Derailed Design: 1974-1978 Mustang II

The Mustang brand has an enviably loyal (and utterly massive) fanbase. The upside of this is community support for owners, monetary support for Ford, and Mustangs continue to exist in today's world, despite being utterly anachronistic.  The Mustang has followed an Elvis-like path of multiple transformations, from trim to fat to trim to weird to retro to god knows what.  Like any individual, I believe each car has a "loser" phase in its life - hamstrung by a lame redesign, a platform change that angers the enthusiasts, launching into the wrong market, etc.

But with the Ford Mustang II, Ford was basically saying to their customers: "You stupid fools will buy anything with a Mustang badge on it, because you're stupid middle class proletariat trash."  Or something like that.  Here's how it happened: the Mustang, since it's inception in 1964, gradually changed from a hard-edged, uncomplicated and rowdy sports car, to a tubby middle-weight also-ran.

When the first OPEC oil crisis came around, having a gus-slurping V8 car became about as desirable as a pork chop in a mosque.  Mustang fans had been whining about the gradually increasing girth of the Mustang for a while, so Ford CEO Lee Iaccoca (yeah, that Iaccoca) proclaimed that the 1974 Mustang was to be smaller, trimmer and lighter.

The original plan was to base the new Mustang on the Ford Maverick, which was about the size of the original chassis the Mustang sat on - the Falcon - but with the massive spike in gas prices, Ford decided to step down one platform size in keeping with the times.  For those not good with old Fords, in 1973 the car smaller than the Maverick was the Pinto.

So came the 1974 Mustang II, which was... a Pinto.  With a Mustang badge.  It was a sorry attempt and everyone but Motor Trend knew it - they somehow awarded it Car Of The Year status in it's debut year of 1974.  Engine choices were quite scintillating: the base model carried a thundering 2.3L 8v four-cylinder with about 6 horsepower (ok, ok: 88 horsepower).  For the truly discerning driver, Ford's "Cologne" 2.8L overhead-cam V6 was available, which ripped up the tarmac with... 105 horsepower.  Never mind, at least it was light and handled well, right?

Well, no.  The only true improvement over the earlier Mustangs was a change from a recirculating-ball steering rack to a rack-and-pinion, which was much more accurate.  Also on the plus side: the engine was mounted in a seperate subframe which reduced the NVH factor, and front disc brakes were standard.  On the negative side: acceleration was glacial, the brakes were weak, it rolled over and played dead when you took it around a corner, it fell apart rapidly, and it looked like it'd fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.

Mustang enthusiasts screamed bloody murder, and rightly so.  Ford tried their best to make good by hastily installing a 302ci V8 in 1975.  This smog-choked 4.9L V8 wheezed through a single 2-barrel carb and made 140 horsepower, which still wasn't enough to break 10 seconds to 60 mph.  Ford also offered an "MPG" model in 1975, a 2.3L car fitted with a catalytic converter and a longer 3.40:1 final drive (stock was 3.18:1) for lower RPMs at speed.  You can imagine how slow those were...

But wait, there's MORE!  In 1976, Ford introduced the impossibly gaudy Cobra II.  This was to be a "performance version" but in reality it was a tape-and-stickers package, available with the 4, 6, or 8 cylinder.  Worse yet was the King Cobra II.  In this case, I believe a simple picture will explain what a thousand words never could hope to:

There was also the Mustang II Ghia, perhaps the most lamentable Mustang ever made.  It came standard with a vinyl-covered roof, opera windows(!), whitewall tires and some wire wheel covers.  Oh, and the top-of-the-line 1974 Mustang II with the V6 was called the Mach 1.  FOR SHAME.

Despite being an absolute and complete turd of an automobile, the fact was that the Mustang II sold very well.  This was due to the fear of another imminent gas crisis (which was prescient of the buyers), but the fact that 4 out of 5 years of Mustang II production are on the top 10 list of yearly production figures for the Mustang line, which has been around since 1964.  Thankfully, Ford got it right in a lot of ways with the Fox-body Mustang, which debuted in 1979 - lighter, tighter, cleaner, meaner, and a little green, the Fox Body was better in every appreciable way, including a variety of engines with real power!

Media outlets these days love to trash the Mustang II (I certainly do!), but it's easy to forget that it was a huge sales success for Ford back then.  That doesn't keep it from being complete crap, and it's perhaps the best example of Derailed Design in existance.  I rest my case.