Does “cancel culture” exist in the automotive world? I’m not talking about the results of some car executive or race driver being exposed saying or doing things that they really shouldn’t and having to deal with the consequences; I’m referring to the cars themselves, and I believe that cancelling exists.
Take a look at these posters featuring different eras of Ford Mustangs. Do you notice something that is conspicuous by its absence?
That’s right: it’s as if the Pinto-based 1974-78 Mustang II never existed. Look, you could be forgiven for leaving off a footnote in Mustang history, but it’s sort of odd when the fourth best-selling model year EVER of the car (after the 1965-67 versions) is just eradicated from the records of a lot of enthusiasts, like it committed crimes against humanity. People forget that the Mustang II was extremely popular since it made perfect sense for the current gas-lines energy crisis and was in retrospect not much worse than its contemporary rivals, if at all. Marketing makes it look like fun here:
I thought these were quite fetching at the time and told my dad that we should trade our own by-then somewhat dog-eared Mustang in on one. Sure, ours was a ’65 front disc brake 289 4 barrel convertible, but when you’re like six or seven years old it’s just an old car with a ripped top, and the II had AMBER REAR SIGNALS! Dad was not moved.
Admittedly, the II is not a great Pony car or car in general; it’s the archetype of problems of the malaise era. In addition to the negative seventies disco vibe and the lackluster performance, the cool cred by association for this thing was pretty low; the early Mustangs had James Bond and Steve McQueen while the Mustang II had Charlie’s Angels.
Source: Mecum
What if things were different? Let’s look at an alternate reality where the Mustang II (deservedly or not) got some attention from a guy who (deservedly or not) had the title of King of Cool.
The Alternate Universe Mustang II
The year is alternate 1975, and Steve McQueen stars in the much hyped and long-awaited Bullitt II, which turns out to be a terrible movie. The plot has more holes than the fenders on a rust belt Datsun, and it’s a pretty dull film (I mean, the original was hardly fast paced between chases). The now thirty-something star seemed rather wooden and going through the motions in this screen turd. McQueen knew that he couldn’t beat the original Bullitt chase for pure speed, hence the sequel featured a Hertz-rented white Mustang II notchback coupe in hot pursuit on sidewalks, stairs and even in a building. Critics were merciless; ‘even the chase seems tacked on’ quipped Roger Ebert.
Source: Mondoshop and The Bishop
However, today ANYTHING McQueen touched or even glanced at is now considered gold. Around alternate year 2020 Ford realized, like VW did with the New Beetle, that a retro-revival can only go so far. As our black clad colleague from old Blighty mentioned, you can only make Xerox copies of copies of copies of an original Mustang for so long before it becomes an amorphous blob, and the Mustang used to be an innovator with each new version. But why would the Blue Oval brand risk innovation when they could just reach back for more nostalgia, just a different mark? Hence the Mustang II 2: the return of the Puny Car.
Here is a rough mockup of what this car could look like, using an S-550 as a basis. The nose of the car follows the shape of the original II, and the stubby notchback shape simulates the Bullitt II rental car.
source: KBB and The Bishop
What you have is essentially the same formula of 2005 Mustang and the following Challengers and Camaro, but now applied to this rather unloved notchback coupe. With four cylinder engines now the norm in Mustangs, Ford decided that the McQueen-associated four-banger II would be a perfect revival just in time for the Pinto-based car’s fiftieth birthday, and the malaise era just keeps getting cooler all the time with people either not alive then or too young to know how shitty it really was (like me). As my Boomer Boss tells me, try paying up to sixteen percent interest for four years on a molasses-slow new car that barely started in the cold and see how nostalgic you are then.
At the back you can be damn sure that the New Two has the tri-colored taillights that were an American first back at the 1974 launch.
source: Auto Collection of Murfreesboro and The Bishop
Inside, it would seem that the big slab dashboard of the original II is perfect for a new car, since slab equals big screen, or several screens in this case. Oh, and the screens are framed by the dashboard padding, not just stuck to the top of the dash like a couple Acer monitors on stands. Who would do that?
source: classic cars.com
There are several modes for the dash displays:
Heritage: Just like the 1974 car with woodgrain and animated mechanical digital clock above the glove box.
Cobra II: As above but silver engine-turned trim
Original: Looks like a 1965 dashboard
Classic: Copy of a 1968 dashboard
Foxbox: Simulated 1988 instruments
Future 1 and 2: Modern digital style gauges. Also, the logo horse runs across the area above the glovebox on startup.
My guess is there would be a fastback version as well, since that was obviously part of the Mustang II portfolio, including the infamous Cobra II, but this time with more than the original’s 140 horsepower.
Maybe with the McQueen connection, Ford would finally would stop pretending that it is 1964 1/2 over and over like it has for the past nearly twenty years. Instead, they’d pretend that it’s 1974. Such progress.
Personally, while I think the Mustang II probably deserves better treatment by historians than what it generally gets in this reality, I’m still not a fan of this rather subpar model or the idea of a revival of it. Associations with McQueen certainly wouldn’t change my opinion. I have to agree with our own Matt Hardigee- when it comes to pony cars and effortless, confident cool in the seventies, James Garner in a Firebird is the one to beat.
Source: twitter
AlectricDreams- Wow! That’s yours? Talk about a unicorn. I mean, you can see ’65 Mustangs all day long but a notchback coupe in that condition is a truly rare thing. And it’s amazing since as a kid those where EVERYWHERE and they are essentially all gone.
I might challenge your assumed base platform for the new Mustang II.
The original was based on a non- traditional platform for a sports car/pony car. It was chosen in the spirit of fuel efficiency and cost savings to share a platform and technology to make the Mustang nameplate sustainable in otherwise troubling times.
The design execution was simple in that it saw Mustang design cues draped over an otherwise non-sports car body.
I would like to assert that not only is your design not accurately applied, but is is also irrelevant. You see, fine sir (I assume), the Mustang II already exists. It’s called the Mach-E!!!!
trekra- yes, I’m a dude but I only get called ‘sir’ by the officer that pulls me over. And I ain’t fine by any stretch.
Your logic is pretty sound- the Mach-E is sort of like moving the name forward, BUT the Mustang II (despite being Pinto based) was still a sports coupe. The Mach-E, like the silly Mitsu EclipseCross or whatever it’s called, seems like a money grab by slapping an enthusiast car name onto what is clearly a family hauler.
You almost used mine! That mecum car is the closest I’ve found to my car, the Petersen car.
https://barnfinds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/mustang-ii-rear.jpg
AlectricDreams- Wow! That’s yours? I’m increadible..I mean, you can see ’65 Mustangs all day long but a notchback coupe in that condition is a truly rare thing. And it’s amazing since as a kid those where EVERYWHERE and they are essentially all gone.
Yep! Was mine, sold it about a year ago to someone equally excited about it.
https://barnfinds.com/museum-piece-1974-ford-mustang-ii/
That’s exactly my sentiment and why I bought it when I was 21 (2018). It pulled crowds and stories like you wouldn’t believe at car shows. One show, it had a crowd until a Spyker pulled in.
Now I’m in a ’75 Monza with a factory 350, so same but as different as you can get lol.
Oh, and the unicorn thing is 100% correct. Mine made legit Shelbys look common.
I love your work, but I won’t lie, I don’t think you did the S550 or the Mustang II any justice with the exterior design, so I took a shot at it myself.
https://imgur.com/gallery/xjVlgci
That’s looks good, Ayrton. You did a great job referencing the fugly 5mph bumper with that chrome(?) rub strip. I particularly like that your version is happy not menacing (which is the problem I have with The Bishop’s version). Retro is always a balance between the calling out the original and producing something that looks reasonable as just a car. If I saw this in the wild, I’m pretty sure I’d get the call-out, and still think, ‘Yeah; I’d rock that.’ Nicely done there.
Ayrton- Glad that you like my work! If you haven’t seen it yet, based on what you’ve shown you might be interested in taking a look at this restomod from SEMA of a fastback:
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/03/this-ford-mustang-ii-sema-show-car-fixes-all-of-the-originals-faults/
There’s a LOT more you can do with the fastback than the almost-formal roof notchback!
If you look closely, I did actually heighten the rear of the roof and take in the slope of the C pillar to create more of a notch back look, I just didn’t think a 202X model car would sacrifice aero much more than that.
That SEMA build is quite attractive and I’m definitely a strong believer of the fastback improving almost every design. (Not CUVs and SUVs, whoever was responsible for bringing that concept into the world deserves a strong talking to.)
Had to finish it off and do the rear. I’m less pleased with this look, but I mean, we’re here now.
https://imgur.com/a/VWAGUMy
As many others, I’m holding out for a retro Fox Mustang (the gagues on the ’24 are a good start). It could even (barely) work for an alternate universe Bullitt II – maybe ten years later, get an early pre-production ’79 in for good exposure.
Plus, while the concept of a downsized, Pinto-based Mustang is solid, and the Mustang II was a smart business decision, the strongly Malaise Era styling endemic of all mid-70’s Fords detracts from it. The Fox’s plainer, subdued lines suit McQueen extremely subdued acting.
LOL. I’d imagine it using a Focus platform as a base, just to give it the small form factor, but still with those Mustang II design cues and notchback shape
I do not care for this. The proportions seem odd. The original “2” looked ok I suppose. This does not.
Not terribly delicious, but deliciously terrible.
A for effort, and now we know.
Porscheoisie- Exactly! We know why it didn’t happen, and we’re all the better for it. Glad my work is done.
PaysOutAllNight- what is odd is the hood does appear long, but if you click on the source image (the ‘KBB’ in the sources below) you’ll see that I simply Photoslopped over a 2020 S-550 and didn’t change the wheelbase or the windshield size/shape/position at all. The tail is the same length as well, it’s just the sloped back (as with most new cars today) makes the trunk space seen shorter (the roof IS taller in the rear which means you might actually be able to sit in back).
Sorry for the overdue reply, and please know that I am no MachE apologist, but if it has a galloping horse on it AND it has the performance numbers to back up a sports car pedigree (pun intended), in a world where the ‘coupe’ moniker is happily cast upon even the most bloated multi-door forms like a white sheet covering grandmas old couch in the attic, are we spitting into the wind here?
I will stand and spit with you, but alas, in today’s world, it’s a shining example where something that ISNT something but can at least provide the performance goods to back up its boasting is better than full false bravado, like your well reasoned Mitsubishi EclipseCross! I wholeartedly concur with you on that point.
Good day, fine sir.
Jason,
Didn’t you mention that Mustang II was the first American car (built in the United States in volume production) to have the taillamps with amber turn signal indicators (that weren’t taken from other manufacturers) for the domestic market?
https://jalopnik.com/quick-question-which-american-car-was-first-with-amber-1845444246
Gives me real seventh-gen Cougar vibes.
I’m a little ashamed of myself for ragging on the Mustang II back in the day. It did the job it had to do in the times it had to do it in. The fastback wasn’t bad looking but oh, that poor notchback. It seemed that the guys went for the fastback and the gals went for the notchback.
And let me second your motion that screens should NOT be stapled to the top of the dashboard. I’m so tempted to send a picture of your future mode dash to Ford and say, “There. He fixed it.”
Who hasn’t dragged the Mustang II at some point in their lives?
But there is a certain poetic symmetry to the times, isn’t there? Just like the big, heavy Mustang had to adapt to gas shortages and emissions regulations, the Mustang will soon have to adapt again and replace it’s V8 with a battery pack.
In my eyes, the Mustang II is the reason the Mustang has never died, and I hope that the Mustang continues to successfully adapt to the times.
FndrStrat06- I agree with you. The Mustang came close to dying several times, and it has basically kept pace with the times while still keeping just enough of its identity without going too far. You might remember when the Mazda 626 based Ford Probe was going to be the replacement Mustang and fans revolted- understandable since while the Probe was actually a pretty good car it just wasn’t on brand.
Iwannadrive637- I really don’t understand this trend. I think I first saw it on a new BMW that I test drove and looked for the button to lower the screen until I realized that the screen was stuck there like that.
Why? Is it to show off that it’s flat? We get it- stop it. Are they copying lower level Teslas? Those interiors appear to be a mockup for what the final interior design (that it never got) might look like. Look at how Volvo SUVs (for one) integrate screens.
Also, how many times have I read “Mustang II front subframe” on the spec sheet for a street rod in a magazine? For decades, most of the ’34 Fords, etc. you saw were Mustang IIs between the front wheels. I never investigated why they were so apparently perfect for this application, but like the album title said, 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong.
Torch, Tracy, how about a companion piece explaining why this was? I simply never thought to ask.
Joe The Drummer- my guess was that it was easy to cut out and retrofit, but the bigger reason is likely that Mustang IIs were pretty much all junked by the mid to late 80s and the components and parts were plentiful and readily available at any salvage yard.
My mechanic buddy who built & sold 3 ‘30s Ford street rods in the ‘80s & ‘90s to buy land & build his house said it was because they had decent geometry and were fairly tough. Plus the ubiquity: once they became a thing, the aftermarket started producing all sorts of modifications for them. So, basically the easy button. All his money-maker cars had standard Mustang ll front subframe, sbc, and Ford 9” rearend because they were cheap(ish) and a no-brainer-plus kinda accepted & expected. He wanted to appeal to the widest market. His personal fun cars were Mopars which he admitted cost more to get performance out of.
So it was the suspension version of “SBC/LS swap” – cheap, plentiful, solid, lots of aftermarket support. Seems legit.
Since they were on a subframe, it was easy to take the whole designed system out and keep geometry correct. Plus it got you rack and pinion steering and disc brakes. Combine that with low price and plentiful availability, and you have a solution that was easy for everyone.
I honestly like the Mustang II, completely unironically. I don’t like the fastbacks because they resemble Pintos entirely too closely, but the coupes look great to me. Put a halfway decent EFI 5.0 with a 5-speed in it, and some proper wheels with proper backspacing to counteract their woefully knockkneed pizzacutters, and I’d drive one for the rest of my life.
And I like this new version of it too, except for one thing: those Headlights of Disapproval. It’s like the car dislikes itself as much as it dislikes us for looking at it. ಠ_ಠ
Bishop, you know how I promised to help with the bus?
Yeah. The only thing I’d help with on this one is pushing it into the nearest industrial shredder.
Even without the horrible ‘angry Jeep eyebrow’ treatment.
Dashboard and rear end are good though.
I should note: I’d do the same to the original. So it’s DEFINITELY faithful to it!
Feels more like a missing link of auto DNA between the earlier Mustangs and a box of Peeps
BAD EDIT- yes, but a Peep with very mean eyebrows.
The Mustang II is forgotten for performance reasons. But it was a great looking car because it had curves similar to a Corvette of that era, in a much more spritely size and affordable price.
I love the dashboard plans for the “New II”. Very cool ideas.
The exterior of the New II isn’t bad, but it still needs work. It’s not shapely. Too many of the curves of the original were sculpted out, instead of being kept or reshaped. The New II looks kind of blobby, and it doesn’t look sexy. I see a good nose and side panels.
Both the original Mustang and the Mustang II had a decent sized trunk. The New II looks far too stubby in the rear and I also think it looks far too long in the front. Maybe a dip in the hood near the base of the windshield would relieve the appearance of length, or maybe it just needs to be shorter, I’m not sure.
The original Mustang II was compact, tidy, and sporty car, in strong contrast to the bloated 1973 Whalestangs that immediately preceded it. Keep that spirit in the New II!
I’m also going to say that the black plastic heckblende between the taillights is even worse here than on modern Mustangs. It’s a cheap and crappy look that doesn’t deserve repeating. I think I would probably like the body, fender, and bumper framing of the rear panel, if not for that.
Overall, I see a good start, but nothing I’d go place an order for, and I’m probably the biggest fan of the Mustang II around here.
Not to rehash the McQueen – Garner comparison, but there’s actually another ’70s entertainment product that’s NOT Charlie’s Angels that tries (and mostly fails) to mix pony cars and effortless, confident cool, also using a very famous actor.
Anyone know it? 🙂
I don’t want to go through the hassle off figuring it out. It could take all Knight.
I know it’s not the answer since it was 80’s, but Starman was a decent starring role for the Mustang II, and both Jeff Bridges and Karen Allen are pretty great.
It’s actually much worse – John Struges of all people tried to do a mashup of Bullitt and Dirty Harry and the result is 1974’s McQ.
And his lead? A way over the hill John Wayne as a renegade Seattle detective, tooling around in a Trans Am!
Sorry, not buyin’ it. Just like I didn’t buy a II back in the day. Drove one, a Capri, and a couple of Mazdas — RX-2 and RX-3 — before deciding the RX-3 was the way to go. Long story short, it wasn’t, even though it was the most fun to drive of the quartet.
You’ve done all the things a Director of Design would rightly praise — like maintaining the family resemblance and improving on the original — before saying “Nuh-uh.” The real M-II was chubby, ungainly and poorly proportioned. This one is a little less of each.
But we all knew someone would give it a try, someday. I doubt anyone could do better.
ExAutoJourno- I think you made a cool choice! Look, I doubt anyone buying one at the time knew you’d need new rotor tips every ten blocks and the thing would get 11MPG at the time.
I thought so too! Until that little beer keg under the hood transformed itself into a water pump, anyway.
Never gave fuel mileage a thought, because a) I had a good job at the time and b) the Mazda was a real rocket sled, at least to me. The thing would probably get stomped in a drag race by any number of SUVs today, but damn! was it quick back then!
Fun Trivia: the RX-3 (and I guess all Mazda Rotaries then) had THREE warning buzzers: one for door ajar, one for seatbelts, and a third for over-revving the engine. Not the same one, either; I verified that once….
ExAutoJourno- overrevving the motor without a seat belt on and at least one door open sounds like fun…
The Mustang II had better front suspension and steering than the Falcon based Mustangs, and the first Mustang to be offered with an OHC engine, the 2.3L Lima, or a V6, the 2.8 Cologne, the Windsor 302 was there and the Mustang II King Cobra still warms my heart.
I like the concurrent Ferrari-looking Chevy Monza’s styling better, but at least the V8 Mustang didnt require you to drop the engine to change the back plugs like in the small block-equipped Monza.
I went from a dead-ringer of this article’s II to a 350 powered Monza. Not looking forward to plugs.
No, but with Bronco and Maverick names coming back maybe it should. Also, a Pinto that doesn’t explode is like the sound of one hand clapping…can’t exist.
And there Bishop is your next challenge, a pinto that still explodes, but simultaneously protects it’s passengers!
Schroedinger’s Shitbox?
I can clap with 1 hand very easily
I like the whole alternate reality, but that Mustang II 2 looks like ass. And not a nice one.
Rollin- yes, that was my whole point with this tongue-in-cheek concept. A celebrity tie-in can only go so far. And when do the revivals end and we see something new?
I love this.
But shouldn’t McQueen have his Le Mans-era shag haircut in the poster? Tell me that wouldn’t have matched the movie car (and movie quality…I’m wincing as I type) perfectly!
Also, I really like to think the animated pony logo just kinda gallops a little, ala how the actual Mustang II pony badge on the front end had more upright legs, seemingly signaling the slow down of the malaise era.
When Ford released the 2005 Mustang, which paid homage to the 1969-1973 models, Ford didn’t go far back enough in time in both form and function, IMHO. Sure, the 1969-1973 models are considered Gen 1, but these model years were bloated monsters.
Although Bishop based this design on the weak-sauce Gen 2 models, it’s a closer fit to the form and function of the pre-1969 models than the Gen 5 or 6. Yes, time marches on and consumer tastes change, but I like the idea of a lighter, smaller, quicker Mustang. Beam me to Bishop’s alternate reality.
OverlandingSprinter- yes, the Mustang II was in fact supposed to be a return to the original in size and proportion.
Funny side note: in researching this I saw that there was an episode of Charlie’s Angels where they blow up the Mustang II Ghia. But they don’t blow up a new car, and instead they get a stand-in:
http://pics.imcdb.org/9656/cangels-112-vlcsnap-00145.jpg
The stand in would be worth five to ten times as much today!
I really appreciate the level of thought that goes into not just the design, but the alternate reality that birthed the design. This whole series really makes me think you should be pitching alternate reality TV shows in which to showcase your designs.
I appreciate the compliment!
Yes, I want to see reality shows based on that last two crap articles I wrote:
Jasonia: The adventures of an unlikely leader of a backward island country and the citizen’s efforts to bring the country- and him- into, well, at least the 90s
Autopian: Road to Ruin: reality series of a car website staff driving to events in a broken down bus and the mayhem that ensues.
I’d watch both of those. They’d be good comedy.
Lots of comedy potential Jason and David staring in an Abbott and Costello style, automotive video discussion or maybe Beau as a straight man with the other two going off on comedic rampages.
You don’t even need comedy writers, they can all ad-lib!
I think the popularity would explode and with other Autopian staff members making regular guest appearances. Add in the bus of course as a common vehicle to tie things together.
I see a potential Playskool bus and figurine set.
Kids can add their own toy vehicles and imaginations for realistic action play with their friends.
Or not. (-;
Or even the whole crew in one of the buses, all having to work together like they’re on Star Trek. You have Jason as the captain barking orders, David and Mercedes as the engineering crew saying the old bus’ engine “cannae take much more, cap’n,” Bishop and Clarke running comms, etc etc.
That’s because design is always about context – the external socio economic and cultural factors that influence it. It’s not just drawing cool cars, you have to think about the world they exist in and how they are going to be used.
Adrian- as you pointed out, the Mustang II was very popular at the time. It kind of makes you wonder what cars today are loved by the public but will be dismissed as horrible pieces of shit a decade or two from now.
Absolutely correct, and it is something I really appreciate about these pieces. It’s not just a redesign from a more modern eye, but one that considers the factors that lead to designs.
The Bronco Sport of Mustangs.
It’s actually the Bronco II of Mustangs! And I have a soft spot for both, I’ll admit it.
I was thinking more along the lines of “The EcoSport of Mustangs”.
well more akin to the Bronco II of Mustangs actually.
But is it the Mustang of Mustangs?
arguably, the Mach-E IS the Mustang II 2. It’s decidedly not a bespoke sports car platform, it addresses the fuel crisis of its day, and it’s even got the tricolor tail lights!
66mustang289- yes, I have an idea for rebranding the Mach-E as a different storied Ford name instead of a Mustang that I think you would like better. Jason might post it soon.
Could it be a Pinto that doesn’t explode?
I have my guess, as my view has always been that Ford has an unused, storied name that conjures up the futuro-celestial nature of EVs really well and without needing to appropriate Mustang cool…
If that’s what I think you meant, they’ve already lost the rights to the name Futura (what they wanted to name the US market Fusion) and possibly Galaxie (probably better than that unwieldy Five Hundred).
Thunderbird, though, is probably excellent for an electric personal (four door) coupe.
For me, it’s Galaxie all the way. Such a great name for an EV, both retro and evocative.
Ford still owns it I believe (unlike losing Futura to Pep Boys…d’oh!) but if not, it does own/use Galaxy for its Euro mini-mini-van, which I think may have just stopped production even…
Well, if it’s like some other EVs out there, it self immolates instead.
I hope your “rebranding” of the Mach-E includes a cleanup of some of the clunky design bits. The thing needs some help, IMO.
You can do it!