I wrote that II article for Mustang Enthusiast Magazine a while back, and am currently writing a new Mustang history book coming out this fall that I hope will begin to set the record straight on the II.
There's a simple reason why uneducated people say stupid things like the II was "an ill-handling, inferior car" or was somehow a "Pinto" and not a real Mustang -- pure ignorance. Such statements are based only on misinformation, ill-reasoned prejudices, time-worn cliches' or a sheer lack of doing any real homework on the facts.
A few hours spent reading about and reseaching the car (Gary Witzenburg's Mustang book is a good place to start) will put the II into proper context and quickly show that those kind of statements are not only false -- but that just the opposite is true:
Fact: The II is less a Pinto than the '65 Stang is a Falcon. Fact: The II actually pioneered several industy wide vehicle quality improvements over all other cars before it, and set new standards for fit-and-finish and NVH. And fact: buff-book reviews loved the rack-and-pinion setup; the handling was considered so advanced that its steering and front suspension design became the standard for street rods to this day.
There's much, much more to be told in favor of the II ... but the point here is the Valiant boy's opinion is not based on reality -- just opinion. And you know what they say about opinions ...
More to the point is that no Plymouth Valiant (a defunct, disposable oddity that appealed only to old women and child molesters -- a car that deserved to die much ealier than did its parent nameplate) was never, nor ever will be, as collectible as ANY Mustang -- including the IIs.
And oh, by the way, if one would study the history of Packard for 10 seconds, they'd find out Packards were excellent high-end competitors to Cadillac and Lincoln that couldn't make their way out of the 1950s ... trying to compare them in any way, shape or form to an inexpensive, 70s-era, fuel-efficient pony car is nothing short of retarded.
There's really nothing worse than someone spouting off about something that they clearly know NOTHING about -- which is certainly the case with that post. Such inane rumblings don't deserve our anger, only our pity. May the car gods have mercy on his soul.
There's a simple reason why uneducated people say stupid things like the II was "an ill-handling, inferior car" or was somehow a "Pinto" and not a real Mustang -- pure ignorance. Such statements are based only on misinformation, ill-reasoned prejudices, time-worn cliches' or a sheer lack of doing any real homework on the facts.
A few hours spent reading about and reseaching the car (Gary Witzenburg's Mustang book is a good place to start) will put the II into proper context and quickly show that those kind of statements are not only false -- but that just the opposite is true:
Fact: The II is less a Pinto than the '65 Stang is a Falcon. Fact: The II actually pioneered several industy wide vehicle quality improvements over all other cars before it, and set new standards for fit-and-finish and NVH. And fact: buff-book reviews loved the rack-and-pinion setup; the handling was considered so advanced that its steering and front suspension design became the standard for street rods to this day.
There's much, much more to be told in favor of the II ... but the point here is the Valiant boy's opinion is not based on reality -- just opinion. And you know what they say about opinions ...
More to the point is that no Plymouth Valiant (a defunct, disposable oddity that appealed only to old women and child molesters -- a car that deserved to die much ealier than did its parent nameplate) was never, nor ever will be, as collectible as ANY Mustang -- including the IIs.
And oh, by the way, if one would study the history of Packard for 10 seconds, they'd find out Packards were excellent high-end competitors to Cadillac and Lincoln that couldn't make their way out of the 1950s ... trying to compare them in any way, shape or form to an inexpensive, 70s-era, fuel-efficient pony car is nothing short of retarded.
There's really nothing worse than someone spouting off about something that they clearly know NOTHING about -- which is certainly the case with that post. Such inane rumblings don't deserve our anger, only our pity. May the car gods have mercy on his soul.
"They" don't like 'em, we do, been retreaded so many times the carcass is shot.
