off the bus to take these pictures. It made me wonder about how it must have been to drive this car over halfway across this country, and also how it kept up with traffic. Even locally, there are some maniacal drivers on the Dan Ryan Expressway, as well as on Lake Shore Drive.
I realize it’s a common perception that the Mustang II is the little pony that people love to hate… but just look at that pretty interior of pleated vinyl as seen through the window. Tell me the front seats of this car do not look cozy and comfortable. I wonder if Jaclyn Smith ever actually got to spend any substantial amount of time behind the wheel of one of these during her days of shooting TV’s “Charlie’s Angels”. My ultimate impression is that it was the Ghia’s execution of a new idea of old luxury that made it so effective an expression of its times, and of all the new ways of thinking the ’70s brought with them. For this last reason alone, the Mustang II Ghia has earned my respect.
Edgewater, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, January 19, 2013.
- From Paul Niedermeyer: On The Go Outtake: Mustang II Ghia V8 – Too Hot To Even Consider Chasing; and
- From me: Curbside Classic: 1974 Ford Mustang II Notchback – Mustang II, Recognition Zero.
A poor excuse for a Mustang. They should have called it something else.
+1
Wasn’t the original Mustang a parts-bin exercise, based on an economy-car platform?
Yes. In essence the Mustang II went back to it’s “roots” like the origin It would have gone full circle if it had been based on the Maverick instead of the Pinto.
MT called the Maverick a $1995 Mustang for those who couldn’t afford a $2600 one. Or something close.
Yes, but putting it on the Maverick chassis in 75 wouldn’t fit the “new” size paradigm in 75. The Maverick (Falcon) platform was moved uo a notch with Granada, although intended to be compact, bur in reality the future “mid size” So, the Pinto platform made sense then. I’m not even a Ford guy, but I always saw the Mustang II as a restoration of the original concept. An economically sized car that could be ANYTHING the buyer wanted from “cute commuter” to “Personal luxury coupe” or “muscle car”. That the “Ghia” version works best on the Mustang II makes sense because that’s where the market was in 75. I’ll go out on a limb here and say that FoMoCo did a fairly decent job for what they had to work with and kept the Mustang alive while developing the “Fox” platform. ‘Stang fans owe at least some respect for thar.
I don’t see Monte Carlo in the Mustang II. I only see the third generation Chevelle.
Nice find and great article. Having graduated high school in 1974, I can remember most of the folks my age ridiculed these cars – small, sloppy handling, agricultural 2.3L Lima 4 cylinder. But over 296K others disagreed with us.
Today, I don’t quite detest them as much as I did, but really still can’t warm up to them.
296k proofs of the statement (posted here in the original, not the usual foreshortened version):
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
Sorry, no matter how much someone who cars for those cars writes about them, I only want to retch when the car is shown.
Maybe the answer is to write about the car without using any pictures. It might be a bit easier to be convincing.
And if anyone ever wonders about my near-pathological hatred of broughams, here’s exhibit #1.
I now know why as a kid I liked Monza’s and hated the mustang. I liked the monza esp fastback, BC it wasn’t called a camaro. Had ford instead called this mustang a ‘pinto Brougham’ or something I prob would have liked it.
It does sort of look like a monty beast. I will say it looked like a mini Cordoba.
Compared to the Monza, the Mustang looked like Grandpa’s car. That’s talking fastbacks: compared to the Mustang II coupe, the Monza coupe was awkward at best.
Dead on with the styling comparison and as always, well written. When I first saw them on the road I thought they looked like a mini Monte and kinda neat looking. The Monza Towne Coupe is a little dumpy looking and in my personal experience more cramped inside.
I recently saw a restored 74 Ghia at a local show. Black with saddle landau roof and interior – truly stunning.
Thanks, Tommie. And that black w/ saddle landau roof and interior color combo does, indeed, sound beautiful. I definitely think the right (or wrong) colors can impact these cars moreso than other cars, due to the Mustang II’s abundance of lines.
I fully agree with your Monte Carlo comparison Joseph, and thought as much when I posted this Photoshop comparison here in 2014. I never especially liked the hardtop version of the Mustang II. Ford got it right in 1979.
Oh, wow! – Daniel, I had forgotten about that. Thank you for re-posting that picture here.
I think I share many similar tastes as yours Joseph in some of our picks and pans in 70s domestic styling. Like you, I do have a soft spot for forgotten or unloved cars like the ’74 Matador coupe, the Pacer, the Sportabout, the Aspen, Volare, and Mirada. I wasn’t a fan of most 70s Ford offerings.
Something I felt about the ’74 Matador coupe, it generally looks great in photos, but when seen on the street it seemed needlessly oversized. This Bud Lindemann Road Test segment from 1974 fully displays all its diving and wallowing tendencies.
Ah, yes! The Matador… another new-for-’74 car that people loved initially. It has always been a favorite of mine. Here’s my in the fall of ’89 in a ’75 Matador I had wanted to buy for $400 (didn’t happen).
Joe, did you say something else? After your statement about the Thunderbird I had a spell of apoplexy. Yet I will submit this – both had the popular long hood / short deck and, with it being Ford, likely both had the same blasted steering wheel and brake pedal pads. All is not lost.
There are maniacal drivers only on the Dan Ryan and Lake Shore Drive? From my experiences in Chicago those folks definitely branch out, making it seem as if there is a city ordinance that one must take off from a stop at wide-open throttle.
Muskrat is a terrific name for these cars. It’s how I’ll likely refer to them from now on.
LOL! Cue that song by Captain & Tennille from around the same time this car was new!
I actually went back and re-read your Thunderbird post this morning – that was a great read. The part where you talk about the overhangs and cresting hills and not knowing exactly where the front of the car was relative to what was in front of it! It’s amazing that so many Thunderbird buyers that didn’t live on flat plains had to do exactly what you described…
I call that the Tolkien wheel, because it’s one ring to rule them all whether Pinto, Continental or F-600 dump truck.
If I was looking for an American car in ‘76 I woulda been torn between the AMC Matador… and the more likely favored Checker Marathon.
In the mid 70s, my older sisters and I bought new cars, one sister a V6 Capri while the other got a Mustang II Ghia with the V6. Considering they shared so many mechanical parts, those cars were quite different.
I used to think of the Mustang II as a compacted T-bird as it seemed to weigh almost as much, but I do see the comparison to a Monte Carlo with the Mustang’s heavy emphasis on looks.
In a similar vein the Chevrolet competition to this Ghia has always struck me as a miniature colonnade Malibu 2 door. If ever a car looked un-styled…it was the Monza Town Coupe. It was like Chevy spent 99% of the Monza styling budget on the hatchback, and the 2 door was an after thought.
BTW, Ford wasn’t going to produce a 2 door Mustang ii but last minute lobbying by “fans” got management to change their plans for a hatchback only Mustang….or so the story goes.
Like another person here has already said, the Capri II was the best domestic badged small sporty car, just be sure it had the optional power steering.
The only problem with the Capri II was the exchange rate with the Deutsch mark at the time made them prohibitively expensive.
Agree about the Towne Coupe being a “OK ok dealers, we will match Ford, geez, here you go”
Some Fords deserve being kicked, Joseph. This is one of them.
My old girlfriend had one just like this back in the early 80s. I got her mudflaps for it for her birthday. As I write this I start to understand why she dumped me.
The article has it all wrong. This is not a MiniMonte. This is a Mini Ford Elite. You could option them just like their bigger, heavier siblings. I think the only thing you couldn’t get on the Two that the Elite had was the big V-8.
As an aside, the Elite brochure called it a Mid-Size 🙂
There was lots you couldn’t get on these. No tilt wheel or cruise, no power equipment of any kind.
Awesome – MarcKyle64, thank you for posting those pages from the brochure / print ad (whichever the source)!
I still maintain that the MII is a mini-Monte (and not a mini-Elite) only because the Elite was such an obvious Monte Carlo impostor, at least from the front with the “grinning” grille and single headlamps. In fact, I think both the Mustang II and Elite were Monte Carlo-inspired. I always say, though, if you’re going to copy someone or something, pick a winner to model after.
With that said, I do not find the half-Torino / half-Cougar blend that was the ’74 Gran Torino Elite unattractive. I remember there being one in my first neighborhood when I was growing up. IIRC, I was intrigued by the nameplate, as I was not yet able to read cursive and had to ask my mom the name of the car.
The 1974 Elite was a midyear introduction. There are actually two Torino brochures for 1974 – one released at the beginning of the model year, which does not include the Elite, and one released later, which specifically announces the Elite.
Given the midyear introduction, the minimal differentiation between the Elite and a “regular” Gran Torino Brougham coupe, and the mega-success of the 1973 Monte Carlo, you’re right that the Elite was obviously a response to the Monte Carlo.
The Elite sold reasonably well, but nowhere near the level of the Monte Carlo, if I recall correctly. The Elite was obviously a holding action until the appearance of the 1977 Thunderbird, which was a monster success for Ford.
Elite, at first part of Gran Torino line, was a car Ford dealers demanded after the personal lux ’74 Cougar was a hit for Mercury.
But, the Grand Prix was around since 1969, so Lee Iacocca was wanting a “Mini-GP”?
An Elite was very nearly my first car, so I have a soft spot for them. The one I looked at with my folks was sold before we decided to get it. A later ’76 Cougar XR-7 in silver with a red interior was an adequate substitute.
Being 17 in 1981, the used dealer car lots were filled with affordable 70s two door luxobarges. Cordobas. Monte Carlos. Elites. Cougars
And Mustang IIs These are the cars of my teens.
As noted in the ’73 Chevelle Deluxe thread a few days ago, the other Chevy that seems to have inspired the Mustang II is the ’73 Laguna, whose unique front end is very similar to the II’s (the ’74 edition looked even more alike). Body-color bumpers rare in ’74; Mustangs and special-edition GM Colonades were amongst the few that had them.
Right! It has been mentioned on CC that the faux-foglamp look embodied by both the Mustang II and the Laguna was in vogue at that time. Other examples: early Honda Civic, Plymouth Arrow.
Count me in as a fan of the Mustang II. People forget the circumstances in which it was developed. Ford took a big risk in shrinking it when everyone else was getting bigger. It arrived just in time for the Oil Embargo and the greater demand for small cars. Ford seemed to be clairvoyant in offering the right car at the right time. Kudos too, for offering upscale versions of a small car, when many other small cars were simply cheap economy models.
As for criticism on it’s ride and handling, its miles ahead of the rediculous barges the Big 3 were offering at the same time. I own a couple of them and like them, but the Ford full size wallowing inefficient boats were absolutely not what the world needed at the time. It needed more Mustang II. The fact that GM introduced the Monza and its stablemates in response to the II vindicates the Mustang II as the right car at the right time.
^This. The mid-seventies were the time of Watergate, Gerald Ford, and the first gas crisis. The latter really put the zap on the minds of the car buying public. Add that the previous generation Mustang was a tank and the Mustang II, whether the faithful want to admit it or not, was the right car at the right time. Simply put, brougham-tastic (in any size) was in, and performance was out. And if the Mustang II was anything, it was brougham-tastic, just in a small size.
‘Maybe’ (and it’s a big ‘if’) Ford might have done better to have called the Mustang II something else and slapped the Mustang name onto a Maverick-based car but, frankly, I can’t see it working out in the end, i.e., being anymore profitable. The market for a Maverick-based Mustang just wasn’t there (those people were all buying GM f-bodies), and Ford wisely went the Granada/Monarch route instead. Just think how much moaning there would have been if the Granada had been called a Mustang.
I remember having seen some of the ’74 Mustang proposals that were based on the Maverick, like the “Ohio” concept from 1970. It’s… okay, and granted, it was one of many proposals, but nope – I like the actual ’74 Mustang II (fastback or notchback) much, much better.
I can see that proposal being a real decision maker in moving the Mustang to the Pinto chassis instead of the Maverick, and the deal-breaker are the bumpers. Ford, more than GM or Chrysler, seemed to have a real hard time properly styling the 5 mph bumpers, and here’s a perfect example. The Mustang II, being much smaller, was a lot easier to integrate urethane-covered, body-color bumpers on all of them. Imagine a Mustang II with chrome bumpers. I’m not sure even body-colored bumpers would have helped much on this Maverick proposal, and it damn sure wouldn’t have worked if they’d have left them chromed on the more basic cars, which is surely the way they would have went.
For all those whining about the Mustang II, they should be shown this and that hulking Torino-based proposal further down the thread to illustrate how truly bad it could have been. Considering the other options, the best course of action for Ford was the one they finally settled on.
I don’t know why the Mustang II bumpers get any credit, they look every bit as battering ram as any other 70s Ford, the shape is traditional bumper painted body color instead of chrome. I don’t think they actually would have looked all that bad if they were chrome, at least it wouldn’t look like a budget customization. Painted steel bumpers looks cheap, and that’s exactly how the Mustang II ones look
GM did a far better job with urethane bumper integration on their larger Firebird, as well as the Corvette, and even Ford did on the front of the 73 Mustang. If anything then the smaller size was a detriment.
At the end of the day you can’t judge proposals, the early ones that became the pinto based Mustang II I’ve seen are equally questionable, as are the ones used for prior Mustang designs. These seem to establish the most radical direction for designers to go off of and tone it down and refine by production.
Also, what basis is there that the proposal below is Torino based? I’ve seen that one before, and I simply recall it being a continuation of the 71-73 chassis. If so, for the millionth time, 71-73s ARE NOT Torino based.
I kinda liked the painted bumpers. Outside the US they looked neat. The eye read the chrome trim strip on them as if it was the bumper, and the paint job minimized the battering-ram look of other US Fords, by visually blending them in with the bodywork. The overall effect fitted in with the rest-of-the-world designs of the time.
That coupe roof though – it looked awful with the Ghia treatment, and was much better with the larger window and lack of vinyl. That Ghia roof just looked comical to my eyes and didn’t work. Different in your country, I know. I saw a non-Ghia coupe a few years back, and was pleasantly surprised – it looked better in the metal than photos had led me to expect.
The stance and proportions are better, otherwise it’s let down by some very questionable lines. Wheels are interesting, they appear to be Motor Rim Exiter mags
I’m surprised to see how large and terrible those bumpers already are for that picture being 1970
The Chevy Monza was supposed to be the 1975 “Wankel Vega”, then that motor got canned. So, became a new line, to compete with MII and Celica.
While not really a fan of the Mustang II I have come to it’s defense many times. It was a car of it’s time and the right car for it’s time. I speak from experience. My first new car was a 1975 Mustang II with the 4 cylinder engine and four speed.It replaced my ’67 289 automatic Mustang coupe. Actually I kept the ’67 as a second car. After driving it to work for a couple of weeks I decided to let my wife start driving it to work and I went back to the ’67 which I liked better. The Mustang II gave us pretty good service, the main problem I had with it was with the dealer installed AC. After 3 years and two kids I decided we needed something larger, more powerful and fun to drive and traded it in on the ’79 Malibu coupe ( V8 four speed) that I still own.
I thought enough of Mustang IIs that in 1989 we bought a ’78 Mustang II for our girls to drive. That car did an amazing job of standing up to teenage drivers and other drivers that must have considered it a target.
As a long time Mustang fan, I have said many times that if it wasn’t for the Mustang II there wouldn’t be a Mustang today. At best, it was a decent car that arrived at just the right time . At the least it was a pretty successful place holder. It deserves more respect than it gets.
I hated the Monza’s opera windows, and the Mustang’s half-vinyl brougham-roof.
Both cars were tarted up versions of GM and Ford’s overweight economy cars, but at least the Mustangs had better quality interiors, and the available Cologne V6 offered a degree of smoothness, if not silence.
IMHO, despite their humble origins, without the brougham-roof, these Mustangs were much better looking than the fat Torino Elites and frog-eyed Gen-II Monte Carlos, which I consider some of the ugliest cars of the ’70s.
Happy Motoring, Mark
FWIW, only the first year 1975 1/2 Monza notchback aka “Towne Coupe” had vinyl top and opera windows. For ’76, Sunbird and base Monza had larger quarter windows standard, with operas optional.
The Monza coupe would have looked better proportioned (and had better rear seat room?) if the rear wheels had been moved back a few inches. As it was, the doors looked too long for the size of the car.
The seventies simply sucked.
There were so few remarkable American-made cars after the 70 1/2 Camaro/Firebird, until GM’s downsized B/C bodies debuted for 1977. And to be fair, the ’77s (and the downsized A’s a year later) must be taken in the context of the times from which they came.
The Mustang II gets a lot of hate here but I don’t agree. Then again I lived thru those times…and this car was right for its time. It’s unfair to compare to a Camaro/Firebird, that really was a different market by the mid-70s. The universe of people seeking high performance – or even the perception of high performance – off the showroom floor had shrank significantly. But as a secretary special, it’s easier to draw a line from the original ’65s to the II.
The Chevy Monza 2+2 could’ve been special if only it had better brakes and better execution. But Vega brakes aside, it was no worse than most everything else on the market at the time. The Towne Coupe, especially from the side, looked kinda “phoned-in” in retrospect.
Sure the Valiant and Dart – holdovers from a different era at ChryCo – were remarkable for their quality and durability, but by ’75 both were seen as stale-bread relics.
I almost bought a Gen 2 Monte back in the day but couldn’t swing the payment. I definitely preferred the styling over the downsized ones that followed. Still…the build quality wasn’t what it had been in 1970, a high point for GM.
I get that many 70s cars, in general, are now being fixed up and I say kudos. I’ll admire from afar but compared to the 50s and 60s, at least for this GM guy, there is no comparison.
Thing is, seventies cars were designed before US carmakers realized that buyers could buy Japanese if they didn’t like the Big Three-plus-AMC’s offerings. I guess there wasn’t the incentive to do better.
And they still held onto the old idea of wanting to move buyers into a bigger car. Considering the luxury options available in Aussie Big Three cars at the time, I’m always surprised that US compacts were so basic.
The Pinto-sized tires did this car no favour. Larger rims/tires would have worked wonders, both for handling and appearance. However much reviled they are now, they sold like hotcakes and were mostly the right car at the right time.
+1 They did look under-tired.
I’d have to agree that it is interesting that the Mustang II in Ghia trim has more kinship with the Monte Carlo than the Monza, but I’m not sure there is more than the usual “cars of an era style together” thing going on. As you pointed out, the Monza had a European vibe going on, it was sort of Chevy’s Corvair for the ’70s. The Monza’s donor – the Vega and the second gen Camaro did as well. It was a Chevy small car thing, and fit that European streak that sometimes poked through the Brougham in the Mitchell era at GM.
In base form, the Mustang II is a reimagined ’65 Mustang on a subcompact chassis. Ford wanted that Mustang magic back, and for a year, got it. And, the Mustang II picks up some of the vibe of the 1972 Ford Torino, particularly the rear quarter sculpting.
Dad bought my Mother a brand new 74 Mustang Ghia: baby blue with dark blue full vinyl top [and no opera window, that was a later year addition IIRC and looks worse].
First tank of gas 10 MPG. 4 cyl and 10 MPG. Dad was not happy. Such were the pollution controls of the period.
Granted that was the first tank on a new car, but even the 71 Gremlin they had did better than that with a six.
Sold after 600 miles when my Dad discovered that with my Mother working they would be paying more in taxes than they would if she didn’t.
I’d say the Pontiac Sunbird would have been my choice. Without vinyl and opera window. And from 77 [78?] on: with Iron Duke.
The Monza/Sunbird look clean and restrained IMHO, both then and now, and I consider them one of GM’s better designs.
And all these years later, still look better than the Mustang II, though I don’t hate on it like so many do. A response to that mid size pig the 71-73 Mustang became. Wrong platform to use though.
Your car sounds like a twin of the one my friend bought. His was a 4 speed and got pretty good mileage compared to the 68 Cougar it replaced which swilled fuel far in excess of what a 289 2bbl should have.
Although not a fan of the Mustang II I have to say Ford did a commendable job of using upscale materials and a very good execution of design on the inside. The exterior styling, well…
As I recall the Mustang II, Granada, Monarch were being advertised to some extent for quality of workmanship. “Quality is Job One” as the ads would say. And those models were well put together. Were they durable and able to last several years on the road? Guess it depended on the owner and where they drove 24/7. The downside on the Mustang II as we all know was in the powertrain and certainly in the styling. I was seriously considering a Mustang II hatch as my first new car graduating out of technical school. So the styling wasn’t a big issue to me back then, I wanted the convenience of a hatchback with fold-down rear seat. The notchback was not on my radar. In the end, a well optioned Vega GT won out over a basic Mustang II hatch. Dollars and cents.
Whenever this car comes up, as much as I personally don’t care for it, I do understand why it was created. When the Mustang II was being developed, tectonic shifts were hitting Motown:
1) Sky high insurance rates and Federal emissions requirements were killing the “affordable” performance car market, with Pony Car and Muscle Car sales dying on the vine in the early 1970s. Keep in mind GM almost cancelled the Camaro/Firebird in ’72 after a strike halted production and the bean counters didn’t see the money in continuing. Over at Chrysler, the Challenger/Barracuda were money losers from day one. And at Ford, the “Clydesdale” Mustang and related fat-cat Cougar were ridiculed as being too big and neither sold as well as their predecessors.
2) Sales of small sporty imports started to soar at the same time, with Opels, Capris, 240Zs, Celicas and even BMW 2002s gaining a lot of new buyers and establishing new parameters for vehicle size and more economical performance.
3) Ford’s biggest hit post Mustang was the Maverick, which was more of an economical quasi-stylish car, almost equivalent to a 6-cylinder ’65 base Mustang. The market was responding well to economy even before the Arab Oil Embargo.
4) Mid-priced Personal Luxury cars were also taking off, with the Grand Prix, Monte Carlo and Cutlass Supreme remaking the affordable luxury landscape. These machines spun sweet profits off mid-sized platforms, making them Detroit’s new sweethearts.
So in the context of these market factors, it was hardly surprising that Ford would develop a high-style small car, skewing it more toward looks and comfort than performance. That seemed to be where the market was heading. Arguably, the Mustang II should not have been called a Mustang at all, but as a mini personal luxury coupe with a relatively low price, the car (name aside) was not a strategic blunder at the time. Of course, the car could have been better in so many ways–it was vintage Iacocca veneer over prosaic underpinnings, but that was an execution problem, not a strategic gaffe.
With hindsight, we all know now how things turned out as the 70s progressed, with the GM F-Body enjoying a surprising resurgence and more sporty imports flooding the market, making the Mustang II a lost cause since it couldn’t effectively compete on either front. To Ford’s credit, they figured this out pretty quickly and addressed it with a “real” Mustang once again for ’79.
This is one of the cars that make me smile when I see them. Such cars don’t have to be great, just popular during the time I grew up. There seemed to be a blue million of these running around in my small Ohio town. I always liked the grille styling because Ford kept the traditional Mustang cues.
Joseph, was this one cream yellow with a tan vinyl top? If so, it’d be a twin to the Mustang II Ghia driven by a best friend’s fiancée (later ex-wife.) It had the 2.8 V6 and automatic. IIRC, the seats were cloth instead of vinyl. Although it got progressively rustier, it held together pretty well until they got rid of it in the mid 80’s.
PRNDL, it’s funny you should mention Mustang II’s and your “small Ohio town”. My great grandfather, who lived in Deshler (a small village in NW Ohio) had bought a new, red, ’74 Mustang II notchback within a couple of years before he passed away. It was still in our extended family through the early ’90s, but I don’t know what happened to it.
About the color of this car, it was actually more of a creamy color with a tan vinyl top and interior. I thought it was a great color combo for this car. (I do, actually, know the light yellow color you’re talking about.)
As bad as the Mustang II was, some of the early proposals for the 1974 Mustang were hulking Torino-based affairs. Here’s one from 1970. One can only imagine how this beast would have fared in the late 1973 fuel crisis.
This proposal looks like continuation of the ‘bulk stangs’
Had not seen these before.
A friend bought a 74 version used in 1978. In Ghia trim it was a very nicely finished car. I had never made the Monte Carlo connection before but it fit. The Monte was really the only Chevy that hit the 70s Brougham bulls eye square on. Ford had a few and this was one.
Your description of the Big Bird (A lot of what it was) is epic!
In early 1974, I attended my first auto show ever with my friend’s family. It was the Harrisburg Auto Show, and two cars from that show still stick in my mind. One was the Pontiac Grand Am. (Yes, my friend and I had to squeeze the nose.)
The other was the Mustang II. I couldn’t believe how plush it was for a small car. It really did seem like a “little jewel,” as Iacocca called it, to my 11-year-old self and my friend. Then again, our base of reference for small cars up until that point had been the Vega, Pinto, Gremlin and VW Beetle.
I’ve often wondered why the view of the Mustang II soon turned sour, while the original Mustang was revered even into the early 1970s, even though it had its share of shortcomings. Both were conceptually similar, and both involved covering the platform of a mundane economy sedan with a restyled body and nicer interior.
I think part of it was that the original Mustang did blaze a new trail, so it was difficult directly to compare it to any other car on the market. Its closest competitor would have been the Chevrolet Corvair Monza coupe, and lots of people were turned off by the rear-engine layout and lack of a V-8. Plus, the Corvair had been available as a four-door sedan, and even a station wagon, for a few years.
The Mustang II, on the other hand, was a direct reaction to cars already on the market. It could be directly compared to the Capri, Opel Manta and Toyota Celica. (And the introduction of the VW Scirocco was just around the corner.) They had a much sportier bent, and were thus better received by the enthusiast publications.
The Mustang II was trying to be a mini-Thunderbird, and by 1974, the Thunderbird, like its direct competitors, seemed bloated and gross. After the initial success of the 1974 model, driven by the first fuel crunch, the Mustang II managed to seem bloated and gross in a much smaller package.
Still, I have to confess that I have soft spot for these cars, probably from memories of that first auto show, as well as magazine stories in publications such as Newsweek about this car. A new version of a car that was smaller and lighter than its predecessor WAS a big deal in the fall of 1973.
This time was when I started paying attention to stories about cars – to the point where my parents actually bought me a subscription to Motor Trend that year.
I see your point, and perhaps at an auto show, on couldn’t properly see the MII’s biggest single fault, at least in my eyes: the fact that the body was way too big and bulgy over those absurdly little 13″ Pinto-size wheels, especially at the front, where it hangs precariously over them.
What it did was to make its Pinto roots all-too obvious. Every time I’ve seen once since, it strikes me of a person that’s gotten way too fat for their very small frame and feet. Or like a clown car.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve ragged on this issue forever. If Ford had just added another few inches of wheelbase on the front and gave it bigger wheels and tires, the results would have been hugely less visually offensive.
There’s also the issue of it being way too heavy, due to all the extra steel and sound deadening Ford had to add to the very tinny Pinto substructure, which resulted in poor performance, handling and braking.
It struck me as a very cynical car at the time.
The original Mustang was Falcon based, but it had a proper relationship of its wheelbase to its body, and the wheels/tires weren’t undersized for the standards of the time, especially the V8 version. By 1974, fat tires on a car that had even the vaguest sporty pretensions, especially the MII Mach I, was obligatory for the proper look at that time.
Frankly, the MII was mostly a stroke of luck for Iacocca. Initially they weren’t even sure about making the coupe version; it it had only been the sporty fastback, it would not have been a success. And the MII’s success was really mostly a one-year wonder, due to the energy crisis. 1975 sales dropped in half, IIRC. The ‘new ’79 Mustang sold better.
But i understand, especially how kids at that very impressionable age can be smitten by all kinds of cars, including the MII. 🙂
There was a mint-condition 1975 Ghia notchback (light metallic green with a white vinyl roof) for sale at the Hershey AACA show this past weekend. The undersized wheel issue was one that I noticed immediately.
But, you’re right – young boys wouldn’t notice things like that, particularly given the exciting atmosphere of an auto show hyping an all-new model.
That car still brought back fond memories of a simpler time (for me and my friends, not necessarily for everyone else, given what else was happening in the world at the time).
I can’t say I’d ever buy one, but I do enjoy collecting sales brochures from that time period.
“In base form, the Mustang II is a reimagined ’65 Mustang on a subcompact chassis. Ford wanted that Mustang magic back, and for a year, got it”
True, Lee Iacocca tells of a stock holder saying “bring back the smaller first Mustangs” at a 1970 meeting. So…
So many amateur car fans assume all Mustangs were “muscle cars” from Day 1. Some kid online posted they “Ford’s answer to the GTO”. [Really?] Didn’t get all the hi-po stuff until later, and most were stylish commuter cars, and yes ‘grocery getters’ {Oh the shock}
It wasn’t Ford’s answer to the GTO by a long shot, but almost immediately there were K code 289s on the options list and not long after the Shelby GT350, which Iacocca contracted Shelby to build in order to shake the secretary car stigma (Shelby was quite content with the GT40 racing program and building Cobra roadsters).
It’s dismissive to say having these performance options/model didn’t appeal to buyers even if they simply bought a 6 cylinder or base V8 coupe, just having the association is good enough for most, and had it not been for the constant performance injections the Mustang and the ponycar segment may have fizzled out much sooner, and probably wouldn’t be so positively memorable to kids like that online. The Mustang II certainly doesn’t have that.
The magic of the Mustang has zero to do with being based on a Falcon or a Pinto or a Fairmont. The magic is the illusion of being sporty.
It was also well-trimmed for a small car of that time, and was affordable to just about anyone who could buy a brand-new car.
Previously, if you wanted something that stylish and distinctive, you had to move up to the Grand Prix, Thunderbird or Riviera. All of which were fairly expensive cars for that time.
Or, you bought an imported sports car, which generally meant iffy reliability and sketchy parts and service.
This is one of the best reads about the Mustang II I’ve seen. The Ghia represents the essence of the Mustang II, and take away the baggage of the ponycar wars of 67-73, it filled it’s role in the market of the time perfectly. Really, this was the Ford brand’s true PLC, the one they put legitimate effort into, unlike the Elite which was simply a hastily rebadged Cougar, itself was a tarted up Montego, and the Tbird now a decontented Mark IV. The Mustang II followed the path established by the 1969 Mustang Grande but was engineered from the ground up to be everything the Grande couldn’t quite be.
The Mustang II naming scheme was the mistake. There was no Mustang (I) so it was neither a junior model(as every other usage of II in the automotive world is) or a followup, which wouldn’t need the redesignation. Carrying on the Mach I was the other mistake, they should have just come up with something else or axed any notion of performance when in 1974 the top engine available was a 2.8 V6. That was the only tangible point where a performance minded buyer could legitimately say the Mustang II was an inferior car to it’s predecessors. I think had the Mustang II, as a subcompact PLC, been a standalone exercise, a successful one at that, and not tried to win over the small performance set with chintzy decal jobs like the Cobra or king Cobra, it wouldn’t have been such an object of contention today.
Using photoshop, I balanced Mustang II proportions by reducing front overhang and increasing wheel diameters to 14inches ,
As seen in the picture, not the ugly duck anymore ,
hope somebody could do this cut and paste job in metal.
You went a bit too far, forward.
We already created a better MII here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/what-if-cc-builds-a-better-mustang-ii/
But we could use a coupe version as long as it follows the fastback’s proprtions.
It needs some front overhang! That looks more like an altered wheelbase afx dragster.
This car is 7 years older than I am and in my mind it sums up perfectly what I think the 70’s was like gaudy and chintzy. Place that car, avocado green, and a cheap polyester suit together and to me that is all the 1970’s was.
Joking aside I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen one of these in person before. These had long vanished off the roads in Western NY by the time I was old enough to be really into cars. So my question is are these actually bad cars? If they had called it say an Escort would it have just been an OK car for its era? Or were these horrible with the added insult of wearing a badge with pedigree?
Sometimes we hear a word or phrase that catches us and locks in our brain forever.
Thank you Joseph! I have a feeling that I will be thinking of the Mustang II as that “cute little muskrat” for the rest of my days.
Time for a little Captain and Tenille “muskrat love!”?
I was never a 2 fan. But was it a good call byFord to build? It was a sales success. That for 1974 is a big win. Were there things that could have been done better? The above comments would indicate a yes.
But one thing they did have. The Mustang 2 / Pinto front end. This was miles and miles ahead of the competition. Numerous companies have and continue to build knock off suspension kits based on the Mustang 2. This suspension still reigns supreme in the aftermarket world. So for what it’s worth, I salute the change of direction and ingenuity this car represents.
My folks had a loaner 302 V8-powered MII Ghia for a week or so, I want to say in 1977 while my dad’s BMW 530i was in the shop at a Ford-BMW dealership. Silver with dark red landau roof and dark red velour interior. It was in the summer and I drove it daily that week to and from my early morning swim practice.
Of course, I drove it like I stole it and remember it being quite spritely with decent low-end torque even from the smog-choked 302. The party was all over by about 4K RPM, though. Handling as I recall was not great but not terrible either. These cars were severely under-tired.
Yeah the thing was hideous to look at but I still had fun hooning in it for a week. Was very glad to have my old man’s 530i back after that week, though
Ford’s second Deadly Sin… next to the original Pinto. Horrid car, even with a V8. Right stupid idea to use Pinto as the base for a Mustang
I’ll have to look for some old photos but, I’ll admit, my first car was a new 1974 Mustang II Ghia. It was auto, V6, factory A/C. It was silver with grey interior. I liked my 74 looks wise over the opera window 75. However, as I get older the 75 grows on me. My car had fair acceleration, fair gas mileage and had terrible alternator issues it’s first year. Otherwise it was a looker. Boy, I wish I’d learned how to drive a stick. This car was made for putching a clutch, 4 or V6. Can’t vouch for the shoe horned V8. I wish Ford would have offered 5 gears on it’s stick and employed Toyota Celica quality and handelling. I actually felt the Mustang II looked better than the over stayed it’s welcome 1979 to 1993 Fox platform Fairmont box. Just my 2 cents.
Again, I’m playing Monday Morning Quarterback but, forgot to add IMHO. By far the 74 Ghia Notchback looks wise was the best looking and closer to the Classic 1964-68 Pony Cars. I really liked the pronounced square panel with Ghia on it over the opera window. Visibility was better with the standard rear quarter window. I would have had both for ’75-’78. The Opera Window would have been called Ghia Luxury or don’t jump on my, Brougham. Whereas the ’74 Ghia style (my choice) would have been dubbed the Mustang II Ghia “Pony Interior.” Still with the luxury looking seats but, A LUMBAR SUPPORT for at least the driver’s side. I know, I’m jumping into the future. Also an alternative with this Pony Interior would be a combination original pony interior design combined with the luxo seats and also the choice of cloth. But, with that Lumbar Support and maybe some sportier handling and suspension tweaks on the Ghia I really liked. Again a five speed and better quality would have gone a long way and just that number II added a stigma to this I don’t get any respect Mustang.
I would love to know the take rate on real leather in a 1975 Monza Towne Coupe…..
I agree that the Mustang II was an economy car that wanted to be a Personal Luxury car. There was a market for that, think of the Granada. My Brother had an almost new Ghia hardtop and I thought that it was really nice. It was a four cylinder four speed manual. I remember that he said that it was slow, but I don’t know about the fuel mileage. From what I recall hearing, the post ’79 Mustang four bangers weren’t much better.
It’s a shame that domestic automakers took so long to concentrate on really good small displacement motors. Imagine a MII with a new Ecoboost!
I’m no fan of the Mustang II, but especially not the coupe. It has the proportional issues of the fastback, and adds some more. While I get the effect Iacocca was going for with the Ghia, to me it just looks overdressed, though I understand that was the American way at the time. Those fussy wheel covers make the wheels look tiny; perhaps they thought using undersize wheels would make the car seem larger? Maybe whitewalls would help? The opera window, though period, just looks too small. I enlarged it a bit here, but I was never sure the proportions were right on this 1970s Japanese kit.
The original Mustang is thought of fondly because the proportions were appealing and the detailing was appealing. Also, it was easy to make a car that ran well when there was no consideration for clean air, and it was easy to make a car that was attractive when there was no consideration for safety, collision claims, and lighting standards. The Mustang II had none of those advantages.
Early efforts to clean the air sacrificed efficiency, power, drivability, reliability and durability. Early efforts to meet safety standards led to low perceived quality in interior materials, even though the Mustang II had a very expensive interior for a small car. Early efforts to meet impact bumper standards produced clumsy styling and proportions. The Mustang II suffered from all of these issues of the day while also being overweight and having a bizarro front overhang. The original Mustang wasn’t safe, clean, or likely to look good in a park-by-ear urban setting for long, but it looked good when new or kept in a suburban setting, started when you turned the key, and could get out of its own way in every configuration short of a base six combined with an automatic and a heavy option load. Meanwhile, the poor Mustang II was born under a bad sign and had exterior trims and finishes that aged in months the way Honda’s worst clear coats aged in years. If it hadn’t been for the fuel crunch, I wonder if the Mustang II would have been the last Mustang?
Ive never been a fan of the Mustang 2 it looked awkward when new and nothing about that has changed they still look awkward today, sure bloat had hit Mustangs but going to a Pinto platform was extreme.
I think it’s the small wheels/tires under the tall fenders that make it look so odd. I sat in a friend’s Pinto once, it really was like sitting in a bucket, and I’m not short.
Always great to reread a classic post. The II came out my sophomore year of high school, and I was enamored. I was always a Mustang fan (Ford family up to that point), and felt the ’71-’73s were grotesque and hideous. I was glad Ford bounced the II back to a decent size, even though it was a Pinto with a few upgrades. And they sure sold a bunch of them; Ford’s timing was impeccable with Oil Crisis 1 hitting at the same time. A girl at my part-time work bought a Cobra new; I thought that was a little over the top visually but that was the style at the time.
The Fox Mustang was even better in ’79.
If the big 1971-73 Mustang was a product of Bunkie Knudson’s short reign as Ford president, the 1974 Mustang II has Henry Ford II written all over it.
It’s no secret that The Deuce’s Mustang focus from Day 1 had always been that of a mini-Thunderbird. Iacocca shrewdly was able to offer the original, Falcon-based Mustang with a dizzying array of options, and tarting one up with quasi-luxury features (the Pony interior) was no problem. A big part of the Mustang’s allure was that there was a version of the original ponycar for everyone.
And so Iacocca reverted back to the same gameplan with the 1974 Pinto-stang, minus the performance options, and I can certainly see that being A-OK with HFII. He got his first, Mustang-based mini-Thunderbird with the 1967 Mercury Cougar but, by 1974, the Cougar had effectively simply become the Mercury version of the now gargantuan Thunderbird.
So, the Mustang II, again, got the nod for someone wanting a PLC in a small package. And it worked, too, at least at first when Ford caught a huge break with the first oil crisis at exactly the same time the Mustang II was released. Fuel mileage of a Mustang II wasn’t all that terrific (especially for its small size) but it sure as hell beat the single digit mileage numbers of a 460-powered Thunderbird or Cougar.
But it was all downhill from there, when auto buyers quickly figured out the Mustang II was just a Pinto wearing a tuxedo.
Oil prices leveling out a bit in the later seventies meant the Mustang II wasn’t nearly as attractive as it was in the beginning, only to take another big hit in the early eighties when both Ford and GM came out with some abysmal small V8 engines tuned for nothing but to meet EPA emission requirements. The 1980-82 Ford 255 V8 was a true dog of an engine, but that’s a whole different story.
When the MII was presented, the Fox body was already in very early development. The Fox was to be the replacement for the Falcon-based Ford/Mercury products created over the previous 18 years. So the MII ended up on a modified Pinto chassis. That was always a stop-gap measure. In 1974, we didn’t know what the future held. The Brougham epic was extremely profitable and the market shifted from muscle cars to personal luxury cars faster than planned.
By 1974, muscle cars were passe, but the cars used to make muscle cars were still designed to reflect fastback speed, even in sedan version. Chrysler and Ford were stuck with large intermediates with fastback styling – not formal styling. Ford was able to add a stand up grille and a notch roof on the Torino, but Chrysler couldn’t do that to their Satellite and Coronet bodies. It wasn’t until the Cordoba/Charger SE showed up that Chrysler could offer a personal luxury car with the correct formal appearance.
Meaning, that the MII needed to be a sporty car and a formal car using the same Pinto-eque coupe body. Being on a Pinto body was suboptimal, yet by pushing the Ghia, Ford found a perfect product for the First Energy Crisis that not only offered the right size, but also had the right name, and the right popular formal look. The Maverick became the Granada which cemented Ford’s commitment to the profitable Brougham look suddenly popular in the US.
GM was caught flat footed. Their compact Nova didn’t have “the new look”. We don’t see the Concours show up until after the MII and the Granada had already grabbed a majority of that market. the NOVA cars weren’t formal enough and it took more than a couple years for those cars to have the required popular formal look. Worse, the NOVA sedans didn’t look formal like the Granada sedan. GM doesn’t catch on until the X car arrived.
As to the Monza, it suffered in the shadow of the Vega. We all knew that it was just a better Vega, which wasn’t much of a selling point. The “Towne Car” Monza shows up half-way through the model year, revealing that GM saw the MII eating up the buyers in the subcompact formal look and needed something NOW. As noted, the Towne Car doesn’t look luxurious as the Mustang II competition. It was a quick fix for GM that wasn’t planned.
Considering the fact that the Monte Carlo was so hugely successful, one can wonder why GM didn’t understand its popularity and copy that across their lines. Ford did, Chrysler wished it could, but GM was there first. The Thunderbird was out of commission as an overbloated Mark barge, Ford didn’t have MC competition until 1976, yet GM didn’t see how big the formal style would sweep the US market? Really?
AMC just blew it. That Matador coupe was an expensive disaster. The look was completely wrong for the market. AMC couldn’t make it into a formal personal luxury car. When AMC showed us the Barcelona option – it looked like a bad joke. A padded vinyl roofed fastback? Oh – ell, no! That 1974 Matador needed to have showed up in 1969, not 1974. An incredible waste of money that only got worse with the Pacer.
The MII wasn’t very good. It wasn’t very attractive. It wasn’t well engineered. Ford got lucky in 1974, and the Mustang needed four more years before it regained credibility.
It does seem like GM didn’t want to make any of their smaller cars (except the Seville) nice enough to compete with larger ones until the X cars. But I believe even the Xs’ plush, broughamy seats were optional only in the first couple of years and then disappeared. Nowadays, they bob the tails of smaller crossovers, restricting their real utility.
AMC’s problem was just the same old independent lament: lack of resources. In short, AMC simply never had the money to react quickly enough to gain any traction. If Chrysler was one model cycle behind the market, AMC was ‘two’ model cycles behind.
Barring efforts that were just way too late (Javelin, Matador coupe), it meant they really had to gamble with an out-of-the-box effort to have any meaningful impact.
Unfortunately, these “Hail Mary” passes to create a new market segment rarely worked and, instead, had the reverse effect of hastening the company’s downfall. With Studebaker, it was the Avanti. With AMC, it was the Pacer.
Remember that the Federal Government had to bail out AMC in 1965 via the US Post Office. By 1966, AMC was running on fumes. Abernathy’s gamble to match Detroit’s large cars was a bankrupting disaster in 1965.
Interesting tidbit about the USPS bailout of AMC. Had no idea about it, but it sure makes sense.
I was still a working mechanic at a Ford dealer when these came out. Our dealership sold quite a few of these. The buyers were not the Mustang faithful or for that matter anyone much interested in performance.
I recall the Mustang II as being relatively trouble free. It was generally well put together and amply sound deadened. The interiors were actually rather luxurious. For 2 people, this was a pretty comfortable car.
The Mustang II was not a car I ever aspired to own. In the context of their time, they evidently appealed to more buyers than I’d have suspected ever existed for such a car.
It may not have been much of a Mustang, but it did make for a pretty nice Pinto.
I’m going to guess that, after those first Oil Crisis years, something that had a huge impact on MII sales was the Charlie’s Angels effect. Ford’s sponsorship of that very popular show and inserting the Mustang II as a car being driven by hot babes like Jill Munroe and Kelly Garrett suddenly made it a ‘chick car’ that no self-respecting male would be caught dead seen driving.
The low-performance aspect of a Pinto-derived ponycar, even in the Malaise Era, pretty much sealed the deal.
Charlie’s Angels was aired on ABC from September 22, 1976, to June 24, 1981
Annual Mustang II Sales
1974 – Ford (USA) Mustang, total production – 338136 units
1975 – Ford (USA) Mustang, total production – 188575 units
1976 – Ford (USA) Mustang, total production – 167201 units
1977 – Ford (USA) Mustang, total production – 170659 units
1978 – Ford (USA) Mustang, total production – 179039 units
Sorry Charlie, the show didn’t sell more – if anything, it kept the numbers dropping, however, adding the 302 V8 was a bigger selling point.
That was the point: after Charlie’s Angels, not too many males interested in a lo-po Mustang II, especially a Jill Munroe Cobra II, and that undoubtedly hurt sales.
Way more macho to get a GM f-body, particularly a James Garner Firebird Esprit (really a camoflauged Formula) or Burt Reynolds Trans Am.