| |
The '74 Autos
ROAD TEST: MUSTANG II
|
Ten years ago, when the Ford Mustang was foaled, we found it "an agreeable car ... without the over-elaboration of detail and `luxury' items that often make this type of car expensive rather than useful and efficient." But with time, the little critter grew fat and clumsy-and "over-elaborate." By 1971-the last year we tested it-the Mustang had grown eight inches longer, six inches wider, and 500 pounds heavier. And its ride and handling had become more like those of an ox than of a pony.
For this year, Ford put the old nag out of its misery and introduced the new, subcompact Mustang II-a car that is actually seven inches shorter than the original Mustang of 10 years ago. The cheapest model is a conventional two-door coupe (or notchback) , which lists at $2895.
A "three-door" hatchback-a fastback with a lift-up rear "door" for the luggage area-is $3088. The notchback also is available in a Ghia version, which includes radial-ply tires, extra sound-silencing, deluxe trim, and a vinyl roof. And the hatchback is available in a Mach I version, which includes over-sized radial-ply tires, special trim, and a V6 engine instead of the smaller, standard Four. The Ghia and Mach I packages each are $430 options. We don't recommend either one. Though the car we tested is the ordinary hatch-back, we feel the basic notchback is the best value.
Unfortunately, the Mustang II, though much smaller than its most recent predecessors, still retains many of their fussy elaborations. In size, it competes with subcompacts such as the Datsun B210, the Ford Pinto, the Toyota Corolla 1200, and the Chevrolet Vega, all of which we tested for February. But the Mustang II is more than 600 pounds heavier than the average of those four subcompact models. And like the Pinto and the Vega, the Mustang is considerably longer and wider than its imported competitors.
All that weight not only detracts from the Mustang's handling, but it hurts gas mileage as well. On our one-day trip, the Mustang got only 22 mpg. The Toyota got 32 mpg, the Datsun, 31, the Pinto, 26 and the Vega (with an engine the same size as the Mustang's), 25.
The rear seats in the subcompacts reported on in February were none too good, but the Mustang's rear seat was no better. It was as bad as the Datsun's and worse than those of the rest. Though the Mustang is claimed to be a four-passenger car, we consider it a "2-x-2"-a two-passenger personal car whose rear seat should be kept strictly for occasional use.
Overall, we ranked the Mustang slightly higher than the four subcompacts tested for February. True, its gas mileage wasn't the stuff of which barroom boasts are made. But its sound-silencing insulation, ride, normal handling, brakes, and other characteristics were somewhat above par for domestic subcompacts. Nevertheless, we feel there are other sub-compact models even better, overall, than the Mustang. More on those at the conclusion of this report.
In the discussion that follows, we report only on features that we consider unusually good or bad for a car of this size and class. In the absence of comments on any feature, you can assume it is about average for its group.
Safety: The front seat belts were well designed, with the lap portions riding low on the occupants' hips for maximum protection in a crash. The shoulder-belt tension, however, was uncomfortably high; a "comfort clip" could alleviate the problem, but positioning the clip was awkward. The design of the door handles makes it possible for a door to be opened inadvertently when an occupant grasps the door's grab bar.
The driver's view forward is none too good, because the windshield pillars are wide and close to the driver's face. Also, the wipers left an uncleared area on the left side of the windshield that interfered with the driver's view. In fair weather, the view to the rear and sides was satisfactory, considering our car's fastback body style. But rainwater and road grime tended to collect on the nearly horizontal rear window, obscuring the view. The notchback Mustang would have been better in that respect. Either model would benefit from the optional rear-window defroster ($59).
Front-seat comfort: fair. The vinyl-upholstered bucket seats felt too firm, and the seat cushions were too short. Though the contoured seats gave side support during hard cornering, they did not give sufficient support to one's lower back.
The brake and clutch pedals were too high off the floor and too close to the driver when the seat was adjusted for proper reach to the steering wheel. Access to the front seats was difficult for two reasons: The tops of the door openings are unusually low (less than 47 inches from the ground); and the doors are so long they cannot open wide when the Mustang is parked close alongside another car.
Rear-seat comfort: very poor. The head and knee room were inadequate, even for large children, and the rear cushions were undersized.
Interior noise level: fairly high. Road and engine noises were most dominant. The exhaust boomed at high speeds. Light-load ride: fair. The Mustang's suspension felt softer than those of most subcompacts.
Full-load ride: poor-to-fair. With 700 pounds of people and luggage in the car, the rear axle occasionally touched the rubber cushions on the frame as we drove over sharp bumps.
Normal handling: good. Steering response was predictable and fairly quick. Crosswinds did not make the car wander noticeably. Though the rear wheels stepped sideways a bit in bumpy turns, the problem was not serious during normal driving. Sharp bumps and broken pavement caused the steering wheel to kick or tremble annoyingly. The manual steering in our car required moderate-to-high effort during parking and moderate effort once we were under way. Power steering, a $106 option, might be desirable for some drivers. Emergency handling: fair. During hard cornering at the track, steering response was fairly quick and fairly predictable. The car understeered considerably (in other words, it tended to run too wide through the turns). Worse, on bumpy corners, the degree of understeer varied, as did steering effort.
In CU's avoidance-maneuver test, the Mustang went through the course slightly faster than the Pinto and slightly slower than the Datsun B210, the Toyota Corolla, and the Vega.
Engine and drivetrain: Performance of the 140-cubic-inch (2300-cubic-centimeter) Four was similar to that of the Sixes in the intermediates tested for March-and considerably stronger than that of the Fours in the group of subcompacts reported on in February. But that kind of performance costs fuel. In all of our gas-mileage tests, the Mustang fared significantly worse than any of the subcompacts reported on in February. (The optional V6 probably would have been worse yet.)
The Mustang's four-cylinder engine died out immediately after starting from cold, and the fast idle wasn't fast enough. Once we were under way, the engine died out each time we stopped during early warmup. Careful tuning failed to solve the problem. When warm, the engine ran smoothly and responded readily to the gas pedal, even at low engine speeds, but it dieseled (ran on) almost every time it was shut off. The four-speed manual transmission shifted easily. An automatic transmission ($212) would reduce gas mileage. Like other Ford Motor Co. automatics, it allows starts in second gear for maximum control on slippery road surfaces. Brakes: good. Nonpower disc-front and drum-rear brakes are standard. They required moderate pedal effort, their resistance to fade was good, and they provided commendably short and straight stops. Power assist ($45) is not needed, in our judgment.
Low-speed crash tests: In our 5-mph frontward and rear-ward barrier crash tests, the bumpers bent slightly. The "damage" was barely noticeable. Our bumper-basher tests (described on page 312) made the rear bumper visibly "W"-shaped. The bumper's energy-absorbing mechanisms continued to work well after repeated impacts.
Predicted repair incidence: The Mustang II is too new for such predictions.
Miscellany: The heater controls were inconveniently low and were partially obscured by the steering wheel. The interior door handles were uncomfortable to grasp because of their sharp ridges. Air-conditioning ($383) adds a significant 112 pounds to the Mustang's front end. Our Mustang suffered from many cosmetic flaws inside and out. But of the 30 sample defects we discovered, none was really serious.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Of all the subcompacts we have tested recently, we prefer the Fiat 128 and the AMC Gremlin, in that order. (To rank that high, however, the Gremlin must have optional disc front brakes, either nonpower or power-assisted.)
The Fiat 128, which we reported on in July 1973, offered better rear seating and better normal and emergency handling than any subcompact tested recently. And the Fiat's gas mileage was up with the best and considerably better than most. Its front seating, ride, and brakes were as good as those of the Mustang. Its noise level, however, was higher. And, of course, service and parts for the Fiat will be a major problem in many places.
The Gremlin's seating, noise level, light-load ride, normal handling, and braking (with disc front brakes) were as good as those of the Mustang. Its acceleration (with the standard Six and even with an automatic transmission) also was as good. And its emergency handling and full-load ride were better than the Mustang's. The Gremlin's gas mileage was relatively poor-but its unusually large fuel tank holds 21 gallons, while the Mustang's holds 13. Thus, you can drive the Gremlin 360 miles before you're down to the last gallon; you'd have to gas up the Mustang every 265 miles or so. The Fiat has a 9.5 gallon tank and thus will let you drive 245 miles on a tankful. (Originally, we rated the Gremlin higher than the Fiat. But in rating this year's cars, we are giving greater weight to gas mileage.)
As we said earlier, we feel there are better subcompacts on the market than the Mustang II. But if you should decide to buy one, we recommend the basic notchback rather than the hatchback we tested. The notchback gives a bit more rear-seat headroom. And luggage is concealed from view.
|
|
