Almost nine (!) years ago, I wrote about a selection of 1970s cars from my favorite car show of the year, the Motor Muster at Greenfield Village in Dearborn, MI. There’s much more to see than cars from the heady decade of my birth, but for some reason the wild and colorful hues and lines of the ’70s show up well on the green, green grass of the village. Regardless, when was the last time you saw a 1971 Mercury Colony Park station wagon?
Let alone a Colony Park with bucket seats? Yes, this Mercury must have a Marti report somewhere, because it is undoubtedly one of one (or maybe a handful).
Although I’ve never been a booster of big Fords of the 1970s, the rarity and condition of this grand old Mercury is impossible to overlook. On the other hand, those rear seats look like a cell in a dungeon to me – what a miserable place to be stuck for hours, days, (weeks?).
Unlike the Fords of the era, this Mercury has a straight-through dashboard without the confining “cove” for the driver, although all of the controls are still placed far away from a grasping passenger, especially considering the bucket seats in this car (although they are as wide as a bench).
God, look at all the shiny Di-Noc paneling and those hidden headlamps. It’s glorious – what a machine.
Ford wasn’t all about fake paneling in the early 1970s; they also offered many shades of yellow, green, and brown, and this bright yellow basic Torino has me yearning for a lemon cream pie.
Its restoration (or preservation) is immaculate, especially for something that started life as basic transportation, with a base 302 under the hood and what looks like an aluminum aftermarket radiator behind the fan shroud. No judgment – half of my old cars have an aluminum radiator, too.
The interior is taxi-like in its simplicity, but it is as spotless as everything else on this Torino. What a nice, uncommon car.
More in line with my preferences is this Mach 1 Mustang (a ’71 or ’72 – I didn’t write down the year and I don’t have a picture of the gas cap). It’s missing the color-keyed bumper that was standard on Mach 1’s, but few would notice or care. This is one of my oldest car crushes, as I’ve been gawking at pictures of my dad’s Grabber Lime ’71 since I was a kid.
The concurrent Camaro and Firebird were almost certainly better-looking cars if one is to be honest with oneself, but the Mustang with its flat roofline is distinctive and muscular. I’d drive one anytime, anywhere.
Of course, if you’ve ever sat in one, you know that the seat is torturously upright (although it should be adjustable with a turn of a bolt), and the rear visibility is poor. Nevertheless, the four speed in this example would go a long way toward assuaging those complaints, although I would replace the steering wheel with the boring factory version.
This ’73 Mustang convertible is almost as attractive as a Mach 1. Growing up in a Ford family, my childhood list of dream cars was constituted by first-generation Mustangs, one of which was one of these.
Most ’73 Mustang buyers purchased the automatic transmission, but this one has a three-speed manual, which makes it all that much better. I love the wild interior colors of the ’70s; it’s a little tougher to be sad on your way to work (or home from work) if your car’s interior is smiling at you.
That dark Ford green was popular that year, as long as a small sample size at a car show in 2022 is accurate. This Gran Torino Sport is different from most you’ll see these days.
It has the formal roof with a green vinyl top, whereas most Sports that I see at shows are Sportsroof models (Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof is a mouthful).
The ’73 Torino suffers a little in comparison to the similar ’72 model due to its…ample…front bumper. The tunneled grille of the ’72 model also looks more cohesive in my opinion, but the ’73 is still a striking car from the last throes of the mid-sized muscle car.
This one has the top-of-the-line (in horsepower) 351 four-barrel engine with air conditioning. It’s interesting that this was the performance option when there was also a 429 four barrel available, but that engine had been detuned to the point that it was barely making 200 horsepower. Dark times indeed (color options notwithstanding).
Some of these ’73 models with the 351 were ordered with a four-speed transmission, but this one has the column-mounted automatic (and a very green interior – perfect!). It’s interesting to compare the number of gauge clusters on the dashboard with an average ’60s Ford that had a speedometer, a fuel gauge, and a temperature gauge.
For some reason, my camera was attracted to ’70s Fords last summer at Motor Muster, but they didn’t have a monopoly on green. This ’71 El Camino is a prescient example of a truck that likely didn’t haul many serious loads.
It too has a green interior and a “basket handle” selector for its automatic transmission, in addition to your standard car show gimcrackery. The familiar ’70s driver-centric instrument panel is featured here as well, and kudos to whomever kept this Chevy in top condition for over 50 years.
The ubiquitous 350 small block sits in a surprisingly crowded engine bay, which is understandable considering the number of options on this El Camino.
A “truck” that perhaps saw more hard use in its life was this school-bus-colored 1978 International Scout II. If International could have lasted long enough to meet up with the SUV craze of the 1990s (and beyond), the automotive landscape might have looked a little different today (probably not, who am I kidding?).
Regardless, this Scout was one of my favorite cars in the show, although that’s always a tough call. Internationals were notorious rusters (what wasn’t?), but this one has either lived a charmed life or had a skilled body technician ministering to its every need.
The color may be a tip of the hat to International’s unsung school bus heroes. I rode in an old-at-the-time ’74 Loadstar for most of my third grade year, although it was replaced by a newer Chevy at some point (in the winter, perhaps?). I still remember the beefy stance of that International as it idled outside the school at the end of a long day of practicing my multiplication tables.
Here’s a car I know little about, although I have quite a few pictures in my files of various versions. It’s a Triumph Dolomite Sprint; uncommon in the States, it might have been a “four-door sports car” before the Nissan Maxima claimed the title in the ’80s.
The interior was everything that ’70s American cars weren’t: upright, airy, and glassy. The traditional dashboard and gray buckets added a light feel that honestly makes me want to take a Dolomite for a drive.
The Sprint’s engine was quite impressive for its day: a two-liter, 16 valve four-cylinder with twin carburetors. The vagaries of the British auto industry most likely led to its not quite being a hit, but the BMW 2002 probably didn’t help. Feel free to add your take in the comment section if you have anything to say about the Dolomite.
There’s a little something for everyone at June’s Motor Muster, even this 1978 VAZ. The annual car show invites cars from 1933 up through some indeterminate date in the 1970s (it’s historically been 1976, but this car obviously post dates that milestone year). If you’re in the area and you like ’70s cars, or almost any car, it’s the place to be.
The Dolomite Sprint always seemed like an ahead-of-its-time BMW E30 3 series to me – certainly looks the part, especially from the front 3/4 view showing the forward-jutting grille and four round headlamps, both which are very Bimmer-ish, as are the chrome strip just below the door handles and the kink in the rear door window, which Mr. Hofmeister didn’t invent no matter how much BMW likes to pretend he did. Quite stunning given this is basically a 1965 design; only the flat side glass gives away its age.
I too have pondered how well International might be doing today had they not abandoned the light truck market in 1981. SUVs didn’t really take off until they sprouted rear doors and became less trucky; the likes of the Scout, Blazer, Ramcharger, F-series-based Bronco, and two-door Cherokee all faded away. IH’s success would depend on how soon they pivoted towards 4 door models with more creature comforts. OTOH, big pickups are still big sellers, though these (and the big Travelall) were gone even before the Scout was.
The Ford Torinos and big Mustangs are interesting now, but boy did I dislike them when they were commonplace – so big on the outside, so small on the inside, ponderous handling, and dull looks.
These are some great examples of cars I remember from my adolescence. One of the assistant scoutmasters had a 71 or 72 Mercury wagon, though the lower trim version without the wood. But he made up for it with the whole car being painted brown.
I would wager that the seats on this Marquis Colony Park are more common than you might imagine – I think Ford called these “Twin Comfort Lounge Seats”. This was the seat style in both of my father’s Continental Marks (70 III and 72 IV) and I recall seeing them in brochures for LTDs too.
The Torino – as much as I love the exterior styling on the 70-71 Torino, the interiors on these were just awful. Not molded plastic awful like the Challenger/Barracuda, but cheap and uninteresting awful, with the dullest dash ever. I once looked at a 69 Fairlane sedan and that interior was awful too. The inside of the 72 was so, so much nicer.
A friend’s first car was an early 70s Mach I, in the colors used on the convertible you photographed. And oooooooh, the Scout!! And finally, I only learned about the Dolomite Sprint in the last several years – I wonder why Triumph didn’t send any of them here? That is one BL sedan that might have gotten some traction in the US. Unless they were sent here and bombed, but I sure don’t remember them.
I struggle to think of a more disconnected interior design from its exterior than the 70-71 Torino, even well trimmed with buckets and a console like in a GT it manages to look utilitarian taxi grade. I’m a big fan of the exterior styling otherwise, looks great in every color on the rainbow and even the regular roofline looks sporty.
We had that same seat configuration in our ’62 Mercury wagon, and it was not a problem what-so-ever. In fact, it was much preferred to the rear facing seats on most other wagons available then.
I don’t know why, but fake wood does only work on beige cars without looking ridiculous. So here it works.
I don’t recall ever seeing Di-Noc that glossy on any car back when they were new. I remember them with more of a mat finish. A dose of Armor All really helped.
Your right about the wood panels. They had more of a matt finish to them. I had a 75 Colony Park, 9 passenger, 460 4 barrel Motorcraft 4300 series carburetor. It was white with rich tan interior. A beautiful car, it was Fords top wagons, complete with luggage rack that was chrome and woodgrained. The rear window deflector was built into the back of the rack, it to finished in woodgrain. A few interesting details of Fords panels. The Mercury’s panels were slightly different colors from year to year. The color was always darker than the Country Squires, and didn’t have the chalk lines, or the blonde color wood trim, that the Squires did, the Mercurys were always trimmed with a bright molding. Another little known detail was that the woodgrain panels had clear areas in the grain. The reason for that was to have the woodgrain panels to blend in with the color the car was painted. That meant the entire car was painted first, then the panels were applied for an overall blended look. I learned that while in the process of replacing all the panels. I used to apply a coat of ATF to the panels to keep them looking fresh and thick. Although my friends thought I was crazy, it worked great. That Colony Park is one of my favorite cars I’ve ever owned. It was great looking, fast and powerful. Being a Mercury Marquis, it was finished with the top of the line trim, and was as comfortable as a Lincoln. I drove that wagon everywhere, I wish I still had it.
Whoever ordered that Colony Park with bucket seats must have had a lot in common with my father. He was one of the very few people who ordered a 1976 Buick Century wagon with bucket seats – and I remember that car being somewhat of a head-scratcher for a lot of people.
Dad absolutely HATED bench seats, and didn’t want to leave any possibility of someone sitting next to him in the car. My folks had been considering buying a wagon at the time, and when he found out that Buick offered bucket seats in the Century that year, he ordered one. Those seats were different from the buckets in this Colony Park because they were genuine buckets, with an empty space between the driver and passenger.
It’s hard to imagine today, but I remember people being really perplexed by the idea of a big wagon with bucket seats. Folks who rode in that car would often remark about the seats and ask “what’s the point?” – as if bucket seats in a wagon violated some unwritten dogma of wagon-ness. I assume they just chalked it up to my dad’s eccentricities.
That car served us very well; we kept it for 8 years, and Dad sold it to a colleague afterwards who drove it until about 1990. During that time, we never saw another one like it.
Except that they are not bucket seats, it is a split bench seat for 3 passengers that Ford called “Twin Comfort Lounge Seats”.
That yellow car after the Mercury wagon looks like it might actually be a Falcon (except now I see ‘Torino’ on the dashboard, sooo…) The one-year-only Falcon had the taxi grade interior and no emblem on the front grille…?
That’s what I think also about the yellow car. It’s a Falcon.
It looks like my parents’ ’70 Fairlane wagon they bought new. Same color too.
The pictures are of multiple cars. The shot of the back and the one of the front with it’s hidden headlights are definitely a Colony Park. There’s also a Colony Park interior shot too. I had a 75 Colony Park for over 15 years. I know a Colony Park when I see one. A fantastic car!
Jeez, every one of those Fords/Mercury’s is a good looking car! I’d like to bring them all home with me! Was that yellow basic “Torino” really a Falcon? I think Ford named some of the 1970 bare-bones Torino’s “Falcon”.
I don’t think the ’70 1/2 Falcon came in a two-door hardtop. The ’71 base Torino looks similar to the ’70 1/2 Falcon, according to the brochure.
Good point! You’re right, the Falcon that year only came as a two door sedan with a post.
And a wagon. The “rent-a-cops” (security guards) had one for several years at my college after I started attending in fall 1970.
I wonder if the Mercury wagon’s seat option wasn’t a “split bench with center armrests and bucket-seat styling” in the brochure.
The ’70 1/2 Falcon was one of the great mysteries – why make a 2 door post sedan for half a model year when there hadn’t been one in the Fairlane line for years? Why make a 2-door at all when the Maverick coupe already replaced the 2-door Falcon while the “70 1/2” was needed to plug a 4-door model gap until the Maverick sedan was ready for ’71? Why not just put a Fairlane-Torino dash and steering column into the “old” Falcon body to limp it home through ’70? Unless a cache of Ford internal correspondence is found/released we might never know.
The Dolomite Sprint sat at the top of the line of Dolomite and Toledo models with the same body and could’ve sold well on the coasts and in other areas less import-averse than metro Detroit. Certainly, similarly priced and sized models from BMW and Alfa Romeo along with cheaper European and (especially!) Japanese boxy little sedans were strong sellers.
Heck, you could even buy one from GM or Mopar dealers – the Opel (Ascona) 1900 and Dodge (nee Mitsubishi) Colt – Ford having thrown in the towel on the Cortina after 1970.
The Mercury has “Twin Comfort Lounge Seats” which was Ford code for a Split Bench Seat. So no allusions to bucket seats, it is a 3 passenger seat, at least assuming that the driver and passenger can agree on having them adjusted equally. The big question about the seats in that car is whether or not the passenger seat has the optional reclining front passenger seat, a separate box that needed to be checked along with the Twin Comfort Lounge Seats box.
http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1971%20Mercury/1971%20Mercury%20Full%20Line%20Prestige%20Brochure%20(Rev)/image7.html
70.5 Falcon 2 door was only a “post” coupe, not hardtop. If a ’70, the yellow Ford could be a Fairlane? For ’71, then all Ford middies were Torinos.
Over at GM, base 1970-72 Chevelle 2 doors [non-Malibu] were hardtops, no ‘posts’ as in ’68-’69. But, BOP’s same era base A bodies were ‘post’ coupes with vent windows.
The yellow coupe is not a Fairlane – Fairlane had much more basic seats. It appears to be a 1971 Torino 500 (the base Torino would have had much more basic seats), though I don’t know why the grill doesn’t have the split that the 71’s had.
I’m of exactly the right age to have spent a great deal of time in the “wayback” of many a 70s wagon.
The rear-facing seats provided a similar experience to a regular seat, only reversed. That was okay.
The center-facing seats in FoMoCo products gave a weird side-to-side motion upon acceleration and braking. If the driver took an unusually fast or hard turn, you might wind up face first in your seatmate’s lap. Ewww.
You weren’t supposed to have a seatmate in those sideways-facing third row seats – although the cushions were wide enough to seat two kids, one side of each cushion was usually a bit longer than the other, with the long section positioned on the forward half of the cushion on one side and the rearward half on the other. Thus, not only did you not have a seatmate, you also weren’t staring directly at the other way-back passenger, and your legs and feet wouldn’t become entangled. Of course, in an era when many parents had no issue with carrying four kids in the “way back” of a two-row station wagon sitting cross-legged on the floor, putting two kids on each side in real seats was even more acceptable, though only one per side would have a seatbelt. I recall it was also common to have two small kids share a seatbelt in any seating position if you wanted, say, to fit four kids across in the back seat.
I was not a big Ford fan in those years, but didn’t Ford advertise these as 10-passenger wagons when those seats were first introduced in 1965? There were no seat belts in any rear seating positions of domestic cars back then.
Otherwise, I see no point in having the side-facing seats, because GM, Chrysler, and AMC could tout 9-passenger seating in their 3-row wagons.
I kind of like those center-facing Mercury wagon seats. And isn’t that a shelf just ahead of the seats. What a neat idea. Kids can sit/play back there with the shelf for their toys.
As to the “dungeon” of the third seat, it was heaven to me to sit alone back there (or with a younger brother in a pinch) than being crowded in the back set of sedan with two older siblings and a younger one.
I’m glad you gave the Mercury wagon top billing, it looks like the star of the show to me (but I’m always biased towards wagons). I’m assuming it is in original condition, as such a car in that condition usually is as a full restoration is generally prohibitively expensive given the book value. That dinoc does look exceptionally glossy, I think it is usually more matte finish, but I don’t have any personal experience with early 70’s Mercury dinoc specifically.
Like others above, I would quibble a bit with calling the seats buckets. High back split bench seats is what I would call them. Though functionally similar to buckets, the ability to seat a third person would make it technically a bench, I believe. I’d rather have those comfy armrests than a center console w/o armrests, personally. Visually, I’ve never liked the brief early 70’s trend of high back seats in large cars. Just looks out of place somehow, though they undoubtedly offered better head cushioning.
My next favorite was the Lemon Torino, mainly because you don’t see many non-muscle versions these days. Those certainly came with a plain-looking dash.
Sign me up for the waiting list on the Colony Park. Just beautiful. As to the rear seats I see no problem as they weren’t for adults but for kids especially since you generally climbed into them from the open tailgate or sometimes rolled over the top of the second seat into them. I remember we kids thought it was cool.
That dark Ford green was popular that year, as long as a small sample size at a car show in 2022 is accurate.
Add another one to your small sample size. My mom’s 72 Gran Torino was that same color. iirc, Ford called it “Ivy Glow”.
The guy that owns that Triumph is a Brit ex-pat. He has quite a stable of British cars. I see him at the MM and at the Gilmore’s Brit show.
This Triumph is his too. I could have sworn that I had a pic of his Rover P6, but I don’t see it right now.
I can’t take my eyes off the Torino; the yellow, the 302, even the hub caps, I’ve ogled the big engine Cobras and GT sportsroofs of these years for as long as I can remember but it’s really refreshing to see a regular one in the color you’d expect of its muscle car brothers. I must have mellowed, because this is more what I’d actually want in an old car today, all the looks and easy to maintain(eg find parts for).
The Mach 1 looks better with the chrome bumper than the stock body colored one IMO The stripes and scoops and spoilers are so over the top on the 71-72s the conventional chrome bumper makes it look a bit more serious and less plastic toyish. Plus it makes it resemble a Boss 351, which isn’t a bad thing.
I’m amazed how overlooked the Scout is in light of the vintage Bronco craze sweeping the collector/custom car world
I just love that wagon! Beautiful. With a name that pays homage to American Imperialism; Colony Park! Just kidding. I grew up with wagons, my Dad loved them. I do too, though I’m careful to refer to them as SUVs.
The Mercury was the top dog from Ford, only bested by the Chrysler Town and Country wagon. GM’s offerings were good, they were all that my Dad bought, but they didn’t have the same cachet as Ford and Chrysler.
My favorite of these cars is the green ’71 Mustang convertible, with the Mach One running second. It’s funny how the Mach One replaced the GT in ’69, which was also offered that year. When the 80’s GT was reintroduced it was the volume model. Ford finally reintroduced the Mach One in the early 2000’s, though the latest post 2015 model is the real looker.
Just one gripe, I wish guys that replace the original style radiators with aluminum models would paint the darn things flat black. The shiny aluminum just stands out too much if they want to have an original looking engine compartment.
“Just one gripe, I wish guys that replace the original style radiators with aluminum models would paint the darn things flat black. The shiny aluminum just stands out too much if they want to have an original looking engine compartment.”
++++++1
I do love that Colony Park wagon. One very much like this one…just a few years farther along the 5th generation…figured prominently in my high school years. It was the family wagon of a friend and was the vehicle of choice when there was need for transporting upwards of 8 of us pals. First driven by one of my friend’s parents and then later by the friends ourselves once we were licensed. It was a beast. My family had an equally large wagon, but my parents were not so inclined to let me drive around 7 teenage dudes. They kept me driving my family’s “little car” probably figuring that I’d be less likely to get into trouble driving that.
The Colony Park I grew up with had that same interior, and I think that same front seat arrangement. I could be wrong about that, but am certain that the upholstery was the same. That cushy yet slick surface for sure.
I am wondering if the one pictured here is really a cream color as it shows in the pictures, or if it was actually more of a yellow. I think nearly every one of these I’ve seen in the wild has been yellow.
Great pics Aaron!
“I am wondering if the one pictured here is really a cream color as it shows in the pictures, or if it was actually more of a yellow”
In 1970-71 Ford used a color that was kind of halfway between pale yellow and beige. I think the real pale yellows were different.
The Colony Park is a stunning machine, wouldn’t mind owning one of the era now that I’m retired. If you couldn’t fit it and haul it in that ’71 wagon, you didn’t need it.
I was a second owner of a ’79 Colony Park with what I believe had all the options (including the integrated 40 channel scanning CB radio that would interrupt the radio) except the automatic parking brake release.
The red leather seats (split in front) looked like they were straight out of a Lincoln. All the little accents, even leather straps behind the front seats for passengers use.
The only downside was the EECII engine control. Pure junk. I replaced them an 2150 Autolite carb, Dura-Spark ignition, and conventional distributor. Problem solved.
Lo and behold it met its fate when hit by a Police cruiser, but fortunately no injuries.
I’m just focused on the colors, all green and yellow. Now admittedly, not all the shades are to my taste, but my gawd, at least it’s color and something besides the black, white and silver that overwhelm us these days.
My 75 Colony Park had the split bench 6 way power seats with reclining front passenger seat. It was a beautiful well appointed full-size American car. Everyone that road in that wagon loved it enough to say so. Mine had every available option including a factory locking hook release, ATC, cruise control and the fantastic 460 with duel exhaust. It also had the Ford factory am/fm stereo with cassette player that sounded great and always worked. It was white with tan tuck and roll vinyl interior. What a great looking, running and lasting car. It wasn’t an SUV! it was a beautiful big American station wagon, one of the best ever made.