The 1974-78 Mustang II doesn’t get a lot of love from Ford enthusiasts—and that’s a shame, because it saved the breed from extinction.
From its original introduction at the New York World’s Fair in April of 1964, the Ford Mustang was one of the great success stories of the Motor City, with more than one million cars sold in the first 18 months. But in the following years, as the trend-setting design grew bigger, fatter, and more luxurious, its sales volume steadily slipped away as well. By 1973, the Mustang was now almost intermediate in size, and meanwhile, sales slipped to around 135,000 units. The pony car was no longer earning its place in the Ford lineup.
Ford executive Lee Iacocca, often called the father of the Mustang, observed that Mustang buyers had not abandoned the Mustang, but rather, the Ford Motor Company had abandoned them. For the 1974 model year, it was time for a reset. The economy was slowing and fuel prices were rising. The Mustang would be returned to its small-car roots.
After Ford management studied a dozen or more packages based on the Pinto and Maverick platforms, Iaocca personally gave the green light to a Pinto-sized fastback coupe drafted by Lincoln-Mercury staff designer Howard “Buck” Mook. After nine years, there would finally be a Mustang hatchback. Meanwhile, market research identified a strong demand for a traditional notchback coupe, so designer Dick Nesbitt spun off a handsome formal coupe version. The decision proved to be a wise one, as the coupe consistently outsold the three-door by a wide margin throughout the ’74-’78 production cycle.
More than a foot shorter than the ’73 Mustang and rolling on a 96.2-inch wheelbase, the Mustang II was loosely based on Ford’s Pinto subcompact platform, although Iacocca was quick to insist that the two cars actually shared few components. Among other key changes, the Mustang II used an independent front subframe (labeled the “toilet seat” by Ford engineers) to isolate the cabin from drivetrain noise. Engine choices the first year were limited to a 2.4-liter four with 85 horsepower and a German-built 2.8-liter V6 good for 105 hp. From ’75 on, a 5.0-liter V8 was available, but with just 122 hp, later bumped to 138 hp.
The Mustang II’s cabin remained true to the original pony car theme with a sporty instrument panel, bucket seats, and a floor-mounted shifter and parking brake lever. Changes to the Mustang II package were relatively few and small over the five-year model run: parking lamps, fuel filler location, quarter windows, a few other items. No factory convertibles were offered, but there were Mach I, Cobra II, and King Cobra versions to provide some performance image, if not actual performance.
While it wasn’t a real performance car by any stretch of the imagination, the Mustang II proved to be the right car for the times. Iacocca and crew had found the sweet spot in price, style, and packaging for the Mustang buyer of the ’70s. Sales zoomed up to nearly 386,000 units for 1974, a level the Mustang hadn’t seen since 1967—and hasn’t matched since. There have been four more generations (so far) of the Ford Mustang, and they all owe their existence to the 1974-78 Mustang II.
I always liked the Mustang ll, but you failed to mention the biggest promoter of Mustang ll’s was the TV show Charlies Angels.
As a child of the 60s, many of whom were the car buyers of the 70s, I would disagree with “… and they all owe their existence to the 1974-78 Mustang II.” We 1964-65-66-67 era Mustang lovers would likely say the Mustang lovers never fell out of love with the Mustang from the first one. If I had a nickel for every time I heard a friend say “I wish I’d never sold my 1965 Mustang” I could go to Rio for Carnival. Yes the 70s Mustangs were cool, but the love affair began with those mid-60s gems that we never forgot.
Alexisanja, the story is no reflection on the original 1965-on first generation Mustang. It simply points out that the Mustang II kept the brand alive for succeeding generations of Mustang.
Thanks, Howard. I would have never known about Charley’s Angels. I never saw the show.
Farrah Fawcett helped sell a lot of Cobra ll’s. She drove the Cobra ll, Jaclyn Smith drove the regular Mustang ll and Kate Jackson drove the Pinto.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fd/9a/de/fd9ade38d9c8340fb51a257e3bbabc76.jpg
My wife bought a year old 1976 Mustang II just before we married. A coupe with the anemic 2.3 4 cylinder and C4 automatic, it couldn’t get out of it’s own shadow. Her Uncle had bought a new 1974 coupe with the 2.3 and 4 speed manual, it was much better taking off. Both were good driving cars that didn’t give a lot of problems. After we were married, we replaced the Mustang II with a year old 1977 Firebird Formula 400, we then had a car with decent power with the 400 V8, although the gas mileage wasn’t near as good! She has always wanted to get another Mustang II like her first car, but they are almost impossible to find in decent condition, most rusted away years ago. If we were to buy one, it for sure wouldn’t be the 4 cylinder, it’d have to be the 302 version.
Please correct Chuck Nesbitt to Dick Nesbitt…
Mustang II haters always bring up that it’s slow. NOTHING from the 70s was lightning fast, including the Camaro, Firebird and Corvette. The Camaro needed a 350 to be only marginally faster than a 302 Mustang II. Plus, a 1973 302 Mustang had the same horsepower rating as the 1978 302 Mustang II yet was 500 pounds heavier, and subsequently, slower than a II. Somehow, no one complains the 1973 model was slow or a former shadow of itself. Why is that?????? A 305 Camaro falls into the same category as the aforementioned 1973 Mustang…comparable power yet much heavier than a II. The II handled well and had a much nicer interior than previous Mustangs. One more thing…I’ve never heard a Camaro owner/group disown an Iron Duke 2.5L model because it was slow. MUCH slower, in fact, than a 2.3L Mustang II. 14.2 for Mustang II auto vs around 20 seconds for Camaro auto. Is the II a firebreather like the 2018 460 horsepower GT is? Absolutely not, but it’s definitely not as bad as the negative Nellies would like you to believe it is.
Mustang 11? Sorry but a Mustang was a Sporty car and with a 4 cyl was far from Sporty.The V6 still poor mans Sports Car. Though the Mustang was fatter than the Capri the engine came from.
Plus they were to me at least butt ugly! Looked like a Corrolla T18! And they were in the ugly car collection.
And you ignore the V8 Engine option. cherry picking fact to support your false narrative.
Excellent article !!!
The 1977 Mustang II Fastback with the Rally Sport package, which gave it the 302, was my first new car, I still own it, original paint, upholstery, numbers matched never been wrecked. I drive it frequently 105K miles, not bad for a 42 year old, on June 6th, single owner car.
Owned and enjoyed a 78 M ll 302 Ghia Gold Flake Tone with White Vinyl landau, wire wheels, and all interior options including the beloved map light.
Even though an automatic it jumped on demand. Though it is the common meme that the ll is despised, check out auction prices for this orphan .Not anything like the mid-60s, but more than a lot of 70s cars get today. And, the lls look like a Mustang more that the early 80s ever did.