TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
My guess would be air vents, just like the ones on the current model.
All-New 2015 Ford Mustang
- Thread starter TrainTrac
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
The production/sales don't always tell the whole financial story. It's how much money did they actually make in profit on the sale of each Mustang II when you deduct the total production costs?
The Mustang II was a complete redesign from the ground up. If you consider all of Fords expense in retooling(hundreds of Million$$) they did not make much money if any on the Mustang II.
They would have made more money continuing the previous version of the Mustang even if it sold less numbers. If they just discontinued the Mustang for 4 years 1974-1978. they could have avoided the retooling costs for a 3-4 year model run. Then they changed again to the Fox body with had nothing in common with the previous Mustang or Mustang II. Overall, I bet that miscue cost them Billion$$
Ford would never admit it, but most of the automotive critics at the time were saying just that!
...Rich
The Mustang II was a complete redesign from the ground up. If you consider all of Fords expense in retooling(hundreds of Million$$) they did not make much money if any on the Mustang II.
They would have made more money continuing the previous version of the Mustang even if it sold less numbers. If they just discontinued the Mustang for 4 years 1974-1978. they could have avoided the retooling costs for a 3-4 year model run. Then they changed again to the Fox body with had nothing in common with the previous Mustang or Mustang II. Overall, I bet that miscue cost them Billion$$
Ford would never admit it, but most of the automotive critics at the time were saying just that!
...Rich
Gavin Allan
Well-Known Member
I would bet much of the Mustant II chassis, steering, suspension, etc. came from the Ford Pinto. I had both a '74 Pinto and a '74 Mustang II, and they both had identical 2.3 liter engines, and the steering racks looked identical too.
My only problem with the Mustang II is that the lighter Pinto would outrun it, and after two years it had rust HOLES big enough to stick my fist behind all four tires.
My only problem with the Mustang II is that the lighter Pinto would outrun it, and after two years it had rust HOLES big enough to stick my fist behind all four tires.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Up until this new 2015 Mustang, all of the previous generations were based on another Ford model's chassis:
'64.5-73 was based on the Falcon platform.
'74-'78 Mustang II was based on the Pinto platform. It wasn't a "complete redesign from the ground up". It shared many mechanical, chassis, and other parts with the Pinto.
'79-'93 "Fox" body was based on the Fairmont platform.
'94-'98 "SN-95" and '99-'04 "New Edge" Mustangs were based on a further modified version of the Fairmont/Fox body platform.
'05-'14 "S197" Mustangs were based on a version of the Lincoln LS/T-Bird/Jaguar platform.
On what fact is this statement based? How do you know that Ford didn't make much (if any) money on the Mustang II? If they'd made no money, common sense (and good business sense) would dictate that they would've discontinued the model; like say, the Maverick, Torino , Galaxie, or Falcon for example. The profit margin on Mustang II was obviously enough to keep it going rather than cancel the Mustang altogether.
And I'll bet that if you look at auto sales as a whole for that period of the '70's and consider the economy of the times (high inflation, high interest rates, high costs of living & doing business, etc.) the profit margin per sale of any of the US automakers' vehicles wasn't much at all. It was generally a dark time for the US auto industry.
'64.5-73 was based on the Falcon platform.
'74-'78 Mustang II was based on the Pinto platform. It wasn't a "complete redesign from the ground up". It shared many mechanical, chassis, and other parts with the Pinto.
'79-'93 "Fox" body was based on the Fairmont platform.
'94-'98 "SN-95" and '99-'04 "New Edge" Mustangs were based on a further modified version of the Fairmont/Fox body platform.
'05-'14 "S197" Mustangs were based on a version of the Lincoln LS/T-Bird/Jaguar platform.
On what fact is this statement based? How do you know that Ford didn't make much (if any) money on the Mustang II? If they'd made no money, common sense (and good business sense) would dictate that they would've discontinued the model; like say, the Maverick, Torino , Galaxie, or Falcon for example. The profit margin on Mustang II was obviously enough to keep it going rather than cancel the Mustang altogether.
And I'll bet that if you look at auto sales as a whole for that period of the '70's and consider the economy of the times (high inflation, high interest rates, high costs of living & doing business, etc.) the profit margin per sale of any of the US automakers' vehicles wasn't much at all. It was generally a dark time for the US auto industry.
Gavin,
You are correct in assuming that the Mustang II was based on the Pinto platform...it was. Oddly enough, Pinto sales where on the decline when the Mustang II was introduced?...probably too late to do anything about that? Also, the Mustang II's were about $500 more expensive than the previous model Mustangs with a V8 and only had a 4 banger.
The car was adorned with Landau vinyl roofs, and all sorts of chrome do-dads that made it look like a dwarf pimp would drive. The Mustang II has often been described as the lowest point in Mustang history!
The oddest connection I see is that Lee Iacocca was the guy who brought the original Mustang to the market in 1964. He was dismissed from Ford in 1878 (claimed he did not agree with Henry Ford II) and moved on to head up Chrysler. Iacocca always want to build a lightweight economical call at Ford, and I guess that was what caused the friction between he and Henry Ford II. Now if you look at the first Fox Body Mustang, and compare it to Iacocca's Chrysler K-car you will see a striking resemblance between the two boxy vehicles. It took Ford about 8 years to build up the performance and styling back into the Fox body Mustangs.
I admire Iacocca for building the original Mustang as one of the most successful and profitable vehicles Ford has ever made. The problem was that the Mustang was an economy car that was born at the begining of the Muscle car age and it mutated into a muscle car. Once the Pony car transformed to a muscle car, it could never really go back, but the Mustang II attempted to do that. It cost more money and had far less performance....It had gone back to a smaller version of the original Mustang that Carol Shelby described as a "Secretary's Car"...which is what Lee Iacocca had originall envisioned.
...Rich
You are correct in assuming that the Mustang II was based on the Pinto platform...it was. Oddly enough, Pinto sales where on the decline when the Mustang II was introduced?...probably too late to do anything about that? Also, the Mustang II's were about $500 more expensive than the previous model Mustangs with a V8 and only had a 4 banger.
The car was adorned with Landau vinyl roofs, and all sorts of chrome do-dads that made it look like a dwarf pimp would drive. The Mustang II has often been described as the lowest point in Mustang history!
The oddest connection I see is that Lee Iacocca was the guy who brought the original Mustang to the market in 1964. He was dismissed from Ford in 1878 (claimed he did not agree with Henry Ford II) and moved on to head up Chrysler. Iacocca always want to build a lightweight economical call at Ford, and I guess that was what caused the friction between he and Henry Ford II. Now if you look at the first Fox Body Mustang, and compare it to Iacocca's Chrysler K-car you will see a striking resemblance between the two boxy vehicles. It took Ford about 8 years to build up the performance and styling back into the Fox body Mustangs.
I admire Iacocca for building the original Mustang as one of the most successful and profitable vehicles Ford has ever made. The problem was that the Mustang was an economy car that was born at the begining of the Muscle car age and it mutated into a muscle car. Once the Pony car transformed to a muscle car, it could never really go back, but the Mustang II attempted to do that. It cost more money and had far less performance....It had gone back to a smaller version of the original Mustang that Carol Shelby described as a "Secretary's Car"...which is what Lee Iacocca had originall envisioned.
...Rich
If it wasn't profitable, I doubt they would have continued a model that was barely a decade old. There would not have been that much invested into the Mustang name that they couldn't afford to drop it. Ford has a lot of their identity tied up in the Mustang now.
I think this redesign says a lot about the future of the company. I like the fact that there will be a 4 cylinder Mustang. High school girls will always have a need for a sporty convertible.
I think this redesign says a lot about the future of the company. I like the fact that there will be a 4 cylinder Mustang. High school girls will always have a need for a sporty convertible.
gary s
Well-Known Member
"I like the fact that there will be a 4 cylinder Mustang. High school girls will always have a need for a sporty convertible"
smaller engines are the future for the domestic automotive industry.
the imports have been doing for years successfully.
btw: the new mustang looks nice imo
smaller engines are the future for the domestic automotive industry.
the imports have been doing for years successfully.
btw: the new mustang looks nice imo
Last edited by a moderator:
blksn8k
Well-Known Member
I think you are missing the point on the Mustang II. It was designed for the times just like every other vehicle has been or should be, including the 2015 Mustang. As they say, hindsight is 20-20.
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
That's exactly what I've been saying all along.
TrainTrac,
Yes, but that still does not make it a better car....Mustang II was an ill conceived car then, and it still is.
My point is that they could have continued selling the previous body style with minor trim changes. Even if sales declined it would have still made profit and it would have been cheaper than retooling for the completely new Mustang II.
Mustang II was Ford's Daja Vo all over again....It was the reincarnation of the Edsel. Even now, Ford will tell you all kinds of great features about the Edsel and never admit it was a big mistake. Regardless of the sales figures, the Edsel lost money and the Mustang II lost money. Ford won't admit it, but everyone else knows better. Ford will never release profit figures for specific car models, but only state anual profit for the entire Ford Corporation.
Why else would the fire Lee Iacocca in 1978 when they made a profit of over $2 Billion??? Henry Ford II did not like the direction that Iacocca was taking with Mustang, the most popular car since the Model-T.
In 1968, Ford president Knudsen hired Larry Shinoda to design a new line of high performance Mustangs. Shinoda did the design work for the 1970-1973 Mustangs...hmm? Then CEO Iacocca wanted to turn the Mustang back into an under-powered Secretary's Car.
After the Mustang II fiasco, Iacocca was fired in 1978, and Knudson was fired in 1979...Shinona left on his own when Knudsen left. It just shows the turmoil at Ford during those years and why most automotive critics point to those years as the low point in Mustang history.
...Rich
Yes, but that still does not make it a better car....Mustang II was an ill conceived car then, and it still is.
My point is that they could have continued selling the previous body style with minor trim changes. Even if sales declined it would have still made profit and it would have been cheaper than retooling for the completely new Mustang II.
Mustang II was Ford's Daja Vo all over again....It was the reincarnation of the Edsel. Even now, Ford will tell you all kinds of great features about the Edsel and never admit it was a big mistake. Regardless of the sales figures, the Edsel lost money and the Mustang II lost money. Ford won't admit it, but everyone else knows better. Ford will never release profit figures for specific car models, but only state anual profit for the entire Ford Corporation.
Why else would the fire Lee Iacocca in 1978 when they made a profit of over $2 Billion??? Henry Ford II did not like the direction that Iacocca was taking with Mustang, the most popular car since the Model-T.
In 1968, Ford president Knudsen hired Larry Shinoda to design a new line of high performance Mustangs. Shinoda did the design work for the 1970-1973 Mustangs...hmm? Then CEO Iacocca wanted to turn the Mustang back into an under-powered Secretary's Car.
After the Mustang II fiasco, Iacocca was fired in 1978, and Knudson was fired in 1979...Shinona left on his own when Knudsen left. It just shows the turmoil at Ford during those years and why most automotive critics point to those years as the low point in Mustang history.
...Rich
No doubt it wasn't a great Mustang and probably the worst in it's history. But it served its purpose and strengthened the Mustang brand overall. Nobody thinks the whole Mustang line is a mistake because of one model run.
blksn8k
Well-Known Member
Rich, I'm sorry but I don't think you can prove any of what you have stated about the Mustang II other than it was not a very good looking or performing car but you could also say that about most of the cars built at that time.
Considering how many IIs were sold somebody must have liked them. I never cared much for them myself but I never owned a leisure suit either. :grin:
By the time those cars went on sale most gearheads had already moved on to trucks and 4x4s because those vehicles offered more performance than most cars of that era.
Considering how many IIs were sold somebody must have liked them. I never cared much for them myself but I never owned a leisure suit either. :grin:
By the time those cars went on sale most gearheads had already moved on to trucks and 4x4s because those vehicles offered more performance than most cars of that era.
blksn8k,
You are right, I can't prove anything I said about Mustang II is correct, but then you cannot prove it is not correct? The problems is that everything is based on the figures that Ford has published and they don't give the statistics on Profit & Loss for any particular model...only as an aggregate of the entire Ford Corp line up.
The Auto critics of the time were shocked at the Mustang II and unanimously felt that the Mustang II was ill conceived and was a very costly mistake for Ford. That was further confirmed by the switch to the larger Fox body Mustangs although most people did not like the styling or performance, they were better than the Mustang II.
Ford spent years creating the image of the Mustang as a sporty muscle car and then destroyed that image with the Mustang II. The early Fox body Mustangs appeared to be rushed into production to get the Mustang II taste out of everyone's mouth and was met with mediocre response, but at least it was a step in the right direction.
The oil embargo of 1973 did play an important part in Ford's decision to down size the Mustang, and probably many people flocked to the new down-sized Mustang II in an attempt to save on gas, but it appealed to those who wanted fuel economy but did not like the Pinto styling. The Mustang II allowed them to buy an over-dressed Pinto.. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Nobody knows for sure what was behind Ford's thinking but the fact that the major players for the Ford Mustang, Lee Iacocca, and Earl Knudson where fired and Larry Shinoda quit shortly after the Mustang II was laid to rest. Ford may claim all the Mustang II sales they want since they don't have to prove it and nobody can disprove it. They will never say if they made or lost money on the Mustang II, However, most Automotive critics at that time say Ford lost their ***** on Mustang II and the early Fox body Mustangs that followed, and that led directly to the purge.
...Rich
You are right, I can't prove anything I said about Mustang II is correct, but then you cannot prove it is not correct? The problems is that everything is based on the figures that Ford has published and they don't give the statistics on Profit & Loss for any particular model...only as an aggregate of the entire Ford Corp line up.
The Auto critics of the time were shocked at the Mustang II and unanimously felt that the Mustang II was ill conceived and was a very costly mistake for Ford. That was further confirmed by the switch to the larger Fox body Mustangs although most people did not like the styling or performance, they were better than the Mustang II.
Ford spent years creating the image of the Mustang as a sporty muscle car and then destroyed that image with the Mustang II. The early Fox body Mustangs appeared to be rushed into production to get the Mustang II taste out of everyone's mouth and was met with mediocre response, but at least it was a step in the right direction.
The oil embargo of 1973 did play an important part in Ford's decision to down size the Mustang, and probably many people flocked to the new down-sized Mustang II in an attempt to save on gas, but it appealed to those who wanted fuel economy but did not like the Pinto styling. The Mustang II allowed them to buy an over-dressed Pinto.. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.
Nobody knows for sure what was behind Ford's thinking but the fact that the major players for the Ford Mustang, Lee Iacocca, and Earl Knudson where fired and Larry Shinoda quit shortly after the Mustang II was laid to rest. Ford may claim all the Mustang II sales they want since they don't have to prove it and nobody can disprove it. They will never say if they made or lost money on the Mustang II, However, most Automotive critics at that time say Ford lost their ***** on Mustang II and the early Fox body Mustangs that followed, and that led directly to the purge.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
I contend that the profits from the 50th Anniversary edition will make up for any loss incurred by the Mustang II, if there were any. So, in the long run, the Mustang II will have been an important part of the overall profits of the Mustang line as that 50th Anniversary model will not have been possible without it. Therefore, the Mustang II can be considered a profitable production; you just have to consider the long term investment. Only a fool dumps his entire portfolio to avoid a short downturn. Ford is not run by fools.
Hugh,
I never said that Ford was run by fools, but only a fool uses your logic to run a business??? Based on your logic, Ford should still be making the Model-T. Ford dropped the Taurus name for a few years and then brought it back with much success. The Mustang would have survived being shelved for a few years
GM stopped making the Camaro for a few years and brought it back with retro styling, and it is also doing very well.
Many businesses make bad decisions...in in the case of Ford, the Edsel and the Mustang II were two of it's worst.
...Rich
I never said that Ford was run by fools, but only a fool uses your logic to run a business??? Based on your logic, Ford should still be making the Model-T. Ford dropped the Taurus name for a few years and then brought it back with much success. The Mustang would have survived being shelved for a few years
GM stopped making the Camaro for a few years and brought it back with retro styling, and it is also doing very well.
Many businesses make bad decisions...in in the case of Ford, the Edsel and the Mustang II were two of it's worst.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
No matter, your initial "hope they don't go down the road they did with the Mustang II, and the other Fox Bodied Mustangs" is unfounded. While the look may not be to your liking, it still has cues that identify it as a Mustang at one hundred yards away. You'll know what this is when it's coming up behind you at night and you'll recognize it as you approach it from behind. This is a Mustang.
The mechanical improvements make it all the better and the Mustang is improving. If Ford wants the Mustang to be relevant in the future, they need to stay ahead of the curve. They introduced the retro-styling and got all the old fogies to reminisce during their mid life crisis. The retro theme is dying and the Challenger all but put the nail in the overdone retro styling. It boosted some sales but a copy is just a copy. While Chevy and Dodge ride the retro wave Ford started, Ford is moving to the future and offering a truly 21st Century sports car. It can be a 4cyl secretaries car or a V8 pavement scorcher...and look good doing either. They heavy, lumbering retro cars are already tired.
This is no Mustang II and Ford's global attention will make this the most popular and capable Mustang to date.
The mechanical improvements make it all the better and the Mustang is improving. If Ford wants the Mustang to be relevant in the future, they need to stay ahead of the curve. They introduced the retro-styling and got all the old fogies to reminisce during their mid life crisis. The retro theme is dying and the Challenger all but put the nail in the overdone retro styling. It boosted some sales but a copy is just a copy. While Chevy and Dodge ride the retro wave Ford started, Ford is moving to the future and offering a truly 21st Century sports car. It can be a 4cyl secretaries car or a V8 pavement scorcher...and look good doing either. They heavy, lumbering retro cars are already tired.
This is no Mustang II and Ford's global attention will make this the most popular and capable Mustang to date.
Sales numbers prove otherwise. Some people still talk out of their ass.
Tom
Tom,
Read all the posts! I previously said that Sales number from Ford does not necessarily mean they made a profit on the Mustang II after you deduct the retooling costs. Most auto critic at that time say Ford lost their ass on the Mustang II and the early Fox body Mustang.
Speaking of talking out their Ass, you probably were still pooping in your diaper when Ford introduced the Mustang II...sounds like you are still doing that ! This thread was a good civil discussion until you had to jump in and start making insulting remarks
Hugh,
I never said that the 2015 Mustang styling was bad, I actually like it... I was just alluding to the fact that Ford is making major styling changes to the Mustang, and that has gotten them in trouble in the past with the Mustang II and the Fox body Mustang. People want the Mustang to look like a Mustang with clear, easy to see, distinctive styling that leaves no doubt that it's a Mustang. People want the Mustang changes to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.... I think the 2015 Mustang has just enough updating without throwing the Mustang look out the window...I just hope Ford does not go too far too fast and end up with another Mustang II or and Edsel.
...Rich
Read all the posts! I previously said that Sales number from Ford does not necessarily mean they made a profit on the Mustang II after you deduct the retooling costs. Most auto critic at that time say Ford lost their ass on the Mustang II and the early Fox body Mustang.
Speaking of talking out their Ass, you probably were still pooping in your diaper when Ford introduced the Mustang II...sounds like you are still doing that ! This thread was a good civil discussion until you had to jump in and start making insulting remarks
Hugh,
I never said that the 2015 Mustang styling was bad, I actually like it... I was just alluding to the fact that Ford is making major styling changes to the Mustang, and that has gotten them in trouble in the past with the Mustang II and the Fox body Mustang. People want the Mustang to look like a Mustang with clear, easy to see, distinctive styling that leaves no doubt that it's a Mustang. People want the Mustang changes to be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.... I think the 2015 Mustang has just enough updating without throwing the Mustang look out the window...I just hope Ford does not go too far too fast and end up with another Mustang II or and Edsel.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
