(A telephone rings. David picks it up.)
David: H-hello?
Creepy voice: Hello, David. I hear you like scary project cars. Tell me, what’s your favorite scary car?
David: Um… a “Holy Grail” Jeep that I can’t afford?
Creepy voice: Aw, is that the best you can do? Think bigger. Think scarier.
David: Uh, how about Christine? That one was pretty scary.
Creepy voice: You’re not even trying, David. What’s a car that really, truly scares you?
David: This isn’t funny, Jason.
Creepy voice: This isn’t Jason.
David: Okay, then you tell me, smart guy. What’s the scariest car there is?
Creepy voice: Why don’t you look in your carport?
(David looks out the window towards his carport, and lets out an ear-piercing scream.)
That’s right. Welcome to Shitbox Showdown’s Scary Car Week.
Before we I frighten you all too badly, though, let’s finish up with last week’s final four. I didn’t keep tabs on the voting over the weekend, and I was astonished to see that the busted Chrysler TC by Maserati came away with the win. I expected the Honda Accord to walk away with this one. It came in a respectable second, with the two Fords trailing along some ways behind.
I would really love to fix up that TC, but I also fear getting bogged down in another fragile project car. I think I’d rather have something that I don’t have to work on a bunch before I even get to drive it. The Transit van I have no use for, so it’s out. The Accord is nice, but I worry that I’d constantly wish it were a manual. That leaves the dark horse, the beige 4×4 Ford Tempo. I could actually make a case for this one. It would be an ideal winter car, and a great way to keep the road salt off my “good” cars. It would also be a hit at next year’s Oppocross meet, and I bet it would do pretty well around a dirt track, with 4WD and a limited-slip rear end. Have fun with it until it gets rusty or the transmission grenades, whichever comes first, and walk away without feeling like anything of particular value was lost. (Good grief, did I really just pick the Tempo out of that lot? Now that is scary.)
I find it amusing when some commenters refer to mid-late 1980s cars as “malaise era.” Pfft. Those cars were high-performance masterpieces compared to what came ten years before. Today we’re going all the way back to the mid-1970s, in that bleak period between the two gas crises, when Detroit was caught flat-footed by a slew of new safety and emissions regulations and couldn’t fall back on its old “throw horsepower at the problem” trick. There was no horsepower to be found. We’re going to look at America’s two most celebrated pony cars, as they existed in their darkest hour. Yes, they both have V8s, but taken together, they don’t make as much power as a brand-new four-cylinder Mustang. They’re built badly, from cheap materials. And I’d be surprised if either of them tops 15 miles per gallon. Scared yet? Let’s check them out.
1975 Ford Mustang II – $6,500
Engine/drivetrain: 302 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Kearney, NE
Odometer reading: 39,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
Very few cars are as universally derided as the Mustang II. Many Mustang fans go so far as to disregard it entirely, spitting a curse or two if anyone dares mention it in the context of other generations of Ford’s pony car. But Ford’s drastic downsizing of the Mustang proved to be the right move; it sold like hotcakes, and kept the model alive. Without the Mustang II, you wouldn’t have all the cool Mustangs that came after it. And let’s be honest: the 1971-73 Mustangs were getting really fat.
When the Mustang II debuted in 1974, it didn’t even offer a V8; a 2.8 liter Cologne V6 was the biggest engine available. Ford relented and made a 302 V8 available in 1975, but it was a sad shadow of its former self, with low compression and a camshaft that could be used to roll out pastry. This engine wheezes out 140 horsepower through a three-speed C4 automatic, giving it a 0-60 time of “you don’t really want to know.” This example runs well, according to the seller, and is just shy of 40,000 original miles.
The seller doesn’t give us an overall view of the interior, just a couple of close-up shots. I chose this one because it shows the big-ass crack in the dashboard. What little we can see in the other photos makes me think that the interior is actually pretty good overall, but don’t quote me on it. All I can say with certainty is that it’s very, very green.
In fastback form, the Mustang II isn’t a bad-looking car, at least in my eyes. The overhangs are a little long, or maybe the wheelbase is a little short, which makes it look sort of comical, but also friendly. I don’t know how many truckloads of this pea-green paint Ford went through in the 1960s and ’70s, but I bet it’s a lot. This one has “a few blemishes,” according to the seller, and the ad shows a bad spot in one rear quarter panel, and a little rust on the rear hatch. But in general, there’s nothing about its appearance that would embarrass you – except, of course, that it’s a Mustang II.
1976 Chevrolet Camaro LT – $10,500
Engine/drivetrain: 305 cubic inch OHV V8, three-speed automatic, RWD
Location: McMinnville, OR
Odometer reading: 143,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives well
The Mustang’s arch-nemesis is, of course, the Chevy Camaro. Introduced two and a half years after the Mustang, the Camaro was always a little edgier than the Mustang, with just a bit more of a bad-boy image. Chevy didn’t downsize the Camaro for the 1970s; it had just received a complete redesign for the second half of the 1970 model year, and Chevy chose to just keep updating that design to keep up with the new regulations. It’s a gamble that paid off; Camaro sales climbed through the mid-late ’70s, while Mustang II sales started off strong and then faded.
The Camaro kept its V8 all along, but it suffered: the new-for-1976 305 V8 in this Camaro LT put out the same 140 horses as the Mustang’s 302. The only time this Camaro could do donuts on your lawn is right after a rainstorm. It is nice to see how original it is; too many low-end Camaros have had engine transplants or half-assed attempts to hot-rod the 305. It runs and drives well, and it has been well looked-after over the years, it sounds like. The seller says it cruises at “65 miles an hour no issues,” which isn’t much of a brag, but we’ll take what we can get.
The LT was the “grown-up” Camaro. It was supposed to be a little quieter and more comfortable inside, but I’ve never noticed much of a difference. This one is in nice shape, surprisingly so, actually. I’m used to clicking on ads for second-generation Camaros and seeing photos of absolute disaster areas inside. The plastic is faded and chalky, but the upholstery and carpet look good, and the dash is intact. The air conditioning doesn’t work, and the seller hasn’t touched it. You could get it going again, I’m sure, but it’ll take some work and/or money.
There are times when GM’s design department absolutely knocked it out of the park, and in my opinion, the second-generation Camaro is one of those times. The original split-bumper version is the prettiest, but Chevy did a great job of keeping the design fresh throughout its run. And I like the base and LT models without the rear spoiler better, myself. This one has a few battle scars, but it’s a good ten-footer: nice, but not too nice to drive and enjoy. The one variation from stock is an aftermarket sunroof, but as long as it doesn’t leak, it’s kind of a cool addition.
What’s really scary about these two is that they were kinda-sorta aspirational cars. They cost more than a Maverick or a Nova, and all they offered was a little extra style and a nameplate. And for people my age, they were just about the best we could hope for; malaise-era cars were what was in our price range when we were in high school. I’m convinced that cars like these were partly responsible for the popularity of hair metal; you couldn’t do a burnout, and you needed something to cover up all the squeaks and rattles in the interior, so pop a Mötley Crüe cassette in the Sparkomatic, crank it up, and make the best of it. What do you think? Which one frightens you less?
This one is really tough.In my teens I owned a 77 Z28 for a few months and it really sucked as a car, despite being beautiful. Slow and troublesome, probably because I paid $500 for it.
My cousin was given a new Mustang II for her 16th birthday (the family owned five bakeries) and I thought it was the coolest car ever. She took ten year old me to ice cream in it, blaring Meat Loaf.
The Camaro could be made into a clean driver, but I’m going Mustang, probably because I’ve installed a few of those sunroofs in my days at the Pontiac dealership, and they all leak. Maybe it was installer error, though.
Pony cars have never been my thing, but I will never develop any sympathy for a Mustang II. Never!
The only things working for the Ford is the paint color and it’s not the notchback which looks even worse. Not even Kate Jackson whispering in my ear could convince me to own one.
The Camaro in profile looks early 60s Corvette in profile and the interior looks better. Not a bad look, although I worry that the rear glass would be difficult to source. So, Camaro it is today.
Kate drove the Pinto. Jaclyn Smith had the Ghia coupe.
I would be embarrassed driving the Pinto, I mean Mustang. So yeah, Camaro 100% of the time over one of those turds.
Agreed. I see a lot of Pinto in back. Ford Gelding. HT: David Letterman’s Top 10 of non-starter model names, along with the Hyundai Accordian. Those two are the only ones that stuck in my gray matter.
I like Mustang IIs. I dig JDMs from that era that either got priced out or rusted away. You put that one on watanabes, MKIIs or Longchamps, lowered, and add an external oil cooler? Chef’s kiss.
You’re limited what you can do with the rear-end suspension. But you can get aftermarket axles and at least swap them over to five lug. Now With that front end? The aftermarket is your oyster.
Favorite? Alcino Azevedo’s Cobra II
I love green vehicles. Gimme the Mustang Deuce with the big ass-crack.
You mean big dash-crack? The green is lovely, though.
I voted for the green one because it’s green.
The red car has an aftermarket sunroof because the Camaro didn’t get T-tops until 78 (though the Trans Am got them as a limited edition option in 76, then a regular option in 77), but the 76-77 Hurst T-tops are smaller than the 78+ Fisher ones, so it really doesn’t matter anyway LOL
The German Capri is the real Mustang II
Big-ass crack, or big ass crack? That hyphen is carrying a lot of weight and $6500 is a lot of money to find out that it was used incorrectly.
Both suck. Spend less. Ford.
I always move the hyphen on blank-ass blank.
Definitely the Camaro, at least it’s pretty. The only think I can see when I look at a fastback Mustang II is a stretched Pinto. That is not a good look. Metallic pea green inside and out is an even worse look. That hooker’s bedroom interior in the Camaro is at least cheerful. And dash cracks offend me. Though the Camaro looks like it MIGHT have one of those horrible hard plastic dash toupees on it.
Oh let’s get real – I wouldn’t touch either one with David’s money. Gross.
David’s money. Ha! In two words, you’ve liberated me into voting every day even when I find both detestable. Thank you.
And the notchback Mustang IIs were even worse.
Happy to be of service! It really terrifies me that the Mustang II was a big seller. Must have been all those ’70s good drugs.
0 – 60 for the Mustang II is roughly 11.5 seconds.
0 – 60 for the Camaro is roughly 12.2 seconds.
I’m going with the Mustang because of the lower odo.
Those are quarter mile times, right?
🙂
Well played!
One number can be two things at once. :-O
Nobody who really cares about 0-60 times is buying anything from the 70s, anyway. Or 60s, really, I mean, if that’s the only thing that’s important, then you’re best served with a used Tesla
I chose the Camaro but could have gone with a “both” option. As Mustang lls go this would be the one to get.
I’m gonna vote for the Mustang because everyone knows that sucks, so they won’t be expecting anything at a stoplight. Whereas with the Camaro I’ll be embarrassed because people will think it’s fast and I’ll feel dumb about getting beaten by Chevy Sonics and Honda Fits and all.
My first car was a used ’76 Mustang II hatchback with 4 cyl and a stick. So the ‘stang got my vote for nostalgia’s sake. For the time, it was an OK car. But I can see why Mustang afficianados look down on it.
Even though the Mustang gets some bonus points with its fastback and V8, it’s still a Mustang II. My stepsister had a tan notchback that looked like an old band-aid, and it was one of the most miserable cars I have ever driven. The kind of bad that makes you angry for having experienced it.
On the other hand, I once owned a 1971 base Camaro, and while the ’76 isn’t as pretty and has less power, it’s got way better fundamentals than the Mustang.
Camaro all the way.
Even as a Ford guy I’ll take the 70s Camaro. I do like the green color on the Mustang II though.
I’ll go with the majority and cosplay Jim Rockford, not Kelly Garrett. Camaro it is.
Mustang, it isn’t as terrible looking as the Camaro. Plus green over the sea of burgundy and red.
Camaro. I agree the early 70s split bumper Camaros were the best looking; however, that look was only available if you opted for the Rally Sport package that was all cosmetic and could be applied to all model levels. In addition to the split bumpers, it included a special endura grille, round turn signal/parking lamps inboard of the headlights, and some bright work and RS badges on the exterior. Inside there was some burl wood trim and an RS steering wheel hub. Regular Camaros got a full bumper, standard grille, and rectangular turn signals mounted below the bumper.
I’ve owned and driven enough F-bodies. I’ll take the Deuce and keep my expectations low.
Either one of these would involve a significant loss of self-respect, but I’m going with the Mustang. I never liked the looks of those Camaros and I’m not a red interior guy. I also like that green color. True, I’ve generally thought that calling those cars “Mustangs” was an insult to the nameplate, but that was before the crossover thing came out, so I see the Mustang IIs a little differently now.
I was driving then, and had a little experience with both. I remember a night driving around with a heartbroken guy in a new ‘76 Z28 with an America tape in the 8-track. My best bud had a new ‘76 Trans-Am 455 (Momma’s money) which was clearly better.
Was there ever a ‘70s Camaro without crooked taillights? It was a consistent point of poor construction. The Trans-Am guy had to make them repaint the thing as it was all bubbled and orange peeled from the factory.
While I seldom favor GM, I’ll go Camaro in spite of the taillights.
I had a ’76 Trans-Am in the late 80’s, with the 455 4-speed. Good torque and low end power, but the Accord I have now is faster. It handled nice and was a cool-looking car for the time. The interior was falling apart and it was starting to rust pretty bad by the time I sold it early ’90’s.
Not built to last, for sure.
It’s only play money so I take the Camaro. I honestly can’t believe the asking price but like an old boss once told me “There’s an ass for every seat”.
Camaro, for the sole purpose to careen it off that cliff in Alaska in front of the crowd.https://www.glacierviewcarlaunch.com/
That looks like a fun event. Hmmm what am I doing July 4, 2027?
Camaro!
Bitchin’ Camaro