I still remember when Motortrend picked the 1991 Caprice Classic LTZ...

...It should have been called the commercial disaster of the year.

I'd say that the 2005 Mustang will have a very good shot at COY, if only because of the mass-market appeal.

I mean, seriously, the Cobalt is just another econobox and the Vette isn't going to be the quantum leap the C5 was. More to the point the 2005 GTO won't be in the running as a "second-year" model.

On the plus side, the Dodge Magnum might be "truck of the year."

 

C6, it's America's Sports Car ... The magazines will want to support it as such. They will give the Mustang a shot when the Cobra comes out.

I think the Magnum will get some serious attention as well, but not car of the year ... It's not as American as the Corvette, but the design and overall execution is definitely worthy of something. It evokes passion, yet it gets the soccor team to the game on time. I'm looking forward to seeing it in person.

 

This is SOOO biased for me to say this (especially ME), but I honestly and without bias think it will be the Mustang. I think so for the following reasons...

*It took all kinds of design and show awards at NAIAS and SEMA shows since January.
*It has already made the cover of more rags and websites than Nick Knolte's booking picture.
*It has spawned dedicated websites all by itself, all over the world.
*The car already sells nearly 200k units/year, so the potential market for the car is already HUGE. (And don't forget that almost every one of those potential Mustang buyers will buy the COY issue of the rag too - the editors won't forget that for sure!)
*The car screams "Americana", during a time when we are at war(?), we need patriotism, and our history/future are both exposed for scrutiny. It would be a cinch article to headline, something like,"The Ford Mustang - American Ponycar Still setting the Pace as MT's Car-of-the-Year", then they ramble through a patriotic history of the car and how it survives today despite it's fight through adversties like the fuel crisis, and parallel it with the way our nation is surviving the adverisities of terrorism and tarriffs. It's a sales ringer for news stands, regardless of any virtues the car might have which is a shame IMO.
*Lastly - it coincides with the Mustang's 40th birthday - duh, what else?

As for the comment made by ced8 about "practicality" and "everyday civility", it really shouldn't come into play. The award is for outstanding design, execution, and deliverables. These points relate to the car, not the type of car or it's class. The Toyota Prius hybrid won it for 2004 - not exactly a "performer". The GTO won it in 1968 - not exactly oozing everyday "civility" and fuel economy in a big block GTO. The Mustang II won it in 1974 based on total redesign, smooth quiet ride, low NVH, and new technology, but not on performance! The Vette won it in 1984, and it sure didn't win for the roomy back seat and uncomparable practicality either! I think you see my point, so I'll let it go at that.

Bottom line is, based on the rucous at NAIAS this year I think the 05 Mustang will be a real attention *****. Every rag and their dad will be running this thing on their covers when it comes out. I think it's an opportunity for MT to cash in on some mega-sales, and turn-up the patriotic volume anotch or two while doing it. Purely my opinion there.

Personally, if it does get the nod for COY, I hope it does so by virtue of actual "good design work", craftsmanship, and execution of detail - NOT because some rag wants to sell copies at the corner stand. An honor not truely deserved is in fact a disgrace IMO, and I'd rather do without.

Time will tell.

 

The # 1 motivating factor for almost any magazine (or person or organization for that matter) is money. naming hte '05 Mustang as COTY will probably rake in the most money for MT, along w/ all other car magazines. So why not?

Also, going back to Toyota Prius being named 2004 MT COTY... Did you guys notice which track they were testing on for a few days in one of the pics? *ahem* I don't know for sure if that had something to do w/ their decision. But it very well could have been that Toyota and MT struck a deal on this one. Money, money, money

 

Okay, I agreed that the 2005 Mustang is the frontrunner for COY, but this Mustang II trivia is a bit much. The 1974 Mustang II was a first year sales success (thanks to the fuel crisis) with 388,000 units produced. Then sales crashed for 1975 to 189,000 units - a collapse that was due to the availability of the "Mercedes-like" 1975 Granada, the last shamefull iteration of the original Ford Falcon. I'm shocked by your reference to a "smooth quiet ride, low NVH, and new technology," if only because I remember the Mustang II as a rusty, rebodied Pinto. Still, at least the Pinto was a better car than the Chevy Vega, Plymoth Cricket, or any of the nasty Isuzu-built Buick-Opels.

 

Haven't we all agreed that sales usually take a dive after the new model launches? I think it did well, funny thing is it never really fell much lower as the years went on like other cars do. 5 years of EXACTLY the same bodystyles ain't bad (except for a 4th gen owner).
Mustang II figures...
74: 385,993
75: 188,575
76: 187,567
77: 153,173
78: 192,410

As for the NVH numbers and ride quality...
Link - Ford Press release
"A unique sub-frame cradles the engine and transmission and anchors the front suspension of Mustang II and is chiefly responsible for the big-car ride and for helping to isolate noise, vibration and harshness from the passenger compartment. This is the first use by Ford of a sub-frame with a unitized body."
Link - Motor Trend Feb '74
"From the beginning the emphasis was on a smooth and especially quiet ride, despite the fact that Mustang II's 96.2-inch wheelbase is over a foot shorter than that of the '73 Mustang. Suspended between the front side rails of the underbody is a rubber-isolated subframe that serves a two-fold purpose of providing a rigid mounting base for the front suspension as well as isolating engine and road vibrations from the body proper. The tuned front coil spring sit on the lower control arm and are anchored at the top to the suspension cross-member, a design similar to that used on larger Ford cars which reduces transfer of road shocks directly to the body structure. The lower control arm is further held in place by a compression drag strut that allows the wheel to move slightly rearward as it moves up in response to a heavy road-shock. Shocks are concentrically mounted within the front coil springs and a link-type stabilizer bar is used to reduce body roll when cornering. This combination imparts exceptional rigidity to the subframe, permitting the suspension components to move freely in compliance to road imperfections but the liberal use of fairly stiff rubber bushings at all mounting points keeps the passenger compartment virtually isolated from road harshness. Rubber isolation also serves to reduce the natural feedback that rack-and-pinion steering provides along with its precise control, and the optional power steering eliminates any remaining that may creep through."

There are numerous articles about the sound-deadening and ride quality issues of that underpowered-for-us little car. Fact is, they DID ride and drive like Lincolns and Cadillacs of the same day.

Moreover...
Here's a quote from MT on why it was picked as COY from the guys themselves...
"Motor Trend's selection of the Mustang II as the Car of the Year for 1974 was, for the first time in many years, a somewhat effortless decision. "
Here's a link to the full text (just in case you care).

You can search some if you like, and you'll find almost all reviews of the car were favorable - even from owners 3 years later or more. My only gripe is the cars were power-starved from Ford, but any good mechanic with a wrench could drop a well-built 302-4v right where the 130hp 302-2v came out of in a single day. Then you had a 2700lb coupe that would mortally fly, without MacPherson struts too!

Not propping the car, just defending it.
You are entitled to your opinion like anyone else.

 

It isn't exactly a good thing when second year sales are half of those the first year. If a car as loathsome as the 1975 Granada drew sales away from the Mustang II, that's a pretty good indication that the "car of the year" was more than a bit lame.

We've got a Ford press release that I can't read with a straight face, a self-congratulatory quote from Motor Trend and advice on swapping carbs. Yeah, the Mustang II had a certain similarity to the Lincolns and Caddys of the day - it wallowed like a pig on the highway. Quite an accomplishment from a small car. Any of the "fun" that the original Pinto had offered with an optional German-built 4-cylinder was long gone. The Mustang II was smog control-strangled, soft and silly looking.

Like I said before, Motor Trend can really call 'em wrong.

 

I've only got one thing to say.

1980 MOTOR TREND CAR OF THE YEAR...........CHEVY CITATION.

 

You forget we are talking the mid 1970s here. Also, 189,000 cars produced is nothing to sneeze at in any era!

At the risk of giving away my age, don't judge these cars of the 70s based on what you remember seeing of them in the 80s. Before the early 80s, quality & rust preventing was not a Detroit strongpoint. Most of the cars you see as shining examples of 1960s automotive history is due to some heroic efforts at preservation & restoration of their owners. I remember seeing plenty of rustbucket cars of the 60s.

The Mustang II was the perfect car for it's day, along with the Chevy Monza. The Mustang II was a better riding car, and had more percieved quality (it was extremely quiet for any car in the mid 70s). Chevrolet Monza on the other hand was quicker, and actually handled very well.

There were a whole lot of differences between the Mustang's chassis vs Pinto's. Proudpony can probally go into far greater detail than I possibly could, but all the changes were to improve what we now call NVH.

Granada as I remember it was also a high quality car (for it's day), marketed as having a big car ride.

Keep in mind we are talking about 25 to 30 years ago.

A good 2003 Chevy Malibu is able to smoke all but a handful of US made cars from the 70s in acceleration, handling & top speed, while Kia makes better built cars today than you could buy in a Cadillac or Lincoln Showroom 25 years ago.

It's all relative.

 

There was one thing the Monza and the Mustang II had in common: an undersized chassis mated to an overstyled and oversized body. Still, the Monza offered the most performance and (arguably) was the better looking car.

The sad part of it all was that the styling of the Monza was "inspired" by the Ferrari Daytona. (So was the Rover 3500, the best '70s rustbucket produced by British Leyland.) GM got it all wrong of course. Not only was the wheelbase far too short, but the body sides bulged like a '73 "Collonade" Chevelle. Take into account the narrow track and dinky tires, and it wasn't a pretty sight.

I guess even GM figured out that they were hitting a stylistic brickwall, because they soon turned to the straight edged designs of the late '70. When the Monza was replaced by the J-car, I doubt many people cried. The same goes for the Mustang II. I'll bet that most Ford-fanatics were gleeful when the Fairmont-based '79 model premiered.