Recently I was playing around with brochure images, and decided to see what a Continental would look like with virtually no overhangs. The resulting car actually looked better than I expected. I wonder how it would have done in big cities, where maneuverability is a plus? All the stretch out room and wheelbase length of the regular Continental, in a more manageable size!
Sometimes I get a little tired of all the “ooh, I don’t like overhangs, they look funny” schtick. As this photoshop proves, sometimes overhangs are a good thing–especially if you need to put four sets of golf clubs in the trunk!
This looks rather dehydrated.
I had a white one of these turn left in front of me a few hours ago – quite the attention getter. Yes, these are long and ponderous but I’m not so certain about this….
Well, I am certain about this, it’s horrible….. It reminds me of what Studebaker did when creating the ’59 Lark – take the big ’56 – ’58 Studebaker sedan and cut off sheet metal on both ends.
Mr. Bill
Hamlet, NC
My first thought: Lincoln Lark.
Mine was Lincoln Landcrab.
Looks like a straight edge was applied to an Austin Allegro.
I’m at work, and only have MS Paint at my disposal, but this rendering is a bit more proportional.
The point of the ‘What If’ was to make the Continental smaller without cutting any of the interior space–an extreme version of the short-deck Cadillac Park Avenues of the early Sixties.
The proportions of the front almost feel “Rolls-Royce-like” but the back end looks like it got rear-ended by a bus.
I think if you were going to lop that much off of the tail, you should turn it into a trailer, if only to watch people do double-takes.
It looks kind of like a current RR Phantom. This is not a compliment .
+1! I wondered if only I was seeing the BMW Phantom in this chop job… it seems not.
Your Town Car City offers the same interior room and comfort as the original.
Move the front wheels back and you’d have a Maxi Metropolitan.
Sure, its Photo Shopped, but I just love the truncated {get it?} look.
I do actually like the front-end look in the first photo, but the back end is a bit abrupt. AMonFM’s rendering is nice, but perhaps still a teeny bit too much overhang. The “What If” articles are one of the many reasons I love this site!
What would this have under the hood? I’m guessing a 460 wouldn’t fit; what Ford engine from that era would?
Maybe the 2.8-liter V6 of European origin used in imported Capris, Mustang IIs, a few Pintos/Bobcats, and a few early Fox Mustangs/Capris?
It would have a 230 V4. 😉
460 would fit fine. Ford was notorious in the 70s of having about 30 feet in front of the radiator between it and the grill itself.
The point of having a Caddy, Lincoln, or other insane land yacht was to show everyone else that you’d made it and that you had enough money to disregard the impracticality of 10 feet combined overhang, so no, this doesn’t work at all.
The first thing that came to my mind when seeing the back end was 1951 Plymouth. I think it’s the shape of the rear wheel opening plus the super-short overhang. Those P.T. Keller-era Plymouths were practical but frumpy.
Like this one:
Yes; actually, it’s quite close in proportions to cars from the 30s, 40s and early 50s, and doesn’t strike me as odd at all. The front end is an improvement, and the rear end just needs a bit of work to integrate better. It also looks a fair bit taller, as a consequence. The longer, lower, wider thing was taken way too far, and we’ve come back to those older, classical proportions with our CUVs.
I like the idea, but the end result isn’t to my tastes. Compared to the original, it looks, well, less excited if you know what I mean.
This was a very pragmatic What If. I didn’t even try to make it look good, just chopped off the overhangs!
I actually think the front looks good! I’d like to see the photoshopped front combined with the regular rear, or maybe very slightly shortened. That would probably look great.
Like this?
That little front overhang and that much rear makes it look like it’s going tip backwards at any second.
It also looks kind of like an altered wheelbase drag car…
Yeah, I like it!
The other “fix” would be to keep the length and move the front axle forward. That’s a more classic solution, but I think I prefer your truncated hood. Looks more modern and distinctive.
I’m sure the driver wouldn’t look so smug if he knew what we were doing to his car!
Now *that* I like. I think it gives it a more regal air with the shorter overhang and longer front axle to cowl distance.
Are you guys trying to design a contemporary Ford Granada Mk2 ?
This makes me think of an early Gremlin commercial where a gas station attendant asks the young Gremlin driver, “Hey lady, where’s the rest of your car?”
Good point. Whats interesting is that the Gremmy looked a bit wonky since the chop it off formula was applied to the Hornet…the original idea was from the AMX GT concept and just whacked off and pasted somewhere else. Had the same tail been applied to the AMX as per the concept, it just may have become a desirable classic rather than an underdog. The lines just worked SO much better on the concept.
Sometimes I get a little tired of all the “ooh, I love overhangs, they look awesome” schtick. As this MS-PAINT proves, sometimes overhangs are a bad thing–especially if you need to use your car for anything other than transporting four sets of golf clubs!
Ah, but on traditional full-size American cars of the 1950s-1970s, they look good. And said comments are usually on posts about those kinds of cars. Maybe it’s from people who were born after 1990 and just aren’t used to seeing them regularly like I did in the ’80s. We’ve got a lot of breadth here at CC, if you don’t like overhangs there are plenty of Hondas, Peugeots and MGs to check out.
It would be like if on every Integra, Triumph TR6 or Saab 900 post, there would be comments to the effect of “Oh, it’s too small, it needs to be bigger.” A Saab should be a Saab, and a Lincoln should be a Lincoln. No “Eurosport” Town Cars with air dams and rear spoilers, and no button-tufted, opera-lamped 900 Turbos. Now those would be bad!
Tom, you’re really gonna “love it or leave it” overhangs? I think you’re assuming that such comments imply a dislike of big cars or American cars in general, and that’s really a stretch. I also don’t see massive overhangs at both ends as a defining characteristic of traditional American cars, and I don’t think you’ll find many comments to that effect in the articles on cars from the ’50s and ’60s, because it isn’t really about the length alone but rather the odd proportions. The styling of most Brougham barges was supposed to evoke the luxury cars of the ’30s, but very few of them had the long dash:axle ratio that was a crucial element of cars from that era.
I like the ginormo Town Car otherwise and it’s hardly the worst offender in this respect, but do you really think that proportions like those of the Mark V or any other midsize Ford are what the stylists had hoped for?
There are shortcomings to Hondas, Triumphs and Saabs, yet we somehow manage to discuss them all the time without anyone developing a persecution complex.
The thing is the 78 Town car wasn’t designed to be 30s throwback neoclassical, most of those elements had simply been adopted from the Mark series and grafted onto the “modern” 1970 bodyshell.
As for the designer’s intent, well, look at any recent retromobile. The original Dodge Challenger had a very low body, as did the Mustang for that matter, whereas the retro incarnations of the both of them have fat tall bodies, totally out of sync with longer/lower/wider that was still prevelant in the 60s when the originals were designed. Same could be said about the lack of hardtops and even their overhangs being TOO SHORT compared to the originals. Compromises have to be made in order to meet certain standards, mandated or simply expected by the customer. If the retro broughams were truly meant to evoke 1930s car design the lack of running boards and winged fenders seems more off kilter (to me anyway) than the overhang proportions.
Every big, expensive American car from the ’70s incorporated some kind of tchotchke nod to the olde timey days of the motor car. They weren’t “retro” in the same way a Dodge Challenger is.
The old timey days of motor car were only 40-50 years prior in the 70s, the retro cars of recent are inspired by cars made 40-50 years prior, there is some parallel to be drawn. For many brougham barges like this the neoclassical touches were indeed just that, touches, but you yourself said earlier:
The styling of most Brougham barges was supposed to evoke the luxury cars of the ’30s, but very few of them had the long dash:axle ratio that was a crucial element of cars from that era.
That’ the point I was trying to make, even the current retro cars are largely just comprised of touches as well, they only seem like faithful recreations because the basic automobile bodyshell hasn’t changed much since the early 50s, but you park a 05 Mustang next to a 65 Mustang and you’ll see they’re waay different, or a 69 Camaro to a ’10 Camaro – they don’t even look close. Customer expectations and regulation prevent certain things from changing back in the name of style, and just as fast windshields, tall bodies and urethane bumper covers prevent current retro cars from looking exactly like the cars that inspired them from the past, interior/footwell space and a semblance of maneuverability respectively prevented bladed fenders/running boards and 140″ wheelbases in the 70s.
See, I’m tired of the “overhangs are bad, they ruin the handling and have FWD proportions” schtick. Have no worries, the current marketplace is full of stubby golf cart proportioned cars to choose from, us hangers on who still prefer the longer/lower/wider look are no threat.
Don’t mess with perfection:) I wish my family had been doing these instead of Cadillac’s at the time.
No no nooooo…. Time to sprawl to the burbs if my Lincoln has to look like that in the city 😀
Here’s the opposite of the stumpy Lincoln, my ‘What If’ 1974 Monte Carlo Landauyacht four-door hardtop!
Now that looks like something a sheikh with oil money would drive around the desert…
Now that I like….
I love it!
Badge it as a Cadillac! Might have saved GM.
Talking of stretching, a 4 door Interceptor:
Yeah this just doesn’t work for this car. Looks like a cigar with both ends chopped short. These types of car were MEANT for the overhangs. Chopping them off looks just as wonky as adding them to a car that is meant to be more light and tight. Sean C’s pic illustrates this.
And this isn’t just a ‘traditional rwd American sedan’ thing. Case in point is the current Chrysler 300 which has little overhang yet looks very balanced.
Make it a City Coupe 2+2, and I’m seriously interested ))) (sorry for crude photoshoping)
I appreciate what was done in an earlier photoshop study for the Chrysler R-body (What if wagons & Coupes) , but the above does not translate very well. However, please keep trying because someone will come up with the missing piece of the puzzle.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/what-if/what-if-chrysler-r-body-wagons-and-coupes/
The presumes you would wish to regularly park your Continental on the street with the beat up Altima drivin’ peasantry. The person who could’ve afforded it new would have put it in one of the bigger garages (they still exist), or would rent a space in a lot and I think that’s still the way to treat this big boy.
Still, cool effort. What I think it needs would somewhat take away from the square look in back: keep the Lincoln tail fins and lights but curve the trunk lid, RR Silver Ghost style, in back. Not the chiseled ’80 Seville fastback, but a curve. Then the proportions might work.
LOVE the four door Monte Carlo!!!
I’ll take my overhangs and formalism in the appropriate classic colors any day of the week.
Some brave souls park them on the street. There’s even an Altima parked behind it, LOL!
Not the best parking job, though… probably even ticket-worthy.
I’ll see your street-parked Town Car and raise you a street-parked Town Coupe. (Also not the best parking job…but these biggies can’t be easy to parallel park!)
I see a Passat and a Camry, but no Altima. A better class of peasantry?
Didn’t say one couldn’t, I have parked the Fleetwood on the street and if I had a Continental in 2014, would probably do so at times, too.
Great to see them out and about. There’s a red one on the street near where I rent parking space in Queens.
How about a re-skin of the Torino/Montego platform to Lincoln styling? It still had enough hood length and rear overhang to satisfy the market yet drop the wheelbase 9″, overall length 13″. If they had done it correctly, not the Versailles approach, it could have been a first step to an acceptable downsized Lincoln.
Mopar Rocker- I disagree, the lack of overhangs makes the 300 look like an aerodynamic version of Tom’s rendering, in my view. I think it looks very stubby and ill proportioned but mitigates it slightly because it has no clear edges like this car, like it was left under a lamp and melted.
Well, one thing’s for sure. It would have a trunk lid the size of lids on most sedans today.
+1
Geez that Monte Carlo looks kinda baroque.
I do remember when the whole big wheel thing started I seen a Monte Carlo that same year model in white drive past me wearing a set of 20s. I thought it was an improvement on the design.
Where would you put the golf clubs?
Brilliant pastiche, Tom. I’ve been laughing out loud as I’ve been scrolling down.