Good morning, Autopians! Well, I’ve managed to pull off another Two-Door Tuesday, and I’m pleased to report that both of today’s contestants have more pedals than doors, as they should. (Okay, yes, the Honda is a hatchback. But almost nobody in America refers to this as a “3-door hatch.” No handle, no door.) Before we get to them, though, we need to find out which sedan you chose yesterday:
Get ready to fix it again, Tony; it’s the Fiat by nearly two-to-one. And I have to say I agree; four-door Darts are just kinda dowdy. Like something your aunt would drive. That little Fiat would be my choice, and in fact, it’s another one I’d probably drag home if I could. I’d get it running, and then love it and squeeze it and call it George. It’s just so adorable.
Speaking of adorable, Torch posted an article a while back asking where all the first-generation Honda Accords went. (The Hondas, I mean, not… Not that Torch isn’t… Oh, this is awkward.) [Editor’s Note: Motherfucker, I am adorable. – JT] This got me wondering if I could find one for sale, and I did! And I’ve been wanting to make fun of – I mean, feature – a Mustang II for a while now, so I’ve found one of those as well. Without further ado, let’s take a look at them.
1974 Ford Mustang II – $1,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3 liter inline 4, 4 speed manual, RWD
Location: San Mateo, CA
Odometer reading: 162,000 miles
Runs/drives? It does!
Whenever an ad lists “smells like the ’70s” as a selling point, you know you’re dealing with our kind of car. Especially when it’s the much-reviled, downsized, all-new-for-1974 Ford Mustang II. This car gets a lot of grief, but it was also the second-best-selling model year Mustang of all time. It was the right car at the right time for Ford, and let’s face it, by 1973 the Mustang had gotten fat.
This Mustang features the then-new 2.3 liter “Lima” four-cylinder engine, backed by a four-speed manual. It’s not the fire-breathing monster the Mustang had been only a few years before, to say the least, but by mid-’70s small car standards it was probably okay. No V8 was available in 1974; it returned in 1975, but it produced more weight and noise than power. The little four-banger is probably better suited to this car’s character, really.
The Mustang II isn’t a bad-looking car, but this one certainly looks rough. The red paint is faded unevenly to a few shades of dull pink, where it hasn’t disappeared entirely, and the interior is a cracked dusty mess. And all the instruments appear to have cataracts.
It’s a genuine piece of Ford history, the car that shepherded the Mustang nameplate through the darkest times of the American auto industry. If this car had been a flop, there likely would have been no Fox-body GT, no Coyote V8, no modern-day GT500. Damn near every car sucked in the ’70s; the Mustang II is just more famous for it than most.
Still, it’s $1500 for a running car that doesn’t need to be smogged; they won’t have any trouble selling it.
1978 Honda Accord – $2,222
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter inline 4, 5 speed manual, FWD
Location: San Jose, CA
Odometer reading: 120,000 miles
Runs/drives? Yep!
The first generation Honda Accord was a hit for the simplest of reasons: it was just so damned good. It drove and handled well, had just enough space in it compared to the Civic to feel like a “real car,” and its styling was elegant, a word not always associated with small cars, especially Japanese cars in the ’70s.
Unfortunately, rust prevention was not Honda’s strong suit back then, and many early Accords simply dissolved away. I once owned a 1984 Accord, the generation after this one, that practically broke in two from rust, at only eleven years old. It was maddening, because it ran perfectly, and was a wonderful car to drive. This Accord shows signs of rust, despite being a lifelong California car and having sat for long periods of time.
Mechanically, it sounds like this car is in fine shape, or well on its way to being so. It runs and drives well now, and just needs a little tinkering to really shine. It does have a salvage title, for undisclosed reasons, but for a rare car that’s not terribly expensive, I’m not sure it matters.
Everywhere you look, if you’re my age, you see little bits of nostalgia in this car: the round speakers cut into the door cards, that big gap between the dash and the center console that’s filled up by a giant center stack these days, the skinny styled steel wheels that are so much of the car’s character, and of course, those quad round headlights.
It’s an utterly charming little car, and one you certainly won’t see one of every time you turn around. Not these days, anyway.
So there they are: a low point in Mustang history, and the start of something great for Honda. Only one can win our coveted top prize; which one will it be?
Is there an “both of these interiors frighten me, so no” option?
When I saw the interior photo of the Mustang, I could smell old Ford in my head.
I had a 1974 Mustang in that configuration. Not the position of the fuel cap, below the crease in the rear quarter panel. Miserable. Using a typical fuel nozzle at the gas station was a constant source of frustration as it always shut off every 30 seconds. 1975 and on they moved it to be above the crease. The timing belt on my 2.3 jumped 2 teeth while I was driving it, total loss of power. Had one of the rear leaf springs crack, replaced both stacks with salvage parts. The only thing that made it drivable was the 4 on the floor transmission. I can’t imagine how horrific driving one of the 2.3s with the auto trans would have been. Granted I only paid $65 for it when I got it with over 100K miles on it…
I may be the only one here (unless there’s a retired used-car dealer among us, plaid suit and all) who has owned two of both of these. I had a ’77 Accord, then a ’78 Accord (both hatchbacks like this), and a ’76 Mustang II and a ’77 Mustang II (both coupes like this), and I had buckets of fun with all four. This would be a tough choice for me. Both manual transmissions: big plus, advantage to neither. Mustang II has the 2.3L four. So did my ’77, with the ill-advised addition of a horsepower cam that made it an utter dog off-idle. Advantage: Honda. The Mustang II is smog exempt: big advantage! I wonder if it still has its government-mandated seatbelt interlock system, wherein you can’t start it without fastening the seatbelt first. Probably not; everyone disabled that, especially when it became legal to do so within months. Another disadvantage to the Ford: upgrading the engine will require changing out the entire drivetrain and suspension, whereas the Honda is already a hoot to drive as it sits. The Honda is rusty, though weirdly not much rustier than my ’77 was in 1987. But the Mustang II is not free of rust, plus it’s waaay too sun-baked and beat. At least they’re both the correct body style. The Accord sedan is sensible, staid, and frankly boring (though it was amusing to grab the kidney grille and hood ornament and badges from a junkyard 320i and fool your unlettered schoolmates into thinking you drove a BMW), and the Mustang II fastback just betrays its Pintoness way too nakedly, especially from behind.
Bummer, Mustang II, you little jewel. If you were one year newer with a V8 and weren’t so neglected, I’d pick you. As it is, gimme one more trip through the CVCC!
I took the Mustang. I know they take a lot of crap but a 4-cylinder Mustang II is an easy V8 swap. Stroke a 351, drop it in with a T5 behind it and you’ve got a great little sleeper there.
The Mustang II V8s needed a longhood conversion. CAN you easily swap a V8 into the standard body?
Yeah, I’m not sure you can squeeze a small-block Ford V8 into a ’74. Shouldn’t be a problem with the ’75-’78 ones, but you’d also need to replace that rear end. The one from the four-banger ain’t gonna hold up.
The Accord, no question. My dad had one and it was perfect- solid, decent handling, dependable, a serious, functional interior, and with a smooth shifter no other car ever had. Some sanding and a respray and you’ve got a piece of history. The Mustang? I can smell it from here- yech. Sloppy everything with cheap, smelly interior.
Honda for me just for nostalgia. My first car was a used Civic (no a/c, AM only radio) back in the 70’s. The Accord was something I would imagine “upgrading” to one day. After graduating college and getting real job money I skipped right over it and bought a new Prelude.
Like most of you I’ll go with the Honda. Did they store that Mustang II under a sun lamp?
I wouldn’t choose either one in reality
I voted for the Honda because it at least has new plug wires. LOL
It’s the Accord, despite the rust and the salvage title, but by a fairly tight margin. The Mustang II wasn’t a great car but it seems like it would be fun to revive.
I knew I would be in the minority voting for the PintoStang, but I had a 74 with the Lima. While it was not a great car by any stretch of the imagination, I do have this weird desire to resto-mod one with a turbo-Lima from an 80’s SVO, T-Bird Turbo, or Merkur.
I almost hit accord then saw salvage title, rust, and the price. For $700 less I will take the hated Mustang if they were my only two choices.
I don’t feel much for either of them, honestly. I know someone that bought a beautiful baby blue Mustang II not long ago and its a joyous little time capsule of a car. This one decidedly is not.
Still, RWD is better than FWD
This line … WTH
“The car used to belong to my aunt and uncle so it has unconventional seatbelts. ”
If memory serves me the shoulder belts clipped to the roofline, and had to be manually adjusted and connected to the lap belt. … This memory is based on my Montego and I think I tried the shoulder belt once and promptly clipped it back up and never touched it again! Ahhh memories 😉
What this has to do with dear Auntie and Uncle I just don’t know 🙂
My aunt and uncle were carnies who used the seats and belts from their car when setting up the rusted out bucket on the Tilt-a-Whirl. Here we are two decades into the 21st century and jerks like you are still carny shaming.
“Carnies built this country, Marge! Well, the carnival part” – Homer Simpson.
Hey now I’ve lived in Gibsonton FL (winter quarters), I’ve been to the Showtown bar, and know the history of Giant’s camp, and the Showman’s Association….. No shaming 😮
I was going to make a joke about what the aunt and uncle may have been into that required unconventional restraints, but thought better of it (or chickened out).
The rust on the Accord is scary. But the Mustang II was a travesty and should be crushed.
I see pictures of Mustang II’s and I think wow, what an ugly car. Especially when decked out with a vinyl roof. However, I have always liked the Cobra II version as seen in Starman.
Even with all the rust, the Honda is the only choice. I just find the Mustang II to be horrendously ugly. I’ve never been able to stand the sight of them. Not even the fastbacks. In Jr. high I had a teacher who drove an orange one. The very sight of it made me cringe.
Hard pass on both.
Hondas of this era are particularly susceptible to rust and rot is invariably fatal, because they do not have rustproofing. The corrosion protection on these is nil and near everything is structural. And you can’t just galvanize steel that’s already on the car. So that rot on the rockers? You’re going to have to put the whole car on a frame jig and do structural sectioning. If you can even find good cuts.
You won’t find good cuts. Because they all rotted out. Honda did not – and in many ways still does not – get the American market. The Accord was built for Japan and the Shaken, and it shows. They had to keep weight as low as possible, the engine as small as they could, and they expected it to be scrapped after 5 years or fewer because of corrosion on suspension components or just simple maintenance. These were always designed, built, and treated as disposable cars regardless of the myth of their ‘durability.’
The Mustang II is much reviled for many good reasons. The Lima isn’t a bad motor, but claiming the V8 was the only one with more weight and noise than power is laughable. The Lima’s an all cast iron affair, with NVH characteristics that make the CVH look good, and a whopping 83HP. And it’s a heavy motherfucker – over 400lbs undressed. Yes Virginia, the Lima weighs more than the Cologne V6 option (about 300lbs undressed.)
No, what saved and made the Mustang II such a big seller was the very reason this one is still so intact and original. Lee Iacocca always knew his shit. And his biggest demand was not that it get good gas mileage, or get rave reviews for styling. It was that the Mustang II have an extremely high level of fit-and-finish. He demanded that it be the best built car FoMoCo made short of a Lincoln. (Orders which obviously was inverted for the Fox bodies.) It wasn’t there to fight Firebirds and Camaros, it was fighting Celicas and 240Z’s, so the build quality had to match.
It was the right car at the right time. But we’re not in 1974 any more, and nobody wants to relive those years with good reason.
Unless you can identify $1,500 in parts you need from that Mustang, run to the Honda
I think the only way I’d choose a Mustang of that era is if it were the fastback. Those were sweet.
As it stands, the Accord is charming and likely to run until the subframe exempts it from road use.
We need a third option today because I kinda want both of them!
Honda all day and night and on half-days too. The Mustang is a joke, sorta like Trump running a casino.
Easily the Honda
Also, Ford messed up with the Mustang. The Capri is the real Mustang II.
Ford should’ve stopped making the classic Mustang after 68, then switch to the Capri for 69. That platform actually ran until the 80sin Europe, just in time for the Probe to take over for the 80s and 90s, and then the New Edge Cougar, then back to the classic Mustang layout in 2004.
64-68 Mustang classic body
69-86 Capri
87-97 Probe
99-02 Cougar
04+ Mustang
It’s an interesting thought experiment for sure. And we did kinda get the Capri here in the ’70s, right, sold at some Mercury dealerships as a non-Ford-badged captive.
(I love to imagine a quiet corner with a Capri and a Pantera sitting there, perplexing the usual Mercury crowd)
The question your alternate history timeline raises in my mind is: if Ford had done this, would the ’05+ Mustang have in fact been…exactly the same – a retro piece recalling the ’60s versions.
My dad was a die hard Mercury fan from the 60’s through to the mid-80’s. I remember going to the dealership and seeing a Pantera roped-off inside. My dad asked if we should get it. A huge smile grew across my face and then he bought a Montego. “Where would you sit, Max?”
Also recall seeing Capris there too, but Dad liked bigger muscle cars with the biggest V8 available (iirc, the Montego had a 429ci V8).
I’m super jealous that you got to see them. My father’s tastes ran toward Oldsmobiles. Sigh.
My first real car (after Grandpa’s ’62 Caddy) was a ’72 Capri with the 2 liter four. It was a fantastic little car. Handled great, easy to work on, fast enough to have fun but not fast enough to really get into trouble. Learned how to heel-toe on it when a deceleration valve went out in the carb and the engine would die if you tried to stop without revving it. Only thing better would have been the 6 cylinder version.
And yeah, those Mustangs did nothing but tarnish the name. I’ll take a rust bucket Honda over one of those any day.
Remember that’s the same time they did that new retro T-Bird, based on the Jaguar platform that spawned the S-Type and Lincoln LS. The 4th gen S197 Mustang is a derivative of that platform.
The biggest difference I could foresee is that it would’ve had IRS instead of the live axle. The Mustang finally got that 10 years later in the S550
My ’94 Probe was a fun little car, but paint started coming off in less than two years.
Honda.
This level of rust? I can hear our friends in Britain scoffing from here.
I react more from the perspective that this car even exists. I’m in CT, every single one has been gone for decades to rust. I have only seen one in the past 10 years around where I live, maybe one.
The rust is repairable, and could be fixed.
In todays JDM crazy market the value on that accord only goes up. Would be a great swap project, lots of potential. The Mustang 2 having none of that, so I’ve vote Accord-ingly
Except that that Honda is not “JDM.” JDM is ‘Japanese Domestic Market’ that is a car built in Japan for sale in Japan. This Accord was built for the American export market. All these kids nowdays think any Japanese car is ‘JDM’ (and some Korean cars. Just had an argument on Facebook with a kid who could not accept that his freaking Hyundai is not JDM…)
We will forgive the ignoramuses but we are car people dammit let’s get it right.
In fairness, he seems like he might mean that the frenzy over actual JDMs is inflating the value of old Japanese cars period. Which seems true, at least anecdotally.
But I’ve definitely noticed what you mention, JDM now being used as a synonym for any old but desirable Japanese car (usually means it has a manual). I’ve even seen some (other, not this one) car people sites utilize the term in a technically-correct-but-misleading way, seemingly to drive clicks among a target readership…
Indeed. JDMs are RHD and have cool names like Fairlady.