[Joe 6-pack]

While I'll agree that the Mustang II did not do justice to the Mustang name and was frightfully under-powered, they really weren't unaesthetic.

I think those that see them as a blight on the Mustang name (which they are performance wise) will look at them and despise them for what they were, but had their performance been up to par, I don't think people would be criticizing the way they look..at least the notchback. The fastback did admittedly, look like a glorified Pinto.

[Olog-hai]

Nah; they looked pretty bad. Iacocca trying to sell it as a newer version of the 64½-66 Mustang was no help either, along with the lack of a V8 in the debut year of 1974 (largest motor was the 171 CID V6 with a rating of 105 horses); and in 1975, the small-block 302 V8 2-bbl had a highly-anemic 140 horses.

[tpmintx]

Mustang II - I had one trying to keep up with me on the highway. (Somewhere out west, in the 80’s) As we passed 100 MPH, the Mustang II started to lose ability to stay in his lane. At 105, he gave up and dropped back. They had the power (302 V8) to go fast, but not the suspension.