(first posted 4/18/2017) Constantine Hannaher posted a few shots of this ’73 Torino SportsRoof, and as much as it has the ability to attract the attention of the eyeballs, I couldn’t help noticing the other coupes photobombing it. But let’s give the Torino its due consideration first. Finding what appears to be a quite original one like this one, right down to the wheels and original-sized tires, is quite a coup. Needless to say, its huge hips make those wheels and tires—which were beefy in their time— look mighty small, but that’s just the way things were.
The Mercedes W140 S-Class Coupe makes a nice counterpoint to it, especially since Mercedes became the torch-bearer for the two door hardtop after American manufacturers abandoned it. In fact, this Torino was near the end of the line for American hardtops, and Mercedes still makes them. Passing the baton, one could say.
And in this shot, the Torino shares a bit of its digital space with a Lexus RC coupe, one whose roof line might be considered to be something of an homage to the SportsRoof. And a closer look shows that the Torino is not sporting its original exhaust.
Sadly, there’s no coupe up there behind the Torino. But the Chrysler 300 is a relevant companion, as one could say it represents the kind of car a buyer of the Torino might have gone for: an unabashed all-American car. Now if only there was still an American hardtop.
The sports roof on this car bothers me. That tiny little window on the side looks so out of place, couldn’t they have made it bigger?
As a matter of style, no. That little triangle is what’s left after you shape the roof, decide the thickness of the pillar, place the rear wheel and the hump of the rear fender, then cut a door in it.
But the rear quarter windows on the standard coupe are even smaller.
Without a Starsky stripe to break up the body line the hips on those cars makes that rear tire look tiny.
Or “laser stripes”. As a high school senior in 1973, I thought this was one of the ugliest cars Detroit ever spawned. The GM Colonnades were gorgeous by comparison?
EDIT: I posted the above before seeing Bill Mitchell’s comment about laser stripes. But no offense, I still think these Torinos are not attractive cars.
I remember being disappointed when the fifth gen Camaro and new Challenger debuted with fixed quarter glass and B pillars, when both of their concepts on the show circuit were true hardtops. I remember thinking then that the American hardtop coupe would make a comeback, but I was wrong. Mercedes long uninterrupted tradition of hardtop coupes into the modern era is the strongest counterpoint to the devils advocating for fixed b pillars out of the guise of rigity and safety. It clearly can be done, and the results would be stunning
The Torino looks to have low air in the rear tire, which doesn’t do any favors for it’s stance, plus these really were intended to have whitewalls or RWL tires, which effectively accomplish the look of a bigger wheel, black sidewall tires look almost universally terrible on cars of this era, when bodies got really swoopy and bloated. Off topic slightly, this front end is the ugliest 5mph bumper execution there was of the 70s. At least the 74 Matador sedan’s frumpy mug fairly well matched the rest of the car, the Torino sportsroof body and this face just couldn’t look more out of place together
XR7Matt-
I agree with your assessment of the front end styling, but our opinion could be colored by the superior ’72 Gran Torino styling-
While the ’73 fascia is ugly, when you contrast to the ’72 it becomes a tragedy, dragging it to the top of the ugly heap.
Definite come down off from the 72s but I think it goes deeper, I actually think the non-Gran base 73 Torino nose is more attractive.
I have never been a huge fan of the 1973 front end either, but I do think the 1972 Gran Torino front end looks far better than the Torino. While the 1974 Gran Torino got a new front end, the 1974 Torino had basically the same front end as the 1973 model.
My dad bought a 1972 Torino and always said that he probably wouldn’t have bought as Torino in 1973 because of the front end.
More time progressed the worse it was and to butter very thick add an opera window to this foul sauce .
Given the hugely thick C-pillars and gunslit window height of the retro-muscle cars I wonder how late in the design phase they stayed.
”gunslit window height of the retro-muscle” Present Camaro is far from being retro and it is much much worse on this subject …worst ever.
Ah, to be without a B pillar again… *sigh* – alas, we shall never see this again.
My first car (same year and make, much larger model – I’ll spare you all the picture this time) was such a coupe… and while the first in a long line of 2 door cars for me, it was the last in which I could roll the rear windows down for that clean look.
I really miss these. Like XR7Matt above, I had high hopes for the Challenger, Camaro, and even the Mustang with their retro comebacks, but as usual, let down by the production model after seeing the concepts.
I was absolutely shocked one day driving down the road and passed by some sort of Mercedes that had all the windows down and no B pillar… and it was a NEWER car… I honestly thought I was seeing things until reading Paul’s post here. I never did catch a model number, as I was staring at the hardtop look in disbelief. And I didn’t see the broken up lines that would indicate it was a retractable hardtop like a Pontiac G6, either. Does anyone know what I may’ve seen that day? – Eh, just as well… probably can’t afford it anyway.
The 1970s produced, perhaps, the worst rear visabiity in my lifetime. Look at those massive rear pillars.
And most cars of the era did not have right side outside mirrors. Think about THAT 🙂 .
As someone who has man miles in one of these cars, the over the shoulder visibility is fine. The only real visibility flaw is the rear visibility. When backing up, it is hard to judge the rear’s location due to the fastback window.
FWIW, the Gran Torino Sport came standard with dual sport mirrors.
Current Camaro is the worst ever and not just for rear visibility, all around is not good. They can put as many cameras as they want, it doesn’t solve the direct view problem. Simply don’t want to drive a submarine.
A lot of ’73 MY cars looked unbalanced due to the front bumper supposed to be a 5 mph bumper and the rear was not required. This is a classic example. And the 5 mph bumper killed the sportsroof basically. Hard to integrate. I think I read that yesterday on here.
Another instance of one of my favorite model names of the 70s: The Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof. Just to make sure people didn’t miss the ‘sport’ that Ford was packing into every one. (Yes, I know “Sportsroof” was FordSpeak for fastback and that “Sport” was a trim level, but it still sounds like something from the Department of Redundant Redundancies.)
Has there been anyone alive from 1972 to the present day who considers the 1973 Gran Torino front end an improvement over the 1972?
“Has there been anyone alive from 1972 to the present day who considers the 1973 Gran Torino front end an improvement over the 1972?”
Perhaps the original designers? Probably even they just said, “if the government gives us lemons…we’ll just cut them up and serve them. Why bother making lemonade?”
The 72 is reasonably attractive car, if you like the outsized rear haunches and tiny rear window look. The bland grille and railroad tie grafted onto it for 73 definitely killed it’s appeal. Less powerful engines didn’t help either. What a strange time the early 70’s were!
The ’72 Torino front-end was so much better!! It was the one year when you could see the original design intent for the Torino before the ends had to be “squared off” to meet Federal requirements.
In general, a lot of the ’73 cars bother my aesthetic sensibilities, since they have massive front bumpers combined with older-style, smaller rear bumpers. This Torino is an especially bad offender, with the batting ram front bumper and the near-carryover ’72-era rear bumper that was integrated into the bodywork (for looks, not protection).
+1 – The ’72 was the best, and at least the ’74 looked like it was supposed to with battering rams front and back. But the ’73 doesn’t look right due to this mismatch.
The sportsroof was also dropped for 74, the 73 notchback body didn’t look as disjointed with this front end. The grille was reworked enough to look reasonably attractive for 74 too IMO
By 1974, I think we were all getting used to the big bumpers, and you’re absolutely right; the new grill work for the ’74 Grand Torino did look pretty nice, especially in the Starsky & Hutch Red, IMO.
+1 My father had a 72 Sportsroof for a year. From a driver’s viewpoint, mine, there was precious little visibility out the back and an extreme lack of being able to see any of the four corners of the car when parking. Did look good sitting in the driveway.
I believe that was the Department of Redundancies Department.
I believe that after ’73 all of the midsize Ford “hardtops” had fixed rear quarter windows, and the Sportsroof was gone completely, of course.
Ford’s 5-mph bumpers weren’t particularly well executed, but in this class the Colonnade Chevelle was really no better. Chrysler’s intermediates managed to get by with rubber blocks until their ’75 redesign, while AMC went with their unique stand-alone beams with no filler pieces. The Pinto and Maverick were the worst of Ford’s efforts – the new bumpers ruined both designs.
I was also disappointed that the current Camaro and Challenger aren’t true hardtops, With the size of today’s A and C pillars, I wonder how much additional strength/stiffness the B even provides.
Actually, Ford’s discontinuance of movable quarter windows varied by body style: Pinto, optional to the end; Maverick, optional to the end; Mustang II, fixed; Torino, fixed after 1974; Elite, always fixed; and the Big Ford, fixed beginning with the ’75 2-door greenhouse redesign. With the counterpart Mercury models, it was the same, except that early ’75 Marquis did have functional quarter windows until mid-year ’75, when they became unavailable.
I always felt sad when looking at the ’73 Torinos — such a letdown after the ’72s.
In the field of non-functional rear windows, therefore not lowerable, the prize goes to GM with the a & g bodies ; https://jalopnik.com/in-case-you-forgot-heres-a-little-detail-to-remind-you-1846942001
I disagree with the others here about modern hardtops. The sole point is to provide an uninterrupted opening with the windows rolled down. The problem is that nobody rolls down their windows any more.
Hardtops also require frameless door glass, which are awkward to close, don’t seal as well, and are less sturdy than fully framed doors.
The current Camaro, Mustang and Challenger all use frameless door glass.
Weather sealing of the modern frameless door glass is helped by computerized power window mechanism that automatically lower it a couple of inches before door opens, and raises it after door closes. A design first seen on the 1992 BMW E36 3-series coupe, if I am not mistaken. Now every car with frameless doors has it.
The four-door Lincoln Continental convertibles had this feature on the rear doors beginning in 1961. When you pushed the button to unlatch the rear door, the window lowered a few inches.
Frameless glass has been common forever, and you can’t judge a mechanism by how well it worked 50 years ago. Framed glass doesn’t even seal well in old cars by modern standards.
You’re correct that nobody rolls their windows down anymore, but having fixed glass in back creates more wind noise at speed than 2 door hardtops or 4 doors with the windows down. Sort of a chicken and the egg effect. I don’t understand how cars like the Mustang or Camaro have a convertible bodystyle with fully working mechanisms for the quarter glass and not just use that for the coupe.
I would guess that the glued-in window is ten pounds lighter and $100 cheaper than the motorized window.
I was wondering why manufacturers simply didn’t install the quarter windows from convertibles, too, and it might have something to do with how low volume cars like convertibles are now built. Unlike years past, a lot of them are farmed out to another company (like ASC) for final assembly, and that involves pulling partially assembled coupes off the line. It’s at the outside company where the changes are made (including the installation of roll-down rear windows). So, as mentioned, it’s a whole lot cheaper to use fixed quarter windows in the coupes and let someone else modify them for convertible use.
OTOH, roll down rear windows in everything, while making the coupes more expensive, would also seem to lower the price of the convertibles, too.
I don’t think convertible models have been farmed out to ASC since the early 90s, The Mustang Convertible has been in-house since 1994, not sure about the Camaro but I’m betting fourth generation to date are done at the factory too. Quality control and cost control is paramount today, and farming out is bad for both goals.
I didn’t mind the 1973 front end of the Ford Gran Torino but absolutely hated the taillights on the 1974-76 Torino’s along with the fender skirts that came, at least the 1973 still had the original taillights and the sportsroof, I agree 1972 was the best year of the Gran Torino due to the era of the pre 5mph bumpers and the era pre emission control devices & smog pumps.
This post is very timely for me as I just finished watching a youtube video on the introduction of the Torino GT. https://youtu.be/mApqBuOkxPY The Torino was not a favorite of mine but I was surprised to find out what a great seller it was. Personally I loved the look of the 1966-67 Fairlane GT but it wasn’t a great seller. I remember thinking that the Torinos were bloated but I guess they were designed to compete in NASCAR racing. The same thing happened to the Chevelle I loved the 66 and 67 but the 68 seemed bloated also. I went for the Maverick because I had just started a family and could not justify a Mustang or Challenger I was in to Sports cars at the time and I could buy the Maverick and have money left over for an used MG. I worked at a Ford dealer in the early 70’s but left just before these came out. Like almost all of the Fords of this era they are prone to rusting out due to a number of factors, quality control not being the least of them.
Along with convertibles, chalk up another victim to the advent of widely available, affordable, factory air conditioning. Besides aesthetics, the only other reason for roll-down rear windows is to smooth out airflow when the driver’s side window is open and relieve some of the buffeting. But when the driver’s window is rarely opened while the vehicle is in motion (hot days with the A/C running), there’s just not much of a practical reason for them.
A real pity since, to this day, a hardtop with all the windows down was easily the most attractive model of a car line.
https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Ford-Fairlane-1967-427.jpg
I owned a few hardtops in my younger days, college days and beyond — ’66 Chevelle, ’66 Skylark, ’68 Catalina — and the A/C worked in none of them (Chevelle didn’t have it, anyway).
Looking at the Torino has two effects on me. A queasy feeling in my gut reminding me how bad cars had become by the mid-seventies thanks to government regulation and the unwilingness or ineptitude of manufacturers to put more effort in building a better product.
But then I recall how nice the 1972 Gran Torino was. Even the basic Torino sedan was well executed. The body on frame construction and improved suspension a couple of the reasons. A friend of mine bought a 72 Torino sedan new and enjoyed it for a few years before selling it to a classmate at their technical school.
What a great looking car. I believe there’s a chance a 351C could be lurking under that hood. Sport mirrors and factory Rally wheels make anything look good, not that the Torino fastback needed any help. The ’72 had one of the all-time best front-ends but this ’73 is nice too. The styling got ruined in ’74 when the rear bumper went 5MPH.
i’m sorry guys… but to me that torino looks so much better than the w140. i like the torino quite a bit more. i like mercedes cars, but never took to the w140 series. i find them stately, but ugly.
Big hardtop fan here also, maybe the 4 door hardtop could make a comeback (LIncoln) I always wondered what the Delayed 73 Chevelle would have looked like if it came out in 1972 as originally planed, now that was an ugly car, they cleaned it up in later years though
Collectible Automobile posted pics of ‘almost 1972’ Malibu prototype, with smaller bumper. and Monte Carlo. Their grilles went into the bumpers. Sort of looked like ’72 Impala bumper.
Throwing in an odd outlook on the 72 Torino That I have always had….I actually preferred the downmarket basic front end/grille with the car wide grille that held the headlights and was just a little taller in the midsection to match up with the lines of the hood, The bumper mirrored the effect with a thinner center section as well. it just looked lighter and sleeker, and an evolutionary design form the 70-71 torino,to me. The upmarket face of the 72 Torino with its carp mouth central grille and paired headlights in overchromed bezels just didn’t look as smooth. Call me crazy, Had I ordered on in 72, it would have been the basic 2door notchback with as big an engine and as much suspension and interior upgrades as could be done… even a vinyl top to break up the vastness of the quarters .I wonder if Ford had or would have built it?
No matter how many boxes you checked, you still would have had an interior like this.
You could get a 1972 (or 1973) Torino 2-door hardtop with the 351C-CJ (Q-code engine) and the four speed transmission. This setup would have also allowed for the competition suspension option. I do know for a fact that these cars did exist. Marti Reports confirm that 57 base model 1972 Torinos were equipped with the 351CJ and 4-speed, while 37 were equipped with the 351CJ, 4-speed and Rallaye Equipment group (which was an option package that included the competition suspension). I know of one of these 37 cars that still exists today.
I am not sure how many base Torino’s had 351CJ’s and Autos. For the 1972 Gran Torino Sport there were about 10 times as many 351CJ cars vs 4-speeds.
The ultimate setup would have been a Police Spec 1972 Torino with the 429 PI engine. It basically had the competition suspension and the 429 PI engine was not far off a 1971 429 CJ.
I thought the CJ-like 429PI was one year only, in 1971. I’m sure the ’72 version was low-comp & retarded cam.
Re the hot 4-speed base Torinos-I’ll just bet that most of them were sold in the South and had “auxiliary fuel tanks”.
The 1971 429 PI engine was virtually a CJ, there weren’t many differences. When I said the 1972 wasn’t far off a 1971 429 CJ, I meant performance wise. I apologize if I inferred the engines were very similar. What many people do not know is that there were two versions of the 429 in 1972. Even Edwin Sanow gets this wrong in his Police car book. There was the low compression, retarded timing lo-po N-code 429. This was the engine used in civilian cars and was basically a de-smogged Thunderjet, This engine was rated between 205-212 net hp depending on what car it was installed in and the exhaust setup.
Then there was the P-code 429. This engine was limited to the 1972 Police Interceptor package in either the fullsize Ford or the Torino. Note that you could still the N-code in Police cars, but this was in the 429 Cruiser Package (Fullsize) or the 429 Police Package (Torino).
The 1972 429 PI used a lower compression head than 1971, but it was a high flow head with big valves. Many in the 385 crowd suggest the D20E-AB 1972 PI head is actually a better street head than the CJ head. This head was also used on the 1973-74 460 PI which was quite a high performance Police engine for it’s day as well. It had all kinds of other hi-po goodies including a performance cam, high performance pistons and rods, guide plates, dual exhaust, and a carb setup specifically for this engine. I kind of equate the 1972 429 PI to the Q-code 351 CJ. It was a low-compression hi performance engine, and had performance in the same league as its high compression fore bearer. Ford never officially gave this engine a horsepower rating, but based on what the 460 PI engines made I am sure it’d be in the neighborhood of 270 net hp.
Here are some part numbers comparisons I have archived:
Heads:
D2OE-AB = D2OZ-6049-A ~ 1972 PI
D0OZ-6049-H 1970/71 PI heads, also used on same yrs CJ & SCJ
Rods:
D0OZ-6200-A .. Rod – used on 1970/72 PI; CJ & SCJ
C8SZ-6200-A .. Rod – All 429 PI, CJ & SCJ
Carbs
429 PI Specific Carburetor ~ 1971
D0OZ-9510-B .. ROCHESTER 4V ~ 715 CFM
429 – PI Specific Carburetor ~ 1972
D2AZ-9510-N .. Ford 4V Carb ~ (Motorcraft CA-885-B)
I can dig up more info if you are interested. This stuff was just what I had handy. I didn’t have in the info I archived years ago anything about the timing sets, but if you’re really curious I can check the Master Parts Catalog when I have time.
Here is a book that shows the casting numbers (I have the hard copy too):
https://books.google.ca/books?id=eT7LT69STO0C&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=D0OZ-6049&source=bl&ots=4EBfptUMac&sig=BjbosFjnKkYFrjzCE_8UCX93RJk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKy9bngbHTAhUJ1GMKHTPoAOoQ6AEIIjAA#v=onepage&q=D0OZ-6049&f=false
Sorry I just saw I had a typo for the rods, It should be:
Rods:
D0OZ-6200-A .. Rod – used on 1970/72 PI; CJ & SCJ
C8SZ-6200-A .. Rod – all except for 429 PI, CJ & SCJ
Wow, you know your stuff. You don’t have to bother getting more.
Now one more question:
My parents had a ’76 Elite that, on the build sheet, explicitly said “Canadian Unit”. It was a 460 with full dual exhaust, and no cats.
The US books all state a 202 HP Net with a 352 foot pound at 1600 Net torque.
This car could light the tires at will, 40 mph kickdowns into first would leap the car ahead and throw your neck back. Crude 0-60 runs with a stopwatch would show results in the 8 second range. It would hold 2nd until 90 mph at full throttle before upshifting (2.75 gear)
A top speed run pegged the 120 mph speedo.
Drag races against high school buddies with old muscle cars, while I didn’t win, the drivers were amazed at how well this thing kept up to them. Best of all, at legal speeds it would do 22 MPG imperial.
Based upon this, it had to have had more than the US 202 hp rating.
Any ideas on what was up here?
Hey Roger,
I had a quick look at the Master Parts Catalog and nothing seems to be specific to the Canadian market cars. In 1976 there was still a 460 PI, but it was considerably tamer than the 1973-74 versions. It was rated at 226 hp @ 3800 rpm 371 lb·ft @ 1600 rpm. I don’t think that they’d put this engine in a Civilian car though as it had a bunch of other modifications too (like oil coiler, electric fuel pump). But then again, Ford did some strange things in these years, so you never know.
That said, I did go to the exhaust section and interestingly there are three variations for dual exhaust systems for the 460 Torino and Elite. The first had one catalytic converter, the second had two cats, and the last had no cats. The non-cat system does show being available on the both the Police Car and civilian 460.
My only explanation based on this is that the 202 hp rating was likely for a full catalytic converter system, which I’d assume the majority of the US would have got. A 1974 460 (A-code), was pretty close to a 1976 A-code other than the addition of cats in 1976. And the 1974 version was rated at 220 hp. So I’d guess the one in your parents car was pretty close to that without the cats.
And to further back up my point, Motor Trend tested a loaded 1974 Gran Torino Brougham with the 460. This beast weighed a whopping 4615 lbs, but still was a very strong performer (for the era), That car ran 0-60 in 8.3 seconds and 1/4 mile in 16.43 seconds. It also out ran the 455 Buick Regal in the same test.
The rear quarter window of the W140 coupe doesn’t roll down completely, spoiling the “wide open” look somewhat.
The Torino’s incredibly low-mounted fuel filler is located behind the rear license plate.
Always liked Gran Torino Sportsroofs but preferred the ’72 Montego version. There’s just something about a red and white #21 Montego… 🙂
Agreed, Roger. The Silver Fox lives!
The closest American offerings of a 2 door coupe are the Cadillac ATS or CTS models. However there may be hope if the General brings out the Buick Avista concept as it looks like the one doing the car show circuit. Sigh, one can dream right?
Wow, I wish I could add something to this thread, but can’t think of anything I’ve not said repeatedly before.
Nothing like a pillarless hardtop, though – as long as the quarter glass isn’t fixed.
Reminds me of the X-lent Clint Eastwood move he directed and acted in.
Gran Torino……….Featured his green Torino in a few scenes.
The ’72 front end was MUCH better, as has been previously stated.
One of my dad’s employees had a ’72 Ranchero GT, red with the white/grey/black edged trim stripes, and a white interior. I’d love to have another to this day, especially if I could find one with a 4-speed.
This car certainly is not 100% stock. It should either have lower body trim or a laser stripe. You could not get this car without any trim or strip package. I always though that the cars’ looked much better with some trim or a laser stripe to break up the large area of sheet metal.
The tires on the stock 1973 Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof were either a F70-14, G70-14 or a H70-14 depending on engine and options. The G70-14’s were the most common. If you got the option Magnum 500’s the G70-14’s were the minimum. Most were white letter tires, but white walls were also available, but not black walls. The tires on this particular example look a little on the smaller side (not the correct size).
Here is a picture of my Torino when it was brand new with the stock G70-14 Goodyears. You can see they fill the fender wells much better than this 1973.
Here is my car as of almost 45 years and 150,000 miles later but still almost all original. It now wears 15″ wheels, with 60 series tires, which I think looks better. I still of the stock 14″ wheels too.
One of Ford’s best styling jobs. A gorgeous car that you will keep forever.
+1
Are the tire tracks yours as well?
Beautiful car. What engine yours is equipped?
Very nice. Congratulations on keeping it all these years.
Thanks for the compliments. I do plan to keep the car forever and it will eventually go to my son.
I swear, I have no idea where the tire tracks came from. 😉
As far as the 1973’s, the colour and stripe really make a big difference compared to the example in this thread. Although I find the 1972 stripe breaks up the body lines better than the 1973 Stripe.
’72 > ’73. .
While the subject car is a rather amazing survivor, I’d have to say that the Ford Sportsroof looked awkward to me on just about everything it touched, be it a Mustang, Galaxie or Torino. The proportions were always a bit off. From a straight on rear view this car looks a lot like the rear of a ’68 Cutlass coupe, another car I struggle with a bit.
I find the ’72 hardtop coupe both interesting and quite good looking. What a difference a year and a different roof stamping make…….
Since this post first ran, a friend of mine got his hands on this barn find. Cleaned it up, got the engine and brakes working, and he was in business. I keep urging him to put it in the Motor Muster at Greenfield Village, as he has the factory wheels for it, but he has not taken the plunge yet.
Interior is in good shape too.
My brother had a 72 Torino, it had either a 429 or 460 in it. Had to pull the intake because of vacuum leak. Big heavy bruiser cast iron intake, lighter then an FE intake but still a back breaker. I did care for the front end at all, then the ’73 comes along and all of a sudden that 72 pig looks petty damn good. Yellow with black vinyl top and stripes down the side. Of course like all cars here in the Midwest terminal cancer set in fairly soon.
I do love me a hardtop. The windows on my Skylark are always down for cruise and track days,
This fastback Gran Torino, Charger, and fastback Colonnades were what ’74 Matador was aiming, left over ‘sporty mid size’ market. Which, however, was fading in favor of formal roof PLCs.
I’d actually guess it was the 70-71 Torino and 68-72 A body coupes the Matador was aiming, the 70 Torino despite having two available rooflines both were essentially fastbacks, the sportsroof was just a tad fasterbacked. The 72 Torinos and Collonades had more formal rooflines available, which should have been the signal to AMC times were changing if they were following after those designs.
Interesting. I daily drive a 2000 Eldorado. Wouldn’t this be essentially a hardtop coupe? And I do know the classic hardtops, too. My baby rn is a 1970 Newport Custom 2dr Hardtop.
Frameless door glass is only one part of the hardtop formula, the fixed quarter windows and structurally integral B pillars, l prevent it from being a true hardtop, same as modern Mustangs and Camaros
True. I guess I didn’t think of them as being fixed. You’re absolutely right, though