(first posted 9/10/2014) There’s been a long-simmering debate here about the respective designs of the all-new downsized Chevy/GM 1977 B-Bodies and Ford’s response-imitation in 1979. It’s time to settle the question once and for all. You say design is subjective; but is it? Saying that it is more than a bit of a cop-out, because it makes it too easy to hide behind. Yes, you’re allowed to prefer Thomas Kinkade’s paintings over Claude Monet’s, but that hardly makes Kinkade’s better.
Perhaps the 1977 Chevrolet isn’t quite a Monet, but it was a largely original and well executed design, some of the last under Bill Mitchell’s direction. It has all the hallmarks of his reign: excellent proportions, and clear lines that manage quite successfully to make it look longer than it is. Undoubtedly that was a key design priority, as Mitchell was not at all happy to have to design shrunken full-size cars, but he made sure they looked good. These were his swan song and his legacy, after all.
There is a cohesive vision behind these cars, and undoubtedly a lot of development of their theme and details went on in the design studios. Given that they were the first downsized big American cars, they had better be right, as GM had literally bet the farm on them. I once read that GM’s downsizing program from 1977-1980 was the greatest industrial investment program in the US since WW2.
One of the best things about them is that they were not designed with big padded vinyl roofs in mind; in fact, they look decidedly better without them. Mitchell was not a Broughamista. Let’s just say that in 1977, my feelings about vinyl roofs were the same as about white shoes, red pants and white belts. Hence my feelings about the Ford when it arrived: old man’s car.
The downsized 1979 Fords were clearly imitations of the GM formula, and as such, they lacked any real inspiration or vision. It’s as if they started with a Chevy and figured out ways to make it look more like a Ford somehow. The Panthers rode on a shorter wheelbase (114″ vs 116″), and it appears those precious two inches were lost by moving the front wheels a bit further back. It’s a bit subtle, but the Chevy has (or certainly conveys) a longer and more elegant nose in profile, with the front wheels further forward, in the classic RWD configuration. The Panther looks like it could have been FWD.
And Ford’s decision to use little 14″ wheels and tires only accentuate its lack of more refined and pleasing proportions. And the particularly tinny and cheap Pep Boys fake wire wheel covers only add insult to that injury. The Chevy’s big 15″ wheels nicely fill its openings; the Ford looks like it’s waiting for a flood (or donks).
The Ford’s B-Pillar is unfortunate too, in that it was clearly designed to work with the tacky opera/coach lamps and a half-vinyl “Landau” roof, even if that didn’t come along the first year. The result is that the steel-top version looks decidedly chunky and, broken up into more boxes. Which the Ford is anyway; decidedly more boxy all the way around.
Let’s jump to the coupe versions. The Panther is actually a Mercury Marquis, but except for a few minor details, it’s the same as the LTD. The difference here is even more stark. Ford was clearly still in deep Brougham consciousness, while Chevrolet was trying to bring a bit of the sportier flair that harked back to the sixties and the golden era of the Impala. The difference is huge.
Let’s take a closer look at the front fenders, wheel wells and wheels. The windshields are in the same respective place, but look how much more dynamic the Chevy front end appears, with its large round wheel opening and decent sized wheels. Even the fake wire wheel covers are much better, for what that’s worth. The Panther’s missing inches in wheelbase are clearly noticeable here; it carries much more of its boxy snout in front of its little wheels. Which conveys the exact opposite of “dynamic”. According to the thesaurus, that would be words like impotent, weak, unexciting, and dull.
The Chevy’s front end design was pretty classic GM of the era, one that of course started with the seminal “sheer-look” 1975 Seville. But it is relatively clean, and does a good job of evoking the Cadillac, Chevy’s perpetual styling big-brother.
The Ford still reflects Lee Iacocca’s endless obsession with the Mercedes grille. And this one is not a particularly good version at that. Whatever; if you like that sort of thing, you probably never got tired of it. I did, right from the get-go.
Lesser LTDs didn’t merit a genuine Mercedes knock-off grille, and had to settle for this rather modest single-headlights version. That was obviously not a good idea, as it went away pretty soon. It just reeks of “fleet car”; or cop car, as the case may be.
But then that’s what these Fords have always come across to me as: the ultimate fleet car. A rather poor knock-off of a handsome automobile, relegated to either fleet use, or dolled up with lots of tacky Brougham heavy make-up in an effort to disguise its intrinsically poorer “bones”. I could go on and on (as I did in my head last night in bed), there’s so many details that make the difference between them rather substantial. But now it’s your turn; which one is the better design?
The 77-90 GM B Bodies were graceful looking, GM got them correct. They were better looking then Ford’s LTD Vic and GM of the time.
However one thing I have to say is that Ford gave the LTD Vic and the GM fuel injection starting in 1983. It took GM until 1985 for a fuel injected V6(4.3l) and 1989 for a fuel injected V8 on the Caprice. It took GM 6 years longer to offer a fuel injected V8 in the Caprice then it did ford and its panther based fullsize cars.
GM offered fuel injection in the 57 Bonneville, several years of Corvettes and the 1970’s Seville. Yet they saw fit to keep the Caprice carbed until the next to last year of that body style. By that time every other car in Chevy’s line up was F.I.
Instead buyers of Caprice got stuck with the Oldsmobile 307 which was a slow and miserable engine that was underpowered, a pain in the butt to work on due to 50 million vacuum hoses and was knee capped by the craptastic electronic Quadrajunk carb.
Don’t get me wrong. I love the GM B bodies from 77-90 but if I was buying one, I would be looking for a 8590 V6 or a 89-90 V8 so as to have the fuel injection goodness.
Only Caprice wagon buyers from ’86 on got stuck with the carbed 307. Retail sedans had the 305 in Quadrajet and TBI form. And the 305, despite being a bit rougher, was a much more potent engine.
Not the most expensive of the retail sedans, the 1986-90 Cadillac Brougham. It didn’t get the Chevrolet 350 as an option until 1990, the 305 did not become standard until 1991. It continued with the 307 and 4bbl eQJet standard through the 1990 model year. I hated that damned electronic carburetor. A bajillion sensors, solenoids, and doodads (not to mention 100 miles of vaccuum lines, ALWAYS disconnecting) which neither I or nor 90% of mechanics could figure out. I’m sure it was better than an HT4100 but it sure wasn’t better than anything else.
I am pretty sure the Olds Custom Cruiser, Pontiac Safari, and Buick Estate also got the 307 during those years. Only the Caprice sedan and the final year of the Parisienne sedan were unscathed.
I had an ’87 Caprice Classic wagon with the 307. Great car, gutless engine.
I’ve always thought the early Panthers, as a couple of others have mentioned, looked like fleet cars. To be honest, the late Panthers (especially the Crown Vic version) look like fleet cars, but cars I’d consider owning. The early versions of this Chevy remind me of my neighbor down the street who bought a new Chevy sedan every 3-4 years for a couple of decades–plain and simple but dignified.
Comments about buyers being “stuck” with the “miserable” 307 engine usually come from those who have owned or driven one with super tall gearing or an early version without the high swirl (= high torque) heads.
Not sure what the ’86-on Wagons had for a final drive but the Cadillacs had 2.73 or 2.93 gearing. Several of us here with those in proper tune think they perform about as well as a 425 Cadillac big block except for going up a hill. The rest invariably have had issues with the carb or vacuum lines (easily fixed by an experienced mechanic) then go on to bad mouth the engine.
Poorly maintained engines like that tend to run rich which clogs the catalytic converter then they become real pigs, even in the Cadillacs. When you ask these people where they live it’s usually in a non smog check state where they don’t have those bi-annual inspections to help them spot the clogged cat.
The 305 engine is a better choice for folks who cannot maintain their cars properly, though it is no faster than the 307 and sounds like a truck engine. In the used car market nice 80-92 Cadillacs fetch the same price whether equipped with the 425, 307, 305 or 350. HT4100 cars are almost always offered at a huge discount versus the rest, though there are few of those still around.
I’m not bashing the 307, but it was just meh. Mine never ran rich and had bi annual inspections, and I was OCD (too much so) about maintenance, by the manual (and reading the more detailed schedules in factory service manual). The reviews I have from the late 80s test the 307 accelerating 0-60 at 14 seconds or so:
Consumer Guide “Despite pushing nearly 4300 pounds, that engine delivers brisk acceleration. Cadillac estimated that a Brougham accelerated to 60 mph in 10.5 seconds with the 5.7-liter, versus a lethargic 14.3 seconds with the standard V8.”
Marshall Schuon, NYT, 1989 “Unfortunately, the five-liter V-8 musters only 140 horsepower, which would be barely adequate in any car but which is pure lack-of-beans in a vehicle of this size. Acceleration from zero to 60 takes a bit more than 14 seconds, and that makes getting onto the highway an iffy thing”
I’m going to go ahead and say that the eQjet is way more trouble to maintain than its non-e predecessors.
Also, where I lived with my 307 was New England, a place where highways are full of little hills, and many exit ramps are on little hills. Around town it was great, but driving around at speeds between 55-75 means constant kickdowns to 3rd and losing steam. The car wasn’t running badly, and got perfectly good mileage, but trying to launch it into oncoming 65-80 mph traffic up a sharp incline, or, on the Merritt Parkway, from a STOP SIGN, was no picnic, nor was going up that hill past the West Rock tunnel towards New York.
The engine itself was efficient, smooth, and fairly nonintrusive, but the carburetor was a pain and the thing couldn’t climb a hill to save its life. It was probably fine on a Cutlass Supreme which weighed 300-400 lbs less than a Brougham, but it needed some more grunt to pull that Fleetwood Brougham up highway hills.
For the record I’m no fan of the Chevy 305 and 350 either. The L05 in my ’93 Fleetwood (the muffler is fine) has an annoying growl and does, you are right, sound like a muted truck engine, off the line.
“The engine itself was efficient, smooth, and fairly nonintrusive, but the carburetor was a pain and the thing couldn’t climb a hill to save its life. It was probably fine on a Cutlass Supreme which weighed 300-400 lbs less than a Brougham, but it needed some more grunt to pull that Fleetwood Brougham up highway hills.”
Nope the engine was just as gutless in the Cutlass Supreme as it was in the larger B bodies.
“Nope the engine was just as gutless in the Cutlass Supreme as it was in the larger B bodies.”
Actually the Cutlass was more gutless because those had 2.28 final drives, 3-speed autos and the earlier non high swirl cylinder heads.
I agree that GM was slow getting the digital fuel injection on everything. I don’t think that the late 50’s fuel injection was very reliable, but I don’t know much about it either.
The 76 Seville got an analog fuel injection system, which was electronic, but not a “smart” electronic system. Digital processors are able to monitor the various sensors and can tell when one of them is not making sense, then directing the driver to take the car in for service.
The Olds 307 seemed to be really picky about being exactly in tune for it to run right, and I think there was lots that could be out of adjustment. In college, a friend of mine had an ’83 Monte Carlo with the 305 4 bbl (it was two years old at the time) and it would run circles around my mom’s 1982 Delta 88 with the 307. The Chevy would just go when you mashed it, whereas the Olds was stumble and say “Do I have to?” and then slowly wind up. It was like there was marshmallow in the throttle linkage. I think it was probably a vacuum issue that a good mechanic would have been able to figure out, but it never ran reliably well since new.
The driveability of the fuel-injected Ford 302 was light-years ahead of the 307. It explains why Lincoln Town Cars were outselling Cadillac Broughams in the mid -to late ’80s. All you had to do was comparison test-drive the two.
As someone who has owned a number of Panthers, I would like to stick up for that car, but your description and argument is pretty much perfect. Kudos. I would be very interested to do the same comparison, however, of an 80’s Cadillac with a Town Car. I always thought that car wore its hard edges better, and while I don’t do a double take when I see a Panther similar to the ones you show, I do when I see a Town Car/Four door Mark VI. I always thought Lincolns looked better “Broughamed” than Cadillacs anyhow, even though Cadillac actually offered a ‘Brougham’ trim. Fantastic comparison, and I’m sure Bill M is still proud of his last work.
I just came on to post the same request – Cadillac vs. Lincoln. I suppose 1980 would be best, and fairest. Perhaps Mark VI vs. Eldorado instead of Town Car vs. DeVille, but that may not be fair at all, considering how most people around here feel about the Mark VI!
I’d like to see that comparison too, though I would say GM pulled it off better there, too.
Biographical note: Bill M, I’m sure, was proud, but he’s no longer with us.
GM styling has never been the same since he retired.
I first saw one of these in the lobby of the GM building in New York. My father was smitten and bought a frost beige sedan with every option available including leather interior. I learned to drive on it in 1982 and used it during high school. “Lucille” was my favorite car in the family fleet as my father had upgraded to a 1983 Century Limited and the other choice was the family 82 Mercury Cougar wagon. The Caprice served us well for 145k miles with regular servicing. I believe GM nailed it with the late 70’s downsizing and it was one of their true moments of glory.
The silver ’77 Chevy in the first photo looks like a pre-production model. Notice how the front seat shoulder belts are anchored to the ceiling, as they were in 1976 models, rather than to the B-Pillar as they were starting in 1977. Just a nerdy observation on my part. . .
The Fords always looked a bit top heavy to me, at least when viewed from the front end, because of the height of the windshield in relation to the doghouse. The short distance between front door edge and wheelwell don’t help much in that matter. But the rest of the car seems ok. It would be cool for one of the digital artists here, (ahem, Brendan Saur), to create a photoshopped LTD with longer front fenders and a slightly chopped roofline. Maybe a set of fender skirts, Bonneville Brougham style? Then it would be pretty sleek.
Maybe GM had the styling edge, but the Panther interiors were nothing short of luscious. I remember those flimsy door panels on the Caprice/Impala. The Panthers’ felt more substantial. The standard interiors and the instrumentation were superior to GM’s as well.
At least previous Fords had their own look. You wouldn’t mistake a ’72 Galaxie for a ’72 Impala. With the ’79 LTD, Ford just copied the incredibly successful ’77 Caprice. And did a lousy job of it.
I’ll admit my bias as a lifelong Chevy guy, but I loved the ’77-’79 GM B Bodies, although I wasn’t a fan of the 1980 semi-redesign. I actually prefer the Impala on the outside, although the interior was rather plain, but give me a two-tone blue Impala coupe with a 350 and F41, and I’d be happy. Hell, toss in a a ’77-’79 DeVille d’Elegance while you’re at it.
My best friend growing up was as much for Fords as I was for Chevys, and although they had a ’73 LTD, his dad had a company car and got a brand new ’77 Caprice when we were in fifth grade. What a nice car. So comfortable, so quiet and smooth. And it looked classy in silver with a red velour interior. That poor car ended up beat up and abused, but it kept going.
Easy decision. Chevy.
I’m going to go a bit against the grain and vote for the panther. Of course I’m biased, being a two-time owner, though there’s a B-body in my history as well. The more upright stance of the panther seemed a bit more assertive to me than the Chevys. That said, the slanted back end of the Ford wasn’t as nice as the Impala, and the single headlight model seemed like a goofy way just to differentiate a lower end model. And the later Caprices (’86+) were definitely lookers. Anyway, to my eyes both are worlds better than the bloated cars they replaced, but I give an edge to the Ford.
One thing about the comparison photos – the steel-topped Impala with plain wheel covers is going to look cleaner than the Ford shown with the vinyl roof and fussy spokes. If I’m not mistaken, both cars were offered either way.
Lastly – it’s worth recording some old episodes of Carroll O’Conner’s show “In the Heat of the Night” for lots of old LTD/CV and Impala/Caprice police action.
I would definitely go for the 1977 Chevy Caprice, I always liked the early design of the GM’s B cars the best, I didn’t like the early Fox body full sized cars all that much, I thought the LTD/Crown Victoria looked at its best during the 1983-87 run and the Marquis/Grand Marquis’s looked at its best during the 1988-91 run, for the B-body cars I thought the Chevy Caprice/Impala, Oldsmobile Delta 88 and Buick LeSabre looked at its best during the 1977-79 run and the Pontiac Catalina/Bonneville looked at its best during the 1980-81 run, for the Cadillac’s I thought the Deville/Fleetwood/Brougham looked at its best during the 1977-79 run due to style and engineering.
I think the unadorned caprice sedan has worn well, and also agree with many posters how beautiful the LeSabre Coupe was. In fact I recently noticed just how much it looks like my favorite Ferrari, the 400/412.
And now the Ferrari, a bit more slung back, but far more similar than I ever imagined!
It appears to me that, as the Panther body matured and was restyled, it evolved into a better and better car.
The high point, in MY opinion, was a 1995 Grand Marquis, with it’s Infiniti styled grille, full length Pontiac styled tail lights, it’s dashboard full of large, readable gauges standard (Unlike Chevy), it torquey 4.6 V8 and non shift-hunting automatic transmission (Again, Unlike Chevy), precise power steering (kinda light and numb on the Chevy), it’s 15 inch wheels with Michelin X radial tires as standard equipment and tasteful wire wheel covers. The well sorted out A/C system worked frigidly even in August.
It’s 6 side window 4 door body still looks great today.
The Chevy seemed to get uglier, slower, limper & more flaccid handling as well as more more confused with each styling “update”.
The first picture of the Caprice has several “touchups” done. Clear added to the front signal lens, the front and rear moldings stretched to fill the bumper gap, seat belts and copy/pasted hubcaps which appear larger than they really are. Seat belts aren’t correct as others noted.
Having a Caprice Landau and C body myself I would definitely say they’re more beautiful than the Panther. My main issues with those when I would see one going down the road are that one, the windshield always appears too tall, the cowl area should be concealed and the trailing end of the hood raised. I think it would look better in profile as well. Secondly, the blunt, oversized taillights can’t compare to the simple elegant design the Caprice has. The GM’s just did it better.
I agree with everything Mr. Niedermeyer wrote, yet after having driven both, I prefer the Ford because of its interior quality. While the Caprice is indeed far more attractive than the Ford, its interior felt terribly cheap.
I have always admired Chevrolet styling. (Except for the 59-60 Batmobiles). Chevrolet always seemed to top Ford in this respect. While there have been beautiful Fords, Chevrolet has been consistently excellent.
Also – please note that the photos used in the comparisons aren’t equal. Brochure photos are expertly lit and photo-enhanced, that street shots of curbside classics can’t match.
FORD had better (safer) fuel tank location (above rear axle, not below trunk floor) and fuel filler location (side, not behind rear license plate)
The Ford fuel tank location also resulted in the Panther’s huge trunk – at least the section closest to you when you opened the trunk lid. The GM design led to a relatively shallow trunk, one with a flatter floor than the Ford’s, but that didn’t matter much since the spare tire (full size in 77-79 cars iirc) took up much of the space toward the back of the trunk. I seem to recall the pre-downsized Chevys and Fords had the same fuel tank locations as well with similar effects on the trunk size and shape.
In my opinion the interior was nicer on the Ford.
Somewhat screwed together better.
Drivetrain and styling goes to Chevy.
So definitely Chevy.
Well the interior is debatable as it depended on which trim level was in question and how the car was optioned. In my experience the late 70’s and earaly 80’s Fords were more creaky and loose feeling than any of my GM mid or full size cars.
Hmmmm……….my experiences were just the opposite of yours.
I agree about the options being a big factor.
I remembered driving in an early Crown Vic which was very basic. The single headlight model. Rattley and cheap inside. Nowadays the kids would call it “cringey”.
Contrast that to my recent beater ’02 Grand Marquis LS and its hard to believe the two cars were related.
I’m old enough to remember when these were introduced in the summer of 1976 and as a fledgling architect was so impressed with the cohesive, elegant design. The one crease that runs as an arc all the way from the leading edge of the front fender to the tail lights is so elegant and accentuated with the two tone color scheme.
GM advertising was brilliant…seeing “THE NEW CHEVROLET” in silhouette in a country or park setting just highlighted the car.
As a future Scirocco owner, the Caprice looked like how Giugiaro would design an American full sized car with the crisp origami lines.
I grew up with a 72 Buick Estate Wagon with a 455 4bbl..My Dad replaced it with a 78 Estate Wagon with the 403 and I believe the THM 400 transmission. The difference between the 72 and the 78 were astounding…The 78 was much quicker, tighter, handled better, rode better and was assembled better.
In every way the GM B-body was a home run…The first Panther wasn’t even close.
As a Buick guy…I found the Caprice the cleanest and most elegant, but I did love the LeSabre sport coupe
I guess you want someone note on the fact that you wrote exactly the same comment exactly six years ago but for some scant minutes, but w/o the picture
anyway, good comment to do twice
Even though I am a die hard Ford fan, give me the Chevy coupe, nice car. Friend of mine had one, Only problem it had was eating alternator belts. Chevy decided to use a skinny 3/8 belt on the alternator. Luckily the alternator was mounted up top so adjusting was quick and easy.
I’ve been a Ford fan for a long time but must admit the 77 full-size Chevy was well executed.
I recently watch a YouTube video showing how the car was developed. Interesting stuff but I wonder how much angst it created among die-hard, long time Chevrolet designers and engineers. The public loved it and the Chev was certainly much better executed than the full-size Ford.
My brother in law was a working as a salesman at a Ford dealer in the early 80’s. At a family get together, my aunt who was sort of thinking about a new car asked him “What’s the difference between a Caprice and a Crown Victoria?” His reply was ” One is made by Ford. One is made by Chevy.”
Bill Mitchell design, that’s all you need to know. Chevrolet win. The Caprice coupe of 1977 is still one of the most handsome cars of the 1970s.
My mom bought a ’77 Caprice, 350, blue inside and out. One of the Vegas Chevy dealers had like 50 of them, less than 18 months old, with mileage ranging from 20K to over 70K. Even the more used up ones looked good in all areas. She bought hers with 22K miles on it, and she had one problem that was fixed under the “6 month/10,000 mile” warranty, the alternator ate itself at like 1am, when mom was coming back from a night of slot machine play. I got it home on battery power and the next morning took it to the dealer who had it out by 10:30am. She had the car over 4 years and I drove it a lot as my truck was a total POS and just days before were were about to trade in the Caprice on an ’82 K5 Blazer, the trans went (77K) and the dealer only took off $400 from the trade for the trans rebuild.
A friend of hers had an ’80 LTD, and it wasn’t as good looking, didn’t handle as well, and was much slower than mom’s car was. I’ve never liked Fords much, but IMHO, this was a high point of their, uh, “styling” from about 1971 until the later 90’s. I like Ford’s present styling better than at anytime in my life, and I still think they are weird looking in general, even the Mustang. I like the F150 fine though, but the Ram is better looking.
I drove both of these back “in the day”, police versions. I one time had the choice between a new LTD and an Impala with 70k miles on it for my regular use. I picked the Impala.
I think Cadillac did the best job by far with the downsized ’77s; Chevrolet in second place. I don’t like the Buick or Olds much though; both were generic and boxy lacking any continuity from either brand’s usual design cues (i.e. Buick’s distinctive downswept side contours). The 1976 versions may have been porky, loose-feeling, and fitted with unconvincing imitations of chrome and wood, but they were lithe and graceful in appearance and you could easily tell a Buick from an Olds from a Pontiac, even the wagons.
The Ford was even clumsier though. I actually liked the early base grille better than the more common fake-GM looking one that was later made standard. The base front clip had bladed fenders that gave it a ’70s Ford look that fit the rest of the car. The rear was a copy of the Chrysler Cordoba circa 1979. I do like the straight beltline and low cowl better than Chevy’s weird kink in the beltline just aft of the A pillar.
I would rate the Chrysler R body above either of these though; it was the only one of the trio to use frameless door glass and the resultant thin A and B pillars give the interior an airy feel compared to GM and Ford’s efforts. It’s too bad they were dropped so quickly; it seems likely sales would have rebounded by the mid-80s when doubts about Chrysler’s survival had dissipated and gas unexpectedly became cheap and readily available.
I agree with you about the R-bodies, over time they have aged gracefully. It is a shame they were cancelled so quickly, but considering the conditions at the time, their actions seem rational to me. Who would have imagined in 1981 that gasoline would become cheap again by 1985? But, product planners have to assume certain conditions to justify producing certain products. I don’t blame them for thinking that fuel prices would either remain the same or get higher. In addition, they had CAFE to deal with and the R-bodies weren’t going to be of much assistance in that area, either.
Recalling when both were new, the ’77 Chevrolet styling was a breath of fresh air, the ’79 Ford just another iteration of the same tired boxes they had been peddling for a decade. Being a Ford designer in that period had to be easy for the apathetic, pure frustration for the progressive and dynamic. To their credit, they did finally incorporate that entasis into their late Crown Victoria, long after they were shown how.
The chunky Ford B-pillar was definitely designed to accommodate tiara trim, opera lights and of course ‘carriage roofs’. The roof surface extended to the belt-line, individually-framed side windows originated on the late 1920’s Hibbard and Darrin convertible phaetons on various luxury chassis and Duesenberg J Murphy Beverly sedan, added verve to Billy Mitchell’s seminal 1938-’41 Cadillac 60 Special. It reappeared on the 1971 60 Special/Fleetwood Brougham and spread through the GM Colonades and into the Lincoln Town Cars. By which time an elegant design feature was done to a trite death.
The good news for the designers was that after the Panthers experienced a lackluster debut, and the 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 laid a big, fat egg, new leadership under Phil Caldwell unfettered the designers, and the result was the 1983 Thunderbird, LTD, Cougar XR-7 and Marquis.
While Iacocca had pushed for Ford to downsize more rapidly – to match GM’s pace – he also demanded that the new cars maintain formal, square-cut “Brougham” styling cues. Ford would finally leap-frog GM in styling when, in desperation, it started with a clean sheet of paper and adopted the “aero look.”
Iacocca took his cubist mantra to Chrysler where he reprised the ’70’s FoMoCo styling in FWD K-cars.
I wonder if there is a comparison road test of the later models Ford and Chevy, from around the late eighties, available?
I think I would have looked at the LTD and asked the salesman if it was too late to order a LTD II with the 400, optional axle ratio, heavy duty handling suspension, sport instrumentation group and sport appearance package.
Build yours here: http://storm.oldcarmanualproject.com/fordltd1978.htm
Really, which looks better, even with the stacked headlights?
In the New York Times business section today there is a short history of the “small block.”
No wonder Mercs sold so well.
I like both but do give the nod to GM B-body cars. Each had their own flaws with Fords too short wheelbase, smaller 14″ tires and low calorie 302 equipped VV engines. The first year AOD transmissions had a flaw where the engine stalled when driving at lower speeds but that was supposedly cleared up the following year. The other flaw was the turn signal mounted horn. Over at GM some cars were equipped with undersized 200 transmissions, the Buick 231 V6 was weak as was the Chevy 229, the diesel 5.7 was not reliable until it was updated in 1981 with a water separator and certain engines had certain issues for example the 1970’S 305’S had weak cams and the early 301 Pontiac engines had fragile bottom ends. As mentioned it took GM until 1988 to get fuel injection on the 305 engine, the 307 Olds never got it and certain 1985 cars like the Caprice and Parisienne got the 4.3 with TBI. For some reason certain 1980 cars had quality control lapses with paint and finish.
Knowing how to option either was critical in owner enjoyment.
The Chevrolet is my clear choice as the better looking car. The front and back were in proportion. I think the two tone paint also ooked particularly good on these cars. They were new and fresh in 77. The Fords just looked like big Granada’s to me. I loved the creased rear window on the Chevrolet coupe. I was sorry when they replaced it.
I had liked the window line on the 71 Chevrolet Impala coupes. But they destroyed the look of the car in 1974 when they added the chunky B pillar and opera window. To me, the 77 Chevrolet is reminiscent of the 71 Chevy while the 79 Ford looks like the 74. The Ford is just awkward.
I think where Ford shined was the replacement cars in the 90’s. The Chevrolet look fat and bloated. It really was a whale. The redesigned Ford was clearly the better style. Ford got it especially right in the 1998 restyle. Chevrolet had already given up on the market in 1996 and Ford owned it until 2011.
I did find the last Crown Vics and the Lincoln Town Cars to be horrible driving cars. They seemed to pitch and roll and wobble from side to side. The Chevrolet was clearly the better handling car.
For the other variants, the Mercury was always just a dressed up Ford. At least GM made an effort to style the cars differently. Some worked, and some didn’t.
Here we are, six years later and still nobody has thought to comment on the Thomas Kinkade vs Claude Monet analogy.
I can’t think of a more egregious, damning insult than comparing anything to Thomas Kinkade – which is why I often do exactly that.
https://www.pinterest.com/maimccaskey/thomas-kinkade-parodies/
Hahahahaha!!! Actually I scrolled through a lot of comments with an intention of making a comment about Paul’s Monet/Kinkade comparison.
I know there are a number of factors in judging one piece of art from another. It’s a highly subjective endeavor, as the comments here attest to regarding the redesigned Chevy versus the Ford.. There are hard points, but much of it comes down to personal taste. That said, any comparison to Monet and Kinkade, or Rembrandt and Peter Max, or Picasso to Norman Rockwell comes down solely in the eye of the beholder. That’s where the beauty of art lies, IMO.
By the way, I don’t like Monet or Kinkade….
My father was in the market the fall of 1978 for a wagon to replace our ’73 Country Sedan (wagon) with the 400/2bbl.
We looked at the (then) new ’79 Full sized Ford, but my Dad didn’t care for them. Partly maybe due to the local Ford dealer selling me a rustbucket in ’76, he understandably harbored a grudge. We lived in an area that didn’t have a lot of dealers, so his distaste for the dealer affected which car he was to buy.
He ended up with a (leftover) ’78 Caprice Classic Wagon…bought at Shearer Chevrolet in South Burlington. It was the only car I remember him buying out of the showroom; though I didn’t go shopping for it with him (probably busy with school) but I was there when he later picked it up. It had the 305, and was optioned up, over $9000…had power locks/windows, it was burgundy, with burgundy vinyl (but plush) seats. A sharp car…he had it up until 1984, when he was taking relatives who travelled from out of town (way out of town…they’d driven 1600 miles on vacation and we were on the way to their destination)..got t-boned when taking them to see the nearby sights.
The Caprice was nice, but it had cheap switchgear that was starting to deteriorate after 5 years…headlight switch stripped…don’t know how the car would have fared had he kept it longer.
The replacement car was a real disappointment (in a number of ways)…it was the worst car my Father ever bought, an ’84 Pontiac Sunbird. It was much smaller than the Caprice, half the cylinders, and got junked after only 4 years (going through 2 engines despite being regularly dealer serviced). It was passed onto my youngest
sister after the first engine replacement, and she had problems with leaking power steering and cheap switchgear….till the 2nd engine threw a rod after only 40k miles (probably 80k total miles between 2 engines). Undoubtedly it got better gas mileage than the Chevy, but at probably much higher ownership cost if you figure its short lifetime…plus gas was actually getting cheaper during the mid 80’s so was hardly worth downsizing when the replacement cars were much less durable.
Father abandoned GM for awhile after the Pontiac, buying a Dodge 600 (which was totalled by another sister) then 3 Mercury Sables in a row, before returning to GM with 2 Chevy Impalas in a row (last of which my Mother owns, as my Father passed away 4 years ago).