In Defense Of The Mustang II

"Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire" (arch-duke-maxyenko) 04/19/2014 at 12:36 • Filed to: None

8

44

This is an post that shouldn't need to exist, but it has become obvious over the last few days, that it does. As we all know, the original Mustang was just a re-skinned Ford Falcon, to quote the designer of the first Mustang, "I told the team that I wanted the car to appeal to women, but I wanted men to desire it, too." The Falcon of the day was a lowly economy car, not a rip-roaring V8 powered Mad Max car. It was this:

And guess what, the first Mustang wasn't much different. Yes, you could get V8's in both, but a majority were powered by 88-120 horsepower Thriftpower straight 6's. Now through out the rest of the 1960's the Mustang grew and grew gaining larger and more powerful V8's eventually resulting in the Boss 429:

In 1971 the Mustang was redesigned again, the first gen Mustang had now grown from it's original weight of 2,445 lbs to 3,560 lbs.

It was no longer a small car, it was a personal luxury car in the vain of the Thunderbird. The government began to mandate safety and emission standards to the point where the top engine was rated at 266 hp from 351 cubic inches and the base inline 6 was still only making 98 hp. So, what you had was a large, heavy, and slow car. Sales dropped to 134,867 units. So, the Mustang was on it's deathbed when it received a complete redesign for 1974.

The 1974 Mustang II was born during the Arab Oil Embargo and made due with out a V8 for the first time, but Ford still sold 296,041 of them, this was the most since 1967 and no model year after has sold more.

It was based on the Pinto, giving it rack and pinion steering, front suspension, and a small size. In 1975 the 302 V8 was introduced and it was used until 1996.

I know a lot of people today hate the styling of it, but it looks cool to me. It's basically a mini Torino (but with a better looking front end), and everybody seems to like those.

This will probably change 0-no one's minds about the Mustang II, but whatever, I needed to vent.

AthomSfere > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:40

1

I love the Mustang II honestly. Not as much as the 60's Mustangs. But more so than most other Mustang's.

jkm7680 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:40

0

I'm sorta neutral. I don't really like them. But I don't hate them.

The only thing that bugs me is the wheels.

So....Similar? Mustang, Van?!?

Aaron James > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:41

1

I like the Cobras and the fastbacks. But the plain Jane ones were very plain, blah.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > jkm7680 04/19/2014 at 12:46

2

i cold be way off here, but I believe that is an early Fox body, and not a Mustang II.

sourlemons > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:47

1

Love the Charlie's Angles Mustangs!

StoneCold > jkm7680 04/19/2014 at 12:48

0

4 Lug wheels are always associated with the base models of the older cars instead of the 8 inch and 9 inch rear end goodness. So that's kinda hard to shake sometimes :/

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > jkm7680 04/19/2014 at 12:49

1

That's a Fox.

sourlemons > sourlemons 04/19/2014 at 12:50

0

jkm7680 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:50

0

Just noticed. Thanks Google!

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Aaron James 04/19/2014 at 12:57

1

Those have great body lines and are much more interesting than the fox, which was just a box.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 12:58

0

I sort of get what you're saying, but at the same time, I sort of don't.

The original Mustang was a great looker, and with the V8, a great performance car. The Falcon was a reasonably good starting platform (though boring at the time), and sticking a good-looking body on it and the occasional V8 was an acceptable recipe.

The Pinto, on the other hand, was not a good starting platform. It was the 70's economy car, which meant it was poorly made, slow, ugly, and generally unpleasant to behold and drive. The fact that it holds a similar level of dorky-coolness today to the Pacer is irrelevant. The fact is, in the mid 70's, American cars got worse, and they got worse fast. So, while it's true that the recipe for the Mustang didn't change from the 60's to the 70's, and the Mustang was still an okay car for the time, it was nevertheless a Pony car with no looks (okay, this is subjective) and no performance.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/19/2014 at 13:02

0

Why was the Pinto a shitty platform? The cars from the 60's were not put together well at all. The Pinto's were also the basis of many race cars.

Aaron James > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:04

1

The II's are a victim of the times. Poor performance in a time of poor performance. I'd rather have a Vega over a plain II. (same lack of guts). Cobra II still wins the era though. You do make a great point about Mustangs starting off as stylish but dogishly slow cars. I do love my boxy foxy though. :)

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:05

0

I'd take any Falcon over any Mustang II.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > Aaron James 04/19/2014 at 13:07

2

Their performance was actually pretty damn good for the time. And you found the worst looking vega.

Aaron James > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:09

0

Yes, I was quite Lazy in my GIS, I must admit. Just comparing plain to plain.

Vince-The Roadside Mechanic > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:16

0

I can go either way. I like the pinto platform. I like the rear lip spoiler. I hate the grill reflectors and I hate the grill, but it is pretty Jalop and I would drive one.

oldirtybootz > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:29

1

I love the II, with a bit of work and imagination they can be turned into very bad ass pony cars. Sure they were anemic from the factory and the styling is the epitome of malaise, but the F-bodys got just as gaudy (the 77/78 Firebird is an exception) and weren't exactly great performers out of the box either. That's not a diss against the F-bodys either, I love all pony and muscle cars, but the Mustang II gets too much hate.

JR1 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:37

0

I can't help to think this post is a response to mine from earlier today. So let me clarify. Personally I think the looks are pretty great, especially for the era. I am glad the car exists because without it there may not be a Mustang today. That being said, Carroll Shelby once famously said the Mustang was a "secretary's car." With the 2nd generation Mustang he couldn't have been more correct. Every other generation offers the performance buyer something more than the II ever did. T-tops in this car though are an excellent edition.

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:39

0

Yes, but look at it this way. The Ford Falcon was a relatively long, low, wide platform. In terms of appearance, it had the basic stance that could work for a Mustang. The Pinto was very short and very bulgy, giving it an un-sporty appearance, not good for a sleek pony car. Also, while the original Mustang rode on a Falcon platform, the body was 100% unique. The Mustang II, on the other hand, looked like a Pinto if you went for the base model without the spoilers and hood scoops.

The Mustang II (and the Pinto) probably gets a much worse reputation than it deserves. It was not a bad car compared to other American cars of the time. But when you consider the fact that it was still a mid/late 70's American car, and that they based it on the cheapest smallest car they made, sold it with a four-cylinder, and generally did not do enough to set it apart from the Pinto (they should've based it on the Maverick, IMO), is why it gets the reputation it gets.

And yes, the Pinto was the basis for a few race cars. But nearly ever car has been raced at some time or another, and the Pinto wasn't exactly a racing legend (although the C&D Pinto was cool).

sm70- why not Duesenberg? > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:49

1

Agreed. I would take a Mustang II over a Fox body. It has much more character.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 13:49

0

"The Pinto's were also the basis of many race cars."

What?

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 14:11

0

If I had the money to build up a Mustang II, I would. I like it a lot looks wise, but I'd much rather DD a chevy Camaro of the same vintage

Winklovic > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/19/2014 at 14:21

1

They made great looking Funny Cars.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > sm70- why not Duesenberg? 04/19/2014 at 14:45

1

There are spec Pinto races, NASCAR modifieds are pinto based, the rally escorts of the 70's were pinto based, and people love them for drag racing as they are light weight and they can fit a lot of motor under the hood.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > John Norris (AngryDrifter) 04/19/2014 at 14:47

0

Yes, there a lot of race cars based on pintos.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power 04/19/2014 at 14:50

0

That era of Camaros were larger cars with not much more power if any at all.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > JR1 04/19/2014 at 14:51

1

Not directed towards you as much as the general population here.

JR1 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 16:05

0

No harm no foul I just figured my post with a Mustang II sparked it is all.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > JR1 04/19/2014 at 16:14

0

Mostly the FP comments

JR1 > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 16:16

1

That's ironic I haven't even been on the front page today.

4age20vsilvertop > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 16:34

0

The Front end of the MusII is pure '73 Chevelle Laguna. Scratch that, The whole Car is pure '73 Chevelle Laguna. Not necessarily a bad thing if yer ask me.

PetarVN, GLI Guy, now with stupid power > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 18:17

0

Yeah, but I like how they look more.
If someone offered me a '78 Z/28 and a '18 King Cobra, I'd pick the Z/28 hands down.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:04

0

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:06

0

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:10

0

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > John Norris (AngryDrifter) 04/19/2014 at 22:10

0

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:13

0

"The cars from the 60's were not put together well at all."

In the 70's I drove a few cars from the 60's. And I also drove a Pinto for a few years. I liked the cars from the 60's more. When the oil crisis hit, GM and Ford rushed the Vega and the Pinto to market. They and the respective buyers paid a heavy price.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:21

0

Okay, about any car that has sold a million copies and was a commercial success has been turned into a race car. It doesn't mean they should have been, and it doesn't mean they were successful. For whatever shortfalls the Pintos had, they certainly were a commercial success. When you said the basis for a race car, I was thinking of something more than a poor mans race car that was actually competitive in a series other than a Pinto series.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > John Norris (AngryDrifter) 04/19/2014 at 22:26

0

The rally escorts were pinto based. The bright blue one was a Trans Am car. Pinto's are light weight, RWD, easy to modify and cheap to buy. Why are you so against them?

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/19/2014 at 22:43

0

I learned how to drive a manual transmission in a Pinto. Matter of fact I learned how to drive in that Pinto. My first experience drifting on snow was in a Pinto. Believe me if they were good cars my loyalty to them would be unshakable. Because the reality was they were that bad, I have faced up to it, and have overcome what should be a favorable bias. That car I learned so much in, was indeed a bad car. Perhaps it wasn't as bad as a lot of 80's cars, but it was bad. Bad engine, bad transmission, bad suspension, bad interior, and bad styling. At least the Vega looked good. The Vega of course was equivalent or worse in all other categorizes, but it did at least look good.

Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire > John Norris (AngryDrifter) 04/19/2014 at 22:54

0

The Vega's only looked good in their first generation, but then again styling is all subjective. Was your's a square front or an earlier model? The last good looking Pinto was the '76 they went down hill fast after that.

John Norris (AngryDrifter) > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/20/2014 at 10:33

0

'75 Wagon. Looked about like this, but it was more of a rust colored brown:

colorfulyawn > Arch Duke Maxyenko, Shit Talk Extraordinaire 04/25/2014 at 20:07

0

I have a soft spot for the Mustang II. But then, I also like Colonnade GMs.