Talk:Ford Mustang (second generation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Opinions 35 years after the fact[edit]

In 2009, Car and Driver magazine named the 1974 Ford Mustang in its unscientific list criticizing a competing magazine, Motor Trend, for awarding the down-sized Mustang "Car of the Year". The facts do not change as to the actual automotive history and the exhaustive tests Motor Trend conducted 35 years ago for the Mustang to achieve this recognition. Therefore, the unscientific opinion of competing magazine editors is not a reference because it will not affect the car's history. Moreover, according to Wikipedia automobile conventions, the widely accepted guideline for automotive subjects is that mention of such references should be limited to cases where the fact of that reference influenced the sales, design, operation, or other tangible aspect of the vehicle. In summary, the 2009 opinion of Car and Driver magazine regarding the 1974 award given by Motor Trend magazine, is not appropriate because it has noticeable impact on the car. CZmarlin (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think my argument on Talk:Lincoln Town Car applies here to I think it should be added back. --Leivick (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which argument that you on describe on the Talk:Lincoln Town Car page applies. The referenced article is an attempt at irreverent humor and consists of a collection of rambling, unsourced, and speculative musings. Even if you strip away the hyperbole, there is nothing of credible value this reference adds to the history of the Ford Mustang. The following is just one example of the questionable and misleading generalizations that should not added back into an encyclopedia article:
"Looking at the bloated 1973 Mustang, Ford was sure the way to go for ’74 was smaller. So it slapped a new body atop the Pinto to create the Mustang II and skipped V-8 engines altogether. Even as the Mustang II went on sale, purists were crying that it represented a betrayal."
The facts are best expressed by the actual production and sales to real consumers, not the out-of-focus views of armchair auto journalists that get their cars for free.
Total production of the 1973 Mustang models was 134,867.
The 1974 production of the "poseur with wheezing four- and six-cylinder engines" jumped to 385,993 units. This is within 10% of the original Mustang's 12-month production record of 418,812.
The C&D editors apparently also forgot that the original Mustang was just a "new body slapped on top" of the "econo box" family-oriented Ford Falcon platform.
The downsized Mustang II did exceedingly well compared not only to its previous versions, but also compared to the competition from Chevrolet. The total Camaro production in 1974 was 151,008 units, or less that 40% of the Mustang’s (compared to the Camaro's 72% parity in 1973 to the "bloated" Mustang).
I may be true that C&D's “crying purists” were complaining, but the inaugural non-V8 1974 "poseur" almost reached the combined three year production total of the "powerful" 1971-1973 Mustangs (409,638 units over the three model years). The new owners of the Pinto-based Mustang must not have all been crying or felt betrayed as they came in to buy these "misshapen" Mustang II in such large numbers. Ford executives were also not crying as they were getting bonuses and company shareholders were running to the banks depositing their dividend checks as fast as the company could crank out the economical car with "no compensating virtues" out from its factories.
Even more interesting is the combined total production of the Mustang II models (1974-1978) exceeded 1.1 million units. Could over one million buyers of the "small" generation of Mustangs from 1974 to 1978 be all mistaken, compared to the views of a few magazine editors in 2009? I think it is the other way around. The downsized Mustang was a huge business strategy and market success. A handful of automobile editors are just crybabies that could not design, build, or market a single automobile.
In hindsight, the automaker was correct in downsizing the Mustang. The Mustang II's legacy is that it reached a higher market share than prior models under more challenging economic conditions and at a time with higher fuel costs. The so-called “purists” were wrong, but this C&D article tries to perpetuate their displeasure. As a comparison, when the latest generation of Mustangs was released in 2005 (specifically targeting these so-called “purists”) the grand total Mustang production (with available V8 engines as well as a convertible) was only 165,762 units, or only about 40% of the 1974 "poseur’s".
This C&D article is nothing more a bunch of random subjective opinions meant to entertain readers. There is hardly any need to examine the other claims made in the few sentences about the Mustang II. Other than it was authored by the editors of C&D, there is not much in the article to make the case that it represents a reliable source of information. It is notable how out of touch with the facts are the opinions from an otherwise-reliable source. CZmarlin (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your second to last sentence says it all. It was authored by C&D, their opinions are notable however wrong you think they are. You spend your entire post explaining why you think they are mistaken, but this is just original research. If you have an actual source beyond your own research, claiming that the C&D article is out of touch in its criticism of the Mustang II then by all means add it. --Leivick (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You think that I have presented original research? Below is a quick gathering of selected sections expressing "opinions" by respected sources and even two automotive historians. This is real information and not the "entertainment" piece on the ten cars by the C&D editors. That is why I stand behind my statement that the C&D article can only be "notable" because it is out of touch with the facts. CZmarlin (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lee was also responsible for the '74-'78 Mustang II, which enjoyed the same success as the Maverick. It was the right car at the right time, selling more than 1 million units in four years."
"As the smallest, lightest Mustang since the original, it was a fresh start for Ford's pony car and a refreshing return to rationality. And it couldn't have been better timed, introduced just two months before the first "Energy Crisis" upended America. People came in droves to see the Mustang II -- and to buy."
"Pony cars were falling from favor by 1970, with many buyers turning to lower-priced, fuel-efficient compacts like Ford's own Maverick -- a huge first-year success itself. "
"But Americans were also turning on to sporty 2+2 import coupes like Ford's own British/German Capri, which bowed in April 1970 to good reviews and strong initial demand. Another "captive import," GM's German-built Opel Manta, was selling well, and the Toyota Celica was more popular still. In 1965 such "mini-pony cars" attracted fewer than 100,000 sales, but by 1972 were up to around 300,000 -- and expected to go above 400,000 by '74. Mustang II's mission was to capture a big slice of this sizable new pie."
"They decided to call it Mustang II, since it was a new type of pony car designed for an era of high gas prices and fuel shortages."
"Many people have never warmed up to the Mustang II, some even complaining it reminds them of the Pinto. But in its day, the public and the press sang praises for the little Mustang II. After all, a car with excellent fuel efficiency, sporty looks and a low price tag will always find acceptance. Mustang II was a success, simply because it was the right car at the right time."
"…new lighter, imported 2+2 “mini-Pony Cars” that combined four-on-the-floor shifting fun with upscale luxury, were becoming increasingly popular. They were, in effect, filling the segment the Mustang had created, then abandoned."
"Cars like the Toyota Celica and Ford’s own German Capri (sold by Lincoln-Mercury dealers), that ironically, had been inspired by the original Mustang, would be the stimulus for a new, smaller Ford vehicle to recapture the first Mustang’s magic."
"Plans to return to the smaller 1974 Mustang began in 1970. Just as the original Mustang had been based on mundane Falcon components, Iacocca and company decided to use some of the parts from the new-for-1971 subcompact Ford Pinto as the basis for the Mustang II, as it was to be called."
"The Mustang II’s attractive all-new styling was influenced by coachbuilder Ghia of Italy, which had recently been acquired by Ford. It carried through the long-hood, short-deck theme of the original, and as Iacocca requested it came as a notchback and hatch-equipped fastback."
"When Ford advertised the new 1974 Mustang as “The right car at the right time,” they couldn’t have known how right they would be. In November, 1973 events changed dramatically in the Mustang II’s favour. That’s when the Arab oil embargo precipitated the first “energy crisis” of the 1970s. Not only did gasoline prices spike up, but its very supply looked to be in jeopardy. Economy immediately became a hot item, and this helped boost the smaller Mustang’s first calendar year sales to 385,993."
"With oil crisis memories starting to fade by 1975, Ford offered a 5.0-litre V8 in the Mustang II, which returned performance to respectable levels. Although it didn’t equal the original’s performance, it did come closer; R & T (1/75) recorded zero to 96 km/h (60 mph) in 10.5 seconds, and a top speed of 171 km/h (106 mph). A Cobra II option with such items as extra trim, a black grille, front air dam and rear spoiler came in 1976. Then for ‘78 the even more garish King Cobra could be had with a deeper air dam, stripes, and even a cobra snake decal on the hood."
"Many Mustang enthusiasts disdained the Mustang II as an aberration, not a “real” Mustang. It was, however, a product of its time, and many find it a desirable collectible today."
Yes, reliable sources disagree with what C&D says, I would never deny this. In fact I said if you want to include positive commentary it would be welcome. This does not make C&D an unreliable source. NPOV requires that notable opinions be covered regardless of whether they contain the truth. C&D is a notable magazine whose opinions should be covered. --Leivick (talk) 05:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iacocca Promotion[edit]

This article says that Iacocca became president of Ford in 1970, while the article titled "Ford Mustang" says 1964. Did I miss something? NameThatWorks (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the error! He was named President of Ford on December 10, 1970. see the "Ford Motor Company chronology" page by The Henry Ford Museum here. CZmarlin (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expository[edit]

The article relies heavily on unsourced expository: lengthy passages that draw or imply conclusions that are without references. What is this about? It's not in keeping with encylopedic writing. 842U (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horsepower Ratings[edit]

Does anyone have *accurate*, official horsepower ratings for each year of the Mustang II? All I can find throughout the net tells me that ratings changed every year, even if in a minor way, but the exact amounts vary on almost every Mustang page I can find. This article could use solid numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.158.106.89 (talk) 07:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal[edit]

Why is this article not called Ford Mustang II? It was marketed as such and is never referred to as anything else.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question, but the answer is the way all of the successive Mustang generation articles are listed. Moreover, the automotive media (for example: Motoring Canada and Motor Trend) and the manufacturer itself lists them in six successive generations (see: here). Specifically, Ford describes the "Mustang II" as a completely redesigned "second-generation" Ford Mustang. Perhaps the number included in the second-generation Mustang's name was to follow the example of the Lincoln Mark series nomenclature. If this idea was continued, then the current generation car's name would be the "Mustang VI". This would have made naming WP articles simple! However, renaming this article as "Mustang II" would then seem to require the next Mustang (1979–1993) article to be the "second generation". That would be misleading and unclear. As it is now, a reader that searches for "Mustang II" is directed to this article (Ford Mustang (second generation)). Furthermore, there is a "Ford Mustang II (concept car)" article that could potentially have further confusion. In any case, the current article naming schema seems the simplest to navigate the evolution of Ford Mustangs over the decades. I hope this helps! CZmarlin (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Mustang_(second_generation)&oldid=1201486637"