By on June 21, 2021

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, RH front view - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsFord returned the Mustang to its roots— an affordable, sporty-looking commuter based on a huge-selling economy car— for the 1974 model year when the Pinto-based Mustang II made its debut. While many now claim that the Mustang II has finally attained true respectability among American car freaks, I still see plenty of Mustang IIs en route to the cold steel jaws of The Crusher. Here’s a heavily-optioned ’78 Mustang II Ghia, complete with V8 engine and screaming orange Stirling cloth interior, found in a Denver self-service yard a couple of weeks ago.

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, landau top - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsFord bought Carrozzeria Ghia from Alejandro de Tomaso in 1970, and a few years of Dearborn meetings resulted in the Ghia name being used as a high-end trim level for everything from the Fiesta to the Granada in North America. In 1978, all Mustang II Ghias got a vinyl landau roof with opera window; this car had its vinyl stripped away years ago and its white paint sprayed over with rattle-can flat black.

The base 1978 Mustang II hardtop listed at $3,900, while you had to pay $4,342 to get the luxed-up Ghia (that’s about $16,700 and $18,700 in 2021 dollars). Of course, this car has quite a few costly options; I can’t determine the price tag for this Stirling cloth-and-vinyl upholstery, but the Ghia Sports Group package alone added 355 bucks to the bottom line.

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, 302 V8 engine - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsGas prices were brutal in 1978 America (and about to get even worse), but the original purchaser of this car opted to get the 302-cubic-inch (5.0-liter) Windsor V8 engine, rated at 139 horsepower. The price: $241 (around $1,040 today).

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, 302 V8 engine emissions sticker - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe emissions sticker on the valve cover shows that we’re looking at what’s probably the original engine (or someone did a swap and kept the old valve covers). The data plate shows that this car was built at the San Jose assembly plant (now the location of The Great Mall) in September 1977 and sold through the Denver sales office. Sure enough, the sticker shows that this engine was set up for operation above 4,000 feet altitude.

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, emblem - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsDecades ago, any Mustang II with factory-installed V8 would get swarmed by street-rod builders wishing to snag its front suspension and engine cross member, but those days are long gone thanks to a plethora of aftermarket Mustang II-based suspension goodies that are sturdier and easier to install than the real thing.

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, gearshift - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe real gone cats got four-on-the-floor manual transmissions behind their 302s in 1978, but nearly all buyers of V6- or V8-equipped Mustang IIs spent extra to get a three-speed automatic. How much extra? In this case, $225 (about $970 in 2021 clams, or bones).

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, sunroof - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsThe detachable “Flip-Up Open Air Roof” cost $153 extra ($660 today), which was much cheaper than the cool-but-leaky $666 T-top option.

1978 Ford Mustang in Colorado junkyard, gauges - ©2021 Murilee Martin - The Truth About CarsIt has air conditioning ($470), full gauges (not sure of the price but probably not included with the Ghia Sports Group), and likely came with one of the several extra-cost wheel/tire options. By the time the dust settled over the dealership paperwork, the original buyer of this car probably spent as much as the cost of a nicely equipped LTD II Brougham.


Go Mustang!


Just a year later, the Mustang went onto the new Fox platform… and stayed there until 1993 (or 2004, depending on whether you consider the SN95 to be a true Fox).

For links to 2,100+ additional Junkyard Finds, please visit the Junkyard Home of the Murilee Martin Lifestyle Brand™.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

54 Comments on “Junkyard Find: 1978 Ford Mustang II Ghia...”


  • avatar
    Lie2me

    I know Ford sold a billion of these, but the Mustang II will go down in history as Ford’s Cimarron.

    My two best friends in HS were Jeff and Dave. For graduation Jeff got a Cobra 302 Mustang II and Dave got a Duster. The competition between Dave and Jeff was endless each thinking they had the better new car. To settle the dispute we all drove to a lonely road where Dave and Jeff could race their new cars

    Dave in his Duster handily beat poor Jeff in his fancy new Cobra 302 Mustang II. When the race finished both leaped from their cars and proceeded to beat the crap out of each other

    Poor Jeff lost that competition as well. They made up and life went on, but Jeff never, ever bragged about his fancy Cobra 302 Mustang II again

    • 0 avatar
      mcs

      “but the Mustang II will go down in history as Ford’s Cimarron.”

      I don’t know about that. I’ve learned more about the Mustang II and I’m not so sure it deserves the reputation it had. It actually had less in common with the Pinto than the original had with the Falcon. Here’s a good article to read on Hagerty.

      https://www.hagerty.com/media/car-profiles/ford-mustang-ii/

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        I agree that it isn’t Ford’s Cimarron, but it has nothing to do with what is or is not shared with the Pinto. It is that the MII was a massive commercial success while the Cimarron was a massive flop.

        As far as what is shared or not shared. It is true that very little is common between the MII and the 71-73 Pinto but there is a lot shared between the 74-80 Pinto and the 74-78 MII.

      • 0 avatar
        Lie2me

        The Falcon was a tremendous platform for Ford. My gripe isn’t with the Pinto platform, it’s with what preceded the Mustang II and what came after. Even Ford felt the need to distance itself from the preceding Mustang by adding the “II” as if to say, “similar, but not equal to”

        The Mustang II was a huge success for Ford, but will go down in history as being the Mustang that was similar, but not equal to the others, as the Cimarron will be the Cadillac that wasn’t

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          You seem to be reading a lot more into the original Mustang which was nothing more than a more stylish small car.

          You also seem to be overlooking what actually preceded the MII. The 71-73 Clydesdale or Fat Elvis version was just that a fat, over weight caricature of the original. It was much closer to a Jr PLC than stylish compact.

          The 74 did represent a return to the original formula and a rebirth, so I’d say that the II is an admission of sorts that it is not equal to the immediate predecessor, but also an acknowledgement that they had lost the plot and were correcting that.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            I understand why they are not popular but I am a fan of the ‘big’ Mustangs.

            But then I am a PLC guy.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            @ Arthur. While my post may have seemed rather critical of the Clydesdale I am a fan because yeah I like PLCs too. However I’m just calling it what it is the one with the least “Mustangness” of any of the cars to wear that name.

          • 0 avatar
            ajla

            “The 74 did represent a return to the original formula and a rebirth”
            “but also an acknowledgement that they had lost the plot and were correcting that.”

            Don’t put Cobra or Mach-1 stickers on it then. Or a landau roof. The MII fans always talk about a “return to form” while ignoring the existence of the cheeseball versions.

          • 0 avatar
            Lie2me

            “the original Mustang which was nothing more than a more stylish small car. ”

            The original Mustang is the basis of some legendary models. Nothing legendary was derived from the IIs. Even the fat Elvis Mustangs were still muscly and performance orientated

    • 0 avatar
      tomLU86

      These were popular cars with HS kids and 20-somethings, especially as used cars, five to ten years old…

      Small backseats, slow, but nice instument panels, and the ones I rode in did not feel cheap. In HS, I even upgraded the AM radio to an Audiovox AM/FM/Cassette with door speakers for a buddy in HS.

      @Murilee Martin

      You have the microphone, my friend. You can surely find better to tart up your story on this popular piece of malaise memorabilia than to resort to gross exaggeration to impress the ignorant, can you not? Since I lived in metro NYC in 1978, while I didn’t drive, here is what I remember:

      First off, were gasoline prices at $0.65 really brutal in 1978? Perhaps if compared to fuel prices before October 1973. If they were so brutal, how do you explain the huges sales of GM’s big cars, and the record sales of pick-up trucks (at that time) in 1978? The summer of 1979 was “brutal”, when the price almost doubled, and they sold gas by the half gallon–because the mechanical pumps could not go over $0.999 per gallon, and gas shot up to $1.10 to $1.20. THEN, car sales in general dropped, and big cars plummeted. Now THAT is closer to brutal, I would say.

      Second, I highly doubt the most optioned Mustang II Ghia with the 302 and auto and air and stereo (and of course power steering and brakes) cost was “comparable” to a “nicely equipped LTD II Brougham”, which was probably priced comparably to a T-Bird, and a base 1977–that SEVEN–T-Bird started at $5272, about a grand higher than the Ghia–if YOUR price here is correct for the seventy-EIGHT (a year later). Add A/C and a stereo to the T-Bird and you’re over 6 grand. And for the bigger cars, “nicely equipped” meant power window and locks and antenna–all stuff not available on the Mustang. And a bigger V8–a 400, or at least a 351. More $$$.

      It’s nice to have the microphone, but try to stick to facts or plausible assertions.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        We had a ‘big Bird’ with a 460 cid engine. I believe that engine was even standard for a few model years.

        The T-Bird was more prestigious than an LTD. And I believe that came with a premium in the pricing. But it was a PLC not a sedan.

        The Mustang II was viewed by many as, excuse me for old language ‘a secretary’s car’. It was not meant to be a luxury or prestige vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          Scoutdude

          “The Mustang II was viewed by many as, excuse me for old language ‘a secretary’s car’. It was not meant to be a luxury or prestige vehicle.”

          Which was the brief for the original Mustang too.

        • 0 avatar
          tomLU86

          The LTD II referenced was a reskinned mid-size that replaced the Torino in 1977. The Thunderbird I cited as $5,272 in 1977 was the “downsized” T-Bird, which cost $2,500 less. As you recall, it was not really downsized—your 1976 T-Bird with the 460 was a variant of the Lincoln Mark IV. The 1977 T-Bird was an Torino/LTD II with interesting (good-looking American car to me) sheet-metal, meant to get some of the action that GM’s PLC and even Chrysler’s Cordoba were getting–the Ford Torino Elite, not so much.

          And the T-Bird succeeded! I think over 300k units per year for 77 and 78, and going strong until the party ended with the brutal spike in gasoline prices in summer 79.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Our ‘big’ T-Bird was a 1973. I also had a 78 downsized T-Bird with the biggest engine available which was a 400 cid. The 78 T-Bird was for its time a nice looking car. But the least reliable of any new car that I have ever owned.

            Also had a Gran Torino Elite with the ‘big’ v8 stuffed into it. In the brown on brown that was so popular for Ford in the early to mid 1970’s. The Torino Elite and the T-Birds had column mounted shifters, unlike the Grand Prix SJ and Cordoba which I also had which had consoles and floor shifters.

            The column shifter allowed for the 60/40 split front seats which were so comfortable for a ‘big’ guy. Also allowed for some ‘make out’ room up front.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Everything is relative. Brutal is maybe a little bit on the strong side for the sentiment of the average American at that time. Yes by 1978 much of the population had accepted the gas pricing, but there were a large chunk of drivers that still remembered paying less than half of that in 1973.

        The reason the big GM cars sold so well in 77-78 was those “brutal” gas prices.

        In 1974 the public put sub-compacts and compacts at the top of the sales charts. By 1975 the leader were the intermediates. Fueled in part by acceptance of current gas pricing and the realization that those sub-compacts and compacts didn’t really fill the bill of a family truckster. The downsized B gave consumers the “full size” many wanted but with fuel economy equal to or better than the intermediates people had been settling for.

        So while acceptance of gas prices was responsible for some of the large car and truck market returning by 77-78, a lot of it was due to the fact that more fuel efficient versions were available by then. (Due in part to CAFE) Meanwhile less than full size car sales stayed pretty strong from those people that found gas prices brutal.

        Yes things did quickly get even worse with another large jump in the price of gas.

        You did not buy gas by the 1/2 gallon. What was done once prices topped 99.9 cents is that the meter was set to 1/2 the price per gallon and then you owed twice what the pump displayed. I did that many times back in the day.

        In a couple of years they did come up with “full price kits” which required the installer to cut the opening to be able to see the visible fixed 1. The pumps at the station I worked at in the later 80’s still had pumps with the full price kits and hacked face plates.

        • 0 avatar
          tomLU86

          Scoutdude Since you bought gas a “1/2 price”, you would know. I simply observed from the back seat.

          I wouldn’t buy gas until 1981. So you are right.

          The situation didn’t last long. The pumps were reworked. Around 1980, the ‘electronic’ pumps started to come out. One of the first was the Hess self-service station in Port Jeff Station, NY, not far from our home. I thought that digital readout was kinda neat, seeing precisely how much fuel went in, and that’s where I would get gas, when I was lucky enough to get one of my parents’ cars.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            The downsized full sized GM cars released in 1977 were indeed a revelation.

            I had owned a 2nd generation Caprice Classic with the 454. The largest Chev sedan ever manufactured. Its interior room and ‘finishings’ were inferior to that of the 3rd generation.

  • avatar
    chris724

    I had a ’79 with a similar pop-up moon roof. It leaked too!

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      I had multiple vehicles in the 70’s/80’s with either t-roofs or pop up moon roofs. All of the moon roofs leaked. None of the t-roofs did.

      I would love to have t-roofs available again. The benefits of a convertible without many of the issues.

  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Was the 88 HP 4-cylinder version of this car a ‘real’ Mustang (0-60 12+ seconds)? SCE says yes, yes it was.

  • avatar
    3SpeedAutomatic

    I was just coming out of high school and into college when the Mustang II hit the market.
    Yes, not very powerful, but neither were the Chevy Monza (remember them) or other Detroit iron at the time.

    The BIG contribution of the Mustang II was CASH FLOW. America were hit with the Oil Crisis in late 1973 (Yom Kippur); folks scrambled for anything that got better than 18 MPG; and Lido had the answer in the Ford showroom. Many of these were sold with extra kit (leaking sun roofs included) which pumped extra cash into the Ford coffers. Chrysler would have killed for something like this, but relied on Mitsubishi for partial revenue while GM pushed Vegas and Novas to get thru.

    In the auto business, Cash is King. The Mustang II provided the cash necessary for Ford to survival the worse recession experienced since the Great Depression at that time. The money generated also financed the Panther and Fox platforms which Ford relied on for 33 years and 16 years respectively.

    Not bad for a gussy-up Pinto.

    • 0 avatar
      3SpeedAutomatic

      May I add to the above the next cash cow which financed the Fox and Panther platforms.
      Non other than the Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch. Yes, admit it…. Lido pulled another rabbit out of his arse.
      Chrysler only had the Volare/Aspen which ate more revenue than generated. GM dressed up the Nova which failed to gather steam.

      The 70’s, I so miss them!!

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Yup the Granada was a massive cash cow. The Falcon roots kept development costs low and the timing was right for people willing to spend “full size money” on a fancier smaller car. (See what happened at the Chev-Olds dealers that put the Cutlass ahead of the full size Chevy for 1975-76)

        So instead of being the new Maverick with a full range of trim levels the Maverick was left to soldier on as the cheap compact while the Granada was billed and more importantly priced at a premium.

        So deride the MII and Granada all you want, the fact is they did what cars are supposed to do, very well, and that is make the mfg money.

        • 0 avatar
          MRF 95 T-Bird

          Like the Maverick/Comet sticking around 1976 was the final model year of the A body Dart/Valiant which overlapped with the introduction of the Aspen/Volare replacement. Buyers might have stuck with the A body because they knew what they were getting and the teething issues to put it mildly with the all new cars.
          The Diplomat/LeBaron were marked as entry luxury Granada/Monarch competitors.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    I’ll repeat what I said in the last Mustang thread: this is not remotely the most embarrassing Mustang.

    Its size and horrendous engines were just products of its time, and Ford really did put in a sincere effort on the exterior and interior design (unlike a number of other ’70s Ford products). It was a reasonable choice in a time of bad cars.

    The Mustang that Ford should be embarrassed about is the late Fox four-cylinder. It gets cover because everyone loved the LX 5.0, but it was a horrible mailed-in thing that wasn’t remotely competitive in its class or any other. This was an era when we were starting to see modern-fish twitcam fours with 130-150 hp out of similar displacement to the Mustang, and here we were with 88 hp. The interior wasn’t competitive in 1983, let alone 1993, and the thing both rode and handled like a tractor. I’d take a V8 Mustang II every time over one of those pieces of junk.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      The Fox LX did fine with just 88 HP. Any 4-banger with 140+ HP was likely the top performance model, probably a turbo, loaded and starting at $13,995. The Mustang’s base price was just $7,995 around ’88 .

      Yeah by the early ’90s it was kind of an insult, but Fox Mustangs were scheduled to be killed off in ’88, but stuck around thanks only to public outcry and even hostility.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        Base 1992 Honda Accord: 2.2L SOHC four, 130 hp
        Base 1992 Nissan Stanza: 2.4L DOHC four, 140 hp
        Base 1992 Toyota Camry: 2.2L DOHC four, 125 hp
        Base 1992 Taurus (from Ford’s own lineup!): they dropped the four, so it was a 3.0L OHV V6, 140 hp

        I stand by my claim that the late Fox four was an absolute embarrassment. Honestly, it should have been sh!tcanned. It wasn’t competitive with anything in any segment and sold only on the name and the association with the 5.0 version.

        Ford still didn’t have a competitive four-cylinder engine that they’d sell in the US market for a few more years, but at least they wised up and didn’t put a four in the SN95.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Embarrassment for whom? 1992+ was a different era. Where were those engines mid ’80s? Fox Mustangs were well beyond their “Sell By” in the early ’90s, but in great demand and they still outsold all those you listed.

          So who’s to blame? They were still an outstanding value, with terrific profits for Ford. Win/win right?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            “hey still outsold all those you listed”

            What? Three of the four cars I listed were the three best-selling cars in America at the time.

            Car and Driver had a multi-car sport coupe shootout around this time that included an LX 5.0. It finished fourth of seven, with its strengths being objective performance numbers, V8 attitude, and price. It was dinged for the ancient interior and poor refinement. The four took away all of the V8 car’s strengths, leaving only price to recommend it. Yes, you can sell crap cheap, but it’s still crap.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            OK true some of those were hot sellers. But was the big engine “base”? Or upgrade?

            Yes it sold on performance, V8 attitude and price. That’s still “crap”‘ to some, but to many of us, the rest is trivial minutiae. The interior was fine, whatever, but actually the seats are basically Recaros, yet no one noticed.

            Magazine editors don’t truly represent sporty car buyers. They would’ve taken a Saab above anything else.

            By then the Fox Mustangs had no choice but to be about the most reliable on the planet, that you could totally beat
            on too.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Everything I listed was a base engine in a base model. By the early ’90s, a competitive 2.3L four was making at least 120-125 horsepower. No reason the Lima couldn’t have made that much power with some breathing upgrades. But Ford was too cheap.

            It took until 1999 for Ford to decide to make the Essex competitive with GM offerings, and they never bothered at all with any of their American-designed fours. The European-designed Zetec ended up bringing their fours back into modernity, about a decade late.

            Today, the same class of fours are making around 180-200 horsepower. Imagine how you’d feel if Ford sold a super-cheap Mustang with a 140-horse four from the early 1990s.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            They were behind the times is all. You make it sound like it’s a bad thing! Ford had decided the cut-off was ’88, but agreed to an extension with little to no updates, thanks to consumer/fan outrage. I’m not sure that’s ever happened anywhere else.

            So they lacked in some areas, but they were outstanding in others. Many more areas actually as far as myself and many others are concerned.

            Something like the stripper/notch LX 5.0 (SSP) with crank windows and radio delete will never happen again. Unbelievable you could still get one in ’93. Many wish they did!

        • 0 avatar
          ponchoman49

          My long time friend that is a Mustang fanatic had a white 1987 2.3 90 HP convertible with auto trans with around 70K miles that he got cheap. He had me drive it with him going along for the ride. That had to be one of the slowest most disappointing cars I have ever driven to date. The creaks and rattles were numerous. The 2.3 was loud vibratory and agricultural sounding and the 4 speed auto upshifted way to quick making the car feel even more sluggish.
          It took until 1991 for this lump to finally get an upgrade but it was a small one with power going from 90 to 105 horses. In contrast a base Camaro or Firebird had a V6 that made 140 and 160 by 1993.

      • 0 avatar
        NJRide

        Interesting that this seemed to happen a lot at that time. The “box” Cherokee and GM A-Bodies were supposed to die but all got 5-7 years more life even as their “replacements” came out.

    • 0 avatar
      jnoble

      I concur. Back in high school circa 1993, my buddy bought a used ’88 Mustang base model with the boring trunk (not even the notchback!) and craptastic 88HP 4 cylinder which ping’ed knocked and wheezed every time he stomped on it. Of course since he was 17 and it was his first car which was (technically) a “Mustang”, he thought it was hot shit. Even back then I was not impressed by either it’s weak performance dull appearance or uncomfortable seats.
      Years later he upgraded somewhat to a maroon colored ’94 base model with the 3.8 six. Again, he was under the impression it was a performance machine once confidently referring to it as “basically a race car” (LOL!) He ended up dumping big money into the head gasket, computer, and then replacing the entire engine before giving up on it and getting a 2004 Nissan Sentra before it rendered him broke. It also had a horrible randomly occurring loud grinding noise from the transmission that no mechanic could figure out.
      But it WAS still better than the ’88 which isn’t saying much.

  • avatar
    la834

    Weird – this Mustang II appears to have once had the Ghia-exclusive vinyl top and opera windows, but the interior is from a non-Ghia base model. I’ve never seen an orange-interior Ghia, and anyway the seat and door trim was much plusher (especially on those with the Silver Luxury Group or some such, which had burgundy velour seats and super-thick carpeting).

    Also, I didn’t think the 5.0 V8 was available with a manual transmission in the II. Maybe in later years.

    • 0 avatar
      C5 is Alive

      From what I remember, by 1978 “regular” Mustang II Ghias shared most of the base model interior but with standard cloth seating surfaces and additional “wood” trim to the shifter and handbrake, which this example has. I think you had to upgrade to the “Ghia Sport Package” for the fancier seats and door panels.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    I had multiple vehicles in the 70’s/80’s with either t-roofs or pop up moon roofs. All of the moon roofs leaked. None of the t-roofs did.

    I would love to have t-roofs available again. The benefits of a convertible without many of the issues.

  • avatar
    Imagefont

    I didn’t realize that the Mustang II could be had with the 302, I thought it only got the 255 V8.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    Despite being “Pinto-based”, the spark plugs on the 302 are out in the open. It’s the same Windsor-block 302 in Fox Mustangs but it’s a super tight fit requiring a swivel socket, long extension and lots of curse words to change the spark plugs

  • avatar
    MRF 95 T-Bird

    It was Lee Iacocca who started to see the shift in customer preferences by the late 60’s early 70’s when he issued the design for the Mustang II. He correctly saw the popularly of the European Capri as well as the sport coupes coming out of Japan. The 73 OPEC oil shock also gave it a boost. You also had the GM rotary engine program creating the Monza and its fellow GM nameplates which were competitors to the II.
    When these were at their peak I owned a 70 Mustang coupe with the 302 and would occasionally frown upon them but after a while properly optioned ones grew on me.

  • avatar
    Mustangfast

    A Mustang with landau roof and opera windows? I will never again take crap for having a 2.3 turbo in mine. I will also no longer entertain any opinion that a Mach-E isn’t a Mustang. Far deadlier sins have been committed

  • avatar
    namesakeone

    The gauge package, which included the tachometer and an alternator and temperature gauge, was standard on all Mustang II models.

  • avatar
    Jeff_M

    namesakeone I agree. I had a ’75 strippy and that had the full gauge package. It also had that 2.3 that I got due to soaring fuel prices. It had a 4 speed and got 19 mpg, ouch!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    It never ceases to amaze me how good (relatively speaking) 70s interiors look once they reach the boneyard.

    You can’t convince me a 2021 anything that gets to this degree of disrepair on the outside will look this good in 2064.

  • avatar
    DM335

    I was surprised (as Phoebe Buffay says: “My eyes, my eyes!”) to see the orange striped interior on a Ghia. I found a 1978 brochure online and figured out that this car had the Fashion Accessory Package. The door panels on this car match the ones in the brochure for the Ghia, not the base model in the brochure. This package was geared toward women with door pockets, a small console, 4-way seat, illuminated entry and pin stripes. The brochure even says “Especially for you, lovely lady.”

    The regular Ghia cloth would have been a much better choice.

  • avatar
    rudiger

    I’ve been thinking how the Mustang II can have been such a success, yet get so much vitriol, and I wonder if the answer is simply that the wrong gender is talking about the car. Women, particularly single ones, were a significant market for the Mustang II (as they always have been), and I strongly suspect they could have cared less about the Pinto underpinnings. The Mustang II was small, sporty, and got the occupants from point-A to point-B in style and comfort (at least for the mid-seventies). For the time, it was perfect.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      “yet get so much vitriol”

      Because of this:
      caranddriver.com/reviews/a15143599/1974-ford-mustang-ii-mach-i-review/
      tinyurl.com/4ryaxu7e

      It’s fine to make a cheap and cheerful “style” car but it is going to get criticism when they sell Shelby-invoking livery on it or offer a trim named after the speed of sound.

    • 0 avatar
      teddyc73

      Back when this car was new there were (and still are) only two genders and one’s sex and gender where the same thing (still are). There was far FAR less lunacy back then.

  • avatar
    Pig_Iron

    What a time capsule. Thank you for posting it. I’m surprised the front end is still attached, and hasn’t been swiped for someone else’s project.

  • avatar
    ponchoman49

    These often appear on top 10 or top 20 worst car lists quite often and with good reason. The first year 1974 edition especially so with the top engine being the junk pile German 2.8 V6 with 106 blazing horses terrorizing the streets with 12-13 second 0-60 times. Those were seriously depressing times and this was Mustang at it’s all time low!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • EBFlex: “Another thing is that I sneak up on deer all the time on my mountain bike.” No….you...
  • EBFlex: ORV is just off road vehicle. A more broad term than ATV or UTV. And again, those are not analogous. Those...
  • Kenn: When I walked by the open door of the GM’s office at a SoCal Toyota dealer, the day I took delivery of my...
  • slavuta: Before traveling to space he could take care of public transport. You should like this...
  • ToolGuy: I spend that $169/year on washer fluid and oil filters instead.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber