ProudPony... thanks for the Mustang II thesis. I have to admit, the M-II is kind of.... cute? But I still believe too that formula79 had a basic point... the M-II is not a real significant milestone in Mustang history, save for maybe the emphasis on fuel economy. And as for these 218,000 sites... I looked down thru a few pages of the search off that hyperlink... actually there are only 308 links listed, and of those not all are related to the Mustang II automobile. Here's one of the links... tells all about the Mustang II... house plan!

http://www.sunstream.com/pdfs/glr_broch.pdf

 

HEY THERE OL BUDDY!!!
Haven't talked with you in a good while - how ya been? Hope you are taking good care of your two prized possessions this winter - the salt is unbeleivable here in NC right now. I haven't had a pony out in 4 weeks now. This ain't normal for us.

Well, I'm glad you got something out of my post. Actually, I'm flattered. I just "threw it together" and hit Submit. I appreciate your complement.

As for 218,000 - it was a blunt stab at being facetious... I thought about typing 218,000,000,000 but then I thought I better not, because somebody would actually try to go count and... NEVERMIND!

So, you looking at house plans these days? I think there was room enough in the garage for your toys in that plan...
I say go for it - it's got you written all over it!

BDnF - Seriously, I am J/K with you. I'm having A "GOOD" night if you catch my drift!
I hit your website and your cars DO look great.
Good to hear from you again.

 

Okay here we go....

Mustang II was an econo ****box...I go to car shows and there are never any or if so hardly few. Now the second Gen Firebird and Camaro to an extent are much more collected. On top of that the Firebird kept 400cid engines all the way till 1979...so the agrument can be made that real performance is only a couple mods away with them compared to a Mustang II. Also the TA with 4 wheel disk brakes was possibly one of the best handlers of it's time. Also the King Cobra was nothing but a lame *** attempt to steal some of the Bandit T/A's fire with tape and stickers.


My whole point is...Most Mustang owners see the Mustang II as a car to forget...however the Second Gen firebird is really starting to come in it's own...

 

Also for what it's worth "Mustang II" only returns 30,000 matches in Google...and half are sites talking about how they were the bad years for the Mustang

 

Funny, I didn't picture you going to a Mustang show?!?!
They constituted 5 years of production out of 39, what percentage do you expect to see? They were also "econo ****box" cars like you said, so many of them were used, abused, drove into the ground, and crushed. People didn't buy them and treat them with care like an expensive '70 Z/28 or a '69 Mach 1 - the M-IIs were THRASHED DAILY, YEAR 'ROUND. Quite simply, most of them are just gone - run beyond their economic recovery point. Geez, maybe it's a testimonial to their utility that they ARE all used up.
BTW, how many Monzas do you see at these shows you attend... At the shows I go to, there "are never any or if so hardly few".
Debateable, but I'll concede this one to you on one condition... You have to acknowledge that Ford was NOT marketing the Mustang against Firebird/Camaro during those years. Give me that, and I'll give this one to you - DEAL?
Branden, The M-II was the lightest Mustang ever. A basic coupe w/o AC, PS, and all the frills would curb at @2700lbs - with "choked-down, smooth-cammed 302 and a 4-spd already there! Bolt-on 1 Edelbrock-4V intake, 1 Holley 600 DP carb, and a cam (and maybe exhaust) and you had a screamer. In fact, it was 5 years of this kind of activity that eventually convinced Ford to do it themselves with the 5.0 in '82. I take NOTHING from the Firebirds of the same era... they had better hp from the factory no doubt. Again, just give the little car it's due. Opening the "mods" window can get real ugly here...
Great. Again, I never contested this. Also again, please acknowledge that the cars were intended for different "types" of performance... Was the Monza competing in the market against those 4WDisc T/A's?!?! Kudos to Pontiac for keeping a performer out there... obviously a few people wanted them back then, but over 1.2 million wanted the economical alternative.
Given. But what's wrong with copying concepts/ideas, especially if it sells? Maybe if the F4 had copied the Mustang a little, it would have sold better - ever think of that?

Another point here - The KC had the same exact (lame) drivetrain as all the other 302 Mustangs, but it stopped there. Aside from the extra 80lbs of spoilers, skirts, scoops and stripes, it had a competition suspension which included tuned Gabriel shocks (who-hoo!), different spring rates, larger front/rear sway bars, etc. Also, the front air dam housed two LARGE ducts that funneled air straight onto the front discs. There is actually a "reserve" fuel tank inline with the filler neck that holds about 3/4 gal spare fuel - kind of like the reserve on dirt bikes. There are other subleties that set this car apart, and actually made them great starting points for rally cars/ T/A cars.
I would expect you to have this POV - you are not into Mustangs. I'm not going to link you to death to make my point, but I'm asking you to beleive me when I tell you that there ARE MANY PEOPLE NURTURING THESE CARS. Go here and just browse the first 6 or 8 (short - only @5 ads/page) pages of ads and see how many are LOOKING TO BUY Cobra IIs or King Cobras - asking to buy, money in hand, in this sh1++y economy too. Right now, the Cobra II and King Cobras have the best potential value increases of any classic Mustang, and their values are growing faster than the others to prove it. Only the '71 Boss, '72-'73 Q and R-code Mustangs, and the '71-'73 Convertible values are growing at a similar pace. Earlier classics have peaked for now, and Fox-bodies are still too available to climb in price. The KC ranked 3rd in MustangMonthly's top-10 collectible models last fall - based on market values (auction mostly), availability, and demand.

Branden, I'm not trying to make you like the Mustang II - that's not what car enthusiasm is about to me. I just would like for you to respect it for what it was and what it did. If you had seen the economic conditions this car lived in - make that thrived in - you would have a better feel for why it deserves your respect. Did you really READ the text in those 2 articles I linked for guionM? Couldn't you pick up on the mood of the performance car people back in '74 & '75? Even the performance car journalists were down on the Z/28 and Firebird for still being gas guzzlers, and predicted a sudden demise for them.

I personally hold the Monza, Skyhawk, Starfire, and Sunbird (all GM H-bodies in fact, the Hs-bodied Vega and Astre too) in the same regard as I do the Mustang II - they did what they had to do at the time.
Is it really so hard to be a grown-up, understand them, and just give them a gentle nod instead of bashing them?

 

Well my whole argument has been that the Mustang II lost the Mustang's heritage the years it was made...

Since you see the Monza as the Mustang II's peer from that era i will assume you agree?

If not what does that make the F-body..since they were obviously among the top performers and trend setters of thier time..and thier styling carried through almost 30 years?

I think the vision of the F-body heritage we have today is more tracable to the second gen then the first gen really..

The First gen was made for three years and though classics...from 1970 on the F-body had nothing similar...

And to say teh F-body lost it's heritage because it is nothing like the first gen makes no sense since the 1st Gen was only 3 years and since then teh styling has held the line till teh cars demise?





It's a tough argument as to what Camaro heritage is...the first three years...or 32 years of the same styling?

 

But this is the point that started the whole 5-page mess... and it really isn't true. The M-II was actually dead-on the original Mustang recipe. (except for the lack of a V8 in '74... dumbdumbdumb. )

PLEASE - take 2 minutes and read THIS LINK completely. It's an article from Mustang Times in January of 1994. It has several quotes from Iacocca himself (who masterminded the M-II development BTW) and describes well, the market and strategy he wanted to execute with this car.

A few snibbits...
- "If you remember the 1970's, you know that Mustang IIs were as common as the original copy from 1965. And they were purchased for much the same reasons as they were in 1965. Economical, yet fun, transportation."
- "In 1970, Ford sold nearly 600,000 Mavericks - it's first year! There was clearly a market in search of a sporty, affordable car. "
- "Iacocca continued in his quest for a more "Mustang" like Mustang. His input for a revised beltline and grille which reminded people of the original 1965 Mustang led to familiar styling cues we've come to know from Mustang II. "
- "DeLaRossa of Advanced Design saw the notchback Ghia model as a natural extension of the original 1965 Mustang coupe."

Here's part 2 in case you get captivated by facts of the era.

Interesting point -
Did you know that as early as 1968, Iacocca was disgruntled at the size and proportions of the "upcoming" '69-'73 Mustangs? He didn't like them at all. He claimed they were too far away from what the original car was. Most Ford employees agreed too.
You know who forced the program to get bigger sizes and offer bigger engines... a former GM employee - Semon "Bunkie" Knudson. Iacocca developed the M-II on a skunk-works budget, secretly, behind Knudsen's back!

If anything the '69-'73 and the '79-'93 cars were the farthest from their roots - at least styling-wise, not heritage-wise. The M-II was dead-on with the original '64.5, even done by the same guy and in the same way as the original Mustang - NO JOKE.

Do you mean performance-wise, cost-wise, or appearance wise?
If you mean appearance-wise, I agree. But as far as delivering performance and price value, I don't see a big difference between the '67-'69 and the '70 up thru gen 2s.

OK - let me distinguish between two nouns used often in this forum, that DO NOT interchange...
HERITAGE - The overall Magic or Mystique that a name creates for itself through years or delivering what was expected... if not more. Performance, price, reliability, maintainability, ease to modify or improve, etc - these all play major roles in a car developing a heritage. Heritage can not be given, IT MUST BE EARNED.
STYLING - That visual impact that the model brings forth, setting it apart from all other offerings - making it special unto itself. This is where the cues, proportions, lines, creases, and effects come into play. STYLING is subjective and is GIVEN to a car by it's creating team, IT'S NOT EARNED.
I think too many in here see these things as being the one-in-the-same.

To me styling plays a huge part in a car's heritage - it helps to define it greatly. But while styling can play a huge roll in a car's heritage, it doesn't have to dictate it. And vice-versa. This is where Camaro and Mustang differ. I think Camaro HAS maintained it's heritage very well through all years, but it's heritage has suffered due to it's course of styling, especially the F4 IMO. The same argument applies to the new GTO offering... I think GM is "borrowing from heritage" to sell "new styling", and if it doesn't work the heritage will be diminished as a result. The Mustang has done a very good job of maintaining both Heritage and styling over the years. GRANTED, it has stretched the envelope a few times (ref '69-'73 and Fox-bodies above), but it has eventually settled back into the basic design format with specific cues that it originally came out with 40 years ago.

Thanks for the cool post. I appreciate the thoughts.

Proud.

 

Though I won't debate Brandon on alot of the points he raised, I do want to point out that during the years the Mustang II was made, the Camaro/Firebird were considered dinosaurs, and Mustang and Monza were considered the way sports cars were headed, and in the end, that prediction turned out to be correct!

Again, sure, of Mustang's almost 40 years of history taken all together, the mid 70s "IIs" aren't looked at as a high point. Personally, I think Mustang's absolute lowpoint was the 1980 and 1981 versions!

These are the cars that had the lame engines you speak of Branden. Imagine a V8 engine putting out LESS than 120 horsepower! Quality was bad, and the best you could hope for were those exploding 1st generation 4 cylinder turbos. By comparison, the Mustang IIs were the good old days!

Again, you have to look at the car and the times it was in. Camaros and Firebirds of the late 70s are also the lowpoint of Camaro history.

The direction of the Mustang II is still with us today. When Ford shrunk the Mustang to make the Mustang II, it has stuck with that formula (dimensions, size, purpose, and it's relation in the market to the times it's in) instead of moving to the F-body's formula of making it big.

It could be argued effectively that the Mustang II's spirit is alive and well today and infact became the future of sporty cars. Especially if Camaro comes back in a similarly sized package.

 

Great sites! In the late 80s I had a 1977 Spyder that had a 305 4 barrel (courtesy of one blown engined Monza a used car dealer wanted to quickly get rid of, and a wrecked Olds stationwagon). I also had 2 other V8 Monzas over the early 90s.

Driving a very well made go cart is how I remember that car.

 

Thanks proudpony, that's what I've been trying to say all along...

 

I'm quite happy with the trends in Camaro and FBody styling. It shows that GM was not afraid to take some chances and be bold and creative. I liked how the 5.0 Mustang GT's looked in the 1980's... but frankly the 3gen Camaro Z28 and IROC was a stunning, modernistic design which looked virtually nothing like the first gens, yet was a phenomenal marketplace success. "heritage suffered?" WTH are you talking about? You mean the heritage that had Mustang GT's sniffing Z28 exhaust the last five or ten years? Heritage styling is just that, styling... performance is what it's all about.

I for one do not care how much "homage" is paid to the old designs. I don't care if the next Camaro resembles a 1969, a 1985 (hmm... ), or a 2002. I just hope it looks like a screaming sport coupe, and has the power to back it up! and if history is any indicator, it surely will!

As for the GTO... nothing could possibly be more true to original GTO roots than the new 2004 design. It took a good hard look at an old midsize Pontiac two-door to determine if it was a GTO... why is anyone surprised today that the new GTO can blend in with other modern coupes so easily?

The sad truth about Ford is, they are lacking true design creativity so they stick with familiar shapes. In the world of software development, they often call a newbie a "wall follower" - meaning the coder is too inept to create alone, so they clone and copy a lot of work previously done. Meet Ford's designers, the crew with the "new" Tbird (you know, the one with the diving sales), GT, and now Mustang!

 

Speaking from someone who was there at the time. The 3rd gens completely blew everyone away with their styling. And I mean everyone! Press, enthusiasts.....everybody. **** Gulstrand called it "the American Ferrari"....both for it's cutting edge handling and it's looks! And everyone agreed. They were called,the most beautiful cars to come out of Detroit , ever.

It's easy to look at them 20 years later and say they look old. But when they came out in '82 the WHOLE WORLD was knocked out.

Let's hope the 5th gen has the same impact.

 

Z284ever - I agree! I was there too, and I recall even people who were not Camaro fans were impressed - my bro-in-law for example. As for looking old, what's strange is even today when I look at my IROC-Z it looks new and cutting-edge from certain angles. The whole package just flat out worked. I doubt that people could recognize any significant "heritage cues" in the styling... but nonetheless - Chevrolet took the Camaro in a whole new direction, with great success! And even today, most people can instantly recognize a 3gen on the street as a Camaro. It's sleek, edgy shape became part of Camaro and muscle car culture and really broke some new ground, being the first Camaro with a hatchback and folding rear seat. And the 4gens were similar - with the LT1/LS1, voluptuous compound curves, and the faithful interpretation of the outrageous Banshee concept car. Again today, no one has trouble recognizing a 4gen FBody on the streets. "Heritage-following"... sounds like something for the meek and mild.

 

Overall styling wise I always saw the 3rd gen as an evolution of the second gen with a cleaned up modernistic look...of course they share nothing engineering wise...but there looks to be styling DNA there

 

to Third Gen compliments.

I would like to ask the dude that designed them, since he did such a great job of blending cues with new and made the most appealing Camaro ever, to come up with a 5th Gen concept.