The Mustang II is the Worst Mustang Ever, and Here's Why.

"Shifting Lanes" (shiftinglanes) 04/06/2015 at 13:50 • Filed to: Shifting Lanes, Mustang

1

25

Greetings Opposite Lock! Gregson here from Shifting Lanes. Wanted to say a big thank you for allowing us to be part of this awesome community. Been lurking here for a while, reading tons of awesome articles, and now will start posting whenever we can with relevant and cool (hopefully, we aren't very cool) content.

Below is a post we had a in February, but thought it might drum up some good conversation. With the new Mustang being praised all over the place, we thought, "What's the worst Mustang?"

!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! is our answer to that question.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

What are your thoughts? What's the worst Mustang ever made?

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Gregson is the co-founder and co-producer of !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! where he and 2 gear head friends started an enthusiast website for shits and giggles. You can contact Shifting Lanes !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! to tell us how wrong we are about the automotive world, or follow them on !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! or !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

That Bastard Kurtis - An Attempt to Standardize My Username Across Platforms > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 13:53

1

Probably the most popular opinion in the history of opinions. Which is new around here.

Tuned-Port-Injected-Rage > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:01

0

Yep, the '74 Mustang II Ghia will always be the worst Mustang of all time.

Brian, The Life of > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:02

2

For me, these tie the Bloatstang for worst. Plus, thanks to Mustang IIs being so unloved, they've sacrificed their front suspensions countless times to upgrade older hotrods.

That said, they are starting to actually grow on me and I love the idea of a restomodded II with gofast bits and a modern rearend.

deekster_caddy > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:02

0

Here's a better challenge. Pretend that the "Mustang II" isn't actually considered a Mustang and never wore that badge. NOW what is the worst mustang ever made? ;)

I'd have to go with the anemic 79-82 models for getting the worst of the confusing emissions systems of the early 80s, and the wheezy 4.2 V8 from 80-81...

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Brian, The Life of 04/06/2015 at 14:10

0

The possibly ironic thing about the bloatstangs is that they're actually quite light for their footprint and were only *really* done in by emissions crap- they're not any bigger than the modern stangs and a good bit lighter. That's what comes of taking the existing platform and saying "just put the sheet metal further away from the body core". I also kind of like the excessively "groovy" look they have. Is *that* a popular opinion? No, bro. Try going to a car show and actually finding one... at least around here, neither they nor the II even exist.

StoneCold > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:10

1

I hold deep, dark grudges against the 4.2 L Windsor Foxbodies. Maybe the quad light Foxes in general. Pintos and II's can be amazing drag cars done on the cheap.

I have said my piece. I will return to fixing my '66 and '70.

Brian, The Life of > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/06/2015 at 14:16

0

All very true. I know I'm not rational about this but it is very deeply-seated, as I remember when they came out as a child. The classic ponystang was my favorite thing on four wheels back then. I even had a Mustang peddle car (I called it my "bustang") and I think I was disturbed by the styling departure from what came before it.

MultiplaOrgasms > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:20

0

Mankind has known for many hundered years that the Pintstang is the worst Mustang.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Shifting Lanes 04/06/2015 at 14:43

6

Disagree.

Most maligned, yes. Most under-delivered, perhaps... but it was the 1970s... c'mon.

Most importantly... I think they are the most poised for a comeback. '70s stuff is coming back, especially as candidates for resto-mod.

Do they need work... sure.

But they are likely to be so much easier than an RA-28 fastback classic Celica, and less expensive than an appreciating S30 classic Nissan 240-260-280Z.

The front suspension is good. The rear suspension is live axle... and likely a 4-link, watts, or panhard-bar could likely be fitted, in leu of leaf springs... and there is PLENTY of 80s-90s-era small-block Ford, or even 2.3 Lima Turbo (SVO/TurboCoupe/Merkur XR4TI) tech that can be put in this body.

There is a lot of potential for these cars. They may not be in the same league as 64.5-70 Mustangs, but what they are can have some un-tapped potential.

Gary Yogurt > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 14:50

1

Nice rebuttal. It's a fine American car considering the decade it was made in.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 14:50

1

I will never want, nor desire, a mustang II because of looks alone. It will forever be a pinto trying to wear a mustang themed body kit. the bottom two pictures have it trying to wear a 2005-2009 mustang skin for example. I'm sure they're cheap and quick, but they will always be ugly in the wrong way. I don't hate then, they just stir no emotions inside me and always come off as a pretender to the throne.

Rock Bottom > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 15:18

2

I AM SO WITH YOU.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/06/2015 at 15:46

2

You don't have to like it, that is no requirement, but I think there needs to be some historical context here.

Mustang would not have survived, if it hadn't SERIOUSLY shrunk from the 71-73 body-style, and the general massive heft that was added in '67, '69, and '71, successively, to the same basic falcon chassis that originated in the early 60's, and was not appreciably smaller than the full-sized Torino/LTD.

The outgoing Mustang platform was at least ten years old by the time Mustang II was being prepared for the market, and the gas crisis, and the adrenaline shot that gave imports like Toyota, Honda, and Datsun/Nissan were something that the big-3 HAD to answer, or get left behind.

Build quality SUCKED. No two ways about it. The Big-3 were geared up for big, huge, inefficient cars... and when the gas crisis hit, they were un-prepared, almost as bad as the crash and bankruptcies in 2008 again later.

But I am not sure how Mustang would have survived without getting a major, smaller re-design, as Mustang II was, and I am not sure how they really would have done it appreciably better, in terms of design, than they did at that time.

Sharing a shortened version of the platform, with de-contented features as the Ford Pinto probably saved Ford a significant amount of money which likely helped them survive the late 1970s better than Chrysler did. (Pinto was named specifically after a smaller, friendly horse, to specifically reference relation to the bigger, more powerful Mustang, even though the car was named after the plane, the logo was the Mustang HORSE, after all...)

I have always puzzled as to why Mustang is thought of as a Pinto-pretender... rather than Pinto being seen as a compact sibling to Mustang. I think it was the media hit-peice about rear impact collisions and fire risk... which ALL cars then had... because ALL cars in that era tended to place the fuel tank directly between the rear bumper and rear axle... a 40MPH rear end collision would cause ANY of them to explode... The media also had to RIG the results of the Chevy C/K truck side-saddle gas tank issue... and Ralph Nader's crusade against the Corvair also came well AFTER the Corvair's suspension had been re-designed to eliminate the issue he was complaining about... it always gets stuck in the public mentality when presented as a national news headline, even when the reporting isn't objective.

Anyway, back to the malaise era.... Chrysler didn't adapt from the Muscle-car heyday, as well as Ford did, and didn't have GM's larger economy of scale... and languished to the point that 'Mr. Mustang,' Lee Iacocca had to basically save their bacon with the K-car FWD platform in the early 1980s, which was shared with almost EVERYTHING.

If Mustang II hadn't happened, and sold fairly well in it's day; Ford would have been more like Chrysler, languishing, and in the 1980s, the Mustang would have likely been relegated to FWD, after the failure of Ford to adapt. Fox platform would probably have been still-born, and Mustang might have been the nameplate on the Ford Escort EXP FWD fastback, and maybe would have been upgraded to be the name of the Mazda-built car in the late-80s, called Mustang, instead of being called Ford Probe. Ford Probe was supposed to be the FWD replacement to the Fox Mustang anyway... if it had failed earlier, Fox Mustang would never have happened.

Ford would have been equivalent to the K-car-based Dodge Charger, and it's successor, the Dodge Daytona, and all would have been FWD.

Without RWD competition from the Mustang... who knows what GM F-body would have done... it might have languished, it may have been the last RWD bastion.

Mustang II's problem was build-quality, but so was EVERY other late-70's American car. If the quality had been there to match, it might have been received even better, and be in better favor now.

Mustang II shares more styling traits with the previous 65-68 Mustangs than any other Mustang between 1969-1993, before the 1994 Mustang went retro... which has lasted until today, in various interpretations. Mustang II has the separate headlights outboard of the corral shaped grille. It has the C-scoop-like scupture in the body-sides, and it has 3-segment tail lights, albeit wide... which has a slight nod to the T-bird/Cougar tail lights also used on Shelby Mustangs, and it is offered as a fastback, and a notchback, like most previous mustangs, as well as the Fox mustangs that came afterward. The 1970s had a moratorium on convertibles, very few models offered convertible tops in the 1970s, for fears of roll-overs and lack of structural safety for that... Targa tops and T-bar variants (T-tops) of targa tops became the open-air option, with some roof structure remaining in place.

Fox Mustang, stylistically is LESS Mustang-like than any other generation. 71-73 Mustang perhaps coming in 2nd, as least-familial in aesthetic appearance. Slab-sides, non-heritage-styled front fascias and grilles... Very few visual cues from the early Mustangs. Fox Mustang was trying to be original for the 1980s, and not tradition-bound. If Mustang II hadn't taken a bit of heat for being different in 1974, Fox Mustang would have taken all the heat for being both drastically different, AND more compact in 1979, if Ford would have been able to afford to implement the Fox platform and put the Mustang on it.

crowmolly > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 15:56

1

Very well put. Historical context is always important when talking about that era. You had fuel efficiency, emissions, crash safety (hence the MONSTER bumpers a lot of cars got) on top of big changes like the removal of lead from gas.

All before even marginally powerful computers were sitting at every desk.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/06/2015 at 16:23

1

BTW... the Mustang II Evolution is a custom-built car, by Brett Behrens of ATeamRacing, and it was one of the top contenders in the custom class at SEMA 2014, as well as making the rounds of the show-car circuit.

It does combine elements of S197 Mustang (fender flares and some of the fender skin, and the Kona Blue paint color), with a fully custom chassis and floorpan, Mustang II doors, roof, and tail section, with Toyota RA-28 Celica lift back tail lights. It has a custom Triton V10 under the hood, and a Corvette-sourced transaxle and IRS in the back. It pretty much only LOOKs like the silhouette of a Mustang II.

If you think Mustang II sucks... what do you think of it's doppleganger, the Toyota RA-28 Celica? The first-gen Celicas were basically called japanese Mustangs, and look like it... the fastback is very '69-70 Sports-roof. The bumpers look like Mustang parts... and the full-width grille doesn't look exact, but not all that far off the 71-73 full-width Mustang grille for that generation, albeit with only two headlights, rather than four on the Celica. But the Celica and the Mustang II are quite similar in layout and physical size.

Try finding a 76-only US-market RA-28 Celica... and find out what the value is amongst vintage-JDM fans, and tell me that a good Mustang II hatchback donor car isn't a complete STEAL of a deal... with a whole lot of update potential from the 80's and 90's Ford Mustang aftermarket, with a combination of 70s and retro-60s classic-car styling to be spiffed up...

Lots of people are going for the vintage-JDM resto-mod style, which itself isn't too drastically different than what is referred to as 'Pro-touring' style in american classic cars... mechanical modern updates on older, stylish cars, with a clean, cool aesthetic, not over-decorated, not over-the-top flashy, but eye-catching, and purposeful... That is the way I would resto-mod a Mustang II, and probably for a lot less money than people would do the same to an RA-28 Celica GT.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 16:45

0

The celica is a little bit better, but it is also a lot rarer and has the typical JDM tax. I wouldn't buy one because of cost reasons compared to the end results achieved. I'm not really a huge fan so I wouldn't bother even if it was cheap.

But since this hit a nerve let me reiterate - the car as a car, is fine. The pinto chassis is actually not bad and it can handle a V8 with ease so you can check that box. BUT! Let's look at the platform sharing that is basically bred into the mustang family since day one. In fact, it's rather odd the modern mustang isn't a platform sharer since historically, the mustang is a parts bin wonderchild. For the first through fifth generations, besides the second, the mustang's platform has been shared with cars at or ABOVE it in terms of price and "prestige". Meanwhile , the mustang II was a "lesser" platform that had to be overhauled to do mustang duties. And that would be fine but the resulting spawn is just ugly. I'll put it simply, it's hideous. The pinto and maverick weren't that bad so I KNOW someone at ford could've done a good job but they just......they just did't. And the fox mustang started out looking like it got hit with a shovel a coupel dozen times and look at the values of those cars - lower than the rest of the lineup.

Like it or not, the mustang is as much about image as it is any number or fact. You saw the uproar caused by the mustang switching to IRS by purists and the SVO fox mustang was bashed hard for being a performance 4-banger. It doesn't make their reasons correct, but that is what's going on here. You can make that mustang as good as it can possibly be, but it was a pinto in drag from day one and I just can't care about it.

I admire your sheer passion for this unloved car, I really do. ANd I myself love ugly ducklings and forgotten pseudo-classics. I'm one of the people saying that the last gen cutlass calais 442 was worthy of the name so trust me, I know to look past the name plate.......But that name plate IS the car for the mustang! Had they called it "Maverick" it would have some respect today. Had it been a pinto trim level it would probably be nicknamed today the "Pinto Gonzalez" caue it could boogie on the track quite well....But it is NOT a mustang. It is like how the Pontiac LeMans is NOT a korean subcompact. Sorry, no dice there. None here either.

Oh and just a little aside - saying "This car was a top contender at SEMA" doesn't make it more appealing. In fact, it makes it less so in my book because of the customizations that are favored at SEMA. For reference, this car is a SEMA award winner - https://www.flickr.com/photos/playsta…

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/06/2015 at 18:19

0

Mustang II is much closer and integral to the Mustang lineage than re-badging a korean front-driver as a LeMans. There is no 'moral' equivalence there.

Maverick was sold from 1970 through 1977, along-side Mustang II from 74-78, and was similarly 60's-Falcon chassis based, unlike the newer chassis under-pinning the Mustang II.

Maverick was the non-Mustang alternative, while the Mustang grew to almost a full-size car, based on a stretched and expanded set of Falcon-based under-pinnings that were never designed for a car of that size.

Pinto was derived from the Mustang II's development, not the other way around, just as Maverick was shrunk back down while the classic Mustangs got bigger.

And as economy cars... in that era, Pinto and Mercury Bobcat didn't do that badly against GM's Vega.

Again, you are under no obligation to love Mustang II. Even I could argue that it might be last on the list of Mustang generations... but I assert that it is still a Mustang, and still deserves to be ON the list.

But 99-04 new-edge SN-95 Mustangs, and the 71-74 land-yacht Mustangs may give it a bit of challenge for the bottom of the list.

but frankly I think Mustang II being a child of the 7os is more a mitigating circumstance than how much the 99-2004 Mustang languished in it's timeframe, still on a modified Fox platform from the 1970s, after the turn of the century... and still with a live-axle after SO many good performance cars came out of the 80's and 90's economic boom, and showed how affordable and superior IRS was.

the New-Edge Mustang may look the part a bit more convincingly, but I think it has far less excuse to be as flexible, and antiquated in terms of chassis design, for the time that it was on sale... but it did survive the great coupe extinction of the late-90s, when all other coupes died out... including GM F-body, just as Mustang II kept the wick burning through the early malaise-era of the late-70s.

The reason Mustang can claim 50 years, is because the flame didn't go completely out during those times. Corvette, and Porsche 911 are the only other cars that can claim similar continuous lineage, and that is ignoring the fact that there is no 1983 Corvette production... maybe only one prototype car. There were some dark days toward the end of C3, and not everyone likes the 80's-tastic early C4, or the bloated-tupperware C5's looks and interior. The late-70s through late-80s 911s were sometimes considered stagnant before 964, and 993. 996 Porsche 911s aren't seen as collectors items today, either.

Not every day can be a heyday.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Brian, The Life of 04/06/2015 at 18:40

0

I agree. The 71-73 Land-yacht Mustangs being nearly the same size as the Ford Torino, is off-putting, but it was unitized-body, rather than body-on-frame like the Torino/LTD full-sized bruisers were, and thus lighter than their size suggested.

bone-stock, the land-yacht generation is one of my least favorite.... but I have seen some resto-mod versions that are pretty darn stylish... Lowering the bow of the land yacht, and staggering the rear wheel diameter UP to visually compensate for the huge C-pillar helps level the car well, and improves the stance and looks significantly.

Also, I do like full-width grilles on classic cars, which 71-73 Mustangs are the only ones to have, if you don't count 69-70 Shelbys as factory-built Mustangs, since Shelby American modified them to look that way.

And they were about as close as the US got to Mad Max's Falcon XB, after the '70 Torino Cobra.

And it is not like other early-70's cars were all that small, either. Mopar E and B-bodies are pretty meaty, as are GM mid and full-sizers.

GM F-bodies in the early-70s, though, were a much more lithe little car... and didn't get really gaudy looking until the mid-late '70s.

Manic Otti > Brian, The Life of 04/06/2015 at 19:00

0

From Wikipedia:

"First-year sales were 385,993 cars, compared with the original Mustang's twelve-month sales record of 418,812"

It was a sales success, and the right car at the right time, and carried on the Mustang line until the Fox body came along. As for the quality, most other cars from 1974 were pretty lousy and unattractive smog choked barges.

Manic Otti > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 19:01

0

I would drive that first one all day, but that hood is a little much...

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 19:16

0

.....And it's still by far the ugliest production mustang by a country mile. I want a 2010 mustang GT because you get the 2010-2014 look but because 2010 was the last year of the old engines, it's worth less. So I can get my coupe looks, and my V8 sound while paying a lot less in another year or two.

You aren't in denial of it so you must understand - looks are an integral part of owning a mustang and while the mustang II looks better than your typical mid 70s car but it still aged like milk while the rest of the line seems to age like wine. And the Fox body is more supportive of mods and aftermarket so even if it's kinda fugly, its still got a place for cheap speed for now. By your own words, the SN 95 mustang should not have lasted as long as it did. Yet through a co.no of good looks, a nice engine, and a solid aftermarket, that chassis lives on with a positive image in the minds of enthusiasts.

everything else you've been typing is just wasted space. I know the II was actually quite critical to the lineage, but I disagree that it was necessary for the name to be alive today. The camaro has proven that you can take a break and be successful. Given how well the Fox was received and how versatile it was, I dint think the mustang II was needed. And it's ugly. And it's kinda dull in the scheme of things. So I have no passion for it. That will never change. Thus conversation just reminded me why I never once considered one as a project car.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Manic Otti 04/06/2015 at 19:19

0

The hood looks customized... but it is a reference to a rare and valuable Mustang... the 69-70 Shelby GT500, which had the 5-vent hood. Two NACA ducts with channels to rearward extractor vents to flush cool air through the engine bay (which got HOT with a big 428 Super CobraJet engine in there), and a central NACA duct to feed cool air into the engine's air-cleaner.

If I were going to resto-mod a Mustang II, and didn't want it to carry the baggage of the Mustang II nameplate, which is topical to this whole discussion... I would love to fit a full-width grille to the car, either like this Shelby, or the 71-73 Mustang Mach 1 that took inspiration from it.

It didn't go quite so far, with only two center-offset NACA ducts, and a slightly forward-raked grille surround... but this grille on a smaller, more lithe Mustang II with all of the Mustang logos deleted, and the c-scoop on the side somehow flattened or removed... nobody would know it as a Mustang, and everyone would wonder what that cool little classic car was... I also have considered how to change up the shape of the rear quarter window, and re-badge the car as a Mercury, perhaps as a forward-dated Comet.

Brian, The Life of > Manic Otti 04/06/2015 at 19:27

0

Yes, it was a sales success. How many are left on the road compaired to earlier generations?

Not many. ... and there's a reason for that.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles 04/06/2015 at 19:40

0

We are going to have to agree to continue to disagree.

Vs:

The 70's era car is a better 70's era car, than the 2004 is at being a 21st century car.

And truthfully, anything that will fit in the 2004, will probably fit in Mustang II also, and the Mustang II will probably cost a small fraction to start with, and the modification money would go further... like lowering the car, and fitting fender flares to accommodate that.

Or maybe moving the *better-than-McPherson-Strut* SLA front suspension location forward, as well as lowering the front end as I mentioned, and updating the rear suspension to a multi-link, or custom-fitting an SN-95 SVT Cobra rear suspension to the Mustang II body.

And it will still have a hatchback, which SN-95 unfortunately dropped.

The 99-04 cars looked thick, heavy, and bloated, aesthetically.

I can see why you would like a 2010... S197 cars are nicer, on a better chassis, despite STILL being saddled with that solid axle, well after it should have had standard IRS.

After the 2004 Mustang GT concept car... with a hatchback, and DEW-98-derived IRS built into the chassis... I was VERY disappointed that S197 had neither feature. I had lost interest in the late 90s, in favor of cars with much more sophisticated chassis... like Nissan Z32, FD-3S RX7, and Porsche 944/968/928. S197 was not the comeback I had hoped... S550 might be.

themanwithsauce - has as many vehicles as job titles > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. 04/06/2015 at 21:42

1

Well I did kinda say my big beef with the II is its looks and that, to me, the look of a mustang is a big part of its reason to exist so yeah, I was never going to agree with your reasons of hisotry or performance stats and capabilities as reasons for it to be considered good. But I do want to say that the mustang was a wonderful 21st century car in the early 2000s because it embraced tuner culture. The 4.6L V8 was endlessly tuneable and had support for NA, SC, and Turbo paths. The car was also cheap enough to buy and modify on a budget and overall it was able to be both the pony/muscle car for middle aged men and the attianable tuner base for the younger generation. It was wildly successful actually. But then again the Mustang II was ugly and crippled like almost all other 70s cars so it did reflect on the times like the 21st century stang did :P

I'm just joshing, but seriously, if you wish to play that card, that is one of the many cons that was thrown at the mustang II - that it really wasn't "special" compared to the rest of the lineup. I am also mad the S197 didn't have IRS but you can blame purists for that. ANd even then, the boss 302 and even the later GT models managed to be very good cars despite that. Drive a 2012 or later V6 performance pack. It is a wonderfully tossable car. I think that people who tuned the FoSTand FiST suspension had a say in it. It is just gleefully destructive to tires when you want, yet deadly fast when you crave speed.