| |
Mustang II - The Necessary Generation - Part 1
Lost in a Sea of Sociological and Technological Changes
|
Some in the hobby jokingly refer to the 1974-78 Mustang II as the Rodney Dangerfield of Mustangs. No respect to be sure, but there's more to this neglected filly than meets the eye. This year, the Mustang II celebrates its 20th Anniversary, and we're here to tell you about it.
More than once in its 30 year history, the Mustang has fallen from favor with Ford's upper management and accountants. And more than once in 30 years, the Mustang has lost money and been viewed as a bad risk. Most important to remember is, trying to make this car all things to all people (an impossible task), Ford grew the Mustang away from its original market - the youth market. The Mustang II was simply a means to saving the name and getting back to the marque's original mission - a sporty, economical car for the masses. The Mustang II, despite smaller powerplants and interior dimensions, was an economical, sporty car nearly anyone could afford, and Ford sold them in great numbers. If you remember the 1970's, you know that Mustang IIs were as common as the original copy from 1965. And they were purchased for much the same reasons as they were in 1965. Economical, yet fun, transportation.
Steadily falling sales had an adverse effect on the Mustang's destiny. Former Ford President, Lee Iacocca, had grown frustrated with what was happening to the name he and a talented few brought to market jsut five years earlier. The time was 1969. Iacocca saw the Mustang drifting away from its original market at an alarming rate. While then Ford President Semon "Bunkie" Knudson (hired away from General Motors) put his oats behind a larger generation of Mustangs (1971-73)_, work on a more "politically correct" Mustang was in the works behind the scenes - mastermineded by Iacocca.
Known by insiders as the "Arizona Project," the target was a "Mustang" market type of automobile, with a scheduled introduction date of 1975. Fuel for this project came from what Iacocca know still existed in the marketplace. Iacocca saw the success of the new 1970 Ford Maverick (introduced on April 17, 1969), with the base sticker price of $1,995, and he understood what needed to be done. While no one ever drove through a showroom window to see the Maverick, nor were bids taken for the humble Falcon replacements, the new Maverick nibbled at the Mustang's original market - sporty and very affordable. What's more, Ford sold nearly 600,000 Mavericks the first year! There was clearly a market in search of a sporty, affordable car.
More than a half-million units is nothing to sneeze at. Ford understood there was a market to fill, and not much to fill it. Marketing studies were conducted and Ford discovered that people were interested in the new influx of European and Japanese sporty subcompacts entering the U.S. Cars like the new Datsun 240-Z, Toyota Celica and Mercury Capri weere selling well, and the Ford Division didn't have an entry. The Capri offered buyers European sportiness, but European ergonomics. Simply put, it lacked the comforts and hairy chestedness of the original Mustang. Ditto for the 240-Z and Celica sporty subcompacts. Celica looked suspiciously like the 1969-70 SportsRoof Mustangs.
So Ford management conducted another design competition similar to the three-way showdown that took place in 1962. In 1962, the Joe Oros, Dave Ash, Gail Halderman "Cougar" stole the show and ultimately became the 1965 Mustang. In 1970, it was the Alejandro de Tomaso Ghia version that stood apart from the rest. As in 1962, Ford had a clear winner in 1970. The Ghia concept would witness further development. Other Mustang II concepts considered were the "Acona" from the Lincoln-Mercury studios; and the "Anaheim" from Advanced Design. There were dozens of others, including the "Ohio" project based on the Maverick platform.
Mustang II developement often found itself centered around old technology - in-line sixes and Windsor V-8s. In 1972, Mustang developement centered more on V-6 power available from Germany. The Capri's 2.6 liter "Vulcan" V-6 (based on teh 3.0 and 4.0 liter V-6's of today) seemed the logical powerplant, uprated to 2.8 liters for the Mustang. An overhead cam 2.3 liter in-line four under developement was also a contender. The 302 V-8 was never seriously considered due to its size and weight. This in itself would prove costly for Ford in lost Mustang sales later.
As in 1962, there was much debate over which Mustang body style should go to market, including a convertible, which ultimately never appeared. It took a number of consumer clinics to settle the fastback versus coupe (notchback) issue. Some favored the fastback while others the coupe. In the end, both went to market in the fall of 1973. Iacocca continued in his quest for a more "Mustang" like Mustang. His input for a revised beltline and grille which reminded people of the original 1965 Mustang led to familiar styling cues we've come to know from Mustang II.
Don DeLaRossa of Advanced Design pulled heavily for the notchback Mustang, which almost didn't make production. Feelings favored having only a hatchback with the slippery fastback roofline. DeLaRossa saw the notchback Ghia model as a natural extension of the original 1965 Mustang coupe. The notchback was ultimately approved at the eleventh hour in the wake of favorable consumer feedback and thrust into production.
Earlier, we mentioned Ford's consumer clinics. Conducted in Southern and Northern California, Ford viewed these clinics as a good cross-section of typical American buyers, and what people wanted to see from the Mustang. Ford discovered that they ahd a 400,000 buyer potential from the market, despite numbers already consumed by the Maverick and other competing vehicles.
Iacocca felt that the all-new Mustang had to stand head and shoulders above the original. "It will have to be a little jewel," he was once quoted as saying. It was his belief that the new Mustang would have to be an exceptional small car, outperforming other "like" small cars in areas of comfort, fit, finish and something engineers call "NVH" (noise, vibration and harshness).
To give the Mustang II exceptional NVH, powertrain and suspension had to be upgraded, without overspending the budget. The key to the Mustang's NVH was a single, "U-shaped" component called the "toilet seat," an isolated subframe mounted to the underbody. This subframe isolated the powertrain from the unibody, absorbing both powertrain vibration/buzz/hum and road shock. Ford engineers took the NVH issue a step further by using a larger diameter driveshaft and increasing the size of the bolt circle between the engine and bellhousing of the 2.3 liter four. This meant having to retool engine block and bellhousing castings. Abundant rubber insulation was used thorughout the Mustang II to isolate powertrain and road noise. Another material still used today that started in the 1974 Mustang II was a carpet underlayment that was laid into place, then melted during paint bake to form a tight, soundproof layer. Never had there been more attention paid to comfort and quiet in the Mustang's developmental history.
This development evolved into thousands of hours and miles in development vehicles in Michigan, Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida to test material and systems in different climates. More testing was performed in Dearborn on Ford's vibration analysis equipment that simulated road conditions via computer. Front and rear suspensions were greatly revised over both the 1973 Mustang and the Pinto already in production. The result was improved handling and ride. Rack and pinion steering was a first for the Mustang in 1974. Power rack and pinion steering would be optional.
The all-new 2.3 liter four was the first all-metric engine produced by Ford in the United States. According to Ford, the 2.3 was expected to be comparable to the 200 cubic-inch six once available as standard in the Mustang. The 2.3 would have self-adjusting hydraulic cam followers, and would be a more emissions-free powerplant. The optional 2.8 liter V-6 based on the 2.6 already available in the Capri gave the Mustang II plenty of added torque from its revised block. It was no match for a V-8.
Perhaps its a standing cliche, but Ford looked to Mercedes-Benz for valuable engineering refinements (they really did) in the Mustang II. The Mustang II owes its body refinements to the Mercedes connection. The key here was to take each and every component and analyze to the limit how it could be improved. Bolt and screw heads were hidden where they were once exposed. Methods of fastening body parts and trim pieces were improved to both inhibit corrosion and refine appearance. Even the process of joining body panels was improved, using concealed butt sleeve joints instead of overlap joints like we see in 1965-73 Mustangs. Urethane body parts were hand trimmed in assembly to eliminate unimproved edges.
The result of all this detail was the best built Mustang in the marque's history at that time. All things considered, both good and bad about the Mustang II, it was a car of exceptional quality for the era. When compared with its competition, Camaro, Firebird, AMX, Barracuda and Challenger, the Mustang II was clearly better in terms of quality and workmanship. It was certainly a quality competitor for the imports of the era. And many engineering refinements and manufacturing improvements at Ford owe their very existence to Mustang II development.
Part 2 -->
|
|
