The second-gen Mustang is better than you remember
The Mustang II wasn't that bad, was it?
For many years, I've heard people blabber on about how absolutely terrible Ford's second-gen Mustang was, and until now, I blindly accepted that this was true. Yet another case of the blind leading the blind then, eh? After looking deeper than the seemingly inadequate power output on the surface, I realised that this opinion wasn't all that great. Want to know why the Ford Mustang II wasn't such a bad car after all? Follow me, and I'll show you its good side.
Credit: MotorTrend
The successor to Ford's highly successful first-generation Mustang was strongly anticipated by the people of America, and in 1973, it finally arrived. However, the same year, there was a worldwide oil crisis, which meant that the Mustang II wasn't quite what many people had expected. The most powerful first-generation small block motor was a 4.7L V8 producing 271hp, while the second-gen's most potent 4.9L V8 could only muster 139. Despite this, the 1978 'King Cobra' managed 0-60 in 9.8 seconds, a very respectable time for a car of the period, and only about 1.5 seconds slower.
As well as offering a V8 model, there was also the option of a V6 or even an inline-4. The latter car, geared more towards economy than speed, only produced 89hp, but Ford never intended for the Pinto-engined 2.3-litre Mustang to be fast. Meanwhile, the addition of these two different motors actually increased sales exponentially, since crisis-hit Americans were able to get a Mustang with decent economy. Driveability and handling were also improved, thanks to rack-and-pinion steering, double wishbone suspension and a near-300kg loss over the first-generation cars from '71 to '73.
Stepping inside the Mustang II reveals a spacious, comfortable and a very modern interior for the time period. A mix of well-proportioned gauges were placed on the flat dashboard right in front of the driver, and wide bucket seats clad in either leather or fabric sat ahead of the partitioned seats at the rear. The 'Ghia' model was more luxurious, with a formal roofline, a stylish exterior and a plusher interior, with features such as opera windows and a vinyl half-top coming later. Most cars of the same size offered much less room, too, giving the Mustang II yet another advantage.
In the past, people have panned the Mustang II for being 'slow' and 'ugly', but despite being the most powerful model, the King Cobra received a lot of hate because it was barely faster than the Cobra II, meaning people were just paying extra for a few stickers. But the King Cobra was actually a very important car in the history of the Mustang, as it helped reignite Ford's performance image in the public eye. I don't even think that this is ugly at all - the Mustang II, and especially the King Cobra, is actually pretty cool, and far better than the aforementioned '71 to '73 cars in many ways.
Credit: Mustang Specs
The II doesn't deserve the dislike that it gets from most people, evident not just from the points I have made so far, but also because it was a massive success. Keeping the much less efficient first-generation car in production would have led to sales falling even further than they were already. Instead, they sold over 150,000 units each year, managing to reach a figure of almost 400,000 in the first year. Without its automotive triumph, the Mustang name would have gone extinct half a century ago, and for that, we owe a great debt to the brilliant Ford Mustang II.
Join In
Comments (17)
It's a re-bodied Pinto. No amount of rose-colored glasses reminiscing can change that fact.
It really is a victim of global circumstances which to my eyes, still makes it as bad as it was upon launch. You even said it, the quickest version was nearly 10 seconds from 0-60 which was a huge letdown from the Shelby and Boss versions of the prior gen(s). And 139hp from a 4.9 litre V8? That's hardly respectable as European marques were making far more potent figures with smaller engines - even during the hell, that was the fuel crisis.
Beauty is however in the eye of the beholdee. But to me, there's no way it's as good-looking as other sporty coupes of the time, this includes Ford's own Capri, Datsun Zs and even the Toyota Celica.
My creta makes that much power in a 1.6
"THE SECOND-GEN MUSTANG IS BETTER THAN YOU REMEMBER"
NO it wasn't, it was a glorified Pinto and Ford dealers back then were asking " How am I suppose to sell this piece of crap" My dad sold cars for Ford back then and he wouldn't let the new car lot put these on his used car lot to see if he could move them. It was ill built, noisy, and the only time it road well was if you drove it below the speed limit.
My Mom had a Mark II Mustang when she first got her license and it broke after she’d only had it for 40 days or so and had to get rid of it. Not only did the Mustang not know what it wanted to be during that time, but it didn’t really save a ton of fuel even for the time when it was considered ok. You could have gotten a Datsun 240Z or a Toyota Celica GT for less money. Plus they were lighter more fun to drive, and most importantly more reliable and better built than the heap of junk that was the Mustang II.
I'm fine with them, it's just that they're fugly as frick.