I would limit the ugly part of the II's to the bumpers in my completely unbiased opinion. (lol)
Ahem..(steps on to the soapbox)..
I know I have said this before, but unlike the foxes, SN's, and land yacht years, these II's at least actually look like a Mustang, not a fairmont, an import or a Galaxie.
And before someone mentions it, they do not look at all like pinto...also my completely unbiased opinion....
I still don't get people who call down the II styling but don't say anything about styling (or lack thereof) of the fox body (yes I have owned some, last one was a VorteC Supercharged black 5 spd 93 gt) Nice cars, light and perform well.. look nice.. but styling? ... there really isn't any. The SN's could literally be a Mazda. The slab-ish 71 to 73's are stretched nose LTD's.
Am I being harsh? perhaps, but no less harsh than the uninformed opinions which label the II as a Pinto. Heck, I would rather own a Pinto than a 71 to 73 Mustang or even an SN for that matter..
Everyone has their reasons for liking a particular year of Mustang and it doesn't always meet with other people's approval or tastes, but I really don't understand the II bashing, especially by the Mustang community, when there are far far worse examples of styling or lack of styling in the Mustang world.