When it comes to classic cars, the Ford Mustang often stands out as an icon of American automotive history. However, not all Mustangs are created equal. While some vintage models have become highly sought-after collector’s items, others have faded into obscurity for various reasons. In this article, we’ll take a look at 15 vintage Mustangs that no collector wants, exploring what went wrong with these once-promising rides.
Contents
1974 Mustang II
The 1974 Mustang II marked a significant departure from the original Mustang’s muscle car roots. Built on the Pinto platform, it featured a smaller, underpowered engine and lacked the performance and style that made the original Mustang iconic. Its focus on fuel economy over performance left many enthusiasts disappointed.
1975 Mustang II Ghia
The 1975 Mustang II Ghia aimed to provide a luxury compact car experience, but it fell short in both luxury and performance. With a lackluster 2.8-liter V6 engine producing just 97 horsepower, it couldn’t match the excitement of earlier models. Its heavy use of vinyl and fake wood trim also did little to impress collectors.
1976 Mustang II Cobra II
Despite its flashy appearance, the 1976 Mustang II Cobra II failed to deliver on performance. The available 302 cubic inch V8 engine was detuned, producing only 134 horsepower, which wasn’t enough to match the car’s aggressive styling. This disconnect between looks and performance left collectors unimpressed.
1978 Mustang II
By 1978, the Mustang II had worn out its welcome with enthusiasts. The final year of this generation continued to offer uninspiring performance with its small, inefficient engines. The car’s poor handling and lack of power made it one of the least desirable Mustangs for collectors.
1980 Mustang
The 1980 Mustang suffered from severe performance limitations due to the oil crisis and emissions regulations. The standard 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine produced a mere 88 horsepower, making it one of the weakest Mustangs ever. Its lackluster performance and bland styling make it unpopular with collectors.
1981 Mustang
The 1981 Mustang continued the trend of underwhelming performance. Despite minor updates, the car’s 2.3-liter four-cylinder and optional 4.2-liter V8 engines provided insufficient power. The overall build quality and uninspired design failed to capture the spirit of earlier Mustangs.
1982 Mustang L
The 1982 Mustang L was an entry-level model that offered very little in terms of performance or style. Its standard 2.3-liter four-cylinder engine was underpowered, and the car’s basic interior and exterior features made it one of the least attractive Mustangs for collectors.
1983 Mustang GLX
The 1983 Mustang GLX aimed to combine luxury with performance but failed to excel in either area. Its 3.8-liter V6 engine provided mediocre power, and the car’s dated styling did little to attract enthusiasts. The GLX’s lack of distinguishing features makes it a less desirable model.
1984 Mustang SVO
The 1984 Mustang SVO was a high-performance model with a turbocharged 2.3-liter engine, but it struggled with reliability issues. Its advanced features, such as adjustable suspension, were ahead of their time but prone to failure. Collectors often avoid the SVO due to its maintenance challenges.
1985 Mustang SVO
The 1985 Mustang SVO continued to suffer from the same reliability issues as its predecessor. Despite its impressive 205 horsepower, the turbocharged engine’s complexity and the car’s high price tag made it a tough sell. Collectors often seek simpler, more reliable models.
1986 Mustang SVO
The 1986 Mustang SVO was the final year for this high-performance model, but it still couldn’t overcome its reputation for reliability issues. The turbocharged 2.3-liter engine remained problematic, and its high maintenance costs deter collectors. The SVO’s niche appeal limits its desirability.
1989 Mustang LX 2.3
The 1989 Mustang LX 2.3 suffered from the same issues as previous years. Its 2.3-liter engine remained underpowered, and the car’s overall design failed to excite enthusiasts. The LX 2.3’s lack of standout features makes it a less desirable option for collectors.
1993 Mustang LX 2.3
The final year for the Fox Body Mustangs, the 1993 Mustang LX 2.3, continued to struggle with performance issues. The 2.3-liter engine’s 105 horsepower was insufficient, and the car’s outdated design failed to impress. Collectors generally prefer models with more power and better features.
1973 Mustang Grande
The 1973 Mustang Grande was marketed as a luxury model but failed to deliver on performance. Its heavy weight and lackluster engine options, including a 250 cubic inch inline-six, made it slow and unresponsive. The Grande’s focus on luxury over muscle didn’t resonate with enthusiasts.
1972 Mustang Sprint
The 1972 Mustang Sprint was a special edition model celebrating the Olympics, but it offered no performance improvements over standard models. Its unique paint scheme couldn’t make up for the car’s uninspiring engine options and handling. Collectors often pass on the Sprint for more exciting Mustangs.
This article originally appeared in MyCarMakesNoise.
More from MyCarMakesNoise
The 20 Rarest Sports Cars Ever Made
Explore the world of sports cars, where the real excitement for enthusiasts and collectors is finding the rarest gems. This article highlights the most exclusive, limited-production sports cars ever made, from unique one-offs to legendary limited runs. These vehicles represent the height of rarity in the automotive world. Read More
The 10 Best SUVs for Conquering Rugged Terrain
Welcome to ‘Off-Road Warriors: The Best SUVs for Tackling Any Terrain.’ This is your guided tour through the world of terrain-conquering titans, vehicles bred with the tenacity to take you wherever the compass points, whether there’s a road or not. Read More
15 Iconic Cars That Are Actually Terrible to Drive
Iconic cars capture our imaginations with their unique designs and compelling backstories but looks can be deceiving. While they may dazzle on the showroom floor, some of these celebrated models fall short behind the wheel. Read More
