While I don't have a problem with them, I also have not owned one. I can only speculate that the step backwards in performance is part of the issue. For anyone looking for a car that was known for performance, the II's weren't and get overlooked.

One of my high school buddies sold his '66 coupe around 1988 and bought a Mustang Cobra II to replace it. After he repainted it and dropped in a mildly built 289, it was a really nice car and stout performer. That car changed my opinions for the better.

 

While everyone is entitled to own or like whatever they want in my opinion the majority of Mustang IIs are ugly and from the factory they were grossly underpowered thanks to the required emissions equipment and concerns over fuel mileage caused by the gas shortages of the 70s. Just my 2 cents.

 

The parts situation you face is just a function of supply and demand. There's nothing personal about it.

I don't hate any of the Mustangs, I just like some better.

Z.

 

The Mustang II was based on the Pinto. The Pinto was looked at as a cheap throw away car.
Ironically by 73 many Mustang fans felt the Mustang had become enormous and no longer
fit into it's original Pony car class!

In my opinion the disdain is mainly because of the Mustang II's Pinto heritage.
I agree with you, the Mustang II looks a lot more like a Mustang than the Euro styled Fox
Mustangs. :shrug:

 

+1 on Obsidianspider's opinion couldn't had said it better my self the cars not very appealing to the eye.

 

I myself have always liked a King Cobra mustang two.What i dont like about them is the tranny tunnel sits about 3 feet high,,with the e-brake handle right there in the way.Poor design.I think those cars had to be dressed up right to be likeable,,and for most of them,,they just werent ordered that way.If i had the chance to own a clean unmolested King Cobra,,i would,,if the price was right.With what we have now available to throw at them,351's,5-speeds,,etc,one could make a super nice disco car.I have a mint dash pad for a 74-78 stang,,going to list it soon on ebay,,don't know if or what it will bring,,,but i do know clean parts for those cars are extremely hard to find,I look at a lot of them when i get around to salvage yards,,and there isn't much to find any good.I do know of one Cobra,i think it's a 77 or 78,,that is still complete,with the side window louvers,white snowflake wheels,etc.But it's the only one i have seen in a yard like it in many years.I guess it just all comes down to personal taste.

 

What color is your dash pad??

 

The Mustang II was based on the Pinto. The Pinto was looked at as a cheap throw away car.
Ironically by 73 many Mustang fans felt the Mustang had become enormous and no longer
fit into it's original Pony car class!

In my opinion the disdain is mainly because of the Mustang II's Pinto heritage.

+1 for Slim's post.


John

 

I think the cobra II's are great little cars. The performance was lacking from the factory but personally I like the styling and they handled and drove pretty decently.

 

Having owned a new 65 Mustang GT and then a new 69 Mach-I, we wew ready for a new Mustang by 1974. I was enthused with the arrival of the Mustang II and eagerly awaited a test drive. Well, the test drive was a bitter disappointment for this mustang guy! The way it "felt" behind the wheel, the seating position, the handling, etc, etc, was so far from "Mustang" that we gave up on the idea. Instead, we purchased a '74 Mercury Capri (the European Mustang) which was much more in keeping with the idea of a smaller, more efficient version the previous Mustangs. I never drove one again, so I can't say how much better the later versions of the II were. Some of the Fastback IIs look pretty good. One thing going for the II is that it already has a Mustang II front suspension. We didn't think "new" Mustang until 1985 with the purchase of new GT. It may not look like a Mustang, but the performance sold us.

 

well keep in mind everyone has their own opinion and sees value where others don't. My best friend is ALL Ford blue blood and all. He is restoring a 72 Torino GTS....and LOVEs the II. I can make him fighting mad when I talk down about the II like its a dog...LOL. On the other hand my brother loves them too....just not me. I wouldn't take one offered for free.
Something about tha squished box design with a pony stuck in the grill just didn't set right with me.

But seriously....enjoy your car.Take care of it...and have fun.

 

Having owned a new 65 Mustang GT and then a new 69 Mach-I, we wew ready for a new Mustang by 1974. I was enthused with the arrival of the Mustang II and eagerly awaited a test drive. Well, the test drive was a bitter disappointment for this mustang guy! The way it "felt" behind the wheel, the seating position, the handling, etc, etc, was so far from "Mustang" that we gave up on the idea. Instead, we purchased a '74 Mercury Capri (the European Mustang) which was much more in keeping with the idea of a smaller, more efficient version the previous Mustangs. I never drove one again, so I can't say how much better the later versions of the II were. Some of the Fastback IIs look pretty good. One thing going for the II is that it already has a Mustang II front suspension. We didn't think "new" Mustang until 1985 with the purchase of new GT. It may not look like a Mustang, but the performance sold us.

+1 on that. When the II came out, Road and Track did a test on it, 13+ 0-60 time for the top line V6 (!) engine. There was not even a V8 offered when it came out. The handling was so-so, and even R&T described it a year later (testing the V8 with C4, the only V8 combo) as for the day, crude but gutsy. The smallish 13 inch rims limited the car, but the additional subframe isolating the suspension helped the "mini-luxo" feel and differentiate it from the Pinto. Interestingly, R&T even made mention of how they also preferred the European designed Capri instead.

On the other hand, I've read reports (in a Mustang Monthly mag a long time ago) of one of the editors having a stock 67 289 coupe, and going for a drive in a new later edition (76-77?) V8 Mustang II with a manual tranny, and he was surprised that the new car had the about the same getup and go as his 67.


Ford's target audience just didn't click with the car, at least after the first year or so of production. It was a not bad economy car, but only "just" comparable with the current Chevy Monza, etc. Ford tried to market it both as an economy car (some success there), and a muscle car (wild Cobra graphics, engine turned dash, etc.) and it failed miserably against the currect Firebirds, Corvettes, etc. in that department, not to mention in comparisons with the earlier muscle Mustangs. And the public saw that.

 

And the Falcon, which the original Mustang was based off of wasn't Ford's cheapest "throw away" car too? The Mustang has ALWAYS been based off of another platform to save money until the '05 and up "S197" model came out.

As for performance, the original Mustang started as a six-cylinder model with optional V-8 with the majority of the sales being I-6. To many Mustang owners it's not all about horsepower (almost 70% of current Mustang sales are V-6).

And for it feeling different from the previous generation of Mustang, well, tht's called an improvement. Rack and pinion steering, isolated subframe, more sound deadener, etc. made for a beter car. Different feeling, yes, but better. If you own a Fox body now, and go drive a 2010 it is the same thing. Quieter, handles better, etc.

I'm no Mustang II fanatic, but I think they are nice cars, modified or stock, and should not be looked down upon by other Mustang owners.

 

I admit, I own a Mustang II. My question is: why is there such disdain for these cars by 1st Generation Mustang owners?

I truly believe that the mistake Ford made was the stupid II suffix. Mustang II, Bronco II, LTD II. Dumb. It's as if Ford was saying that it's like a Mustang, but somewhat less. I really think it's a subliminal thing. If Ford called the 1974 car just plain Mustang, I don't think there would be the distinction between the generations (particularly if they offered a V8) that exists in the minds of Mustang owners now. If you own a 65 Mustang (for example), it's called a 65 Mustang. Own any year Mustang between 74 and 78, and it's called a Mustang II.

As far as the II being derived from the Pinto, the 74-78 Mustang is less a Pinto than the 65 was a Falcon. And the Mustang II looks more like a 65 than any Fox did (and the Fox Mustang was derived from another pedestrian vehicle; the Fairmont).

I've never owned a 74 to 78 Mustang and have no plans to ever do so (or any other year save for my 66), but I like the car and believe it's no less a Mustang than any other year.

John

 

I think demographics have a lot to do with it too. Just a few years ago, all the guys who were teenagers and young adults in the late 60s started approaching retirement, their kids finally out of the house, still working tho for a couple more years and so they had some disposable income to buy that 60's dream car of their youth. Given a few more years the guys who were teenagers in the 70s will get there too. They'll more likely be looking for Mustang IIs because that's what they remember from their youth. I was a teenager in the 80s and so my collection includes a 1985 Toyota Supra. That was the hottest car in all the magazines and I remember riding my bicycle to the local Toyota dealer to drool over them. But back to demographics, most of my contemporaries are still carting their children around in minivans right now, unable to indulge a car hobby. And it will be a while because unlike earlier generations, people starting waiting till much later in life to start families. I suspect over the next ten or fifteen years, we'll see more Mustang IIs at local car shows as the 70s demographic comes "of age". As more come out of the woodworks, perhaps with upgraded engines and such, a new appreciation will develop.

Phil

 

By the mid 70's Ford's (and every other American made car for that matter) quality was in the toilet. Buddy of mine had a II in the early 80's that his dad bought brand new. It drove ok and the engine ran good (2.3 four cylinder), but was falling apart and rusting out. It had been a southern California car from day one. My brother bought a 75 Mustang II Ghia from our grandfather in the mid 80's. It had the V6. What a dog. Overheated all the time. Ran like cr*p. Was falling apart. Funny thing, I had a 71 Pinto that ran great and never broke down. The only thing I remember breaking on it was the headlight switch in the early 80's.

 

The Mustang II was based on the Pinto. The Pinto was looked at as a cheap throw away car.

Just my $.02. Wasn't the '65 Mustang the Pinto of the 60's? I had a Mustang II with a 302 4v, headers and a T-5, (yes a T-5) which also came with a factory power rack & pinion steering. I much like my '66 now, but that little car boogied.

 

The Mustang II was based on the Pinto. The Pinto was looked at as a cheap throw away car.
Ironically by 73 many Mustang fans felt the Mustang had become enormous and no longer
fit into it's original Pony car class!

In my opinion the disdain is mainly because of the Mustang II's Pinto heritage.

+1 for Slim's post.


John

Me too ... It's a Pinto.

Everyone calls the hot set up a Mustang ll frontend. Well, it's a Pinto front end that isn't good for any performance driving. It'll let you put a bigger motor in the car. If you want more power there are a lot of other ways that will weigh less and work better.

 

And the Falcon, which the original Mustang was based off of wasn't Ford's cheapest "throw away" car too?

Yes, but the Falcon already had a rep for road racing - that's where the 'monte carlo' bar came from - Falcon racing.

That said, I personally like the II's, but not as much as the original. For me, I'd list them:
1- 1st Gen
2- Current model
3- M II
4- Fox body

 

Because the CEO of Ford decided that those of us who prefer the 71-73's, and those that prefer the smaller Ponies of 64 1/2-70 era needed something we could all agree to dislike!
:drunkies: :cheers:

 

There just ugly.

 

Because the CEO of Ford decided that those of us who prefer the 71-73's, and those that prefer the smaller Ponies of 64 1/2-70 era needed something we could all agree to dislike! :drunkies: :cheers:

Hate your '72 Dave. Everyone knows '71's are much better.

Seriously, I like the II's, mostly because a girl from high school that I thought was hot had one. That will always be associated with them in my brain.

 

I really think it's a subliminal thing. If Ford called the 1974 car just plain Mustang, I don't think there would be the distinction between the generations

IMO it's nothing subliminal, sit a '65 fastback, a '68 convertible and the II together and anyone that picks the II as "similar" for styling needs their eyes examined... sure they're closer to the 73's, but still lacking in style against them, and a BIG a step down from 65-68's...

 

I turned 16 in 1974 and remember being so disappointed after finally getting my driver's license because, at nearly the same time, we got:
1) the 55 mph speed limit,
2) the "fuel crisis",
3) butt-ugly, low quality cars from nearly every US manufacturer

I think Ford would have been better off to name the Mustang II something, anything else, and not drag the name "Mustang" into it. After the II, it took about 10 or 15 years before the name meant something again.

 

The problem with the mustang II. Wheels too small. Low horsepower. Body didn't look right.Like a pinto with big fenders and scalloped doors.Interior was ok but cheap looking.
I own a 75 hatchback with the v8 automatic.Only drove it 2 times before engine blew. Repair shop screwed it up. Planning to rebuild the 302 with 289 hipo heads that i have and beef up the c4 and see what happens.Definitely have to put larger wheels to balance the look.
BTW they are starting to make some parts for the II's you just have to search for them.