| |
The Duece Is Mild
Ford's new pony is no quarter horse
By Cory Farley
|
There is a small, somewhat select, but rapidly growing clique in the United States that is smiling smugly and walking around with its collective chest thrown out this year. The reason? Detroit is finally getting serious about building sensible sized cars.
"Sensibly size," not "small." By any standards other than the inflated American ones, the Mustang II is not a small car. It will carry four people in at least tolerable if not luxurious comfort - nearly as much comfort as your traditional "full-sized" Monstercar - and take up perhaps 20 percent less space, use 40 percent less gas, and by maybe 100 percent more enjoyable to drive. Unless your're a Little League coach, raise Great Danes, or have five kids, there just isn't any functional reason to have a larger car.
Since Ford is calling the Mustang II "the most changed car in the industry," let's talk about the changes first. You remember the original Mustang of 1965: 181.6 inches long, 51.1 inches high, 2567 pounds, on a wheelbase of 108 inches. By last year, 1973, the thing had grown a foot in length, gained nearly 700 pounds, and was about an inche lower. All this, especially on a wheelbase only an inch longer than the original, did nothing to endear the car to the kind of customer who had bought the '65 for its nimbleness and manageable size. So Ford has brought things back into focus with the Mustang II: The lenght is down to just 175 inches over a wheelbase of 96.2 inches; it's 49.9 inches high and weighs 2750 pounds. That's significantly smaller even than the original car, and alot smaller than last year's Mustang. You'lll recall that the first Mustang was based on the Falcon. The 1974 Mustang II is based just as firmly on the Pinto, though Ford won't got to a lot of trouble and expense to give you this bit of information. Actually, there's no need for the Mustang II to be ashamed of it pedestrian parentage; the Pinto is a rousing success, as an economy car, as a commerical venture and, with a few modifications, as a road car. What Ford has done is to make the modifications for you, then dress the whole thing up in a sor of four-fifths-scale Torino body to upgrade the image.
this is not a bad way to build a new car. They get all the benefits of the tried-and-true pieces from the base vehicle and can engineer out the notable weaknesses without having to spring for the cost of a whole new setup. It figures that they'd windo up with a better car, and the Mustang II is much better than the Pinto.
It's quieter, for one thing. There's more insulation of course, but beyond that the body parts and windows seem to fit better than those of the Pinto. Ford has built the Mustang II without rain gutters, avoiding one source of wind noise. The optional V6 engine in out test car was considerabley smoother and quieter than the fours in Pintos we've driven, besides making the relatively heaavy Mustang II quicker and more responsive. However, that is not to say that the Mustang II is quick or responsive. The six, of 2.8-liter (171-cubic-inch) displacement, is standard in the Mach I, while all other models come with a new 2.3-liter engine built in the U.S.
You should order the V6. It's an updated, desmogged version of an engine Ford's been using in Europe for several years, so it should be at least as reliable as the four, and it's got good potential for performance modifications. The racing Capris, which use the same basic motor, are getting over 300 horsepower. We don't have any late word on go-faster parts for it, but there's a ton of stuff already developed and sitting in warehouses over in England, so you can bet it'll be coming. (Editor's note: Cosworth is developing a twin-overhead-cam, four-valve-per-chamber cylinder head for Ford's V6, but it is expensive and not intended, at this date anyway, for any sort of production.)
We got our Mustang II before there were very many of the little devils on the street, and every time we stopped for gas or a hamburger, there was sure to be a crowd around the car. The big question was always "How does it go?" Well, all things are relative, and this is no exception. Relative to what you can buy today, to its competition in showrooms in 1974, it's about as strong as you can expect.
The least important aspect of performance in a car like the Mustang II is straight-line acceleration. On a hot day at Irwindale Raceway, with wheelstander Wild Bill Shrewsbury driving, the 'Stang went 18.56 at 73.95 miles per hour. Bill left easy, he left hard, he shifted early and he shifted late; and the car kept running 18.50s at around 73. The worst run was an 18.72 off a botched start and the best was the 18.56. With the air cleaner off, the speed dropped to 68 mph, and after a dozen runs it was obvious that we weren't likely to go much quicker. We left it at that.
But if neither we nor Shrewbury could get very excited about going down the strip, we really had a good time coming back on Irwindale's crooked return roads. Our Mustang had what Ford calls the "competition suspension" package. It isn't that, but for 36 bucks it's still the best thing you can do to a Mustang II. It includes heavy-duty front and rear springs, adjustable shocks and a rear anti-sway bar. The ride remains good, and the handling is improved about half again over what the standard car will do. The only fault we can find with the competition suspension in everyday use is that it has a little less rebound control than we'd like, which allows the car to feel just a hair "floaty" at high speeds over undulating roads. But it anyways. You'll have to replace the shocks in a year or so, and you can add some good high-performance units then.
Another good thing was the optional power steering. By itself it's pretty good, and matched with the Firestone steel-belt radials it's really slick. Low effort you get with any power steering, but the strong tendency of the radials to return to a straight line gave our test car a steering feel equal to anything we've driven lately. You could pick your line in the corners, move over, dodge pebbles in midturn, and the steering kept you on top of what was happening all the time.
Around town the Mustang II was comfortable and convenient. We cruised all over L.A. with the air conditioner on full, the radio blaring, the light, smooth clutch easing the job of rowing the good four-speed through traffic, and the sensible size letting us ease through holes - holes that simply wouldn't have been there is we had been in a '73 Mustang. Parking places were easier to find and easier to get into, and the lowest gas mileage we ever say was 16.4 mpg on a tank used for chasing parts in really dense traffic.
On the freeway it was the same; quiet, cool, fast enough, no strain as we nipped through miniscule openings between Greyhounds and semis with ease and grace. Only once did the car lose its composure. In an anchors-out stop from 70 mph to avoid a television set that had fallen off a truck ahead, the rear wheels locked up long before the fronts and the back end started to come around. It was easy to catch, because we were half-expecting it, but Grandma Duck could get in trouble if it happened to her in rush-hour traffic. Still, we missed the TV and the guy behind us hit it square, so it wasn't too bad. Freeway mileage was right around 20 mpg, another plus for the V6.
With its good suspension, good steering and good tires, plus the V6 and a well designed interior, the Mustang II was the best Ford product we've driven in a long time. It's not cheap - base price is $3300 and there was nearly $1500 worth of options on our $4800 test car - but neither is anything else these days, and you can't get a comparable car from anyone else in Detroit for less money. Now once they start bringing those good pieces over, a guy could pump up that V6 and....
|
|
