[Galaxieman]

1977 was in a previous post :tongue:

 

[FastC6Vette]

Yuck - the ugliest ------ ever made. I won't even call it a Mustang - doesn't deserved to be called one. :freak:

 

[SkipperC]

The Pinto dissappeared in 1973. Or did it?????????????

 

[Atencio]

The Pinto dissappeared in 1973. Or did it?????????????

No, it lasted quite a few more years.
I really don't know why everyone dogs the Mustang II. Sure it was anemic in the horsepower category but otherwise it was a decent car. Interiors were far more comfortable than the older Mustangs. Hatchbacks looked pretty cool in my opinion. Sales were sure not bad as the car sold very well and even Motortrend liked it.

 

[sschevyman1]

Kate Jackson drove one on Charlie's Angels...Farrah drove a Hatchback White with Blue stripes :jest: :lol:

 

[60sMetal]

Hard to believe that was 30 years ago!

 

[Puppycat]

I so want JL to do the Ghia.

 

[Steves164]

Thanks for the pics Galaxieman .. These Mustangs weren't all that bad of a car ... but in the mid 70s there wasn't much to look forward to with the downsized new rides.
Vegas and Pintos ... Mavericks and Gremlins... How about that terrarium-on-wheels , the AMC PACER..

 

[Bob Justbob]

Besides the fact that these weighed as much as the larger earlier Mustangs, didn't get that good gas mileage (did anyone get close to that EPA estimate??? ) and didn't have a V-8 available until mid-75 these were basically square Pintos. Couple the anemic 4 cylinder with an automatic (like my sister had) and it wouldn't pull the hat off of your head. Dangerous even as it wouldn't get out of it's own way.

Two of my friends bought V-6 versions in 75 after having early Mustangs. Disappointing is an understatement. But we are talking about mid 70s cars and most were disappointing compared to what we had just 3 or four years before. At least they did get better...when the Fox platform came out. And it still took until 83 to get a decent bit of power under the hood of a Mustang.

That said I do like the small scale version. Funny how the passage of time effects you like that.

 

[scrambler81]

It is a little ridiculous to go after this car the way people do. It was what it was, a small car with a small engine, meant to compete with other small cars with other small engines. It was not competing with Camaros and Corvettes, it was up against Monzas and Sunbirds and Hornets, and to that end, it did extremely well, outselling each of them. Nobody knew how to make engines meet the CAFE requirements and emissions standards that were being set at the time, so the II was no better or worse than anything else of that era. I guess if they called it something else, nobody would say a word about it, but there is no way Ford was gonna drop a nameplate as important as Mustang.
As for the "real" muscle cars of the time, I'm betting a 1979 Trans Am would more than have it's hands full in a 0 - 60 run against a modern Suburban. The only thing with any balls in 1978 was a Dodge pickup!

 

[carnut2256]

The only thing with any balls in 1978 was a Dodge pickup!

I believe it was 1976 when Car & Driver tested the fasted US production cars, and the winner was a 360 Dodge Pickup. Then came the 220HP T/A 6.6 Trans Ams, the 220HP L82 Corvette, and even Mopar had the "Police" 360 in their rare "Kit Cars" Aspen/Volares.

 

[SkipperC]

I believe it was 1976 when Car & Driver tested the fasted US production cars, and the winner was a 360 Dodge Pickup. Then came the 220HP T/A 6.6 Trans Ams, the 220HP L82 Corvette, and even Mopar had the "Police" 360 in their rare "Kit Cars" Aspen/Volares.

Ahhh, I remember that as well. I remember my brother and me laughing hysterically at the fact that the fastest production vehicle in the US was a truck! :jest: