Twenty five years separate these American luxury cars; the Lincoln Continental Mark V dates to 1977, and the Cadillac CTS to 2002. Joseph Dennis caught them side-by-side, in this dramatic night time shot. If this is what it takes to get me to feel nostalgic for the Mark and the seventies, it’s done the job, and very successfully at that.
I prefer the 1977 Continental Mark V over the 02 CTS. 🙂
I do too, except at the gas pump! The Mark looks the part of a luxury car the CTS minus the wreath and crest could be mistaken for a Malibu or less.
With your gas prices I would drove a Lincoln like that as a daily driver 🙂
x100. The Mark V was the epitome of American luxury and style and prestige. The Caddy (is that really a Caddy? It really does look like a late model Malibu to me) is nothing but another generic eggmobile.
Oh please, it looks absolutely nothing like a Malibu
Maybe not a Malibu but truth be told you could hang a Chevy bowtie on the front and the Impala name on the rear and nobody would be any wiser to it. The enormous grill on the front seems to say “I swear I was not originally planned as a Chevrolet”
The fact that GM decided to start putting those dumb mark of excellence badging on the bottom of the fenders on all of the General’s cars and trucks in those years did not help the cars as Cadillac was always the flagship of GM and supposed to be separate and different from the rest of GM’s offerings. The GM badge on the fenders seemed to say that Cadillac was just like the rest of GM’s offerings.
Now? Yeah, maybe, kinda, sorta… but in 2002? Definitely not. Likewise, in 2014 I don’t think Cadillacs look anything like Chevies. The CTS was shocking as a Cadillac when it was new, if it had been a Chevy the world would have stopped and spun backwards.
I do like it too it feels and looks so much more luxurious with seats that are likely more like a sofa that you would have in the home and the colour of the interior too. remember the days you could get interiors in colours like green red and blue and probably even other colours? colours that made it interesting instead of boring grey and black or brown now. negative is at the gas pump
The Mark V can be made to conform with all the latest regulations. The exact shape still works great. Lincoln doesn’t need to restyle it.
1) Lighten it with “military grade aluminum alloy”
2) Remove the headlight door openings. Replace the turn signal/parking lamps with combination LED headlights (so the front end looks the same day or night)
3) Replace the 15″ white wall tires with similarly styled 18″ turbine wheels and lower profile tires
4) 400hp “Coyote” V8 + 8 speed ZF transmission
5) Put it on the RWD Expedition EL chassis (131″ WB) with reduced front overhang
I don’t see why it would need so many changes. ABS, airbags, and a modern engine (just put the Expedition engine in it) The headlights are an integral part of the look, and 18″ wheels look horrible to me. 15″ wheels worked great back then, and still work great today. I don’t know of any govt related reasons why it would need huge wheels.
Seems to me that many older cars could be brought back with basically the same look. I think the main reason they aren’t would be a lack of sales. People actually seem to like 4 door eggmobiles and huge SUVs
I am currently searching for a late model Grand Marquis. It was the last of the big American land yachts, and highway mileage was pretty good. The biggest challenge is finding one in decent condition without a zillion miles on it. Because such a huge number of them and their sister car the Crown Vic were made, parts will likely be available for quite some time. They have even developed an aftermarket. You could wear out an engine, and just put a new one in.
“Headlights integral part of the look” Then why hide them during the day? 18″ wheels huge? 1930’s classic luxury cars (which the Mark V was consciously trying to emulate) have them. 15″ wheels are actually an historical anomaly. Without the disguise of the white walls they look like tiny donuts. Even subcompact Ford Fiestas have 15″ wheels today, and optional 17″s.
Road conditions necessitated tall/narrow wheels in the 30s and prior, Tire technology too Imagine played a role. Tall sidewall tires ride far better and the bodies of cars are proportioned around them, Really long overhangs don’t become all that apparent until the wheel size is upped.
The size of the wheels are irrelevant. Making them bigger just means you have to strap rubber bands on them, making the tires a pain in the ass to boot. The headlights are an integral part of the look precisely in that they are HIDDEN. That is the look they were going for…
They’d still technically be hidden, this isn’t replacing the doors with lights, this idea repurposes the corner lights to house the main headlights in addition to the turn signals. The area the flip up doors currently are would simply be smoothed out. It would look the same during the day as originally only without the cutlines.
Surprised you can’t find a good condition Grand Marquis without too many miles, assuming by late model you’re talking about one of the last model years (say 2006-2011?) and not something older. A lot of them were originally bought by elderly drivers and were sold without too many miles on them…
Very good cars though. There are certainly spare parts available and a huge aftermarket–though you mention “you could wear out an engine, and just put a new one in”… Considering the bulletproof nature of the 2v 4.6, you’d have to go a LOT of miles before wearing that one out! The transmissions aren’t quite as robust but you should still be able to get 150K minimum out of the 4R70W/4R70E.
You would need bigger than 15″ wheels to get decent size brakes, minimum 17″
The Cadillac for me, larger inside (surely?), smaller outside and no doubt a world of difference to drive
I suspect my Town Car will be my last new(er) car; unless Detroit and Japan car companies change their artistic direction.
New cars just make me say “BLAHHHHHH.”
I like the looks of the 98-2011 Town Car but feel this car suffers from poor space management on on Ford’s part. As big as the thing is I find driving the TC to be a cramped affair (and I am 6-1 and 260lbs) I test drove a 2005 Lesabre and a 2006 Town Car a few years ago when i was in the market for another car. I ended up with the Lesabre because despite being a bit smaller it was more roomier then the Town Car.
I also think the TC’s 2009 replacement (the MKS) is a much better car. It is roomy, more gas friendly and has a 273hp v6 verses the TC which left the market with 2 cylinders more and a mighty 239hp.
I’m about your size, maybe a bit bigger, and with the seats adjusted, that era of Town Car fit me like a glove. Hell, you could adjust the seats to fit anyone from 4′ 8″ blue hair grandma Agnes to 8 ‘ Shaq. Even the back seat was pretty good, and it was a non-L mode.
When it comes to bench seat cars like the Town Car or LeSabre, you can adjust it to about anyone unless they are a midget or a giant.
The CTS would have been a 2003, and was an entry level luxury sport sedan. The CTS was intended to bring younger owners into the Cadillac line as well as offer an alternative to the BMW 3-series. The plastic interior is everything one would expect from Chevrolet. Top Gear liked it, or at least did think that it signaled a new direction for Cadillac.
The picture shows just how much the luxury car has improved in 25 years. Now, the emphasis is on performance, not visually showing off. Sorry, there’s no way in hell you could give me a Mark (post II and prior to a VII) over an arts & science Cadillac.
+1, although I would not really want either car. The second generation CTS was a pretty good car, but the third generation is what the Lincoln would like to be now.
To me style is what cars are all about. I love style, and a low level of technology. I grew up working on low tech cars. They are actual machines, not computers on wheels. Today there is way too much technology, and absolutely no style. And I’ll bet that Mark V rides way better than that dinky little Caddy. There is not a single new car made today (within reason) that I would buy, with the possible except the Camaro and Challenger. Ford just took the Mustang off the list for 2015. It now looks like a second gen Hyundai Tiburon. Back in the ’70s and before, a cars style was it’s identity. Cars have no identity today. You have to get close enough to read the name on it.
Style is a matter of personal taste. While most agree that the Pontiac Aztec was seriously lacking a sense of style, not everyone likes the same thing. I do like technology, especially digital fuel injection.
Thanks. I have been trying to think what the ’15 Mustang reminds me of. I had thought the fish mouth Riviera, but I think you nailed it. Not an improvement, in my opinion over the ’05-’14 generation.
I am also no fan of all the ‘wet bar of soap” styling that has been in vogue for the last 20 years or so. I have to get close to most cars to even tell what they are.
Exactly, who gives a shit about performance. I just want a car to absorb bumps and that has enough schtick to rub my money in the face of all the schlubs that can’t afford a Mark V.
But in 2014, basically anyone who can afford a car can afford a Mark V… so are you trying to rub your money in the faces of people who own unrestored 35 year old Datsuns?
But also in 2014 anyone who can afford a Mark V can also afford a 90s BMW as well, and have all that “performance” luxury cars are supposedly destined to have.
And I don’t think rubbing money in the face with an expensive car works on someone who owns an unrestored 35 year old car. Chances are they haven’t been cheap to keep running that long and even higher that the owners probably went out of their way to seek it out, thus don’t care about monetary value.
For the time, in other words, back in circa 1977.
Matt – OK, but you get what I’m saying regardless, right? Make it “Daewoo Lanos” or “Chevy Aveo” instead; any car that can be bought for a couple hundred bucks and is driven until it requires any sort of maintenance then gets junked. Seems especially mean to be rubbing your Mark V baller $$$ in the face of people who own cars like that. What does a decent Mark V even cost? Three thousand bucks maybe? Maybe $10k for the absolute most pristine limited edition showroom condition example on the planet? Is there anyone really driving around in a Lincoln from the ’70s thinking “hahaha fuck you poor idiots with your $100/month certified pre-owned Kia Rio payments! I make $35k a year! Hahaha! I saved up and bought this car with HARD AMERICAN CASH, BABY!!”
dominic – So what you really mean is that you’ve got some kind of fantasy about going back in time and seeming wealthy to the people of 1978? Whatever floats your boat, man…
dominic: you are kidding in that second sentence, right? The few Mark Vs over here are darn expensive; I can’t afford one and I’m not a ‘schlub’ (a talentless, unattractive, or boorish person).
My point is-why do people buy luxury cars? How they perform? That might be a secondary or tertiary perk, another secondary perk might be the class and style, if you have it. The real reason to is to show you have the money to. There is nothing wrong with that, but no use it trying to hide it with faux egalitarian reasons.
Respectfully, that’s a sweeping generalisation. The idea of rubbing money in people’s faces through car choice isn’t how we do things in New Zealand. Yes it’s true of a few people, but not the majority. Many folks I know have bought very nice ‘luxury’ cars, generally as a reward to themselves for lifetimes of hard work and sacrifice. Of course in this day and age, pretty much every manufacturer is trying to pretend that their offerings are ‘luxury’, so it’s harder to define ‘luxury’ than it once was.
“…improved…” ?????
Performance at 15-20mph max in gridlock, ooh such luxury!
The best car would be a Mark V about the size of a CTS.
I drove a Thunderbird of about the V’s vintage, the steering was quick but lifeless and the throttle response was stiff….for the first inch of travel then it seemed to hit some kind of afterburner activator. So the gas was either too little or waaaay too much in feel. I would have to believe the CTS is better, dynamically.
So which CTS, the first one, the second one or the current one which is the size of the STS? Or perhaps the ATS?
What I’m getting from most of these comments is that modern cars are all uniformly awful, and only cars from the days of the commenters’ collective youth are any good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison. Cadillac successfully made a sports sedan to compete with BMW, while Lincoln continued on its route of “let’s market to geriatrics,” and look where it got each of them.
Agreed. What really irks me are people who say all cars look the same today. While there is less of a marked difference between different nations’ products – eg a Citroen has more in common with a Chevy nowadays than 40 years ago – you can’t say that all modern American cars look more the same, for example, than they did in the 60s (coke bottle style) or the 70s (Brougham look). It’s just some classic car aficionados just seem to switch off when they see modern cars. It makes me think of people who say, “What is the world coming to?” Or “This never happened in my day”. Rubbish.
+infinity
When I hear stuff like this, I stop taking the person saying it seriously. Occasionally they may have a point, because there were certain extraordinary eras for cars or music or what-have-you, but even then it’s nothing more than a coincidence. “Everything sucks now, and before it was great” is totally lacking in objectivity… what’s the point? It’s nostalgia plain and simple. The weirdest is hearing it from people who weren’t even alive then. That’s like being nostalgic for the future.
Things are always the same regardless of how much they change. Time doesn’t exist the way we think it does. Unless there’s some specific metric we can use to compare the two eras (in which case the past almost always loses) then everything comes down to style or intangibles which are also entirely subject to personal preference.
There are things I love about old cars that are entirely lacking in new cars and vice-versa. There really isn’t any better or worse, it’s all just different.
If they were really just marketing to geriatrics, they would have just kept making the Town Car with a few updates here and there. They had to be making money hand over fist by the point they stoped making them.
How old does one have to be to be classified as Geriatric?
I dunno, you’d have to ask the Dr. above.
So I’m 26 and think everything looks the same today compared to the 60s/70s, am I being nostalgic somehow?
Right now car styling is akin to the 1930s, only with less bodystyles and colors. The grilles are the only way to tell anything apart. Now get off my lawn! 😛
I grew up in the ’70s, and do indeed prefer cars from that decade. But I also like cars from there all the way back to the Model T. “70s cars proved they could run smooth and quiet, and they would have had excellent reliability if build quality had been better. With very few exceptions, today’s cars are shapeless blobs. You could change the badges around on them, and not many would notice. Even back in the ’20s cars had developed their own distinctive look, and it was in full swing during the ’50s. Tell me the 1948 Chevy Fleetline didn’t have style. Go to the appliance store and look at the rows of refrigerators, ranges, washers and dryers, etc. Each with only minor differences. Cars have truly become transportation appliances. I seriously doubt appearance has anything to do with anyone’s buying decision. They buy the brand they want, or the one with the features they want, or they buy based on priced, and the perceived reliability of what they are buying. Again, just like buying a refrigerator. Last post on this one. If you get it, you already had it. If you don’t, you probably never will. It kind of depends on what cars mean to you. For me they are mostly a hobby, and they used to be things of true beauty.
Overall agree, few of my friends with new cars mentioned their looks. It was the reliability, the deal they got, the crash test ratings, the mpg. All important but all having nothing to do with why I love cars: their styling, looks, and gadgetry.
Interestingly actual appliances used to look less appliance like. I’m thinking of the wide variety of TVs that were marketed, the two tone Smith Corona typewriters vs. the more formal Royals, the Bell rotary phones that came in different colors–LOTS of different colors–the avocado colored fridge my grandmother still had when I was a kid…even appliances weren’t just appliances.
This isn’t hagiography; there’s a lot about that world we’re better off without but in terms of consumer products generally, the emphasis has gone from visual appeal to utilitarian appeal. It’s disappointing but inevitable that it would affect most cars, too.
That does seem to be the way most things are going, but for a counter-example, look at Apple products. Sure, there are usability and technical reasons for buying a MacBook/iPad/iPhone/whathaveyou, but Apple has also successfully cultivated a distinctive visual style and turned that into a desirable image. When you look at an Apple product, you know what you’re looking at, and you know it’s a premium product, and the desirability to many people is based off of that visual style much more so than the actual functionality.
They’re markedly the exception rather than the norm, but there is still a place for distinctive industrial design.
Two traditional American luxury nameplates 25 years apart. It is an outstanding photo, but if you want to compare the cars those two are in different leagues. The CTS would be better compared to a ’77 Versailles, and the Mark to an ’02 Eldorado. In that light you can still see the progress that has been made. There has been a definite move towards a better handling standard. In 1977 luxury and handling were separate markets. Yes the large European cars were handlers with luxury, but it was not the same style of luxury the American cars had, nor did they have all the luxury equipment. The Americans preferred their large, broughamified cars with all the goodies. The Europeans preferred their large, well handling cars, with the basic luxury equipment. Much of this was due to the different landscapes between the two markets. Today, technology has improved, the world has grown smaller, the two markets have grown together, and we have world cars. Any time you design a product for a large market it loses it’s personality. Things become more and more the same. I prefer the old days where luxury cars were judged on their style and ride qualities, not on how well they perform.
Whilst I love the Lincoln’s look and styling, I’d probably go for the Caddie as I’ve become too accustomed to ABS and airbags etc. But I’d be the biggest cheerleader to anyone who bought a Mk V.
Of course I like the Lincoln better although as far as those go I’d rather have a Continental than a Mark.
It’s true that all cars aren’t alike now and weren’t always all that different then, though I do feel the styling cues have decreased in diversity.
I’m not anti new models so much as disinterested in them. I keep coming back to the idea of “presence.” This Lincoln may have been pathetically inefficient, have been designed with no sense of usefulness of space, and is covered in unnecessary gee-gaws but even if it’s kind of vulgar it still has a unique overstatedness and, well, presence that seems purely American. It’s the flip/converse angle on the Ugly American: it’s a car you would never purchase if you were an English peer, it’s a new world idea of money. It doesn’t confer class or taste (anymore than any other car does), but it does embody, in auto form, a very American idea of winning. We still do that but the cars don’t seem to reflect it as well, we want to look chic and these are provincial to us now. I’d say the closest remaining are ironically enough the Rolls Royce and Bentley sedans but there’s nothing a notch below those that can be purchased for $60-80K like a contemporary big Cadillac or Lincoln would be. I guess the CT6 is going to fall into the range but one thing I liked about the old Caddies and Lincolns is they were as big as those Rolls Royces but could be bought by self-made Americans. The spy pictures of the CT6 seem to say it won’t quite get there, though it’s nice seeing a longer hood.
I do wish we could try to compromise and instead of abandoning the concepts behind this Mark completely in favor of BMW fighters, try build a big, American style car with enough performance and contemporary features to sell. I think if it were packaged right it would not lead in sales but might be decent. Bigger is better still to many people; that’s why they buy SUVS. Don’t tell me at least some of them might not mind being closer to the ground.
This species of FoMoCo coupes from the late ’70s are among my least favorite cars from that decade, but this picture captures all the best features of the Mark V. Dark blue is the best color on any Lincoln from back then, too.
I loved the original CTS when it first came out (and still do), but looking back now, Cadillac made almost as much of a gigantic leap between the 1st and 2nd generation cars as they did between the Catera and the CTS.
Really great shot!
A very nicely captured shot, and it does show the distance between then and now. To me, the cars both have desirable qualities, but starkly different between the two cars. In terms of looks, I think the 1st-gen CTS was a clear winner at the time–bold, looking like not many other cars on the road, easily identifiable and it set a clear theme that Cadillac is still following to some degree. However, for me, comparing it to a Mark V, there’s no contest. The ultimate in 70’s style, long, low, linear, and a little menacing from some angles in a dark color, wins every time. It’s just a look that I really do love (and for what it’s worth I wasn’t even alive when the Mark V was manufactured).
Dynamically? While I’ve not driven either, I’d expect the CTS would be the far better of the two. Perhaps not as much raw power (if the V has the 460 and lively gearing) but a true sports sedan versus a softly-sprung 70’s luxo-cruiser.
My pick? If it was a weekend/collector car, the Mark V wins every time. To drive daily, the CTS is the clear winner, if I had to live with it in traffic, for my commute, and for long trips. Personally I don’t think I’d ever own a 1st-gen CTS because I think the design of the interior, mainly that giant bulbous center stack, is pretty horrid. But I could probably get over it.
Great shot Paul. OK, I’m an old guy (AARP eligible), and while the CTS is a very nice car, on pure visual statement, which one if these has more “presence”……..
I have a 78 Continental Coupe, not a Mark V, but they drive exactly the same – I love my Conti, but I understand it’s flaws – it’s a 70s car – it sucks gas, whether you have the 460 or 400, they both stumble and hesitate as any mid/late 70s car with early emissions equipment, they wallow, but all that fades to nothing when you get out, close the door, and look at it……….
Automotive styling today is constrained by modern crash safety regulations, hence the high belt lines, small windows, thick pillars and raised trunks. The only things that the styling departments can play with to differentiate their offerings are the grill and tail lights. In the bread and butter compact/midsize sedan and CUV segments conformity is another factor as buyers are more interested in features and price then in styling. Manufacturers of theses high volume products are afraid to take chances and even Subaru’s latest offerings are starting to look more mainstream as they start chasing higher volumes.
CTS/Camry/Malibu/Sonata/(insert recent car name here)……they all look more alike than different to me.
When I drive my 2011 Camry (instead of my Town Car) I frequently have to hit the alarm button to find the car in the Wally-Mart parking lot.
I have NO problem spotting my Town Car.
I saw a Mark V on the road for the first time in years a few weeks ago on a busy highway that I drive on every day. We were approaching a somewhat raised railway crossing that any car made in the last 25 years can take at 60 mph without any drama. When I came alongside I slowed down to his speed (35 mph) to take a close look. There were 4 people in the car and when his front wheels hit the tracks the front end shot up violently followed by the same when the back wheels hit. This was followed by several cycles of major up and down pitching. It looked very uncomfortable for it’s occupants and I suspect the Lincoln was riding on original springs and shocks. I’ve toyed with the idea of getting a 70s Continental or Mk V but now I’m not so sure I want one.
M ’81 Town Car did this same rail road track bouncing; a set of front & rear KYB gas filled shock absorbers minimized this proposing up & down behavior.
Thanks. It’s good to know that modern shocks can help these classics.
Aside from the appliance like styling of new cars, why doesn’t anyone make a luxury coupe anymore? Or any coupe for that matter. It seems the very few coupes available are sports/performance cars. 2 door cars and 4 door cars used to sell in near even numbers. It now seems to be function over form at all costs. To me, a 4 door anything has always been about utility. I would only buy a 4 door car if I actually needed one. And even then I would prefer a 4 door station wagon over a sedan. I see 4 door sedans as being at the very bottom as far as desirability goes. And desirability is very important to me when it comes to cars. I was literally sick when Chrysler brought the Charger back, and it had 4 doors. How could they use such an iconic name on a 4 door car? And the mid ’70s Pontiac Grand Prix, one of my all time favorite cars, morphed into one of the ugliest cars ever made, 4 doors, FWD and all. It’s no wonder I’m a vintage car enthusiast. They don’t make anything today you could be enthusiastic about.
The short answer is that they (luxury coupe) do not sell. The Buick Riviera was not selling well at the end of 93 model year, but a new body Riviera was brought out for 1995 with a stiff structure. This (long) model year did sell, but then sales dropped off until the last year (1999). The Eldorado was not selling either, but held on till the last year of 2002.
Smaller (and cheaper) two doors do still sell, as well as performance models. Cadillac appears to have replaced the previous generation CTS coupe with the smaller ATS coupe.
As far a Chrysler goes, in the sixties they used the 300 name on a 4 door sedan too, so you should not have been surprised.
I did like the Buick Riviera’s. I think at one time coupes were thought to have better handling perhaps, and to some degree were better looking in terms of style. However, in my old age I have grown to like 4 doors better.
I also think that with the end of hardtops, pillared coupes just did not cut it for style.
The Mercedes E series coupe is a pillarless hardtop and it’s the closest there is to a personal luxury 2 door at the present time. Unlike to other 2 door cars out there it still places a bit more emphasis on luxury than sport.