The 1983-1986 Ford LTD is no longer a common sight in the junkyard, however since my family owned two of them (’83 and ’84) I’ve generally held them in low esteem and walk by them. In recent years though I’ve become more appreciative, but was still going to pass this one up as it was a little further gone than I like until I realized that it was both a 1986 model and that someone had transplanted a much more powerful engine into it. Alrighty then, let’s saddle up.
I hadn’t really realized that these were still available in 1986 since I figured it was all Taurus, all the time by then, but yes it appears that these were built in both the Atlanta and Chicago plants until right around Christmas 1985/New Year’s 1986 – presumably a bunch were produced to hold the dealers over and give them something to sell to those not enamored with the new jelly bean in the showroom. Ford needn’t have worried as the Taurus definitely made the LTD look exactly like the dinosaur it was, popular Fox platform or not.
The silver paint on this one makes it look more modern than it has any right to, ours were two tone blue and a light buttercream color. Looking at the 1986 Brochure shows that besides silver, black, and white, there was also a charcoal and a dark slate color available. So there’s your average 2021 palette 35 years early…but alright, there was also a light as well as a dark blue on offer, a dark red, a dark “clove” metallic and not just a sand beige, but also a medium sand beige on top of the regular sand beige. Eh, overall still pretty similar to today’s options which often include one blue (instead of two), the dark red, and a beige/gold option. The big difference is in the interior, while this one sports a gray (charcoal) one, there was also both a beige as well as a brown, a red and for the big bonus point, a blue! Five options, unheard of today on a mid-level car.
I don’t generally associate Broughamania with either silver paint or amber turn signals, yet this car sports both. That Brougham badge looks awfully familiar though, hasn’t the same one been used since the early 1970s on various Fords? Differing fonts on the same car, let alone the same ten square inches of trunk lid real estate is tacky, but I guess that’s the B-word in a nutshell anyway. At least I don’t think this car had any weird crests or swoopy badges or hood ornaments etc. Really it just denoted the top trim level, surely they could have thought of something else though. Although I suppose if you’re going to keep the car around for another model year just in case someone thinks the Taurus is too progressive, then it makes more sense.
And yes, I went through my collection of various badges and actually found this set that is from an early ’70’s LTD. Same exact Brougham badge, but thankfully the LTD stuff wasn’t used on this car. I never thought this would actually come in handy so it begs the questions as to why I have this on my shelf.
While the two LTDs that my family (Dad’s and Little Brother’s) sported both were motivated by six cylinder power, a four was available as well for the first few years and then the middle years (’84/’85) the 302 V8 was also on offer, if rarely seen.
However this one has been upgraded with what appears to be a 4.6l out of a ’96-’02 Mustang if I’m not mistaken; someone out there will probably be able to narrow it down more than that.
Yep, there’s a little Mustang logo on top of the intake. I can’t tell exactly what year this is, but surely someone will be able to. I’m a little surprised it’s still in the car, enough other stuff was gone that usually hangs around longer. Maybe people don’t want already swapped engines with who knows what was done to them? Or nobody knows it’s here.
Here you go, now I’m practically in the engine bay, can’t get much closer. Assuming it’s a 2002 because I have no reason to assume anything else and am too lazy to study up on all of the years, it would have produced 260hp and 302lb-ft of torque, a healthy increase over the stock 3.8l V6’s pathetic 120hp and only slightly better 205lb-ft. Jeez, the engine swap (ANY engine swap) makes all kinds of sense. Our LTDs were fine cruisers I guess but never seemed particularly motivated to get up and go. Perhaps that’s part of what I wasn’t a fan of them at the time.
The design has actually aged better than I would have expected. It’s far sleeker than the Fairmont and the second generation Granada (US Granada, that is) that it replaced. In a world of rounded shapes, this is now somewhat interesting, not just a square box (and I do like me some square boxed cars, I’ll admit). It has some semblance of day I say it, style. Just some though, let’s not go overboard here. It still screams American Midwest quite loudly. No that’s not a putdown, I myself don’t overfly those states, I’ve driven across them more often now and generally enjoy the hospitality of the occupants. But that’s where the majority of these were sold if I am not mistaken. How my family ended up with two in SoCal is a mystery for the ages – my brother’s 1983 was a stripper with vinyl seats and has been partially rebuilt, evidenced by two Ford logos on the front (one on the hood, one on the grille), while the 1984 that my Dad drove was a loaded 1984 model.
They finally went amber on the turn signals but just couldn’t bring themselves to put those lights at the corners where they make the most sense. Oh well, can’t have everything.
I do recall these having an oddly shaped trunk space, with a deep well in the front and then a shelf of sorts towards the back, just the thing for loading heavy objects and a latch in the middle for catching between the buttons and then ripping your shirt as you come back up holding your back. Is that an oil pan for a 4.6l in the foreground? It’s aluminum and weighs very little as I realized when picking it up.
Inside the trunk lid was a sticker of far more modern vintage than the car. Berthoud is a little town closer to my home than it is to this junkyard, and confounded us for a while as to its pronunciation after we moved to the area. Turns out it’s pronounced like “birthed” if you use enunciate both syllables. “I birth-ed the baby”, sort of like that. Cool little town though.
The interior was fairly picked over, someone tried to pull the carpet and someone (else?) had a look at the steering column, but the dashboard is still intact to display the bare minimum of gauges on this otherwise top of the line car, i.e a speedometer and fuel gauge. Several idiot lights complete the picture. Shaped like a cliff in front of the occupants it gave off an unwelcoming vibe from what I recall, due to the way it slants back into the cabin.
I think I recall our ’84 having even more fake wood on the dash and the ’83 had none or at least less of it. The seats though weren’t bad, sort of bucket seats in a plush velour, too bad this one’s are gone. Other than that though the dashboard kind of holds up with the radio and HVAC in the traditional positions, easy to reach and adjust while glancing down.
The back seat had a low cushion (or the front seats were quite tall), somehow it seemed a bit of a hole back there, this cloth/velour seems the same as our ’84’s, just a different color. The color choices of this owner were quite modern, all things considered, since the car itself really wasn’t.
This Ford led two quite different lives in all likelihood, and the second one was probably far more more exciting. It’d have been interesting to see it before it ended up here – what wheels and tires it had on it and if there were suspension modifications too. A decent set of Mustang wheels might have been quite the thing along with a slight lowering along with stiffer springs, coupled with the color combination I’d probably have been quite appreciative of it overall. The Brougham badge on the trunk surely completed the sleeper image or at least implied a good sense of humor on the owner’s part.
Related Reading:
Vintage Reviews: 1983-1986 Ford LTD, LTD LX and LTD Brougham – Lethargic, Tuned, or Dutiful? by GN
I look at this car and all I see is Fairmont. Is it really a replacement? Or is it an evolution of the same car?
It is a Fairmont with a new nose grafted on. I was going to say new rear as well, but at second glance, it looks suspiciously like the old Futura rear sheetmetal with an updated trunk lid and a slightly larger crease projecting from the rear wheel back.
They did far more than just what you see, as these feel much more substantial than any Fairmont ever did.
Different roofline too, the LTD has more rake than the Fairmond did, the big fairmont carryover points were the doors. These also switched dashboards, recycled directly from the 80-82 Thunderbird
The taillights are indeed interchangeable with Futura coupes, I’ve seen the results but don’t know how much fitting and filing is needed.
Wagons are pure Fairmont from the A-pillars back.
Thanks for all the info! I thought I might have oversimplified it, and I sure did. Am learning a fair amount here!
They can always tweak the front clip and reshape the trunk. But it’s ultimately the 4 doors and greenhouse that tell what the car is. This was just a further manipulation of the Fairmont with the name of a larger cat grafted into it. They were not fooling anyone.
Jim – your turn of phrase always makes something as boring and hideous as this Ford a lightning read.
The 1983 to 1986 LTDs were based on the Fairmont chassis. They are a revision of the 1981 and 1982 Fox chassis based Granada which didn’t sell well. I believe the dashboard design is similar to the early 1980s Thunderbird. So these LTDs are “an evolved Fairmont’. They weren’t bad cars. Ford kept them in production for 1986 until the new Taurus came out on December 26, 1986. The chassis was kept in production until 2004 under the Mustang. So the FOX / Fairmont chassis lasted a long time.
I like how the car was modified with the 4.6L V-8. An interesting swap. Probably a started project but not finished. These LTDs had low seats and the cliff of a dashboard which is one thing I didn’t like about them. They did have the advantage of rear wheel drive in a time when most midsized cars were turning to front wheel drive. They also had a lot pf passenger room for their size.
I keep looking at this car, and I’m quite liking the shape of it, though silver and grey aren’t my top choice in colors. Though it’s thoroughly a product of the 1980’s, it somehow appears contemporary enough to not look like it’s firmly lodged in that decade. I’m one of the very few who isn’t into Fox body Mustangs, but I’d happily rock this or the boxier Fairmont… One change I would make is using the slightly more comprehensive Mustang instrument cluster, but the Brougham badge would stay put!
Wow, that’s a great find. I never thought about it but I guess a 4.6 would fit in the engine bay, given it went in the later Fox Mustang. Brings back memories of the 5.0 LTD LX police units we had in the mid-80s. Very tight inside but they were quick…
Ford is so cheep! A combined warning light, ‘Engine’, indicating either oil pressure or overheating. Driver’s guess which.
Rattling or steam from under the hood.
That light was actually like the check engine light as seen on modern cars, these LTDs originally had EEC IV computers, the light wasn’t a substitution for gauges
Like you, I had always figured that the 85 was the end of the line until I bought a used Fox Marquis wagon that was also an 86. As noted in a comment above, Taurus production did not get started until a little later than normal and these filled the void before the Taurus arrived.
I was also like you in not liking these at all when they were new, but I came to appreciate them. They were great used cars when they were more common because while the Taurus was popular and modern, the resale on these fell like a stone so you could get a nice car for not much money. I love the idea of the 4.6 swap! I recall that the 3.8 was not really fast, but it had decent torque. Mine had the 3 speed C5 auto that was geared really nicely. One with the AOD would probably have been much less so, the way its converter locked up so soon.
I remember when LTDs were everywhere in NOLA. The car that Grandma & Pa bought as there last or 2nd to last car. No fuss, easy to maintain, dealerships everywhere.
Not much of profit, but keep many a car salesman in the black when it came to commissions and monthly sales goals.
Now replaced with the Ford Escape…..the volume platform that doubles as the Bronco Sport and Corsair keeping the corporate cash flow moving…Duce & Lido would be proud
The engine is a 01-04 based on the valve covers and accessory layout, 260 horsepower would make these things scoot along pretty well. And 4.6s give up little fuel efficiency to the original 3.8 and never pop head gaskets. Cool swap, it’s just too bad it met this fate.
Oh and that’s definitely not a modular engine oil pan, they’re all steel as far as I know and there should be 4 holes across the front section and that looks to be deeper than any I’ve seen for car applications. I’m not sure what that’s from, someone at the yard must have used the LTDs trunk as a junkyard storage locker
Now that’s interesting. What’s the car at the junkyard you can [unethically] hide the most booty in, where nobody will ever look?
Ford did offer a V8 in these cars. Either in 1984 or 1985 or both, the LTD “LX” came with a “high output” 302-V8, probably 157-175 hp, auto only.
My father replaced his 4-cyl, 4-speed Fairmont with an 85 LTD with the 3.8 and the 3-spd auto.
Having ridden and driven both, the LTD 3.8 was much quicker (it could chirp the wheels in “D”), quieter, plusher, and felt more substantial. Also, first car in family with (working) A/C. The ride seemed smoother–though the plusher interior may have absorbed some of the road harshness. The Fairmont was a lot more fuel-efficient, 20-23 to 29/33 vs 18-20 to 22-23, but…it knocked on regular, so it needed premium.
That said, I thought the original Fairmont looked better than the cobbled-together LTD. I preferred the honest cheapness of the Fairmont interior (and it was cheap for 1980) to the faux luxury of the LTD (which looked more tacky than cheap).
…because then they’d’ve had to spend more money on another bulb, socket, and wire for the side marker light. By putting the red stop/tail outboard, the side marker function came for free by dint of appropriate optics in the wraparound portion of the lens.
They could’ve stacked the amber and (active) red compartments outboard instead of stacking a dummy red over an active red, but that would’ve probably been a leetle too much like socialism/communism/Satanism for American buyers—having amber signals at all was already kind of pushing it!
The stacked dummy red is just the silliest thing on these, they always look like there’s bulbs out, even worse on these later ones with the added inboard reds
I actually kind of liked these downsized LTDs, even in this silver, and, as noted above, these were a substantial upgrade over the very basic Fairmont. Back when these were new, both the LTD and the companion aero-inspired Thunderbird looked far more modern and appealing than the sheer-look GM intermediates of the time, which were still stuck in Brougham era.
I do see how they could have scarred a kid for life, though. All of the Fox-bodies sat low and had that stupid high dash that one had to peer over. Rear seat passengers in the LTD didn’t exactly have stretch-out room, either.
I rented one of these Fox LTD’s in 1986 on a business trip that included some nice high speed sweepers in mid-state New York. I really liked it. Until I drove my coworkers’ rental, a then-new Taurus. The Taurus was better in every way dynamically, and roomier as well. I’m pretty sure it was a 302. I mean 5.0. Not a Brougham, but probably not an LX.
Why skimp,? Looks like plenty of room for two more cylinders.
Go for V10 power!
When fuel prices were high in early 80’s, Ford originally planned to replace Panthers with this as a stopgap until Taurus was ready. I think the 3.8 had head gasket issues which were the only real problem with these cars. I think Taurus was slightly roomier with 100 cubic feet of interior space to the 97 cubic feet these had. Ford got 8 years of good use out of the Fox platform which originally replaced the Maverick.
I also had an 86 LTD with the gutless 3.8 V6. I liked the ride and interior but the engine ate a head gasket (those 3.8’s were known well for that) but I drove it for about 3 years and traded it for a 92 Taurus which I had for 10 years. Liked it much better.
That’s too bad that someone went through all the effort to swap in a Mustang GT engine and then it ends up in a salvage yard. That thing would probably be quite the sleeper – those ’99-’04 260-horse SOHC engines were pretty good. My dad had a ’99 GT that was surprisingly quick – probably mid-14s in the quarter if I had to guess.
Putting a Ford Modular somewhere it doesn’t belong is no joke. I remember the first time I saw one sitting on a shop floor. They are enormous. I thought I was looking at some sort of large displacement truck engine, not the 205 horsepower replacement for the 302 Windsor; which was one of the most compact mass produced V8s.
Somebody was inspired by Bob Bondurant. See “Ford LTD LX.”
This is more ambitious with the Moduler engine; and the “BROUGHAM” badge makes it a sleeper.
I remember these from cab driving days. they had the worst most uncomfortable front seats of any car I ever drove to this very day. Their weird semi bucket seats were horrible. After a shift, me a young person with no back issues, could hardly walk. After 2 days I demanded and got a real LTD (crown vic) to drive. A vast improvement. The 2 baby Ltds stayed in the fleet for a while hated by most people for the cheap interior even on a brougham model. Preictably, the 3.8 car had nothing but engine and fuel system and transmission issues. It kept blowing head gaskets. The other car had a streight 6 engine. I think a 200 cid. and it was slow but was at least reliable. It still had horrible torture rack front seats. Both got poor rear world fuel economy. The real LTD crown vic was about as good on gas and far faster and more reliable than the bably ltd were. To me the styling was boring and awful as bad as a Tempo or 85 Olds 98. The Fairmont seemed better styled and was better seat wise. I felt the name on this car being LTD was an insult to the LTD name A real Ltd is big like a LTD Landau or LTD Crown Vic. Usingit on the compact showed a complete lack of imagination. Why not call it something else or anything else like Fairmont or Torino or Falcon? The customers did not like the baby ltd either. After driving otwo of them I’m happy to see its in the jun yard. I find it almost impossible to believe anyone would want the seats of all things to take. The dude who said he prefered the Fairmont”s cheap honesty to the cheap brougham LTD fullsize want to be boringness hit the nail on the head. A Cutlass sedan did Brougham so much better and at least had a commonly available v8 and a better v6 and better seats and looked nice inside and out. I am not a Taurus fan either but would take a 3.0 taurus over a bably LTD any day.
Saw this wagon down the street at a neighbor’s house who always has various old cars “mostly Fords in the driveway
Given that the Fox chassis lasted so long (until 94), and a good portion of those years included the Modular motors (96-04), engine swaps like these are somewhat easy to do. And because the modern 5.0L is an evolution of the 4.6 modular, that seems to be the more common swap into older Fox bodies. You primarily see it in the Fox Stangs, but the swap is just the same for the other Fox chassis cars out there.
The 4.6L SOHC GT engine should be a more economical swap. These motors are showing up quite frequently in junkyards now, or buying a full running donor should be less costly than just a 5.0L.
Looking at this guy, my guess to the story is that the builder got most of the way through the swap and for some reason or another gave up on the swap. Maybe the elctronics got to be too much to figure out? Maybe just got tired of it, or moved on to something different.
Another thing that I found out about these Fox LTDs. I always thought the front vent windows were what really dated this car. But, those vent windows on the front were optional on all trim levels. So for my mental build of an LTD would definitely not have those.
Somewhere on betamax (yep, my whole family had betas) I have a commercial for one of these, along with a movie I was recording, at my sister’s house at lake sunset, near Hinesburgh, Vt (turns out to be the town I attended my Sr. year of high school in a consolidated school, though we lived in Shelburne…by ’85 my parents had moved to Texas as had I, and I was just visiting for the Christmas holiday (got stranded overnight in Chicago on the way back).
The Taurus was of course the big news for ’86, but these were still around. Remember them in movie “About Last Night” where Rob Lowe and Jim Belushi used them to sell restaurant supplies. My Dad jumped on the Taurus bandwagon, eventually owning 3 in a row (actually Mercury Sables). But these were pretty neat for a few years before that, when FWD hadn’t yet quite taken over everything (but by then was well underway). Living in Texas by then, it didn’t quite have the allure to us that it would have a decade earlier when we were still up in Vermont, but we could see why it would be popular up North.
” appears that these were built in both the Atlanta and Chicago plants until right around Christmas 1985/New Year’s 1986…”:
Appearances are deceiving.
No, the ATL plant switched to Taurus in the summer of ’85. Chicago plant built 1986 spec* Fox cars, for a few months until Dec. ’85 and then re-tooled. So, there was short run of LTD’s, not a whole year and for sure not “two plants worth”.
’86 Taurus was a hit, unlike some of the naysayers of the time, maybe GM lifetime workers? The left over ’86 Fox cars ended up discounted and/or dumped in fleets.
Years later, to RWD V8 hobbyists, the Fox cars can be hot-rodded with Mustang aftermarket parts.
*1986 was only year Fox LTD had 3rd brake light.
We had an 85 Marquis Brougham, the Mercury version of this car, and oh what a piece it was! It was my wife’s grandparents last car and they wanted us to have it. It had the ridiculous 3.8 engine. At 15,000 the a/c went and we lived in Florida. That was a small $500 repair. Next the headliner fell, another $125. Then the transmission needed a torque converter. And finally at 19,000 the engine was junk. She couldn’t bear to part with it, so we had that rebuilt. When it began to stall on her in traffic, she was finally ready to let go! So I put it up for sale with only 22,000 miles. The first guy to look at it bought it as is. He drove it only 3000 miles and was towing a small boat when he overheated it and threw a rod. Sad cars really. Thanks for the memories!