Before I say another word, I’d like to offer a caveat. In 1971 (and 1972, for that matter), I was a decision yet to be made by my parents; however, if I were a mobile member of the intermediate-car buying club in either of those years, I probably would have been shopping BOP or Plymouth/Dodge. There is, however, something very appealing about a laser-striped Torino.
In his fascinating book titled Muscle Car Confidential: Confessions of a Muscle Car Test Driver, Joe Oldham claimed that the stripes on the ’71 Torino GT were about two years behind the times. Cars were becoming more subdued, softer, more conservative. From my 43-years-after perspective, the stripes make the car. As many of us know, the ’71 Torino was the last model on the old, familar Ford unibody structure, and the Sportsroof model was “shaped by the wind,” according to the advertising. Of course, NASCAR pilots found that to be, as Roger Thornhill might have said in North by Northwest, “expedient exaggeration.”
In 1972, Ford completely redesigned the Torino, and replaced the GT and Cobra models with this Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof, which had more in common with the full-sized Fords than the compacts. Of all the ’72-’76 Torinos, this specific model arguably works the best aesthetically, if one can get used to its passing resemblance to a catfish.
The ’72 Sport has enjoyed a cultural resurgence as of late, thanks to Hollywood, as green ’72s played prominent roles in the movies Gran Torino and Fast and Furious. Movie producers and directors seem to prefer the ’72, but who cares what they think? How do you prefer your laser stripes: on a ’71 or ’72 Torino?
“…if one can get used to its passing resemblance to a catfish.”
I’ll be seeing that catfish every time I look at one now. That’s okay, though, I prefer the ’71 anyway. The bolder lines of the ’72 don’t do much for me.
Can I like them both?
Yes, you may. I’m not keeping count. 🙂
Proper door handles on the ’71.
That’s enough to sway me to the earlier car.
My vote would be for of the 72 Gran Torino. I find the styling much more interesting and the instrument panel better designed than the previous generation. Beginning in 72 the new generation car was built on a separate chassis resulting in a much better ride. A friend of mine bought a 72 Torino sedan so I remember well how it handled and rode. It’s too bad more of 72 Gran Torinos have not been preserved and restored. Few can be found on the streets or at car shows.
There are elements I like about each iteration. In the side profile, I prefer the later body. There is a definition line in the rear fender which breaks it up. In the ’71 the rear fender is a large, fairly flat expanse. This makes the back of the car look heavy and the rear wheel look small. As for the “laser stipe” decals, they look fitting on either one, at least in some colour combinations.
I never heard of the “Muscle Car Confidential” before, but it sounds like an interesting read. Now I just have to find a copy….
1971 all the way. As a pre-teen Ford homer back in the day, the 1970-71 Torino was one cool ride. A kid in my 5th grade class was the son of a doctor, and every morning his mom dropped him at school in a bright orange-red 71 Torino GT convertible with that laser stripe. It was the coolest car of any of the parents at grade school for a brief time.
I always thought that Ford gauged the mood of the market perfectly on these. The 1970-71 Torino was perfect for its era, and the 72 plopped itself into the market at the exact time that everyone started going Brougham. Sadly, both of them had some issues.
I much prefer the 71. I like the full width grill. The 72 looks too exaggerated to me. It looks like it was designed in Hot Wheels scale and then sized up. (A lot of current “sporty” cars give me that impression too, especially those with rubber-band tires.)
Styling-wise it’s a draw. I like the more curvy, aggressive shape of the ’72, but I also like the lines and the super-shallow fastback angle of the ’71. The ’71 handily wins in performance so that might tip the scales…
Was the laser stripe only for ’71-’72 though? I’ve seen a ’70 at a car show wearing a laser stripe, and it sure looked correct, but it could have been a “how the owner wishes it looked” situation. I like the details of the ’70 better with the non-split grille, honeycomb-pattern full-width taillights, and available hidden lamps.
And on the white car up there, the owner really needs to lose the whitewalls. They just weaken the sporting look of the car. I don’t care for the bumper guards either but if ordered that way, then I suppose they should stay…does no favors for the styling though.
Also offered in 1970.
The only difference was you couldn’t get it on the Cobra in 1970.
That is interesting, if I get time I will have to spec out a car. I would be inclined to go for the 351C.
Surely a 4.30:1 axle ratio equipped would automatically be a low-mileage car these days!
I’d prefer the 1970 grille treatment rather than the 71, but I’d be ok with any of these years, they all have a good sporty look to them. What is the difference in driving/handling between a 71 and 72?
The 1971 Torino unitized chassis was essentially a supersized Mustang chassis. It was a very similar suspension setup with coils mounted in shock towers at the front and rear leaf springs. The 1972 Torinos essentially had an evolution of the 1965 Ford chassis slightly downsized, and was body on frame. The front suspension on the 1972-76 Torino’s is nearly identical to the 1965 Fords, and many parts were shared. The rear suspension was four link different from what was used on the fullsize cars. It used a unique setup of having the upper control arms mount near the outer edges of the axle.
The older Torinos drove more like a big small car, while the 1972 were more like a small big car. Neither one had particularly good handling with base suspension, typical of the cars of the era. With uprated suspensions each chassis had decent handling for its day. The BOF of the 1972 cars did offer a smoother ride, even with the 500 in/lb competition springs.
The 1970-71 429 CJ and SCJ’s were obviously the top performers. But a 1972 351CJ would probably out run a 1970-71 351C-4V M-code stock for stock. The 1972 CJ engine is probably one of the most underrated smogger performance engines of its time but its low ‘net rating’ kept it off of people’s radar.
Actually, they were rated at around 248 or so, far exceeding the 429’s 212.
while the 1972+ were more like a small big car.
corrected: while the 1972+ was more like a slightly undersized huge car 🙂
Yes, the 351CJ was 248hp SAE net (266 in Mustang and the Pantera), but these numbers are low compared to the 1970 LT1 or the 1970 351C. Most people write off the CJ as a smogger engine, but it ran very well for a small displacment engine.
Come on Paul, that’s not nice. Sure the 1972’s were big for intermediates, but a 1972 2-door actually only grew 1″ in length compared to a 1971 Torino 2-door (and were only 1″ longer than 1 1972 GTO). I know they don’t get a lot of love here, but most people are basing there experience on 30-40 years memories. I can tell you from a person who drives one a regular basis my car rides well, handles well and is a great car to drive otherwise I would have sold it years ago.
Bill, regardless of how I feel about them, my calling it a slightly undersized huge car is technically more correct than calling it a small big car, given that these shared quite a lot with the Mark IV, which can rightfully be called a huge car. In any case, the term small just doesn’t fit. Sorry.
An L82 in a ’74 Z28 was rated at 245 net, so some people must have selective memory-The CJ was competitive.
From what I understand. the CJ had little low end torque, all it’s power was produced in the upper speed range, making it a poor fit for the heavy Gran Torino.
Still, I would like to find a ’74 Elite or Cougar XR7 with this engine, they must be rare.
Paul,
I know I will never convince you to like these cars, and that’s not my intention. I am sure you probably think I am an overzealous owner who just who is too biased about his car. I just thought CC is supposed to be a site that is more open minded than the mainstream. And the crude generalizations that these cars face aren’t fair or accurate.
I don’t think you read my original post correctly. I said the 1972 Torinos DROVE like a small large car. Saying that I meant that it had a felt solid and heavy and had good road isolation, much like the fullsize cars of the era, but in a smaller scale.
You saying it’s a slightly smaller huge car, just perpetuates the stereotypes about this car. The 1972 Torino is 207″ long, a 1971 Torino is 206″ long, both large for a intermediate. A 1972 GTO is 206″ long, a 1972 Charger is 205″, a 1973 Charger is 212″ long, a 1973 Grand AM 208 inches long. So yeah it’s big (way longer than a 1972 Chevelle), but not far off a lot of the other’s of the era. But to call it huge is a bit of an overstatement. The svelte 1977 Caprice was 212″: long, as is a late model Crown Vic which also uses a 114″ wheelbase like a Torino. Yes, I admit the later 1974-76 Torinos were pretty oversized, but I can tell you my 1972 2-door is a lot smaller than my old “downsized” 1985 Olds Delta 88.
Roger,
I am aware of the LT1’s ratings, it was also 255 hp in 1972. My point is the LT1 is revered while few the 351CJ is not. They had similar performance and power, I wasn’t trying to say one was better than the other just that they were comparable. A 1972 Torino 351CJ ran 15.4 secs in the 1/4 mile, pretty good for a 4000 lb car. Most guys who still run these stock run 15s too.
My vote is for the 72.
I like the body of the 1972, but I like the front end styling of the 1971.
Stripes are just fine, as long as they serve a purpose. I’ve seen a few old Mustangs with stripes like this that say “Mustang 3.8” which is only handy in letting you know that it has the V6 and could be out accelerated by most V6 or greater SUVs/CUVs.
Make mine a 71 seeing there’s no 68/69 fastbacks.Big block and 4 speed please
There was a 68/69 fastback. Used to see them around a lot.
Big block and 4 speed please
That would be a 428 Cobra Jet.
Ear candy. Walk around of a 428CJ at idle.
Thanks Steve who wants a radio when you have an engine note like that?
But then, if you really want to go to the wall, ponder the Talladega version. More aero front end taylored for the NASCAR circuit. I saw a cluch of these at the Motor Muster a few years ago.
There was a blue one a few years ago in the UK,I think it went to Scandinavia
The Talladega (and it’s Mercury twin, the Cyclone Spoiler II) were only put into production to satisfy NASCAR rules. The thing is, Ford thought the Boss 429 would sell better in the Mustang, so that’s the car that got it. The plan was to have the Talladega in production to get the body qualified, and the Boss 429 in the Mustang to get the engine qualified. They’d then combine the two on the track.
Oddly, I don’t even think you could get a big-block of any sort in Ford’s NASCAR intermediate specials; they all came with a 351. I’m guessing it was to keep the price as low as possible to make them easier to sell. Or maybe it was to keep idiots from trying to go 200 mph on the street. Considering how long Plymouth Superbirds would sit on the showrooms the following year, it was probably a smart move on Ford’s part.
Correction: It looks like the Talladega came with the 428CJ and a C-6 automatic. It was the Mercury that only came with the 351W engine.
I think my vote for the 72 stems from the fact that my parents had a 70 or 71 Fairlane 500 wagon – and that front end will always say wagon to me. The 72 just looks sportier to me – and yes I know they also came in wagons.
The ’71 was fading a bit in my youth, while the ’72-’76 was in production, and was everywhere.
So, I find the ’71 more interesting, and it certainly has a nice later ’60s look to it that is hard to beat.
I prefered the 1972, although I am biased since I own one. I always thought the split grille in 1971 looked tacked on. The 1970 grille, especially with hidden lights was much nicer. But I still prefer the oval grille on the 1972, it reminds me of the 1970-73 Camaro. I also though the quarter panels around the rear windows on the 1970-71 fastbacks were awkwardly done. The 1972 fastback, or SportsRoof, is better styled in this area. The full length stripe looks better than the abbreviated stripe, especially on an non-vinyl roof car, which looks awkward on a fastback.
Here is a good side view of a 1972 with a laser.
Here’s a 1971 version in similar colors:
Being a Ford guy I would first pick the ’71 and then the ’72. That based mostly on the experience of driving a ’72 Gran Torino which had an enemic 429 in it. My biggest issue was the inability to see the four corners of that car and therefore knowing exactly where they are when parking or driving the narrow roads where we lived.
Both are very nice, and I would love to have either one make no mistake about that. Yet as a daily driver the ’71 has a lower nose, compared to the ’72, and it was easier to judge where the limits of the car was.
For me the ’72 is a more interesting design, almost Italian. When the ’72 came out, however, I thought it was hideous but i couldn’t stand the ’70 1/2 Camaro RS either. Funny how tastes change.
The 1972 is ugly.
It looks bloated and fishy. The taillights in a high rear bumper isn’t attractive, or useful as a bumper, a tail light assembly, or for its high trunk lift over. Just as the Marlin was too large for its design, the 1972 Torino is too large for its Camaro styling. This car just get worse as it got older. By 1974, this car had a front bumper that should have never appeared on any vehicle that was not a service truck.
Ford got lucky. They were able to Broughamify the 1972 notch back Torino. That kept it in production and wearing a variety of cow-catcher grille and bumper combinations until the last customer desiring this bloated floating beast received a Torino.
The 1971 Torino was at least not-ugly. While it was a rust-bucket and quite dated, if the front end was maintained and it was a notch back – Ford could have just skipped the whole boated Torino generation and kept the money wasted on the 1972 to recreate the cheap interior of the 1968-71 generation for the 1970s. Ford was stuck with the 1972 generation for an awfully long time until they had to kill it with fire and put out Fox body-based intermediate cars.
So – 1971. Stripes helped make the car look sportier, but it was still too large for a six seat intermediate sedan.
Agreed – I always considered the 72 to be too fat to make a good fastback. The 71, with all of its faults, made a more athletic-looking fastback. It also made for a very trim 4 door hardtop. The 72 made a far superior Brougham, though. It gave a feel of solid mass and was trimmed very nicely. To me, the 70-71 always said “sport” while the 72 (at least properly trimmed) said “luxury”. I always thought that the 72 looked best as either a sedan or a notchback coupe.
I prefer the look of the 72, unfortunately the 72 looks like it’s 10 to 15% larger than it really needs to be.
The 71 looks like….hmmm, a design that has been chopped and channeled to within an inch of it’s life. LOTS of straight lines and flat surfaces with gill slits in the hood and behind the front door openings.
And that’s the outside, the interior of the 72 (except for the overly tall seatbacks) beats the 71 by miles. The instrument panel on the 71 is also boxy and an over abundance of straight lines.
A “plus” of sorts for the 72? The laser stripe was available on the more formal non-sport roof 2 door coupe.
You could also get a “Sport” with a formal roof (at least in ’73…I’m not sure about in ’72).
Formal roof sports were available in 72, 73, 74, 75, and 76. The “Starsky & Hutch” car was a 76 Gran Torino Sport. 72 & 73 were the only years for Sportsroof cars.
Interesting…I didn’t know you could get a Sport after ’73. Thanks for filling in the gaps.
There was no sport for 1976, 1975 was the last year. After 1973, the Sport was basically an interior and emblem package.
But you still get buckets in a ’76.
I stand corrected…you are correct.
Seeing as I own an example of both; I’m torn. Neither has the stripes (nor will they). I have a 72 GTS Sportsroof with a 393 (stroked 351) Cleveland, 5 speed, and 3.55 rear.
I also own a 71 GT convertible that’s in process of being built. Plans are 5.0L from a 2011+ Mustang and the 6 speed auto. This one is the wife’s car. I took her to Daytona and asked her to pick out what car she wanted me to build for her. Out of 7,000 cars, she picked a 71 convertible (only 1613 made). I found one in a junk yard 75 miles from the house. I normally wouldn’t hotrod such a rare car, but it needs a lot of work.
71 has the better looking roofline and rear end treatment, but I have to say from the beltline down, including the dash, I think I like the 72 better.
lessee….my Mom had a 72 Gran Torino, 4 door “pillared hardtop”. A later model, after Ford had fixed them so the rear wheels didn’t fall off. My Dad’s second wife had a 71 Torino…the voltage regulator seized and the battery exploded. I was at the Motor Muster at Greenfield Village a few years ago talking with a young guy who had a 72. He had never heard of the axles breaking so I filled him in. He said he had wondered what that steel retaining plate in the axle was there for.
So, being a contrary old cuss, I’ll go with a 68 GT. A college roomie of mine knew a guy who had one. One night he had a flat, jacked up the back corner to change the tire and the body flexed enough that the rear window broke. iirc, he said it had a trapdoor in the firewall so you could reach in from the passenger compartment footwell to change one of the plugs.
But I like the looks of the 68/69 version the best.
+1 68/69 fastback Torino or Cyclone among my favourite American cars.Rarely seen at UK shows in comparison to the GM and Mopar opposition.
+ another. I much prefer the look of this generation too – it’s a nice looking car from any angle.
72 for me
Either one. Seem to remember the 71 you could get with hide-away headlights so that puts that one up by a hair. The 72 was also great but Ford really messed up the design with the 5 mph bumpers on the 73. Turned an attractive car into yuk which was the case pretty much across the board with Ford in 73.
I take the ’71, hands down! Never cared for the ’72 frontal design, I liked the ’73 better, the ’74-’76 grille was even better than the ’73. Call me crazy, but I kinda liked the chrome railroad ties on ’73-up FoMoCo products.
1971. Trimmer looking, and the simple thin straight grill more pleasing than the large mouth bass opening of the 72. The slimmer hips also make it look less bloated. Agree the 68-69 is nicer looking yet. The red and black roof of the 72 would look much better then the white color on the 71. Like them both better without stripes.
’71, but make mine a Ranchero with the hidden-headlight front end…
Musclecar decals and stripes are always a fun discussion. In general, Ford and GM were about the same in exhibiting restraint, albeit with a few well-known exceptions (the snakes on the hoods of the Mustang Cobras and the screaming chicken on the Trans Ams).
It was the smaller manufacturers, Chrysler and AMC, who went wild with the tape stripes. I guess being the smallest meant they had to shout-out their musclecars as loudly as they could, with cars like the ’70 ‘Cuda AAR strobe-stripe and ’71 ‘billboard’ quarter panel stripes, the ’69 SC/Rambler, and ’70 Rebel ‘Machine’. Compared to that stuff, the ’71/’72 Torino stripes are pretty tame.
Of course, then there are the mid-seventies ‘Starsky and Hutch’ Gran Torinos…
I don’t know if I’d call the 69-73 Boss 302 and Mach 1 Mustang stripe treatments an exhibition in restraint, especially the 71s with the hockeystick stripe, nor the 70 Cougar Eliminator for that matter. GM definitely showed the most restraint, and even the screaming chicken on the 73-81 Trans Ams never seemed all that wild to me since it was only applied to one panel(unless it’s an SE with 11 miles of pinstripes), it’s really no more gaudy than a satin black hood decal in execution IMO. Mopar’s wildest stripe treatments were mostly between 70-72, with the bumblebee stripes being about as wild as it got before, and that was pretty restrained, and I’d argue that the E body treatments, while wild, did a good job complimenting the car’s lines, same with the 71 Charger RT/SuperBee and RoadRunner stripes. The truly gaudy Mopar stripe treatments came on the multicolor Volare Road Runners/Supercoupes in my opinion, just as things were unraveling.
I’ll take the 72 by a mile. I’d love to have a 72 Sport Sportsroof.
I think the stripe looks better on the ’72, but my pick would actually be a ’70 Fairlane which has slightly less fastback than the Torino.
1972 because it looks more aggressive and I also liked the front end and the tail end, I only wish the powertrain was as tough as the 1971 and earlier models, I can’t look at the 1972 Torino fastbacks without thinking of the movie “Gran Torino”.
I don’t find the 1973 models to be as bad as many people make them out to be but hated the 1974+ models.
72. hands down.
I like the ’72 better, slightly, but at this point, Ford had gone off the rails, IMO, styling wise, and wouldn’t really come back to sanity, except for a few exceptions, for almost 40 years. I really don’t like anything Ford made by 1971, and it just got worse as time went on. The trucks were better, slightly, it’s hard to mess up box on a box, but they managed to do it in the late 90’s with the “melted” F150. Ford has constantly done, again, IMO, bizarre styling on minor items, like horrible fender flares and weird trim strips added to F150’s that just ruined it’s looks for me.
I like the ’72, but I think the ’71 is awesome. One of Ford’s best. When I was about 14 or 15, a local guy had a ’71 in red with the laser stripe and Cragar mags. Made quite an impression. The owner seemed slightly annoyed to be talking to some skinny kid, but I found out it was a 351 Cleveland with a C-6. Sounded great. A same year, same color Ranchero 429 was plying the streets around the same time. It suddenly disappeared and I found it in the local wrecking yard while looking for parts for my Chevelle.
I’d drive a ’72 any day, but I think the high point for the Torino was the ’70-’71. Even better with the hidden headlights and the tail light panel from the GT. Outstanding side profile.