(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?
I had a 77 Camaro for a few years; it was split-pea green and had full wheel covers and whitewall tires; essentially the opposite vibe of a Firebird. It was, however, fun to drive, and the interior made you feel like you were in a race car. My parents drove it up here from the Bahamas.
I am taking the Mustang and going Steve Austin on it. We have the technology…
I prefer the Camaro but that is not a 5 digit car, come on.
MII all the way if for no other reason green and the vintage inspired V8 badges.
I like the green. In fact, I really like it.
I never found Camaros to be all that good looking, so I’m tossing a bone to the Mustang.
They’re both old (as am I) that I’d be happy if they just ran, regardless of what’s under the hood, and I just used it for a lazy weekend drive to get groceries, or random nice day into the office.
I’m going to fix everything that is wrong with the Mustang II’s styling with a nine word sentence. Move the front wheels forward three or four inches.
Arguably everything else about the car fits the era fine. Interior is fine. Sporty even. Exterior is also fine except for the front axle location. Engine performance is par for the era. So crappy.
I’m a Ford guy. I own6 Fords. Two Mustangs. A Super Duty. A Ranger. A ’32 Tudor Sedan. And a Bronco Sport for daily driving. But the Camaro is the choice here.
There is no aftermarket support, direct or indirect, for the MII. And the cars get less respect than Rodney Dangerfield. And he got no respect I tell ya.
The Camaro’s deficiencies can easily be overcome.
Look Up Alcino Azevedo’s Cobra II, he did that wheelbase lengthening and it looks great.
Camaro for me. My family liked this so they’d love to go cruising in it. They would not be seen in the Mustang II leaving to cruise by myself. The Camaro is easier to modify and find interior parts for it.
This is a good time to point out to The Bishop that the Mustang II could probably have been much better received if the overhangs were fixed along with larger tire/wheels. I think the Mustang II came with 13’s but really needed 15’s.
I have to go with the underdog Mustang II. They’re nice in their own way, and still underappreciated. And a green car is a welcome sight in the modern sea of grayscale paint.
I reflexively voted for the Camaro, mostly because I saw that crack in Mustang II vinyl dash, and scrolled right to the bottom.
I may have been hasty- The Mustang II is a more interesting relic in many ways, and being a lighter car, it is probably faster.
There is something honest about the Mustang II that I appreciate. The downsized proportions and comical styling feel appropriate for the malaise era, and cast aside any implications of high-octane credibility. The horsepower wars are over- Time to cruise down to the record store and buy some ABBA records.
The full-size, malaise era Camaro on the other hand, is still pretending. It feels like the high school quarterback that didn’t make the college team, and hasn’t learned to let it go.
I’m a Ford guy at heart, but apart from the Bronco and some standouts from the truck line, the mid 70’s were very bleak days in Dearborn. The Mustang II is a no-go all day. The Camaro might be wheezy as hell and the heavy chassis does it no favors, but I think you might be able to coax a smidge out of that 305 with a different carb/intake, headers, and true duals. It wouldn’t run a ton faster, but it would sound cool and that’s one of the most important things. This one is in great shape for what it is, and honestly seeing one like this hearkens back to high school parking lots/side streets in the 80’s…guaranteed that there’d be at least one or two of these.
I was already grinning wide at the lede image, and then you started with the dialogue. Thank you for the smiles today!
Oh, and although the Camaro looks faster, I’ll take the 20 inch shorter car, which also hits my nostalgia buttons as I learned to drive on a ’78 Rustang! As a hardtop, it might squeak less than our family’s version with T-tops.
Also, both of those car colors look great! I’ll be green today.
Mustang II for me… I like how these look, I like the colour and because the Pinto-Mustang is lighter, it’s probably meaningfully faster than that Camaro with the 305.
Also in the video in the ad, it sounds like it runs well.
It’s clear that the Mustang has had sections repainted and not very well matched. But for just $6500, you’re not gonna get perfection. And the Camaro isn’t perfect either and costs way more.
So the Mustang gets my vote.
If the Camaro had a manual, it would have swayed my vote.
I’m putting NC Miata powertrain in the Mustang 2…
That sounds like it would be interesting. Based on the curb weight difference it will be slower than an NC Miata, but likely faster than any stock Mustang II.
I’m presuming you’re dropping in the engine with the 5/6 speed manual, correct?
That’d be the only way to go!
The 2nd gen Camaro wore the big bumper redesigns of the mid-70s surprisingly well. I think it’s a gorgeous car, and the interior is some vinyl die away from looking pretty close to mint. This one is definitely worth the effort to make it quick enough to have fun with, which can be done on a very low budget. I’d rock that car in a heartbeat.
If I have to make a choice, Camaro. The Mustang looks like a tarted up Gremlin. Since both engines exist to turn gasoline into noise and disappointment I’ll go with the better looking car. Then I can start saving money for that glorious day when the horrid 305 wheezes the last time and I get to swap it with a much better engine.
Note that the 305 isn’t a bad engine per se. It can do 80-90% of what a Chevy 350 can do.
I recall reading an article about what you can do with a 305 in Hot Rot or some Chevy Performance type publication. And the only real difference is the 350 has a wider selection of performance parts. But there ARE some performance parts available for the 305.
If you apply those performance mods, the engine response in the same way a 350 would. And it would be way cheaper than getting another engine.
Have a look at this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHuO2lMx80c
Then swap the slushbox for a manual (like a more modern Tremec T5 or T56) and you have something that performs way better at a far lower cost than an engine swap would be.
Yep. The 305 got a “boat anchor” reputation from the 1970s incarnations. Let’s face it, the “real” 350 didn’t fare much better then, either. It just carried more aspirational goodwill in the depths of the Malaise era.
A lot of standard small-block Chevy parts just bolt up to the 305, so as time passed, a lot of them got a new lease on life. With the gradual addition of 305-specific go-fast parts, it’s become a perfectly fine part of the small-block lineup for customizing.
I had a 305-powered squarebody pickup that I nabbed for a decent price while the cost of anything that could move under its own power was spiking during the Cash for Clunkers mess. It was definitely a rustbucket work truck, but a previous owner had dropped in a nice Edelbrock high-torque cam, intake, and carb — but hadn’t correctly adjusted the timing appropriately, nor figured out how to correctly route the EGR lines. I took it, sorted the timing and EGR over a few days, and cleaned the carb. It wasn’t pretty, but it was a fun truck for quite a few years before frame rust got bad enough. At least it had plenty of good, usable parts to keep other squarebodies on the road.
The Mustang II is a flimsy, underpowered shitbox.
The Camaro is an overweight, over-engineered, ill-handling tank.
Let us hope that anyone in the market for a mid-70s malaise pony car has the wisdom to choose correctly.
Sooo… Mustang II because it’s more similar to a Lotus, right? RIGHT?
Hard neither day. If I’m spending $6K to $10K on a car it isn’t going to be a malaise era relic. And yes, the Malaise era extends all the way through the 80’s.
Both of these cars require regular emission testing – have fun with that.
Going for the Stang II today mostly because I think the Camaro is overpriced for what it is but also because I’ve always thought the Littlest Stang would be a fun car to wake up with a modern (or at least semi-modern) engine swap ad at $6500 it’s not like I’m messing up a future classic with the swap.
Well, between the two of these pretendmobiles (and using your money), I chose the Camaro. It at least looks the part. I can remember when these littered our high school parking lot. For a while every one of the quarterbacks drove one of these in the exact same color.
How much would you have detune any modern V8 to get only 140hp? Take 2 or 4 or 6 cylinders offline? The 70’s were rough.
80’s were rough too. The Corvette entered the decade with a 190 hp 5.7L V8 and exited with only 245 hp.
Neither one of these is worth half what they’re asking. I voted for the cheaper one.
Yikes those prices could get a lot more interesting cars.
Tang2.
The Camaro is embarrassing. Someone might think I was the original owner. although that interior is impressive.
The tang 2? Hardly anyone remembers what they look like, I prefer the size, and you are new heads and a cam away it being pretty quick. I bet you could do that with the engine in situ.
And the 1971-73 Mustangs were pigs.
Going for the Mustang II. Amber rear turn signals, green interior, more green staying in my pocket.
It goes without saying that everyone would rather have a Camaro than a Mustang II. Aside from maybe Bizzarro Mark that, instead of K-cars, has an illogical love for Malaise-era Fords.
BUT, if these are the last two used cars on earth, I’m not willing to pay $4k more for this Camaro; just to get the same power and same 3-speed auto with better looks.
Having spent too much time looking at Mom’s brand new but terrible ’74 Pinto in my yoot, I just have to put in my vote against the Mustang. The two are either side of a losing coin.
The Camaro at least lets you pretend it’s still a muscle car, cuz it’s roughly the same size as the previous gen. If you squint, you can pretend to be Rockford. The Mustang2 is just a pot bellied pig to its predecessor’s bulldog (or pick you favorite breed to insert here).
I voted based on the money today. $10.5K seems like a lot for that Camaro. Saving my Internet Dollars for tomorrow.
Now there is an idea for the Showdown: Start the week with $20k Internet Dollars, choose a car each day but try to make it last to Friday.
Agreed. I’ve had that Idea before. The problem is, how do you track it?