It’s car show season, and a short Saturday trip to Bedford, Indiana led me to the second annual Stone City Rumble car show, sponsored by the Phaetons Car Club (for any those interested, here is a website with a schedule of car shows in Indiana). Most in attendance registered muscle cars–and I took plenty of pictures of those–but for now, I’ll share one of yesterday morning’s more CC-worthy finds with you.
When I began taking photos of this car, which I guessed (correctly, it turns out) to be a ’73, the pleasantly surprised owner introduced himself by asking, “You actually like this car?” I knew, based on what I’ve read about ’70s midsize and fullsize Fords on these pages, that their wallowy nature is often criticized, but I didn’t know they were especially unpopular in the enthusiast circles. Of course, I told him I appreciated the car and was completely truthful in doing so. I enjoy muscle cars, but when it comes to domestics, big isolation chambers are generally more my scene. More importantly, I knew the car’s somewhat obscure status (next to the likes of the Boss Mustangs and Dodge Chargers it was parked next to) would appeal to some of our readers a lot more.
It was nevertheless surprising that the owners would be so shocked by my fondness for their machine. I should have mentioned that their appreciation of this sort of car simply means they’re ahead of their time (note the appreciation of ’70s land yachts in Northern Europe, a trend sure to make its way here).
No matter what is said about this car, it’s now an antique and the labor put into its restoration speaks more to a sensitivity toward historical preservation than a desire to impress others, especially given how apparently accustomed the owner has become to the dismissal of his efforts.
I was also asked whether I wanted to hear the car run and before I could answer, one of the owner’s teenage sons had started and begun revving the engine. Under the hood, the engine was stock, complete with working A/C, but the exhaust was a different matter. Indiana has no emissions inspections, at least not in this part of the state, so most of the cars present had their catalysts (which this 1973 never had) removed and replaced with straight pipes. As delighted as I was by the very loud 351 under the hood, the same could not be said for the wife of the adjacent Mustang’s owner, who was cradling her now-petrified chihuahua.
The car was found in a barn (you don’t say!) with its left side bashed in. After fitting a replacement door and welding in a new quarter panel, the vinyl roof was replaced, as was the black carpeting and vinyl front bench. There are now buckets in front, removing any opportunity for a chummy, nostalgic three-abreast cruising experience. Perhaps that’s something not too many people miss.
One thing I neglected to ask was whether any improvements had been made to the suspension. I was told the car was mostly stock, except for the front buckets and loud dual exhausts, but I’d be interested in knowing how well the Torino’s chassis takes to modifications. If the cars are as isolated as I’ve been led to believe, perhaps a stiff set-up would be less punishing than something equally aggressive in, say, a Mopar B-body. Guess I’ll never know.
At any rate, it’s always nice to see a more workaday model get proper attention. Every detail of the car was thoroughly attended to, including the finish, which was flawless. If there’s any truth to what’s been said about these cars here at CC–something seemingly confirmed by the owner’s experience–there can’t be a huge number of 1973 Gran Torinos in this sort of condition.
Related reading: 1973 Torino, 1975 Gran Torino
Despite the big front bumper, I will go on record as liking these cars. Maybe because my dad’s first company car was a 1973 Gran Torino sedan. Metallic copper with a full vinyl roof, it was not really his style, and it was replaced with a new yellow ’74 Capri V6. This is the only known picture of it. It looked like a detective’s car!
Nice find, these cars are mighty scarce in the Midwest, though I did find a nice red ’75 coupe a couple years ago.
Tom, it took me a few seconds of staring at your picture before I realized that no, you did not confuse a snow-covered Porsche with a Torino!
Tom – that red ’75 coupe you found a few years ago, was it equipped the same way as Starsky’s car?
Nope, bone stock, red with white Landau top and whitewalls. Perry linked to its writeup in the article above.
I’m pleased to see that Torino; my Dad had the same company car. Stylish, comfortable, and reminded me of the 63 Galaxie convertible that I had in high school. What’s not to like?
I, too, like the frontal styling of these ’73 Gran Torino.
That looks very nice, Perry. I especially like the color, it’s different than the norm as well and works with the vinyl and the chrome. It looks like the owner did a great job on the whole car. I don’t have much experience driving large US cruiser-type cars, I just expect them all to be fairly wallowy and slow to react. As such I would not be surprised to see younger folks start to buy these on their external (visual) merits rather than the driving experience, i.e. sort of letting the more maligned models (dynamically speaking) experience a new lease on life.
Strong compliments to the owner for maintaining it in such pristine condition. Credit really is warranted for keeping a car from Detroit’s dark days, looking as good as it did when new. No small task.
Ford got their money’s worth with the tooling for those taillights as they were used on the Torino, Pinto, and Maverick in the 1970’s.
No the Torino tail lights though sharing the same basic shape are not the same as the Maverick/Pinto units. Now the Montego/Comet/Bobcat is another story, though by the time the Bobcat came out the Montego had moved on to a different unit.
Which Montego shared taillights with the Comet/Bobcat?
I did get a great deal on NOS Torino tail lights because the guy thought they were for a Pinto. The Torino lights are recessed while the Pintos stick out. They are actually quite different side by side. In fact the 1972 and 1973 Torino taillights look identical, but they aren’t (there are minor differences in the black coloration around the lens).
The 71 Montego for one, note the Cyclone went the Chevy route and added a 3rd pod.
1971 Comet and I was wrong the Bobcat didn’t use them they had a stretched version of the Pinto light.
Okay, the bobcat comment confused me!
Are the very similar tail lights on the Ford pickups and vans of the same vintage interchangeable with either of these cars? With each other?
The 73-79 pickups tail lights interchange with the 75-91 vans but not with any cars. The 67-72 pickup and 67-74 van also interchange.
I don’t believe the Torino tail lights were reused on anything. The Bobcat, a fancy Pinto, used a second set of Pinto tail lights flipped and backed against the first set. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt, but that move was cynical in the world of Badge Engineering.
The ’73 Gran Torino Sport had G70 tires and a “competition suspension” package with stiffer springs and shocks shocks, tighter rear bushings, and a rear anti-roll bar, which Car and Driver thought worked pretty well without making a mess of the ride. It probably helped in that regard that the Torino weighed 4,300 pounds; lots of sprung weight to smooth things out and a perimeter frame to soak up some of the harshness. How well that translates in modern terms is another matter, but they thought the Gran Torino with competition suspension rode much better than the Colonnade Cutlass S with heavy-duty suspension, for whatever that’s worth.
You always post such interesting information Ate. This is the second time I’ve heard good things about the handling of an early 70s Torino. One of the guys here (Bill Mitchell?) was telling us the same thing about his car. He posted a picture once, a beautiful ’72 GT if I recall correctly.
What’s interesting about the Car and Driver test of the Torino is that they actually did like the car – particularly in view of the derision that the car inspires today.
Great looking vehicle, and I also love the understated color.
I still don’t like these cars, but kudos to the owner for taking on the task of restoring an automotive black sheep like this one. The many creases and curves make bodywork or paint imperfections all too obvious and this one looks pretty straight. Someone put a lot of effort into this car, and it shows.
Handling and ride are subjective things, but one of the big reasons these cars are perceived as “barges” compared to the GM competition of the day is Ford’s miserable power steering system. GM’s integral unit provided decent feel, progressive effort and a nice lineal response. Ford’s archaic linkage system felt like you were driving on fresh ice, and combined with Ford’s softer suspension (they did ride smooth) produced a very isolated feel. Maybe a Gran Torino would go around corners faster than a Malibu or a Cutlass, but the overall feel of the car didn’t encourage you to try!
Once the midsize Fords moved to body on frame construction they switched to a Saginaw recirculating ball integral steering box using the exact same design and internal parts as the Colonnade and all other Saginaw PS boxes from that era.
It’s been a long time since I was under one. If they did change over, they did a remarkable job of preserving the dead, lifeless feel of linkage.
Actually, all 1972 and 1973 Torinos used a Ford built steering box, but they did go to an integral P/S system. Starting in 1974 some Ford intermediates used Saginaw boxes, but many still used Ford boxes. The Saginaw boxes were better for road feel and quicker and many people upgrade the Ford box to a Saginaw box (it’s a bolt in swap on these cars).
The 1971-1973 Mustangs used Saginaw boxes too.
As an owner of a 1972 Gran Torino Sport and someone who is heavily involved in the restoration and preservation of these cars, I understand the owner’s sentiments. They are often all painted with the same wallowing ride and handling paint brush and that is unfair. Yes, Ford emphasized a smooth and quiet ride with the base suspensions, and the cars were somewhat wallowy and understeered heavily when equipped with such. However, they were not that much different than the competition, in fact in a 1972 Popular Science comparison, the Torino and Satellite had the exact same speed through a handling course (both 4 door with base suspension).
That said, if one was smart enough to upgrade to the Heavy Duty suspension, the cars handling improved dramatically, and the competition suspension option for the two-door cars offered even better handling. In a 1973 Popular Science comparison, a 1973 Gran Torino Sport easily beat a Laguna, Satellite, and Matador by having the fast speed through the handling course. Car and Driver, Tom McCahill, Road Test Magazine, and almost every road test I have compiled from that day all complemented the heavy duty (sometimes called Cross Country) and competition suspension.
My car was factory equipped with Heavy duty suspension and it was not a bad handler and had no wallow whatsoever even with its worn bushings. I overhauled the suspension a few years ago (original with 145K + miles) and upgrade to even stiffer springs and bigger sway bars. The car handles at least as well as a modern Crown Victoria Police car and still rides very smoothly. If Ford hadn’t put such soft springs and shocks in the stock suspension, they weren’t bad handling.
I will say though the as the cars got bigger and heavier with each model year the handling did seem to degrade, especially with stock suspension. Ford made no effort to compensate for the extra weight these cars gained as the years progressed.
Here is a article online from Road Test magazine that selected the Torino twin, the Montego as the Car of the Year. This car had identical suspension and chassis setup to the Torino (as per Ford parts records).
http://wildaboutcarsonline.com/cgi-bin/pub9990262549620.cgi?itemid=9990473027007&action=viewad&categoryid=9910392828548&page=1&placeonpage=2&totaldisplayed=50
Yes but it is so much fun to bash Ford and attempt to perpetuate that Chryslers handle well due to the mythical beast that is the torsion bar as if that has any bearing on the handling at all. After all a torsion bar is just a coil spring waiting to be finished.
Just read the article rather interesting that they claim the preveious Falcon based intermediates used a McPherson strut front suspension which we all know is not the case. It is sad that a magazine would make that mistake on something that is clearly not a strut suspension, even worse than many of the modern magazines that think any strut suspension is a McPherson strut suspension.
Yeah, I noticed that error too. My guess is that not many people, especially North Americans, knew what McPherson Strut suspension was in 1972. But reading that article about the handling attributes of that car sure sounds a whole lot different than what people preach on here. My car had the exact suspension setup of this car in the road test. When I overhauled my suspension, I basically enhanced it to be the competition suspension specs (well, slightly better due to slightly high spring rates and modern shocks).
The mid 70’s Torino’s really packed on the pounds and I think these lighter early cars get grouped in with them unfairly.
Did many people actually order the competition suspension, though? Automakers tend to load up the press fleet with performance equipment that skews the car magazines’ reactions in a more positive direction, but that is nigh unobtainable for civilian buyers.
There wouldn’t be a massive number with the competition suspension, as it was limited to 2-door cars with either the 351 CJ or the 429-4V engine. That said, the car in the above test did not have the competition suspension, rather the much cheaper cross country suspension. The heavy-duty or “cross country” suspension was availaible in all models, was relatively cheap (something like $20), and made a big difference in the ride and handling on these cars. This was probably a fairly common option, but I’d be pretty certian the majority of these cars were sold with the standard suspension.
Even the 351-CJ itself was limited to 2 doors, except for police packages.
I checked through some of the stats I have collected, but I don’t have the specific break downs for the competition suspension option. I did find one stat showing that about 4400 of the 60000 Gran Torino Sport fastbacks were equipped with the “Rallye Equipment Group”, which was a performance option group that included the competition suspension. This means, there were still likely many other cars that had just ordered the suspension alone. Obvious other 2-door models would have been equipped with it (outside a GTS fastback). In any case, many of the cars being restored today have the competition suspension.
Also, of the 60000 GTS fastbacks, almost 13000 were sold with the 351-CJ, so it was not a rare engine option. The most rare engine choice for the GTS Fastback was the 429.
Ah it was you with the Gran Torino 🙂 Your car is beautiful!
Yes, that was my car I posted before. Thanks for the compliment!
I’m generally not a Torino fan, but I like this one. It’s got the right stance, and the colors suit it well.
Have seen the movie of the same name and really liked the fact that the lead actor overcame his prejudice.Later I learned he was a supporter of the Republican Party,so definitely not my cup of tea!
Cup of tea. That’s the joke!
When the 72 Torino came out, it sold like crazy, iirc, outselling every other midsize in the country. My mom had one, 4 door Gran Torino with a 351. By the time 20,000 miles rolled around the shocks were toast. A set of Gabriel Red Ryders made a huge improvement. Otherwise, a reasonably sold car, only a couple of problems and nothing major in 9 years and maybe 60,000 miles.
I was talking with a 72 Torino owner at the Motor Muster at Greenfield Village a couple years ago. He was quite a bit younger than I, and had never heard about the early 72s having a problem with the rear wheels falling off.
I relayed the story, and how Ford first offered to “fix” the problem by installing a retaining plate, so when the axle broke, the wheel would stay on, and how that got a thumbs down, so Ford had to redesign the axle.
Apparently, the later Torinos got the belt and suspenders fix as he said “I was wondering what those plates on the axle were for”, so his must have gotten both the beefed up axle and the retaining plates.
Torino’s had either a Ford 8″ or Ford 9″ (the majority were 9″) rear ends. All these axles used bearing retaining plates, this was not an add on. These axles were not like a “c-clip” Chevy axle that had no retaining plates. The 1972 recall had to do with the bearings and axle failing. Ford upgraded the axles to a larger diameter and installed new bearings. The new axles had 28″ splined ends (that fit into the differential) but tapered up to a 31″ spline axle size afterwards. Basically they installed a much thicker axle vs the original 28 splined axles.
My father had this recall done on the car in 1972, and had zero issues with the rear axle since. I took mine axle out last winter to clean and detail it, and the original bearings installed during the recall showed minimal wear after more than almost 150,000 miles. In 1973, Ford upgraded the Torino’s to use the larger diameter bearing axles used in the Fullsize cars, vs the smaller diameter bearing used in 1972 (common with the Mustang).
Any interior photos available?
I still think these boats are unattractive and symbolic of a lot of bad design from Detroit in the 1970’s. I do like the colors. And this article was a very enjoyable read.
I’ll echo FSO – Perry, any interior shots? Are the buckets installed from a Gran Torino. Just curious as to how authentic it looks.
Great looking car, I can only hope they will never be really liked, so we who do can get for cheap.
these cars look good now…the main reason why you don’t see them in the Midwest is that they were big-time rusters. it was normal to see them at 5 years old with holes all the way thru doors and fenders, so I doubt many survived thru beater status long enough to become special interest candidates.
In Toronto in the late 70s I saw lots of these without outside mirrors. The rust would migrate right to the top of the door and they would fall off under their own weight.
You have to respect these guys who don’t go for the sure thing like the much easier Mustangs, Camaros, Chevelles, et al, that litter these events. Keeping one of the much less liked models original, running, and in pristine condition has to be an infinitely more difficult task and, to the true automotive cognoscenti, are the ones to seek out at the car shows. As has been mentioned many times before, base, six-cylinder cars (especially non-compact or sporty cars) in perfect shape are the real, rare gold.
My father had a 72 (fish mouth) Torino with the 429 for one year as a company car. Was always getting a new company car almost every year and I drove them all after 16. I clearly remember the first thing I did not like about this car was the lack of visibility. The roads in our area were laid out in the 20’s and 30’s. Consequently they were narrow through the woods. What unnerved me was that I couldn’t see the corners nor judge where the sides of the car was. Plus, for a 429, the power was anemic compared to what I expected. So I only drove it twice which was very atypical. Some months later the 1973 911S Targa came to the house.
What this car needs is a red Starsky & Hutch paint job, stat!
And I would definitely tell that to the owner, if he is/was a fan of the show.
Playing devil’s advocate here…that may not go over very well. It’s like when somebody told me I should paint my ’63 Ford Galaxie four-door in black and white so it could be an Andy Griffith tribute car. Such a thing may not be appealing.
Is NOT appealing! Pathetic how many 60s Fords are ruined in this way. At least it stopped until S&H hit.
I was tired of the S & H look in 1976. The General Lee Charger is also overdone.
Oh, no!
Anyone who restores one of these deserves a ton of respect.
The beautiful thing about cars is that what appeals to one may not have appeal to a vast majority of others, such as this – and vice versa. Having some of my first childhood memories involving another ’73 Torino (not the Gran version) in tobacco brown metallic, my view of this car is decidedly tainted. However, floaty or not, the car was as durable as an anvil, going for 123,000 miles in eight years before being sold to somebody who had a commute of 50 miles each way.
This one’s currently on eBay. I think the sedans and wagons are safe from becoming S&H replicas!
The sedans are by no means svelte, but do look relatively leaner than do the coupes. However, that is just one person’s opinion!
I totally agree – the sedan looks more balanced. However, back in the day in SoCal, most folks seemed to buy the coupe.
They sold well for some reasons. I’d count style in the mix.
These were nice riding and driving cars for the time. My first wife and I bought a GTS brand new in 1973. The 351 had plenty of power as well. I lost it to her in the divorce two years later….
Since it has a Cleveland, I love it.
End of Story.
I always preferred the 1972-73 taillights more than the 1974-76 taillights, also is it just me or do I think of Jeff Bridges aka “the Dude” from The Big Lebowski every time I see a ’73 Ford Gran Torino?
My first thought was “That rug really tied the room together”.
I’ve only owned on mid size Ford. I really preferred the full size ones. All fords today are to small.
So nice to see one of these Torinos without that stupid stripe on the side. People love to sling mud at these things but I really don’t mind them. The color combo and Mag 500s really bring out the best this body had to offer, I don’t even mind the 73 front end on this one. I always liked the sculpting on the quarters and the heavily exaggerated coke bottle styling. The ruler drawn LTD II that replaced it looked so watered down in comparison.
Count me as good with these. A part of the scene in the ’70s and the top seller against its direct Chevy and Plymouth competition. If original this was an unusual color for the times, and looks fantastic today. Kudos to the owner.
I don’t know if the wheels are Ford, but if they are, they were rare. They look great on this!
At least it is not a 74. One ugly Ford that looked like it was a combination of at least three to maybe five other cars for that face. Although my brother’s LTD II could give that Torino a run for it’s money.
That’s an Elite, which isn’t really a true Torino even though it’s the same bodyshell. Regular 74 Gran Torinos have basically the same nose as this 73, only with a pointy grille and bumper.
No sheet metal from an Elite interchanges with a Torino. The Torino is the odd one out, the Elite and Cougar used Montego stampings.
Yeah I meant to say bodystructure, the edit button timed out by the time I noticed the mistake.
Although I’m pretty sure the trunklid interchanges on all of these
And I was about to say “It’s all Torino-good, until you want to step up to the mighty fine Elite!”.
By the time the Elite came out to (unsuccessfully) battle the Monte Carlo, the Torino was a has-been that only continued it’s journey downwards. LTD II? Please.
The Colonades just looked and drove better in every imaginable measure (except roll down rear windows).
Which is sad, because I’ve always rooted for Ford. There were glints of light however.
1974 Mustang II
1978 Fairmont
1979 Mustang
Like so many US car makers Ford nailed it first time with the Torino/Cyclone.A 68/69 fastback is on my wish list of American cars.The 70s were a bad time for American cars in both looks and performance.I like this car but not as much as the previous Torinos.It’s still a nicer looker than the bloated Mopar opposition and the colonade cars from GM.
I have a soft spot for these – my first car was a 74 Gran Torino.
with LTD II hubcaps; nice touch!
Thank you for the great article on a much-maligned car. I also give the owner credit for taking the time to restore something besides the all-too-common F-bodies or Mustangs or 1955-57 Chevrolets that one sees at every type of car show.
I’ve always had a soft spot for 1972-76 Ford and Mercury intermediates. They sold well at the time, and contemporary road tests show that their handling was pretty much on par with most of the domestic competition. By the early 1970s Chrysler Corporation was trying to soften the famed torsion-bar suspension to give its cars – particularly the full-size and intermediates – a smoother, quieter ride. So it wasn’t as though the Ford was a rolling Beauty Rest mattress while the Satellite and Coronet were offering BMW-like handling.
At any rate, choosing a 1970s domestic intermediate today on the basis of superior handling is likely to result in disappointment. By our standards, they were ALL terrible. Until 2000 I had a 1972 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Holiday coupe. It had the 350 Rocket V-8 and a heavy-duty suspension. The only noticeable difference the heavy-duty suspension made was to accentuate the bumps, which made the loose hardtop body quiver even more. (Yes, I just criticized the Sainted 1969-72 GM intermediates.) Otherwise, the steering required constant correction on a level highway, and any turns taken with “spirit” resulted in lots of body lean and howling tires. Any garden-variety Camry built in the last 25 years would run circles around it.
Assembly quality? Based on the original cars I’ve seen at the various Carlisle events and big Hershey AACA show, Ford was probably better in this regard than either GM or Chrysler. Ford definitely had nicer interiors than those two. The Mopar twins, in particular, were almost painfully plain until about 1977 or so.
Mechanically, I don’t recall these Fords as having a particularly bad reputation, aside from the “hit-or-miss” quality control problems that plagued the entire industry at that time. The main problem, as others have noted, was rust. I also remember, however, that quite a few people I knew bought brand-new cars and then hardly even washed them, let alone maintained them mechanically…by our standards, most 1970s cars were neglected and even abused. Particularly the lower-level domestic cars.
The big problem (aside from rust) was Ford’s ham-fisted attempt to meet the stiffer bumper requirements. It basically fastened two chrome railroad ties on to a car that looked as though it had been designed without any consideration of this standard. Which was odd, considering that Ford had to know that these requirements were coming down the pike when it designed the 1972 intermediates.
Great-looking car–it’s always good to see that the owner has taken care to get this car looking as good, or perhaps better, than it came from the factory. The color goes great with the black vinyl roof and the Magnum 500 wheels set it all off perfectly.
While my ideal Gran Torino would be a ’72 sportsroof (as would most people’s) I do like this one. The notchback coupe worked will with the ’72-’73 small rear bumper–it lost most of its appeal with the huge rear that was hung on for ’74.
I’ve always liked Torinos in general though. My aunt had a ’74-’76 sedan when I was younger, in that sort of avocado green metallic color, and I think that one made me more aware of them in general (they were already getting rare by the mid 80’s).
Even though I love 60s [pre-73] cars, I do get tired of casual car fans thinking they were made with ‘muscle car fairy dust’. Simply because they had no emission controls, etc.
But, they rusted and wore out too, and not all of them had ‘muscle car’ V8’s. And most had drum brakes on all wheels! “Not invented here” made disc brakes rare, until mandated. Lots of ‘muscle cars’ crashed from poor brakes, leading to high insurance rates, and the end of the era. So, they weren’t ‘saintly’.
This very car in “Pewter Silver” was my very first car. The only differences were that it didn’t have a vinyl roof and it was a 302 V8. I know that time tends to adjust our memories, but I loved this car. At the time it was actually quite handsome in my opinion.