(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?
Now we have two Autopian authors writing about Fictional David. This is most excellent news and I hope more stories come out.
I suppose for many it’s better to be made fun of than invisible. I’d rather fly under the radar and not be the butt of jokes. But that was just me. Now I make jokes that people occasionally find funny.
I like both but gonna go for the Bitchin’ Camaro.
You beat me to it!
Definitely a neither for me today, so I went with the cheaper mustang.
Lest we forget, the Mustang 2 donated its rack and pinion steering, independent front suspension, and disc brakes to countless street rod projects. What an innovation: a pony car that turned and stopped well! (Or at least, better.)
I think the Mustang 2 suffered because it looked like a tarted up Pinto. But I kinda dig it.
The best part of all that donation, IMHO, is the reduction of Mustang 2’s able to run.
I agree that it does look like a tarted up Pinto, but feel that’s not a bad thing. The early ones were pretty good looking – and better looking than the Mustang’s pug nose IMO.
Full disclosure: I owned a 1979 Pinto County Squire wagon with the Lima 2.3 and a 4-speed. It was slow as sloth snot in acceleration, but in every other way was a very pleasant car to drive.
https://itisgood.org/auto-biography/#79Ford
So I’d gladly daily a Mustang II.
I had a ’79 Pinto Runabout, unfortunately with the 3-spd auto; even slower than yours, but I agree, it was a fun car to drive. I loved that silly thing.
My father had a 74 V6 manual notchback Mustang II in that same green, with a supply of replacement points in the glove box that memory has me thinking he once changed them stopped at a light. Memories of mid 80’s camping trips in that car with me and my brother packed in the backset with a 72 quart cooler between us has me having to pick the Mustang II. Plus we lived in Kearny NJ, spelled properly without the e.
But how is it pronounced in NJ? I did a project in Kearney (with the 2nd e) and all the locals pronounced in “Car-knee.” Educated in elementary school in California with an emphasis on phonics, that messed with my head all week.
Yup pronounced Car-knee, town named after General Philip Kearny, the fort then town in NE was named after his Uncle.
Story we had growing up is a shipping clerk at the fort added the E because it didn’t sound right and it stuck. Also heard Kearny is the Irish spelling and with the E is English, being the NJ Kearny’s were Irish and the town very Scottish no way would they side with the English.
I think I’m going for the Mustang today…There are few things sadder to me than a gen2-3 camaros with no spoilers or anything (the gen3 berlinetta or whatever is the same vibe). It just looks wrong, knowing how bitchin’ z28s and Trans-Ams look on the same platform. I’d always be wanting a z28 or trans am. The Mustang II doesn’t get better…it’s at its peak (maybe aside from the King Cobra?) in this form and it’s worth embracing for what it is.
Camaro. It’s no Trans-Am but it’s just begging for some resto-mods
Bitchin’ Camaro today.
Whomever buys this in McMinnville, OR can go to the air museum and tour The Spruce Goose while they’re there.
Better than trying to drive it up from the Bahamas.
Oooo I used to have a Spruce Goose model kit, I even built it, and did a “Report” on it for a class presentation in 3rd Grade.
I was going to add a link, but the edit time has passed.
So here it is:
https://noramaerospace.org/exhibit/the-spruce-goose/
Thanks! That timeline aligns with my grandparents going to see it and the QEII, which is how my Grandmother and Aunt travelled to the US from London after WWII. They brought the model kit home for me as a souvenir.
I also used the term bitchin’ to describe Camaros just now. Is this one of those unspoken rules? The peak Camaro form is bitchin’
The Dead Milkmen always pick up their punk rock girl in their bitchin’ Camaro.
I clicked the link and was reminded that :
a. I left my bluetooth speakers on WAY too loud
b. I haven’t had enough coffee this morning for that
Hard to believe that song is almost 43 years old.
1984 was one of my formative years when it comes to music.
I’m gonna go with Kermit, mostly out of style points. It’s honest about what it is, and no one will mistake it for a “Muscle Car”
I’ll probably get tired of it’s snails pace, and swap in a 5.0 W/GT40 heads, intake/exhaust and an upgraded trans and 8.8 out of a Fox body to make it get out of it’s own way.
Or build a Clevor for it. Maybe both…
Kermit any day of the week. Super ’70s, and I’m sure you can wake up that engine…
1) I like both I’m going to vote Camaro because of “parking-garage lady.” She lives in a condo in a downtown area I sometimes hit on weekends. Her Camaro is this vintage, not sure what motor, but it’s a lower trim not a performance trim, in kind of a meh yellow-beige. She lives in an area with good transit and walkability, so I suspect it doesn’t see many miles, but it’s garaged and is all-original. I had a brief exchange with her once, and we always wave. She’s the original owner, always wearing fashionable sunglasses, smiling, looking happy, and as awesome as any 60 or 70-something in a vintage unmolested Camaro should be. Parking-garage lady, you go girl!
2) An ex came to the US with his family as a 9 or 10 year old just before the Iranian Islamic Revolution (1979). The family car was a Camaro of this vintage and there’s an awesome pic of his mom, dad, and brother posing with it, all looking 70’s fabulous.
(I don’t hate Mustang II’s, and this one is definitely of the period)
Parking garage lady sounds like my kind of woman.
I consider the malaise era having spanned early 70s to early 90s. I know that’s broader than the general consensus, but hear me out: By the mid 80s American vehicles had largely recovered from the styling dumpster fire that was the mid-to-late 70s and early 80s, but aside from a few bright spots, general performance was still a ways off. It was the mid 90s when your average car finally regained sufficient power to get out of its own way.
Your dates seem accurate to me. I am old enough to remember the early 70s to early 90s and the horrid cars when they were new, and I agree with you.
This is definitely a day for the Neither button because Jesus, asking more than $5000 for either of these things is ballsy.
The Camaro looks better but in my opinion is trying to be a lux coupe more than sporty anything, V8 notwithstanding. I don’t care for it much.
The
PintoMustang has less of a reach to try to be something more than just a down-at-heel V8 sport coupe.Not that I would bother.
I didn’t even have to read the descriptions, but did just in case. Camaro is the easy choice.
Camaro because I like GM more than Ford. The 305 needs to be yeeted into the nearest lake for anchor duty and a LS with a modern automatic needs to take up residence underhood. Double the ponies, better reliability and better fuel economy seems worth it.
I wouldn’t do a LS swap. Years ago, there was a guy with a Camaro of this era that had a GM performance 350 swap. Looked factory under the hood, fuel economy was the same, 2 year warranty on the engine and drove better than new. I think he had about 350 instead of 120 hp. Plenty of power for that car.
Bitchin’ Camaro!
Did his folks drive it up here from the Bahamas?
I must be, the Bahamas are islands!
This is a “both” day. You had me at malaise. For whatever reason, cars of this era look great to me. Even the cheap, crappy ones are interesting. Viva malaise!
For voting purposes I went with the Mustang. The Mustang II isn’t my favorite Mustang, but it probably would be my third choice behind an OG ’65 and a Fox body. The color is fabulous. And as always, a color matched interior is a huge plus (yet again I lament living in an era where you can have any interior color you want as long as it is black). Plus, it is cool that it is low mileage. It might be a little expensive for what it is, but it is still $6500.
No complaints about the Camaro, though. A lot of what I like about the Mustang applies to this car as well. I prefer the Mustang as well as the Mustang’s price tag, but this is a solid choice.
No offense, Mark, but you kinda wiffed on the branding today. There is nothing remotely scary at all about either of these fine machines.
I’m sure some others will disagree. And as much as I like these two too, I remember how poorly most cars of this era ran, and how much fuel they wasted.
Maybe so, but I would argue they are mistaken.
The 1970s:
Cars were slow, inefficient, and unreliable. You drove your colorful car in a sea of poorly built but distinct, variable vehicles. You raised or lowered the window slightly to be more comfortable. You twisted the dial on your radio to get a better song coming through the static of your lone speaker. You lived, but with interruptions.
The Malaise Era
The 2040s:
Vehicles are efficient and infinitely reliable. You are driven through a sea of other bland, grey, interchangeable three row electric crossovers while you are force fed ads and AI-generated short videos Clockwork Orange style. You have no need for thoughts. Nor feelings. Nor hopes. Nor dreams. Life is lived for you, as your car drives you to a destination predetermined by your car’s advanced AI agent. You exist.
The Hell Era
Winter is coming.
I, again, choose malaise.
I think we both might be looking at the ’70s thru burnt-orange-colored glasses, but your vision of the future sounds terrifyingly accurate…
I’d be scared to spend $5000 just to get to know either one of those cars. Yes they are survivors and good examples of how they were. But how they were was not great. It would be a scary bad driving experience to merge into Boston traffic with one of those. Of course they probably had loud ass horns, which would save their skins.
Cruise at 65 is not the problem, getting it to 65 is.
That Camaro is the same one my mom had, so I have to choose it today
I really hated the Mustang II and the fastback rear end
I’m going Mustang. I wasn’t a teen in the ’80s, so have no nostalgia for the ugliest Camaro this side of the facelift 4th-gen, anyway. Spoilerless, looks like a dog leaving a present in the front lawn. And that front suspension on the II is pretty good. Thousands of hot rod builders can’t be wrong.
Yeah, neither of these are appealing, but I’ll take the unloved Ford, and leave the other for glassy-eyed Gen-Xers who want to pretend to be the cool kid in the school parking lot.
Camaro, and it’s not even close. It’s better as it sits, and the upgrade potential is so much higher.
And I guess I’m the weirdo who likes the notchback Mustang II over the fastback.
You’re not the only one. 2nd and 3rd gen notchbacks look WAY better than the fastbacks.
If I have to pick one, i”ll take the Mustang (II). Had a ’74 with the 4-speed manual and the 2.3 Lima engine. 0-60? Maybe…
I had the same, except it might have been a ’75. I still have a fondness for these much maligned little guys and would love to give one a mild resto-mod. This one needs a 3rd pedal, but there are probably still a few sitting in junk yards somewhere.
It’s not easy being green, but that Mustang II has some real ’70s charm.
Even when these cars were $800 and $1200 respectively, I’m still going to pass. At these prices, someone REALLY has to want one of these for… reasons.
I just cannot
A strangulated V8 Pinto
or
The car that spawned the OLD joke: “Why are Camaros like hemorrhoids? Eventually every asshole has one.”
I joke I remember from that era.
I vote neither.
Based on my experience with the psychopath down the street, your assessment of the Camaro could not be more accurate.
My earliest memory of that joke is 1987.
I always thought it was just a midwest thing or maybe even a US thing but I laughed very loud when Clarkson said the same joke on an early Top Gear episode
Considering the psychopath down the street was in 1984, he might have been the asshole inspiration.