Some of the scariest things in horror films aren’t usually supposed to be scary. Dolls, for instance, or clowns. But put the right twist on those things, and they turn into nightmares. Likewise, Ford Mustangs aren’t usually thought of as frightening, but there are Mustangs, and then there are Mustangs. Today we’re looking at the latter.
Yesterday’s black sedans weren’t all that scary, but as several of you pointed out, they were definitely bad-guy cars. The Cadillac could easily be the ride of choice of a ruthless mob boss, while the Mercedes has more of an international drug smuggler vibe. However, our villains make their money, I hope it pays well, because the Caddy needs some love to bring it back up to a decent standard, and the Benz will require a lot of maintenance to keep it in its current condition.
I want to like the Cadillac, but I’d like it a lot more if it were a few years older, or half the price. As it stands, I agree that the Mercedes is the better deal, so I’ll side with the overwhelming majority on this one. But it’s still not going to be a cheap car to keep on the road.
When someone says to you, “I drive a Mustang,” you probably have an image of a car that pops into your head. You might picture the iconic ’65 model, or the current generation, or maybe the yellow ’95 GT convertible that your friend’s cute sister used to drive. But what you probably don’t envision, unless you have very strange and disturbing tastes, is either a Mustang II Ghia or a four-cylinder Fox-body. And even if you do, you probably don’t picture them in ghostly white with blood-red interiors, because that would make them extra-scary. But get ready, because that’s exactly what we’re going to look at today.
1977 Ford Mustang II Ghia – $5,000
Engine/drivetrain: 2.8-liter OHV V6, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Brentwood, CA
Odometer reading: 90,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives
By now, we all know the Mustang II saga: it was a hit with critics at the time, and a sales success, but it has never been accepted as a “real Mustang” by fans, and has often been used as a lazy shorthand way to encapsulate everything that was wrong with cars during the malaise era. The Mustang II has seen a little bit of a redemption arc recently, though it’s often spoken of with a wink and a nod even by those who claim to appreciate it. Is it a great car? Not even close. Is it the worst car of its era? Not by a country mile.
Part of the problem was that, in its first model year, the Mustang II didn’t even offer a V8 engine, something which had come to be seen as part of the Mustang formula. In its place was Ford’s Cologne 60-degree V6, which had served the Mustang’s European cousin, the Capri, quite well. It wasn’t exactly a heavy hitter, but then neither was the V8 when it finally did come along. The V6 isn’t frightfully slow like the four-cylinder, or thirsty like the V8; it splits the difference and lands firmly in “meh” territory. This one runs and drives, but that’s all the seller will tell us, except that it’s “a bit higher maintenance” than they can handle. Expect to do some tinkering under the hood once you get it home.
The Mustang II was available in a few different flavors; the Ghia emphasized comfort over performance – which was wise, since it had no performance to emphasize – and was equipped like a miniature personal luxury coupe. This one looks surprisingly good inside. Nobody’s interiors held up worth a damn in the ’70s (except Mercedes-Benz), and the fact that badly faded carpet is this car’s worst flaw inside means that someone really treated it nicely. I have no idea why that gigantic zip-tie is on the steering column, though.
A vinyl landau top was part of the Ghia package, and far too many Mustang IIs were so afflicted. At least this one is in decent condition; hopefully, the roof isn’t rusted out underneath. The rest of it looks clean, though, so I wouldn’t expect to find any rust. It even has all four original hubcaps. The ad does say it has a rebuilt title, however, so obviously it has seen some action of some sort.
1991 Ford Mustang LX Coupe – $7,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.3-liter OHC inline 4, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Union City, CA
Odometer reading: 96,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives
I still remember seeing the Fox-body Mustang for the first time at the Chicago Auto Show in 1979, and it is impossible to overstate how sleek and futuristic it looked compared to the outgoing Mustang II. It was a design that owed nothing to the past except its basic proportions and layout. And amazingly, Ford managed to make it better-looking with each refresh throughout its fourteen-year run. It’s still my favorite generation of Mustang, and judging by the asking prices of them these days, I’m not alone.
The base engine throughout the Fox-body’s run was a 2.3-liter four-cylinder, a carryover from the Mustang II. It gained a turbocharger on two separate occasions over the years, with varying degrees of success. By 1991, there was no turbo option, nor was there any intermediate six-cylinder option between this engine and the V8, but it had gained fuel injection and a twin-spark cylinder head. It’s actually fun to drive with a five-speed manual, but this one has an automatic, which turns the driving experience into the automotive equivalent of light beer. It’ll get you there, but it’ll be a forgettable trip. This one runs fine, but has a transmission leak that should be addressed if it’s bad enough.
I don’t know how many Fox-body Mustang LXs were sold with red interiors, but I bet it’s a lot. It seems like half of the white or silver Mustangs of this era I’ve seen have red interiors, with the other half split between blue and gray. It looks good in red, and this one is in good condition. Even the headliner looks nice. Our old nemesis, the tree-shaped air freshener, makes an appearance, but we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt unless a sniff-test proves otherwise.
This “notchback” coupe bodystyle is prized by those looking to build a hot-rod Fox-body Mustang, because it offers a little more structural rigidity than the hatchback version. It also, I think, looks better, but you do lose the hatchback versatility. This one is in nice shape, though the seller says it has “minor surface rust.” If so, it’s certainly not obvious from the photos. It’s got aftermarket wheels on it, like so many Mustangs of a certain age seem to end up with, and someone added V8-style dual exhaust pipes to it. No word on whether they’re functional.
Really, there’s nothing wrong with either of these cars, except maybe the prices. They’re just not what you think of when someone says “Mustang.” But the great thing about both of them is that they don’t have to stay frumpy and slow; either one is an engine swap away from being a lot more fun, if you want them to be. Which one calls to you?
Fox body and take a V8 and manual and put it in there. Or even at least a V8 and it’ll be… fine.
I don’t want either but gun to my head I’ll go with the Fix Body but I’m not paying sticker for either Patty or Selma.
Gimme the Mustang II.
I have no idea why I want one of these, and this isn’t the exact one of these that I want, but I will take it.
Honestly if the Mustang II lacked the Landau top, I would genuinely consider it. It’s otherwise fine it looks like.
Both are overpriced for what they are, but the Fox could be revamped to a better-ish condition.
Let me get this straight – Ford built a new car completely unlike the prior generations, slapped the name “Mustang” on it, and then people complained it wasn’t a real Mustang?
Huh. Who’d a thunk it.
I want neither. Those are insane prices for both. Both generations of mustangs I want nothing to do with. But if someone was going to give me one probably the fox body.
I think the Fox body and G body fan bases are using Monopoly money and just forgot to tell everyone.
It’s as good as explanation as any. The only other semi reasonable explanation I can think of is weird California delusions and TikTok rot brain kids. The kids seem to love fox bodies 10 to 15 years ago they seemed to love 80s German cars. Ive been told they are confusing the fox body for Toyota ae86 in some cartoon. And that was also in effect for some of the 80s German cars years ago.
Wow, so many people are so much wrong.. The II is the way to go, cheaper, Radwood ready, no less exciting than the Fox. “Potential”? At $7500 there’s no potential, any dollar spent will be a dollar wasted. I can by an LX 5.0 ‘vert right now for less.
Yep, I’m having voter remorse already
My stepsister had a Mustang II as her first car in the early 90s — it had the 4 cylinder and a manual, and was the sickly beige of a discarded band-aid. I remember having to drive it one day and the sheer awfulness of that car actually made me angry. Just a slow, sloppy mess whose engineering brief was “we just don’t care.”
It was so terrible that her eventual upgrade to a ’83 Grand Prix was like winning the lottery. At least that car had t-tops!
So, FoxBody all the way…I doubt this particular one stays a 4 cylinder for long.
Going for the II, even though the Fox is a better car. My first car was a 74/75 Mustang II Ghia in metallic brown with the white landau top and 2.8 V6. Why 74/75? Well, the back half was a 74 (including the VIN plate) and from the firewall forward it was a 75. The rebuild was well done, but it was still a shitbox.
Fun failures included the fiber timing gear (learned about reverse thread bolts on the crank on that one), a failing transmission, and SEVEN starters. By the time I got rid of it I could change a starter in 30 minutes flat WITHOUT removing the manifold! Oh – and my brother’s Super Beetle could outrun it. I should have gone for the baby blue one with the 2.3 and a 4-speed, but it was $200 more and I was a broke high-schooler.
It was mine, however, and that’s what mattered in the end.
I didn’t even read the Mustang II description. I was going to pick the Fox no matter what it said, especially a notchback.
My wife had a white 4 cyl. fox body when I met her. Hatchback, 5 spd. and blue interior. It’s a minor miracle that the ashtray lid seems to be staying closed. I remember the chrome overhead “map light” well. I picked the Mustang II.
Was it the little flashlight-shaped spotlight that could fold down and point wherever you wanted? My mom’s 1979 Mustang had that and I always thought it was neat. My 90 and 91 GTs didn’t have it.
Yep, you can see it at the top of the interior pic.
I knew the interior and exterior door handles were the same between 1979 and 1991, but I didn’t know the map light still existed. I guess I didn’t get one because my 90 and 91 had a sunroof.
So what you are saying is your wife makes poor choices? Lol
While the 1991 Mustang has more ‘potential’, that’s not something that interests me. I’m not interested in a project. I would rather have a car that is kept stock except for the odd minor upgrade. Plus for a project, it’s way overpriced. And stock, it’s a crap car for that amount of money.
And in this case, my vote goes to the 1977 Mustang. It’s stock and doesn’t have stupid mods like a faux-dual exhaust. Plus it’s $2500 cheaper. And it would make for a more interesting C&C vehicle.
I’m not the guy for it, but the Mustang II is probably the better deal. Nice condition for the specimen. Still expensive, but that Fox body is way too much.
I voted for the foxbody, but this is probably one of the worst combinations. I’ve never been a fan of the notchback, and white isn’t exactly a great color.
I had one with the same engine and transmission though, but it was a dark blue hatchback with blue interior.
Even with more miles, I would take this LX 4 Cylinder all day everyday over an automatic coupe. https://www.hemmings.com/listing/1992-ford-mustang-755227
However, I would still take the overpriced Fox over just about any Mustang II. Honestly the Pinto is more attractive than the Moustangs of this era. Though I do take that with a grain of salt since most styling of this time period is quite off to me. and the Mustang II did have enough styling cues from the 64-65 start of it all to at least be relevant to the crowd that wanted them in the 60’s I imagine.
your link seems like a good deal, honestly.
This plain jane white LX is not but would still have that over the Pintostang so I guess Fox body for me…
This is easy. I see a fox-body, I vote for literally ANYTHING else. But in this case, I actually kinda like the weirdness of the II.
Torch needs to buy the II, I’m not sure how he’s gone so long without an example of the first mainstream American car with amber rear turn signals.
Crackhead prices to start off. Maybe $500 or $750. No way I have ever had a desire for a Mustang II. Ever.
The late 80’s early 90’s Mustang was ok, esp. in 5.0 form whether the GT or LX. But not a damn 4 cylinder with an transmission leak for $7500!!! Vanilla Ice did not rap about a 2.3 with an automatic and a transmission leak.
Gonna have to disagree with you there. I had a 90 GT, but I liked the looks of a high school friend’s 83(?) Capri RS best. I Generally prefer the earlier 4-eyes over the later flush headlight redesign.
Capri, Yes, Moustang, nope.
here is an 86 for a pretty nice price though. https://www.ebay.com/itm/257150196488?itmmeta=01K8NPSSJ3P6S08WQVSNDYX1S2&hash=item3bdf589b08:g:X-wAAeSwBjVo6MJO
Last year for the V6 option, though I am not sure that is better or worse than the 4.
As someone actively looking for a Fox Mustang I can say that 4 banger is WAY overpriced.
OK, I’ve owned different versions of both of these. I had a 74 in high school after performing a barrel roll in my Spitfire (Triumph, not Supermarine). I was a manual with the Lima 4 and won exactly zero stop light drags. Maybe even less than zero. But it was perfectly cromulent at the time for a teenager whose driving skills were no match for his need for speed, as the Spitfire demonstrated.
After getting my first real job out of college, I immediately bought a brand new 90 GT convertible, a car I kept for 7 years (and sold to buy a 94 Cobra that had some nice bolt-ons). In addition, several friends in high school had various years of Fox Stangs and Capris, all GT/RS’s.
The Fox is, in every conceivable way, a vastly superior car to the Deuce. However, I have a soft spot for the unloved Deuces. And since both are dramatically overpriced, I’ll save $2500 on the II and find an appropriate manual to swap in. The early Ford Rangers used the Cologne V6, right?
Thank you for that clarification.
I voted for the Mustang II. I like Mustang II styling for some reason, and I also like that it is honest about its lack of performance. The exterior looks a bit scruffy, but a good detail could help with that. The interior is also cool, although the unnecessarily long parking brake lever should probably seek medical attention if it stays like that for longer than four hours.
Fox body Mustangs are cool and, while I like Mustang II styling, I think that car is better looking than the II. I can’t get over the four-cylinder paired with the automatic, though, and the dual exhaust is the final nail in the coffin. This car is the epitome of all show and no go. I would rather have an honest Mustang II than a faux 5.0.
Look, I’m no psychologist, but the today I learned that (at this point) 70 of the readers here would look at Keira Knightly and say “nah, I’ll go for Lauren Lapkus”. To quote the immortal words of Tom Smykowski: “What the hell is wrong with you people!?!?!”
Look, I’m no famous actor, but the today I learned that neither Ms. Knightly nor Ms. Lapkus would go for you.
I’ve never been a Mustang guy. (Or a Camaro guy)
I can’t see the Mustang II and NOT think of Charlie’s Angels. I like the newer LX better. Or dislike it less.
I’d love to see a drag race between these two.
I would actually look forward to tinkering on the fox body, and a leaky transmission sounds like a great excuse for manual swap. I always preferred the hatchback, but in this case the notchback looks good and I bet that would make for a fun and pretty easy to maintain little run about.