The successor of a legend by definition has no chance. And if you as a sporty-like mid-class also have to compete against a massive fuel crisis, then the cards seem shuffled. Tataaa! : The rise and fall of the Ford Mustang II
In the very early 70 years, Mustangs - including the GT 350 from the Steve McQueen movie "Bullit" - were cool muscle cars. But in 1973, Ford boss Lee Iacocca hit the Mustang fans. The new Mustang was made for the crisis. He was almost half a man
meters shorter than its predecessor, the 200 weighed about 100 kg less and shared a saddening number of parts with Ford's terrible Pinto, a car most appreciated for his tendency to catch fire. The design was seen as a lack of respect for the original and the driving characteristics were moderate to boring.
The Mustang II was not much bigger than a Ford Capri, but much less fun to drive.
The basic motorization was an 2,3 liter four-cylinder. The car fitted the European inland roads in terms of dimensions and power. Only with the optional 5 liter V8 it became less bend-friendly. But at least he made the right sound again.
Fortunately, the Mustang III arrived five years later
Ford Mustang II
Construction time: 1973-1978
Engine: 2301 cc 4 in line, 2798 cc V6, 4945 cc V8
Top speed from approx. 150 km / h
Number produced: 1107718
Incidentally, the Mustang from the Bullit movie was a Fastback GT390. Bunch of biased prutsers.
What a thoughtless and ignorant story about the mustang that in the oil crisis of that time caused the mustang to still exist! The "foxbody" that became the successor in 1979 was many times uglier and, unlike this model, will never reach a desirable status in my opinion. And when we talk about driving qualities, they are all shit! Even the last generation is super clumsy with its rigid axle, but perhaps it is its power !? A mustang2 is already a lot easier to handle than its predecessor because it had no rack but a separate wheelhouse with pitman arm. Fortunately, cheap and readily available modifications are available for all types and you can go in all directions! Even the good ones!
Unfortunately a far too negative image of a car that is certainly more than worth it. Considering a smaller car with an 302 cid, it seems unlikely that this car would perform much less than a heavier predecessor with an 289 cid.
After having driven 28 intensively with the Mustang II for years, taking into account the experiences of a large number of enthusiasts, I dare to say that this article may have been written by someone who has never been in a Mustang II but all expressed the opinion of people with prejudice. It is a shame to be so negative in a magazine for car enthusiasts without, in my opinion, having done good research first.