Even though I can appreciate the Mustang II for what it was and what Lee Iacocca was attempting to do for Ford’s pony car, I tend to agree that there’s a lot about that generation of Mustang that just isn’t right. A butchered-in V8 that was never intended to be in the engine bay, a focus on interior comfort over any kind of sporting intentions, and tape-stripe performance? Yeah…even a fan has to admit that the Mustang II was a bit of an odd duck, no matter how well it did at the start. One of the common themes I’ve heard over the years is that instead of making a better Pinto, Ford would’ve been wiser to have made a Mustang out of the car that wound up becoming the Ford Maverick. There’s reasons that would’ve worked out well, namely a more appropriate downsizing versus the radical half-ton shrinking that took place between 1973 and 1974, and a minimal change in black metal on the car, since it would retain ancestral parts rooted in the Ford Falcon. 
The Mustang II might have been Iacocca’s “little jewel” and yeah, it sold well for the time, but this 1976 Maverick has a great argument to make. Mercifully, someone backdated the nose and tail to 1970 standards and bumpers, so you don’t have the gigantic crash bars these poor compacts got later in their production run. The Mustang wheels sit nicely on the car, The inside looks great, a 302 fits underhood, and there’s a better chance of fitting someone into the backseat of a Maverick than any Deuce will ever manage.
A Mustang II looks like what it is…an upgraded Ford Pinto. The Maverick looks like someone stuck a 1971 Mustang into the laundry and got a shrunken item back when they opened the dryer. We know which one we’d rather take.
Unfortunately you can’t polish a turd! The Maverick was one of the most boring cars Ford ever made and no amount of shiny stuff will ever change that.
I don\’t see your car featured. Besides there is always somebody thats jealous and gonna talk crap about a car that brings it\’s owner joy.
They ain’t boring when you stuff a Boss 429 into one.
Great little overlooked cars. The upstyled Falcons were a bargain. I had a gold 72 with the 302 C4 and manual everything and it was a sleeper (to start with)
How wrong people are that have no idea of the history of the Maverick..never owned one, seen one,or driven or raced one, but should get a medal for trying to tell others what a turd it was.
Sweet looking Maverick, here in the Midwest many had succumb to rust issues.
With a disappearing AC compressor?
It is a clean car…….
Nice that he change the bumpers. ’76 bumpers are chrome plated railroad ties! Only wished that it was floor shifted.
Yeah, Ford would have done really well to take a heavier car with the same 60\’s suspension and steering components and call it \”Mustang\”,even though it would have had the same underpowered 70\’s emmissions choked 302 and weak inline 6 with 1 barrel carb..
Instead of a smaller, more economical car with a great front suspension system and two new engines that have been upgraded and continued into the late 90\’s (2.3 lima 4 cylinder and cologne 2.8 V6.)
Also if you want to compare the two cars, You should probably use the 74 and later Maverick which also had federally mandated, big front bumpers, which by the way stuck out much further than the Mustang II.
I personally have one of each Cars in this article, Mustang II, Pinto and Maverick. And I love all three but the Pinto and Mustang II drives much better around curves.