(first posted, 10/30/2017)
(Every so often, a comment will be left that really deserves to be turned into a post. And it shows how easy it is to write a CC post. We always welcome new Contributors…it’s easy; just pretend you’re writing a comment. PN)
In terms of the old car to modern car comparisons, I have some notes to share on that subject. My hubby and I have a 1978 Continental Town Coupe and a ’77 Thunderbird Town Landau. Over the past several years we’ve had those, my husband’s daily drivers have been a 2005 Dodge Neon SXT, a 1997 Lincoln Town Car, a 2012 Ford Fusion SEL, a 2013 Ford Taurus SEL, and now a 2017 Ford Fusion Titanium.
Easiest comparo first: 1978 Continental versus 1997 Town Car.
Both had that beautiful long hood, that amazing smooth ride, and couch-like interior. The Continental could take a bump better than even the Town Car (on which we had completely rebuilt the suspension when we got it). On “typical” broken pavement the Conti had the edge on ride comfort. It’s only on massive potholes (which abound here in the salt-encrusted heavy-truck-traveled wastes we call Michigan) that the Conti’s side-to-side wobble upset the smooth ride, one thing the Town Car was less prone to doing. The Town Car communicated the slightest hint of road feel, a, frankly, unpleasant intrusion into what was otherwise a smooth experience and an intrusion the Continental *knows* is verboten. If I want road feel, I’ll choose a car accordingly. I don’t want it in my luxury car.
Driving them back to back, though, was surprising. The Town Car handled like a sports car compared to the Conti, no joke. It had a much sharper turning radius, a steering ratio that felt twice as quick, and noticeably sharper response to steering input. I will say, the Conti’s brakes, which are power-boosted via the power steering pump, have as good of pedal feel and response as the Fiesta ST I had. That’s not to say the car would stop as quickly, mind you, but the Conti’s brakes inspired WAY more confidence than the Town Car’s did.
Next closest: 1978 Continental and 2013 Taurus.
Driving the Taurus, I can pretty easily imagine what the MKS would feel like. I feel comfortable in saying the Taurus/MKS were crafted in the Lincoln tradition. The Taurus is probably the smoothest/nicest riding *modern* car I’ve been in (I’ve not ridden in a car that, overall, rides smoother than our Continental). It communicates way more road feel than does the Conti, but does not wobble or upset at all over big potholes or otherwise. The Taurus, honestly, rode as well as the ’97 Town Car, but was much more composed and stable over bumps. You’d not mistake the driving or ride of one for the other, but the Taurus felt like a modern interpretation of the intended ride of the old Lincoln. And, the Taurus was quieter inside than the Conti or the Town Car.
Handling between the two was no contest, despite the Taurus being quite big-boned itself. The Taurus would handle circles around either the Town Car or especially the Continental. It would out-accelerate either of them, out-brake them, and out-feature them. My complaint with the Taurus was the seat and control layout. The seat bottom was too shallow, and I could not bring the wheel close enough. This meant I could never get a position that was suitable for long distance, a problem I’ve never had with the Continental despite it having a fixed-back driver’s seat (with beautiful velour pillowtops!). As a passenger, the Taurus suffered from having a bump-up on the floor to allow for wiring or rear HVAC or something. That bump-up raised the floor about 1 or 1.5 inches at about 3 inches in front of the seat, so pulling my legs toward me to change position always felt like I was putting my legs on a short stool.
The seating positions in that Taurus, frankly, impaired what was otherwise a really good car.
2017 Fusion and 1978 Continental:
The current Fusion, in a lot of ways, has picked up where the (wait, they still make it!?) Taurus left off. Inch for inch it’s nearly as big inside as was the Taurus, and the interior design makes it feel roomier (even though it’s not). The ride is amazingly good, night and day difference from the 2012 Fusion and almost as good as the Taurus was. It handles much better, uses less gas, stops well-I honestly think the Fusion’s one of the best cars on the market right now, period.
And, I hate to say it, but as cool as the old Continental is, we usually opt for the Fusion over my X-Type or over the Continental for road trips. The Fusion rides, handles, and stops as well as my Jag and uses considerably less gas. Compared to the Conti, yes, we can afford the gas, but it is literally a $50-$100 decision to take that car out of state to visit friends or family.
And, something I haven’t touched on yet: The old cars are actually much more *work* to drive. We’ve taken the Continental and the Thunderbird across multiple states. Those old cars take noticeably more steering input to drive. I’m not even talking to keep in line-that vintage of Lincoln (and Thunderbird in the Lincoln image) are meant to be aimed, not steered. Even with overboosted steering and a floaty ride, those cars just take a lot more work to go around curves and keep aimed in the right direction. A simple freeway curve that is a slight movement and barely noticed in a modern car is a steering event in one of the old cars because of the sheer number of turns it takes to turn those things lock-to-lock for the terrible turning radius they can even do (my ’95 F-150 has a better turning radius than the ’78 Continental does).
That floatiness is great for an hour or two, but driving it for five hours will fatigue you in a way five hours in a modern car will not. It wasn’t until we took the Continental on our first road trip I understood why there used to be so many roadside motels and rest areas.
Speaking of visibility-The Continental has the best visibility of nearly anything I’ve driven. Those sharp-bladed fenders and straight hood mean you always know where the car is, and the tall glass means you actually have a window through which to view it. I joke that I could run over a medium-sized child and not know it in the Continental (wouldn’t see it over the hood and wouldn’t feel it under the wheels!), but-and I’m as serious as a heart attack when I say this-the Continental is easier to parallel park than my 2014 Fiesta ST was. I can see out of the Conti and I know where the ends are. AND, I can use the body to judge where my wheels are and not hit the curb because it doesn’t suffer from the wide-track nonsense modern cars are cursed with.
In terms of ergonomics? Modern cars, hands down. The Lincoln’s wiper controls are a chrome knob on the dash, to the left of the steering wheel, all the way to the bottom. The Lincoln’s headlight controls are a chrome knob on the dash, to the left of the steering wheel, all the way to the bottom. The only way to tell them apart is, after having fumbled about to find them at all, to feel up the knobs to tell which one is shaped like an octagon and which one is round. They’re not easily spotted while driving, they’re right next to each other, and they’re not easy to reach unless you lean forward and reach down awkwardly.
(images not of the author’s actual cars)
Very interesting! Thank you for writing this. I have often wondered how “old vs new” would stack up in the real world.
Can confirm the driving experience of the 1978 Continental. My dad had a 1977 sedan model for almost 25 years. I was home from college back in 1984 and my dad and I were at the local Lincoln-Mercury dealer when the original owner drove this cream-puff bronze 1977 sedan into the lot with only 40K miles on it – we ran over to look at it moments after the owner had exited, and a salesman hurriedly ran out to inform us that it was a customer’s car but was being traded in (talk about perfect timing).
This is a car that is simply wonderful to be a passenger in on a long interstate trip.
I will say that due to the copious amount of sound insulation in the car, road noise was very low, and with the torquey 460-4V under the hood, it wasn’t uncommon for the driver to look down at the horizontal-thermometer speedo and exclaim “Good golly, the milk is up to 85 degrees already!”
Your observations about driving old sleds are identical to mine. Four years ago, I drove a 1978 Sedan DeVille over the Rockies. Six hours driving that car and I was just beat.
I did the same drive this year in my Accord Coupe. Did ten hours and felt great at the end.
And the ’78 deVille was a better handler than that Lincoln barge, which was about as flabby as Yank Tanks could get. At the time, Ford was a long way from “getting religion” about agility in their large cars; even the ’79 LTD was no threat to GM in that respect. The Fairmont was a breath of fresh air by comparison.
As you say, modern cars are a blast to drive over mountainous roads at speed. Many examples could be cited, but I remember US180 from Grand Canyon S. Rim to Flagstaff: no traffic and no reason to slow down my Civic: complete confidence in its roadholding.
My Imperials and other Chrysler products have always been a delight on winding roads. A friend with an Eagle Talon turbo awd always talked about how great the handling was, we went from Chico to Reno for the day up hwy 70 through Feather River Canyon, the time each way, with him putting in effort to drive quickly, was 1 hour, forty minutes each way. A few weeks later, same road same weather (warm sunny day) same light traffic, in my 77 New Yorker Brougham. No effort, sweeping through curves at 70-90 mph with no tire squeel, so comfortable he didn’t notice how fast we were traveling. With the gigantic New Yorker, time each direction 1 hour and 20 minutes. I;ve had Cadillacs and Lincolns (a 57 Premier is stunningly good in handling) but Lincolns from 61-78 were horrible, Cadillacs 61-76 decent, and all the big hulking Imperials and NYB’s are superb handlers. The closest I ever found to them is Buick, my 63 Electra came with heavy duty suspension and feels like my cousins 57 Chrysler 300, but better. A good handling car with power (interior comfort options a/c and good seats help) leads to lots of miles (and with my very bad back) I have over 450,000 on the Electra, 236,000 on my 66 Imperial, and over 100,000 on each other car I have. I found the right ones. I have driven many newer cars, my sons Caprice, Mark VIII, 2003 Mustang, relatives Cadillacs, Lincolns, Mercedes,BMW’s, and others. My cars feel a good match for or better than the newer ones to me. That’s why I have them.
I’d love to see you do a “COAL” series on these cars!
Paul, I’m really touched that you thought highly enough of that comment to feature it! Thank you. I’ll have to get you some pics-I have just about all of them (oddly, I’m not sure I’ve captured the new Fusion, and it’s presently missing because apparently Fusion wheels are now interesting enough to warrant their theft).
Sorry to read your wheels were stolen.
Sorry to have missed this when it was posted. I really wanted to see how the Neon ride compared to the Conti.
OK – maybe not.
We’ve come a long way in car design in the past 4 decades, but one thing we’ve lost is “presence” which the older Lincoln has in spades. Also, those wonderful pillow-tufted seats in that crushed velour, nothing luxurious like that today. But, like the author of this wonderful piece, I agree that a modern car would probably be the much better choice for a long-distance drive.
Interestingly enough, I find that the 2006-2010 Lincoln Zephyr/MKZ seems to have a throwback type dash that screams 1970’s- 1980’s. It is all squares and rectangles.
When I looked at the centre console, I kept visualing the robots from the 1950s-era science fiction films…
Now I can’t not see it. Funny.
Looks like a tribute to the 61-63 continental dash.
If your Fusion had the tires from the SE trim I have no doubt you would have picked it over the Taurus in regards to ride comfort. The thicker side walls really make a difference on road imperfections, which you obviously feel more in the Titanium. Of course those larger tires get you a better handling car, but its a trade off.
Great comparo – very enjoyable read. Modern cars are just so much better.
Back in the 70’s I enjoyed driving my Dad’s 78 Mark V Cartier when I visited him the Midwest. It road so smoothly over rough country roads and the 460 provided silky if not too lively acceleration on the interstates. However, I hated driving it when he visited LA. It was so big you could never find an adequate parking space and maneuvering it through traffic was like bringing the Queen Mary into harbor. It always reminded me of why Cadillac offered the shorter deck Park Avenue back in the 60’s. And unlike the Continental coupe, the Mark had horrible rearward vision.
xequar, please do a COAL on your X-Type, a car that has always intrigued me and seems to be more appreciated as time goes on. I continue to think it a very attractive car with a gorgeous interior and it wore that styling so much better than the S-Type. Still quite a few X-Types on the streets here in LA and I always enjoy seeing them. Do you have the 2.5 or the 3.0?
Ah, the X-Type. It’s a neat car, actually. Mine’s the 2.5, with the manual transmission. I love that style of Jag, and yeah, I have a few COALs I’d like to write. I really do need to just get on it.
Re parking, I’ve taken to backing my [modern] compacts into parking spots where curbs are high, preferring the extra trouble of that to the risk of damaging the front spoiler. Maybe this is another reason for the popularity of trucks & SUVs.
Parking in reverse just takes practice, and moreover, I feel more comfortable pulling out from between said trucks & SUVs.
Another protip for parallel parking a modern button-nosed subcompact (or turning it around in tight spots) is to turn the headlights on and judge where the end of the car is by the reflections. When you can see hot spots from individual reflector optics, you’re cutting it close.
Thanks for this xequar. It’s always great to read comments by people who still drive these classics. Have done any suspension work or had the steering box rebuilt on your 78 Continental? What tires are on it?
Thanks! Tires are the Belle Tire house brand all-seasons with a thin white wall in a modern size that approximates the original size (215/75R15 IIRC). We elected to go with basic tires since we’ve only put 15,000 miles on it in seven years. We went over the suspension when we bought it in 2010, so the shocks are newer. Tie rods and ball joints were still solid. Box looks pretty tight, but I think control bushings are due for replacement. Steering’s definitely loosened up over just the past couple years, especially after the summer we never were able to get it out of storage. Truth be told, tires are probably past their prime, too-we did those in 2010 or 2011.
It actually drives pretty well, all things considered. We try to keep ahead of the maintenance stuff, at any rate. We both hate having a car if we can’t drive it.
I had a Ford with the same front end (77 Cougar), and noted the same constant steering input. After talking to several people who adamantly insisted the cars did NOT do that when new, I did some poking around.
First, tires: switching from your skinny donuts (original probably HR78-15 or LR78-15) to a 235/70 will help noticeably. Going from a high-end 215/75 (Michelin) to a lower-end 235/70 (Kelly Charger, IIRC) on the Cougar was a big improvement. If you have room, maybe even a 255/60.
Second: strut rods. With the car on ramps, put a straightedge on them. (I used a carpenter’s square.) Even a tiny bend will throw everything off.
Third: steering box & shaft. Have someone move the wheel while you watch…the shaft might be worn, the box might be worn, or it might be moving on the frame. Also: a power steering cooler would help, especially for city use, and ESPECIALLY with the hydroboost brakes.
John:
I’m surprised if wider, lower sidewall tires made the car track straighter.
If anything, having more contact patch off-sides would make the wheels tug side to side even more.
I’m sure it was your suspension mods that reduced steering effort more than going with wider, lower profile rubber.
I prefer the ride and handling of my 79 Continental over my 92 Roadmaster, and certainly over my previous 92 Vic.
One thing I recently discovered about late-’70s Continentals is the fact that you could option them with a big fixed-glass moonroof. Never knew about this and it seems to be pretty neat. Has anyone ever seen a Conti so equipped?
Yes; test-drove a coo-pay with one before I bought my sedan. They’re very elegant.
I’ve only seen one, at a car show in 1978.
I’m grateful for all these comparos–especially as a FoMoCo guy. I never rode in the 1970s LIncolns, but knew well the high-line Mercury cars, which were perhaps the next closest thing.
I appreciate the positive review of the Fusion, which seems to have a lot to recommend it these days. I don’t like how the front end styling has gotten more, uh, aggressive, but otherwise I’m seriously considering one.
I’d highly recommend checking them out. In Titanium spec they’re absolutely beautiful inside. Mr. X’s has the 2.0 EcoBoost, so it’ll go just fine. We’ve seen mid-30s for mileage on long trips. The seats are well-bolstered, so you don’t feel like you’re flopping around if you take a curve at speed.
And, it feels head-and-shoulders above the ’12 SEL (which was the top spec then) that he had. It feels like more thought went into the design. It feels more solid and substantial. It feels more mature. The ’12 I think felt a bit more lithe in corners, but the ’17 honestly handles as well-actually better than its ride would suggest. I’d have to flog my X-Type pretty good to get away from him if we were on a course, I think.
I had to laugh when I read the part about the headlight switch and wiper switch locations. My base model ’83 F-150 used exactly the same wiper switch, equally inconveniently placed. It also had a cheap ass push-pull headlight switch. Nothing like turning off the headlights on a slushy night when what you wanted was a shot of windshield washer fluid. Ergonomics was not part of Ford’s vocabulary in those days.
The other thing that I found made cars of this vintage tiring on long drives was the seats. Comfortable for 15 minutes, then you’d start to squirm. Even the cheapest import had better seats it seemed to me in those days.
You can’t argue the fact that these old Lincolns had a presence though….
Oh any pics of the tbird? Is the blue interior one yours, It has a 79 dash and radio not 78 – did u upgrade?
Nah, Paul found a ’79. Ours is green. I posted some pics below.
Great article, good job! As an earlier post mentioned, you can’t beat the “presence” of old cars like the 70’s Lincolns. My only asthetic complaint about those is the late 70’s ones had the shared steering wheel and dash design across almost the entire FoMoCo product line. It’s been mentioned here before, but it is really cheesy that Lincolns didn’t have unique designs. But this article was about driving, and I’ve never driven one, so that was very interesting.
I think it was posted here a while back, I recall reading a contemporary article comparing the Lincoln, Cadillac, and Imperial from the mid 70’s. As I remember, the Lincoln was considered the softest handling even among those 3.
Out of all malaise era cars, these Lincoln’s are the ones i dislike.
“Steering event” needs to have been a phrase for about half a century. Good stuff.
I rejected the purchase of a Honda Fit (my first choice) for exactly that same “ridge/rise” annoyance in front of/under the driver’s seat. I like to tuck my left heel up under the seat sometimes (I need to change positions often due to a gimpy knee) and that rise made it impossible.
In the Fit, that’s the cover of the fuel tank, which is under the front seats for packaging reasons.
I owe you a few pics.
Continental and Thunderbird:
The ’78 dash
Sorry, modern dashes may be brighter, but they aren’t as cool!
See Exhibit B: The Thunderbird at night
I switched out the old bulbs for LED’s on my 79 T-bird and it made a huge difference.
I removed the (scorched) blue bulb covers on my Cougar…wow, what an improvement!
Leslie: I changed out the bulbs also for my ’78 Ranchero (same dashboard).
The change from too dim (on full brightness) to having to crank down the rheostat just a little bit was pleasing and astounding.
So much hood!
So much velour!
They look happy. What’s the red insect in the driveway behind the old beasties? 😀
That is my, now sadly departed by way of crash, 2014 Fiesta ST in Molten Orange Metallic. I miss that car dearly. Probably the best car I’ve had of all of them.
Town Car
Let’s try that with a picture
Gotta love the lineage!
Two of xequar’s comments ring especially true for my ’67 Imperial:
-It’s WORK to drive it fast on the highway. It requires constant attention to stay in the lane. The Imperial of the era has a reputation for being more of a driver’s car than the competition… can’t imagine what the others must have been like! But with the soft suspension, light steering, and surprisingly good brakes, it’s easy to drive in the city.
-Parking is a cinch. It may be bigger than a Suburban, but I can see each corner of the car. And it’s so low that there’s not much road hidden beneath my sightlines. We also have a new Murano festooned with cameras, and it’s still harder to park than the Imperial.
While it does take more effort to drive around in an old car it ~does~ impel one to pay attention!
Check your alignment, especially caster. A Mopar C-body should track absolutely dead-straight on a level road. Also, check the steering box-it might need to be adjusted.
david42 wrote:
“We also have a new Murano festooned with
cameras, and it’s still harder to park than the Imperial.”
That’s because that Murano has such a high beltline(door sills) and tiny slits for windows. Car mfgs try to make up for it with gadgetry, such as back up cams or all around cams.
Taurus
Taurus-The big deviation from blue.
It was a really good looking car.
Fusions-yes, he likes his blue cars!
At least he got to keep using the same license plate!
The “keeping car in lane problem” can be, at least, improved by adjusting the steering gear. Better still, get a rebuilt one. Old steering gears can have a lot of play that contributes to “wandering”.
Check wheel bearing, ball joints and height of car.
Top it of with a wheelalignment.
You should get a “new” car.
I concur.
Boxy styling, hugh glasses everywhere, overassisted power steering, and at-the-tip-of-your-fingers column shifting slushboxes are very handy for parallel parking.
DISCLAIMER : this stunt was accomplished by a experienced angry parisian driver. Do not try it at home.
Incroyable! That was actually parked that way?! Not just parked and the other vehicles parked in close to it later?
I visited Paris once and was blown away with how close the street parking can get. I assume parking is a contact sport there. In that case, those 70’s bumpers would be nice to have.
Don’t believe everything you see. Physics does impose certain limitations.
I did park that way. I reckon the car reflexion in the glass behind helped a bit. But I did it before without such help. And an another time with a 81 Malibu.
I’m always amazed at the turning radius of those behemoths. It seems to me it’s much smaller than FWD cars of that era. I had much more trouble parking a 205 (or a 81 Skylark I was loaned a few days back) in close spaces.
And yeah 5 mph rubberizzed bumpers are handy too. You stay in gear without giving any gas, and go till you feel one very soft bump (Bumping into other cars while parking is very much parisian style driving).
PS : here’s a picture of the aforementioned Skylark. Lent to me by my mechanic during a brake job on the Caprice.
It’s nice to see these 70’s land yachts get the accolades that they deserve. They may have been underpowered, but that can be rectified with today’s crate engines. Most cars these days, and that includes the new Continental, all look like a Camry or Hyundai.
How is the new Continental’s styling more unique than this gussied up Hyundai, aka Genesis?
A great read. I had a decent amount of wheel time in 70s Connies and I think you are spot on. They ride quietly and smoothly even now. Back then the difference from everything else was startling.
One of my most vivid memories was a drive in one of those with my learners permit. At night. On the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Good Grief, trying to keep that w-i-d-e car between those narrow lines was the definition of stress. I do remember how the cars of that era required almost constant small corrections in the steering.
Xequar: Have you driven the last generation (2005-up) Lincoln Town Car?
If you have; I’d be interested in your driving impressions when compared to the other cars in this posting.
You’re comments are pretty spot on for the vehicles discussed. I would hope most people that frequent this site would realize that cars have come a long way in 40 years. I mean no one would expect a 1938 Lincoln to perform better than a 1978 Lincoln in anyway.
I too have frequently gone from my old car to a modern car, literally back to back, in fact i did so yesterday. A few times, it’s been with a work car, just like the Ford Taurus shown here. While my car has undergone some mild suspension and steering tuning, it is still in no way comparable to modern car for the overall package. In my particular case stiffer springs, larger sway bars, new bushings, a quick ratio high effort steering box and modern shocks vastly improved the handling my car. The handling is now very good, even by modern standards. That said, I have simply “tuned” the 1970’s technology on my car using parts that were available at that time. So I still have the limitations of the 1970’s engineering, such as less than ideal camber curves, 4-link rear suspension (which inherently binds under certain conditions), a flexible chassis, and recirculating ball steering. While I have improved the handling to be up to modern standards, the compromise is the ride quality is not up to modern standards on rough roads due to the design limitations. I am okay with that, as I still enjoy driving this car more than almost any other car new or old as it suits my driving needs.
One thing I will say that I find about old vs new cars, is how much more connected you feel in a vintage car. While new cars do give more driver feedback in general, I feel somewhat disconnected from the machine itself. The old cars I just feel more connected to the machine itself and it feels like I am actually working with it. It’s hard to describe. I also enjoy the instant response of a large torque engine without overdrive on the highway. It’s nice to simply crack the throttle a bit to pile on the speed, without having to wait for a downshift or the engine to rev up before it makes any power. Nevertheless, no matter how good modern cars are, I still thoroughly enjoy a drive in almost any vintage cars, warts and all.
I drove a ’79 Mark V everyday for two years in the late 2000s, after driving a ’95 Z28 convertible for years. The Mark was sooooo relaxing a drive. I drove all over Texas, back to New Jersey for an LCOC meet (1,100 miles in one day, solo). It is a one owner original in great shape, so the driving experience is contemporary. It certainly turned me into a mentholated driver, even now, I’m much more relaxed at the wheel. With the 400 engine putting out 158 net hp, you couldn’t be in a hurry. Once you adapted to the performance envelope, it was terrific. Compared to newer cars (rentals, my ’07 Town Car, etc.), there is no comparison in the actual driving dynamic, steering, brakes, efficiency, etc., but, it sure makes you feel a lot better when you arrive! A picture of the MK V and its brother attached.
That is a beautiful Mark V. Truly one of the styling highlights of the 70’s!
Just FYI: you can get 400hp (probably more, now…the one I saw was 15+ years ago) from a totally stock-appearing 400M if you’re interested.
‘Steering event’ is a spectacular phrase, and one that takes me back to the (then-25-year-old) ’73 Cadillac DeVille that was my first car purchase. There’s a kink in a stretch of 70-mph freeway where I grew up that, in most new cars, just takes an instinctive nudge of the wheel to trace. In the Cadillac, though, it was a delicately timed maneuver to twirl the wheel left in anticipation, wait and watch the nose swing a second later, and then correct the car’s line as its path lolled to and fro. You have to *drive* those old cars (and I understand the Caddy was more precise than most), which is both their fun and their downfall as a daily proposition.
I drove a friend’s mother’s mid 70s Continental a couple of times. I seem to think it was a 74 model, creamy beige and tan leather. If memory serves, the speedometer was sort of a thermometer type contraption that the “red” part moved to the right as speed increased. All of the dashes I see in these pics show a traditional needle…please tell me I’m not imagining things?!?
You’re right-through most of the ’70s the Continentals had the thermometer-type speedometer, a look I still think is super neat. For ’77, they revised it to an 85-mph speedo, from the 120-mph versions before. For ’78 and ’79, they changed the whole dash, and along with that came the needle-based versions you’re seeing here.
I like the look of the needle versions on these particular ones-the brushed aluminum is a sharp look.
Enjoyed this (belatedly). As the owner of a ’75 Olds 98 Regency I relate well to the unbeatable ride and seating position balanced against the price of fuel for an out of state trip and having to adjust the steering, although I understand the big GMs were a little less floaty than the Fords.
Also, I chuckled at the confusing wiper/headlight knob evaluation. Not because I disagree. So why? Because in the 1975 “Battle of the Silken Giants” article that compars the Town Coupe, Coupe DeVille, and Imperial LeBaron coupe, it was the very same round vs hexagonal knobs that were praised in the article as being ergonomically advanced! Something like “an engineer must actually have tested this idea in the dark so you could tell the difference, bravo Lincoln designers!” It was one of the few genuinely complimentary things the reviewers had to say about the cars.
That it’s now considered the opposite shows how far we’ve since come.
In my ’70 Mustang I couldn’t reach the wiper or heater controls with the shoulder belt on. Those non inertia belts were quite confining, that’s probably why they were seldom used. I had a ’56 Cadillac in the 1990’s and compared to my ’66 Riviera it felt like driving a bus. The Riv felt like a big muscle car. Neither could hold a candle to my Northstar STS! The big difference with driving old cars is the drum brakes, boosted or not they are much different than a modern car’s. Some can stop almost ( or as ) good as 70’s disc/drum set ups. Others take a long time to stop. In today’s traffic conditions they can leave you feeling quite vulnerable.
Greenhouse look and feel, likely inspired a similar design on the 1979 Chrysler LeBaron coupe.
That lead Lincoln is gorgeous. I was in college back then – and couldn’t imagine piloting something that large around in everyday life. Kudos to my mom & dad’s generation for making it look easy….
Not to mention the stunt drivers from the TV shows back in the day…
First off, that 78 is simply a beautiful car.
Next, I have to agree. My comparison would be our 1976 Mark IV, our 1979 Thunderbird Diamond Jubilee and our 2004 Mercury Grand Marquis Ultimate.
The handling of the older cars is, well, numb! Drop the wheel to its lowest position and it’s one finger steering.
Where the 04 tends to handle tighter. The air ride in our Merc still works, but the other two simply ride smoother.
Now, which is my favorite to drive? Well, in order, the Thunderbird is the top, the Grand Marquis is next and the Lincoln is the third. And this is more because of a serious back issue. For as big as those older cars are, they are less roomy and harder to get into and out of. But once I’m inside, I’ll drive that Thunderbird across the nation.