This should be required viewing for haters

[LILCBRA]

If you haven't seen this on YouTube, here's a great video by Robert Kennedy. And, as the thread title says, it should be required viewing for haters.


View: https://youtu.be/foNtnIV8TKU

 

[7991LXnSHO]

But it’s hard not to laugh when all the downsized vehicles claimed they “were Too” Fords. “The all new” or “Jr. models” might have gone over better. Edit: Smaller, more nimble and fuel efficient Bronco, LTD and Mustang would have been 1960’s terms that applied.
Hey, they are no longer were frigging land yachts, and the new models will not have you stuck in the embargo gas lines as often while still riding in comfort and style would have been more honest. The rest is just questionable styling, colors and trim options with ugly Govt. bumper requirements.

 

[LILCBRA]

I've said and still believe that if Ford would've never put the II behind the name it wouldn't be viewed quite as harshly. That and with the decision to not have a V8 at all in the first year didn't help the image. The first generation had the benefit of the horsepower wars and no restrictions to speak of. Fox cars had the benefit of advancing engineering and technology. The II just happened to fall in between the 2. Imagine what would've happened if the King Cobra had the benefits that the 93 Cobra had or the Stallion model had a turbo 4 like an SVO. I think things would be a lot different. Or, on the flip side of things, what if the Fox Mustang would've ceased production after 1981 for another complete restyle. I think that would've been considered a lower point in the line since the V8 downsized and the styling wasn't quite as "styled" as previous generations. There are lots of what-ifs. But, as I understand it, the II moniker was used for Henry Ford II for some reason that escapes me right now....

 

[Enzio]

I liked it. Thanks.

 

[2Blue2]

Did I or did I not see Elsuperpinto at 31.31

 

[Adieu]

Did I or did I not see Elsuperpinto at 31.31

That is not ElSuperPinto.

 

[7991LXnSHO]

And they did not learn from the ego of Henry the first or Edsel that family naming does not go well?
I had not thought of that when the downsizing took place. I just saw the styling cues that were at odds with a sporty image and vehicle sizes, and the interior plastics on the 70’s cars that were still of hit and miss results.
You have explained the market plan failure.

But, as I understand it, the II moniker was used for Henry Ford II for some reason that escapes me right now....

 

[429MII]

Nice video.
Everyone knows how i feel about the II bashers. If the only thing ya got is low power and ugly bumpers I hear ya. Otherwise the bad rep is unfounded and ridiculous.
Nobody ever seems to mention that the low power fix is literally a set of headers, cam, intake and carb away from being a moot point. Camaro and Firebird may have come with more factory hp in those years but they weighed considerably more as well, which more than makes up for the hp difference in my lowly opinion.

You can't change the fact that these cars are fun to drive, and have great styling...er ..ok I concede the federally mandated bumpers..
Luckily we can change the bumper issue these days with tucked bumpers. Actually it's really only the front bumper that seems disproportionate to me anyway, the rear one looks decent and fits pretty well.
Oh, also the 13 " wheels are undersized to the proportions of the car from the factory and contribute to the unbalance look of the car as original. Again an easy fix.

 

[Neuron]

My neighbor bought one new, I kinda liked it for what was available then. Having lived through all of that stuff(embargo etc)it really was not a bad car in the context of that time. I still have a soft spot for them. I would hear comparisons to the Pinto at the time, I think that helped with the negative image. Maybe living through those times has afeected me, because I had a '74 Pinto wagon was not a bad car(4 banger), kinda liked the two door aspect. I then sold it and got a '76 Bobcat from a brother in law for a song, Its was a V6 and was surprisingly nimble, you could burn rubber quite easily from a stop, it was my DD leaving the '71 Bronco for weekends. I think the Mustang II's are quite good looking cars.

 

[John Ainsley]

My neighbor bought one new, I kinda liked it for what was available then. Having lived through all of that stuff(embargo etc)it really was not a bad car in the context of that time. I still have a soft spot for them. I would hear comparisons to the Pinto at the time, I think that helped with the negative image. Maybe living through those times has afeected me, because I had a '74 Pinto wagon was not a bad car(4 banger), kinda liked the two door aspect. I then sold it and got a '76 Bobcat from a brother in law for a song, Its was a V6 and was surprisingly nimble, you could burn rubber quite easily from a stop, it was my DD leaving the '71 Bronco for weekends. I think the Mustang II's are quite good looking cars.

Hi Neuron, As a child of the 60's, I was a bit disappointed with the II but understood it was a car of the times. I was driving a 66 Mustang at the time so I was very spoiled... but, still appreciated the new generation II. I also wanted something new and Also bought a new car I could afford...a 75 Mercury Bobcat, Brown w/white strips/tan interior and a crank open sunroof that never leaked! lol Fun car...2.3 with manual transmission. Got back into a Mustang in 1983 and now, I still have my beloved 05 Mustang convertible (4.0 automatic). The Haters are back...lol. If its not a 4.6 its ergyeoifjpf8u. All Mustangs are good looking cars!