No Reserve Little Pony: 1978 Ford Mustang II
When this little pony trotted off the assembly line, the third-generation Mustang (which was promising to be more sportier, roomier, and quicker) was coming up fast on its heels and would arrive in September of 1978. Yes, we all know about the divisive and controversial history of the Mustang II, but 50 years after its timely debut (just weeks before the October 1973 oil embargo), the trimmed down, fuel-efficient pony was indeed “the right car at the right time” as Ford’s advertising claimed. And it was a big sales success, selling over 1.1 million units over its five year run. Some believe its success saved the Mustang brand during the “economy first” years of the mid-70’s until performance could return in the 1980’s. The fifth and final model year of the Mustang II went out with a bang as 192,410 units were sold, making it the second highest sales year for the second generation pony car. Here’s one of the surviving 81,304 coupes produced in an attractive aqua color combination that has been restored, currently resides in Salina, Kansas, and is selling at No Reserve here on eBay. As of this writing, 9 bids had been submitted with $3,124.00 being the highest offer.
Not much history is shared other than the car sold before and the buyer “failed,” so it’s back on the market. I don’t remember seeing many Mustang II’s back in the day in this aqua color, but I find it attractive. Based on the photos, the Code 7H Aqual Glow paint is shiny, the panels are straight, and it’s free of rust and dents. The glass and lenses and trim all look good as does the color-keyed aqua body side molding. Although you usually see more white wall tires teamed up with Ford’s optional Lacy Spoke Aluminum Wheels, this one’s sporting black walls. A photo also shows a clean trunk with a binder of manuals and what looks like a box of extra parts.
The aqua color theme is carried over into the attractive interior. Ford offered six upholstery choices in 1978, and this checked Ashton Cloth and Vinyl combination looks great on the front bucket seats and back seat and delivers on Mustang II’s promise of offering “sportiness, comfort, and the feel of luxury” with their interiors. The door panels and headliner appear to be in great shape as well. Although the seller claims the car was “meticulously restored to its former glory,” you can spot some shortcomings including faded carpet and a discolored center console. I’d also like to know if the factory A/C works, what the dash looks like under the dash pad, and I would lose the fuzzy dice right away.
Although a V6 and a 302 V8 were available as options, you’ll find the base 2.3 Litre four-cylinder engine powering this little pony. It has 92,495 miles on the clock, is mated to a 4-speed manual transmission, and the seller says, “it runs like a dream, making it the perfect car for weekend drives.” This is the engine and transmission combination Ford used for years in their advertising, claiming its drivers could expect 34 mpg. Again, this was an era following the Energy Crisis when economy and fuel efficiency, not performance, was a priority for many American drivers. So, what do you think of this Aqua Glow little pony?
Auctions Ending Soon
2006 Jeep Wrangler SportBid Now10 hours$12,250
1974 Datsun 260ZBid Now2 days$750
2010 Proterra Ecoliner PrototypeBid Now2 days$200
1960 Austin Healey SpriteBid Now5 days$500
1976 Cadillac Coupe DeVilleBid Now5 days$1,250
Comments
Looks like a clean, straightforward Mustang II. With the 4-cylinder 4-speed powertrain it filled its role as a 70’s economy car, and could do the same today. I like the Aqua Glow paint and upholstery and the lacy spoke wheels. Do some interior upgrades and whatever mechanical work is needed, and you would have a fun little cruiser for not much money.
Practical and stylish in an understated way. This car would be great for a period movie. That’s essentially the pinto drivetrain I believe, with different carb I believe. I doubt it’s 34mpg but certainly not going to bankrupt anyone keeping fuel in it. It’s probably a fun car to drive, given expectations within reason.
I have to agree. I know people don’t like the Mustang II because of its Pinto derived drivetrain. I say so what? As long as it’s driven carefully and maintained like it should, it should last indefinitely like anything on wheels.
It looks like the paint shaker York 2-cylinder AC compressor (which rockauto.com shows as original equipment) has been replaced with a more modern and efficient Sanden unit. So with that and the standard transmission maybe it won’t be too much of a slug with the AC on.
I always liked these though I was a bit disappointed in the motive power offered at the time. I find the color combination tasteful a welcome change from today’s monochromatic drabness. I would prefer thinline whitewalls but this car presents so nicely who cares?
There have been opinions stated for years about the ability to drive a slow car quickly and I would think that would be a pleasant challenge with this drivetrain.
The more I look at this car the more I see a really elegant design for a small car. I know they weren’t particularly well-made and their greatest technological contribution seems to be the steering gear for hot rods, but dang they’re cute little devils.
Slick little ride. If it’s mechanically healthy and structurally sound I would sport the extra cash for a white interion swap but that’s just me
Oh Ed…you always had a flare for color…who else would inject mid modern victorian to the office of the welding shop
Had the same Engine/Trans in a 78′ Pinto (I know they’re different cars) Had a 2.73 Rear End which seem to remember worked out to 3000rpm at 75mph. Best I got was 28mpg, probably the only Pinto with a big Sun Tach on the Column. I think my Clarion Stereo had more power than the engine. Served me well until had a headon with a Drunk, put a 100K on her in 7 years.
I was going to comment on the meg’s as well, I’ve owned several pintos with this drive train, including an 80 which I bought new, and a 76 mustang, same as this one, never saw over 26-27 on any one of them. Averaged around 18-20 in town.
The Pinto was actually decently well made basic transportation. The exploding gas tank worries were unlikely scenario paranoia that impact that hard was going to be bad news explosion or not, if someone caved in the rear end that much you had other problems from flying through the windshield like any other car. They weren’t particularly stylish for the era, and back seat access and tiny trunk, use of space behind front seats needed a big hatch for it to make sense. That to me was amazing oversight, just like my Opel GT. Baby Corvette was prettiest GT of the era, but same thing: no hatch dragging around empty awkward space to get to with difficult access. But you’re right on. Pinto would be better mpg than this mustang as I believe Pinto was about 200 pounds lighter. With a different carb I believe. But this Type 2 mustang is very stylish and looks well sorted.
Imagine this. Same size engine only the turbo 2.3 liter crate engine from the new Mustang, and the six speed. Probably get better mileage too.
The colors and the wheels make this one pop, though I’d be shocked if such a basic Mustang II coupe was ordered with aluminum wheels.
Junk send it to the crusher – thin sheet metal prone to rust uses pinto platform under powered the ONLY usable part is the FRONT END SUSPENSION ASSEMBLY used on MANY retro mod builds with upgraded parts.
Do you have eyes? Point out the rust on this Mustang.
Used to get a ride to work with a guy that had a brand new one of these. I could just barely contort my 6’2″ frame into it. The most uncomfortable car I ever rode in to this day.
These aren’t prone to rust any worse than any other U..S made car at that time, with the exception of the Vega . And its not a Pinto platform either, they actually share very little .
Ummmmmm, wow. Are you having a bad day muffin? No car deserves that much hate. Maybe you should take a closer look before you comment. Remember, that car was once someone’s pride and joy. It may be again. If we all liked the same thing the world would be a boring place. Peace.
Trouble with the ladies? Guns and muscle cars addictions aka female repellent are a well documented psychosis. It’s 2023. If you want to date boys without overcompensating, it’s not a problem. You’ll probably be much happier.
I remember when these hit the dealers here in the San Fernando Valley. I currently had a 69 Mach I that was the love of my life. It had a 351W with a 4 barrel 4300 Motorcraft carburetor. The gas crisis of 1973 made it’s 12 to 17 mpg a real problem. So I seriously checked out a 74 Mustang ll Mach I. It was black with black interior, a fastback rally wheels and a 302 V8 and a C6 automatic transmission. I liked it’s looks both inside and out. I actually drove it home to show my parents. It was night time and I really liked the feel of the interior, and the dashboard lit up in Ford’s bluish green color that I loved. It was loaded with power steering, front disc breaks, windows, and door locks. I did like it and was about to close the deal. However, I just couldn’t pull the trigger. As nice as it was, and as much as I liked it, I just couldn’t do it. I’m pretty sure the reason I couldn’t do it was my fault. I kept comparing it to my 69, and I was wrong to do that. Even though they were both Mach Is, they were two completely different cars. Both designed with different goals in mind, which each one accomplishing it’s design objectives. Bottom line, I wasn’t ready to leave the 69. And you no what? After 31 years, I’m still not. But even though the Mustang lls were good cars, the US car buying public did the same thing I did. We all compared them to the first gen Mustangs. And time has shown us nothing compares to the 64 1/2s to the 69s. Even the big Stangs of the early 70s, 71 -73. The Mustang lls were a nice evolution of the Pinto platform.
The 74 never came with a v8.. never came with a c6. If it was modified.. let that be said.
V-6 and 2.3 4cyl. in 74 C-6 would not have fit in a Mustang II
The Mustang II sold in greater numbers than the first generations every year except for 65 and 66 , so I think the buying public compared them in name only. They wanted a sporty looking car with good economy , muscle cars weren’t big on the want list after the 73 oil embargo. .
And again, not a Pinto platform
Your memory fails you…Black wasn’t an available paint color for a 74 unless you special ordered it, and a V8 was only available in Mexico that year. And no Mustang II came with a C6, power windows or power locks.
17 mpg doesn’t sound so bad compared to 12 mpg.
My uncle had the Mach 1 fastback. My tiny aunt drove it. Thirsty and rode like a heavy ocean cruiser bouncing over the waves, pitching and rolling. Years later my Alfa GTV SPICA coupe 2 liter made same era as my uncle’s mustang would run circles around it in every comparison. Getting 30mpg and totally comfortable cruising 100mph on the highway with passing power still remaining. Detroit was caught with their pants down dealing thirsty tanks about 15 years too long.
This car didn’t even register on my radar back in 1978 & i was 16 ! but remember this was Smokey & the Bandit times & lets be real here there was not a lot of love for a Mustang II unless Farrah Facett was behind the wheel!
almost bought one of this new in 1978 we where buying 2 new ford’s that year loved the mustang but couldn’t get price to where we wanted got new pinto wagon same power train and new granda 6 cyl 4speed both great cars by than my Corvette and 390 Torino day where far behind me wanted gas mileage
I love these notchbacks, and the manual trans gives it an extra 10 bonus points.
I have to agree with fox owner, the modern 2.3 ecoboost would be just right.
I’d also consider a 3.5 or 3.7 duratec V6, more than triple the HP, lightweight aluminum mill, and probably close to 30MPG with a 5 or 6 speed.
Lovely looking car. I’ve always loved the Mustang II. It’s perfect in size. Unless you’re driving a much larger car, you don’t need a V8 engine. If only more pics were posted on eBay. IMHO, the more pics you can show of a car, the better. Given its condition, I’d be willing to pay between $1000 and $5000. I’d have enough money if I needed or wanted to, to make some upgrades to the car. Otherwise, this looks like something you could drive any time.
It’s taken a long time, but t’s nice to see some love for these.
“a Mustang II is a Mustang too!” I had one and it was a trouble free car that got pretty good MPG, nimble and practical. They never got over the Its Just Re-bodied Pinto attitude.
well pintos where also a great car good inexpensive transportation that for the time got good gas mileage remember the avg gas mileage at the time in town driving was around 12 miles per gallon so anything that got over 20 mpg was great
Remember when these were everywhere? Iacocca read the tea leaves right again and Ford had it’s second successful Mustang. Right car at the right time. It may be good to remember that the 71-73 had a lesser following than those before. The super car crowd was settling down and turning their interest towards personal luxury. Pickups and the van movement came along at the same time and muscle was available for pennies on the dollar. Lido got the boot and went on to make history again.
I am an old guy here. I worked overnight at a Ford Dealer at this time cleaning/detailing used cars and getting new ones ready for inspection by the Dealer mechanics prior to delivery. These Mustangs sold pretty well. The 34 mpg listed in the article was what the government listed the MPG model Mustangs at. That was 55 mph on a Government treadmill, not real world driving. The standard Lima -2.3 engine that it share with the Pinto, and other Ford Products like the base Fairmont, was slow. The 74 was actually a little quicker than the following years because they had the catalytic converters and the smog pump. The 74 didn’t. The 74 had White needled instrumentation and the wiper switch on the left side dashboard. In 75 the instrument needles became red/orange and the wiper switch went to the signal stalk. You could only get the 4 and the Cologne V-6 in 74. 75 saw them bring out the 302 with the automatic only. It revved high at 65 and Ford knew it. So about mid-year they gave it a 4 speed. The 4 cylinder always needed timing belts after 60 thousand miles or do. However, this engine was not an interference engine so, if it snapped, the engine would still be okay. The V-6 always needed the valve lash adjusted around every 30 thousand miles or they would get noisy. There were actually a variety of different models over the years. T-tops came out in 77 on the fastback only. The one for sale here looks like it is missing the console cover. The wheels pictured here were optional for all models in 78, but much more prevalent on the Ghia models. This one might be for you if you don’t mind going slow because it will have a hard time getting out of its own way by today’s standards.The V-8 would be a better choice if you can find a nice one. You don’t see them around too much. I hope the buyer enjoys it!
One of the few Mustang 2’s on the lot was a 77′ orange fastback,t-tops,V8 and stick.Quick and fun little car to drive although it sat for over a year till my boss had it repainted in beige and put some new seat inserts in it.Were not popular in the late 80’s;Fox bodies were;sold lots of those slow-stangs.
Sold for $5,500
I hope whoever bought it enjoys it. :)
I like this mini Mustang. We had a ’76 Pinto with the same drive train that I learned to drive in. The aqua blue paint, mesh mags and A/C make it more desirable.
These were the ugliest mustangs made. If you ever had a real mustang such as a 69 mustang mach 1 you wouldn’t even have a 74 in your driveway. Welcome to the Mach-E same thing, the mustang II was junk. It sold but so did AMC PACER….case closed.
didn’t really think they looked that bad I almost bought a new one but I never was a real mustang fan even when everyone was excited back in 1964 when first ones came out I liked the falcon sprint with the 260 4 speed better that mustang the 1964 was ugly never liked them I’m I’m a Ford guy
Some Mustangs I like more than others. I love the 1965-67 Mustang, but I’ve never been a fan of the 1970-73 Mustang. I love the 1974-78 Mustang II.
SOLD for $5,500.
You folks are missing a huge issue here. These Fancy Pintos were built for a world of the 55 mile per hour national speed limit. Tires and suspension and drive train did a barely passable job during those times.
Try to get this thing up to speed on entry ramps in todays world would be dangerous. Run that motor to the tune of 75 mph for 3 hours, you’ll be rebuilding it every couple weeks. Buy it, polish it,drive it to shows on Saturday. But please don’t be on the road during rush times.
I know the engine and trans from a Fox Body 5.0 Mustang will fit. I’m certain the stock rear axle would go OMG and grenade itself all over the road. I wonder if the 5.0 liter 8.8 inch rear axle would fit. Could be a really nice sleeper.
If done right, it could be anything one wants.