(first posted 10/9/2017) History has shown that styling trends of mainstream cars tend to be cyclical. The pendulum has swung between straight-edged, more geometric designs, through an intermediate blend of lines and curves, over to more organic shapes, then back again in reverse ad infinitum. Within my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the more rounded designs of the ’70s echoed in the “aero” forms of the ’90s, and both the ’80s and the ’00s featured lots of designs that employed many straight-ish lines. This ’66 Mercury Monterey convertible, one of just under 3,300 produced for the model year, has the rectilinear look of a lowboy or a console TV from its era. I could just see the (imaginary) ad copy: “New Monterey, by Mercury… With styling by Lane!”
There seems to be a certain “honesty” to a design that employs the appearance of so many straight lines. Such lines symbolize structure, rigidity, order, compliance and conformity. Anyone can trace a straight line against the edge of a ruler or new textbook, and the end result, every time, will have minimal variance, if the object against which the line is being traced is held reasonably still. Drawing curves seems to involve much more of a creative process.
I don’t pretend to have any background in technical drawing, but it seems to me that there’s much more freedom of expression and emotional involvement in the choice of the shape, size, and placement of a curve. Curves are beautiful, and their possibilities seem endless. It is in an overabundance of curves, however, where the look of a car starts to look a bit arbitrary. I offer up the second-generation Ford Taurus as an example of this. On the flip-side of that coin, a car that looks devoid of much curvature often ends up looking like an appliance or piece of furniture.
The face of this ’66 Monterey is about as square-jawed and serious as they come. The look of the no-nonsense stare from these four, round headlights is unmistakably masculine. This car looks like it means business. Mercury’s tagline of the day, “Mercury, The Man’s Car”, strikes me as unimaginative. I much prefer “In The Lincoln Continental Tradition”. However, taking one look at the sharp creases and finned wheel covers of this example, this car does look more than a bit manly – even in its shade of baby blue. In fact, one of the few, fanciful flourishes I can identify on this car is the fun, cursive script font of the “Mercury” badge on the hood, but even that lettering has an air of restrained jubilance about it.
Top-line 1966 Mercury Park Lane 4-Door “Fastback” Hardtop.
Mercury offered convertibles in all three tiers of its full-sized platform that year, of which the Monterey was low man on the totem pole of prestige. Against the aforementioned 3,300 Monterey soft-tops produced for ’66, there were also about 700 (not a misprint) performance-oriented S-55s, and roughly 2,500 top-shelf Park Lanes. Standard power for our featured car would have come from a 390 V8 with either 265 hp with the 3-speed manual transmission, or 275 hp with the Merc-O-Matic. The 345-horse 428 that was standard on the S-55 was also optional for the other full-sizers.
The styling of our ’66 Mercury may not have held up quite as well as some of the other mid-priced competition (I find the flowy ’66 Pontiacs and even the also-linear ’66 Dodges more attractive), but when new, I can imagine part of its visual appeal was its kinship with the straight-edged Lincoln Continentals with which it shared the showroom floor. Granted, unlike the big Merc, the big Connie had just the right amount of extra curvature in its bodysides and greenhouse to keep it from looking like it was made with Legos, but like the Monterey, it also had a very geometric look to it.
The Lincoln’s simplicity of design was really its forte; By comparison, the abundance of creases on the Mercury come across as slightly forced and work against its overall aesthetic. It was almost like big-brother Continental threw the party, and tag-along younger brother Monterey was trying a little too hard to impress the other guests. It was a shame the slight family resemblance was not reflected in sales figures, with total Mercury production (including the mid-sized Comet) ranking 8th overall among domestic makes for ’66, behind four other mid-priced brands (Pontiac, Dodge, Oldsmobile, and Buick) and after the traditional low-priced three (Chevrolet, Ford, and Plymouth).
When I photographed this rare, multi-faceted gem of a Mercury over four years ago, it had then dawned on me that the last, domestically produced Mercury convertible, the 1973 Cougar, had rolled off an assembly line a full four decades prior to this sighting. This is the only ’66 Monterey convertible I ever remember seeing as an adult, at a show, or otherwise. That this particular example was street parked, combined with the small rust bubbles on the rear quarter panel (which I hope have since been attended to), seems to indicate that its owner is / was getting some actual use or enjoyment out of it… which is about as straightforward a purpose for owning a classic Mercury as I can imagine.
Notice how Mercury cut corners on it’s lower trim models to get the price down to the lower reaches of “medium”. For example, check out those inside door handles. Short armrest with a fully exposed ’50 fridge type handle. That was Ford Custom grade.
Even a Galaxie 500 gave you a long armrest with a semi-hidden paddle handle.
Your post springs to mind something that had slipped mine; the armrests in the front of my ’64 Ford were smaller then if someone had bought a model with a few more trim goodies. And with the fancier trim options selected with the longer armrests Ford would even paint ‘FALCON’ on the glove compartment door (and I think the ‘bird’ symbol was included with that). FORD was so thoughtful when the buyer opted for more goodies.
I like the looks of the ’66 Mercury. An all-business, no-frills front end and the tail area is attractive, too. Nice.
You could see the same thing on the lowest grade versions of Pontiacs, Buicks and Oldsmobiles. The trim levels overlapped, and the lowest ones were lesser than the top-trim Chevy and Ford.
Dad’s ’65 Impala wagon in metallic ice blue looked more premium than his brother’s plain beige Buick.
Also, my school principal had a Pontiac Catalina wagon in maroon. It would have looked great with a little more chrome. I did like the poncho better for its 389 and TH400, vs our 327/PG combo, but I was the kind of kid that would notice.
Very nice post – these Mercs, and the larger Lincolns, all follow Elwood Engel’s “fill the box” styling dictum – Engel left for Chrysler in 1962 but his influence at Ford continued throughout the ’60s, especially at Mercury/Lincoln. Jim.
I assume it is the Engel influences, but its interesting how much the 1964-66 Mercury & the 1965-67 Chryslers look alike.
The front and rear of this Merc seem like the low budget version of the ’66 300, but the squared off body and creased sides are a preview of next years Chrysler.
Great find Dennis. Buzz Grisinger tells a story about the 65 Merc, that it was originally to have the grille treatment shown below. It was on the proposal for months before suddenly and without reason Grisinger was told to give the car a more conventional treatment. He suspects the decision may have come from Iacocca. Does the face in the sketch look familiar?
http://www.mercurymarauder.org/article-mt68sep.html
Go here for some insight into that.
Thanks Roger. I got mine from CA. According to Grisinger (and the photo), these were 1962/63. If Iacocca did anticipate putting this face on the Mark III, he waited long enough.
Thanks, Don.
The red image actually reminds me a little of the ’77 Chrysler LeBaron Turbine concept car.
I can appreciate a good square-edged design but these are bland and very forgettable.
A ’65-67 Chrysler, however? Gorgeous. Even a ’66 Fury or Polara is vastly better looking in my eyes.
True, and next to the GM cars, it looks even more boring. It’s that front end, as tonyola correctly points out below, that really makes this Merc look so anonymous. The rear end has much more interesting features. [Insert “That’s what she said” joke right about here.]
To me it’s not so much the linear styling that makes the ’66 Mercury seem bland. It’s the flat and generic-looking nose – almost as if Mercury was deliberately trying to tone down the ’65 front with the “powerdome” hood and the vertical turn signal lights.
I just realized that the ’66 is the only post-64 Mercury that doesn’t have a hatch type hood (separate header panel). The hood extends forward right to the grill, which looks low rent IMHO. Mercury brass must have thought so too, as they reverted back to a hatch type in ’67, and never let go of it.
If one didn’t know better, one would assume these two years were reversed, with the bulging grille/hood added for some interest. Very odd retrograde.
Completely agree. The 1966 pales in comparison to the ‘65.
Jellybean & Paul: when I was a kid I thought the 65 was a 67 watching parents drop their kids off at school.
It took some time to figure it out, I was about 11 at the time and just starting to become aware. But I did get to see my first 67 Thunderbird at that same drop off.
The 65 would have been a much more logical progression into 67, that’s for sure.
This is indeed a very rare find…though it could use a set of whitewall tires.
Yet, this is, in my opinion a “watered down” version of the (better looking) 1965 model.
I do like that instrument panel, but have never cared for the cheap looking metal surround for the instruments.
My favorite full-sized 60s Mercury is the 67. Compared to the 66, the 67 is less boxy/more voluptuous. Make mine black, like MsGarrett’s.
Well written article Joseph. I think your analogies are quite accurate. It was the most seriously styled cars of the 60s that I thought aged the worst into the 70s, when I was growing up. Full sized Mercury and Chrysler cars from this vintage appearing among the most sombre designs to my eyes from the previous decade. Very serious, older people seemed to be the ones still driving these in the 70s, from my youthful perspective at the time. Even the powder blue exterior doesn’t change very much, the seriousness of the styling.
I will be the counterweight today (how strange, right?) and will enthusiastically jump to the defense of the 66 Mercury. This may be my favorite Mercury of the 60s. I have no idea why, but its square-jawed, all-business persona just works for me. Those ads about “The Man’s Car” – as screwy as the idea might be to alienate half of car buyers, it just works with this car. There is nothing feminine about it. The 66 Ford tried to mold some curves into that straight-edge styled car but Mercury stuck with the straight lines and right angles. And I like it (but then I am a guy, too.) In my occasional mental meanderings of which car I might have bought in a given year the 66 Mercury is always in the running.
In a reverse-CC effect I saw one of these last week in someone’s driveway. A yellow Monterey Breezeway sedan in similar (though slightly rustier) condition to this one. Not being a Breezeway roof fan I like this convertible a lot better.
The fact that it shares a lot of that square jaw look with the ’67 Newport (Custom?) you had may have a lot to do with it. I fully agree, but think the Newport Custom really nailed what it was going for, and would give runner up status to the Mercury. Now, an upgrade to the Park Lane might make for a tough call vs. The ’67 New Yorker. I really like the Park Lane door cards, but then there are those terrific dashes Chrysler did. Tough call.
I think the Mercury did a better job on the non-breezeway rooflines. The 67-68 Chrysler sedans were just a teeny bit too upright for my tastes, the only unsuccessful lines I can find on them. The 4 door hardtops or convertibles make it a closer race. The 65-66 Chrysler has the same roof issue on the sedans. I agree that the interiors would have probably sealed the deal for a Chrysler or a Dodge.
Everyone seems to love the 65 Mercury, but I never thought the taillights worked on that one. The 66 tail end is almost perfect.
Fabulous find, Joe. As much as I’m loathe to admit it, the ’66 Mercury isn’t the ultimate in Mercury-ness but you can tell it’s gathering its mojo. That would start in about 1968 and run through 1978, but only on the full-sizers. As Archie and Edith Bunker said, those were the days.
Seeing this particular example is a bit poignant too; my father-in-law has a ’67 Monterey convertible in an identical baby blue. Seeing this ’66 is delightful as the glory days of his ’67 are long gone, as seen in the link.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/backyard-classics-a-saturday-afternoon-stroll-at-the-in-laws/
In 1970 dad traded in our clean ’62 Monterey S-55 (ouch) on a ’67 Monterey green 4 door. I think the similarity to his old ’67 2 door Conti is what drew him in, as he had to get rid of his ’67 Conti (along with our house in Portland and his Owens cabin cruiser) due to business collapse about a year after he bought it.
Just this past weekend our car club visited the “museum” of a local collector who seemed to have a proclivity for Lincolns and Thunderbirds but one of his collection was a 1966 Mercury Parklane Breezway with the retractable rear window. The roof seemed “out of time” with the rest of the car but the trim level was definitely above what is seen in the Monterey.
It is notable how Ford and GM “traded” styling ques back then, especially, it seems to me, Mercury and Pontiac.
Fintail: you can trace those styling cues back to the 56 Continental.
Indeed and by way of the 1963 full-size Pontiac. I believe you meant the 1956 Continental Mark II, correct?
Yes, the Mark II.
Joseph: you hit a nerve today. My first true car love was a 66 Mercury Montclair four door sedan in Palisades Turquoise that my parents bought brand new from Bonneville Motors in Tooele UT in March or April 1966.
That car defined what I liked in a car: quiet, smooth riding, and comfortable.
I learned to drive on it, learned the use of bondo on those long rear fenders, as three years in, they began to rust.
As a teenager I spent three days applying a Blue Coral three part wax system on it and waxed a car for the first time in my life at 11 years old [Turtle Wax] with that car.
It was beautiful to me and still is, though I have mistaken the front for a Chrysler from a distance, many times.
It was the subject of a painting I did long ago and posted here, from a picture I took of it at Fejervary Park in Davenport IA, where we had moved.
At one point my Father even allowed me to put wide white Port -A-Walls on it. Gangsta before it was a thang. And still drove it to work at Rock Island Arsenal, replete with wide WWs and my crude bodywork and paint.
Still a beautiful car. Linear or not, it has a wholeness about it that’s missing in the riot of lines and curves in cars built today.
And yes, I even have the linear Broyhill Sculptra bedroom set my parents bought in 1963, going so far as to travel to a Sun City thrift store in Phoenix to get a 2nd matching end table. One of the pieces below. [Representation only. Not my bedroom. No one gets into my bedroom…. unfortunately].
Thanks for this, Joseph. I have a whole mental vault of fantastic memories of this car.
I also still have the brochure. And owner’s manual.
DweezilAZ, I so enjoyed reading that. I love that there are cars for many of us that can make us feel how you described.
And “riot of lines and curves” is a very fitting description for the styling of more than a few new cars these days.
(And that piece of furniture is very, very nice!)
Thanks Joseph. The bedroom furniture gives me some connection now that my parents are no longer in Earthly form.
And the Mercury long gone.
An interesting point – these cars (body on frame) are rather light for their size! My 1966 Parklane Breezeway is actually longer than my 1972 Lincoln Mark IV, however it weighs only 3,980 lbs. Lighter than many of today’s much smaller cars. The new Dodge Charger weighs 4,522 lbs.!
Now which one is the “Big Old Boat”?
Makes my heart hurt, Bill. I stared at ours from every angle, knew every inch of it’s body. So many road trips in it.
Such a beautiful car. I hope you’ve enjoyed it. Those taillights are the best.
Thanks. And what an upscale interior (all original) including all of the expensive chrome garnish molding (on the Parklane) around the rear window.
Nice. Beats 50 shades of grey all the way to Hades and back !
Yep. Says Luxury in a way grey never could.
Oh, do I miss interiors like this one.
That’s just stunning, with all of those great details. That brocade upholstery almost has a metallic sheen to it – just beautiful.
Way back when, Dad was right on the verge of buying a new 1965 Park Lane Breezeway. I remember the car being a gold color with a black vinyl roof. However, at the last minute he heard the siren song of a clean black 1963 Lincoln sedan in the used-car portion of the dealer’s lot. He ended up buying the Continental. What’s interesting about the ’63-’66 Mercs is that they had as standard equipment real gauges for temperature, amps, and oil pressure – something of a rarity in American big cars at the time. Those gauges were gone for 1967, replaced by idiot lights.
Thanks, Everyone! This was the second rare Mercury I had spotted near this intersection (Montrose & Sheridan) within a two week period.
Just twelve days after I saw our ’66 Monterey, I spotted this ’70 Cyclone GT (which I had posted to the Cohort): https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cohort-sighting-1970-mercury-cyclone-gt-now-thats-a-face-one-doesnt-forget-readily/.
This was also a couple of blocks from where I saw last Monday’s Corvette: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-capsule/cc-outtake-1988-chevrolet-corvette-lets-get-physical/
“Nature abhors a straight line.”
Square as this Merc is, I suspect you’ll find most of the straight lines actually have a little curvature to them… somewhere in storage in our industrial design lab, we still have a set of sweeps that pre-CAD designers would have used when concepting even as linear a car as this…
“I suspect you’ll find most of the straight lines actually have a little curvature to them…”
Ed, that’s a great point, and one I had considered.
And about sweeps, I had to look that up – another instance of my CC “Continuing Education”! 🙂
–“Within my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the more rounded designs of the ’70s echoed in the “aero” forms of the ’90s” —
– Yep, When I saw the 1993 Fleetwood, By first thought was “Suddenly it’s 1974”!
Always a great read, Joseph.
It’s amazing to find a car this old still in its original box!
Great looking car Joe. Was it reprised, less successfully, as the US Granada?
Roger, I actually don’t see whole lot of similarity between this Monterey and the U.S. Granada. But to your point, both were certainly boxy designs.
I used to really dislike the first-generation U.S. Granada, but a few pieces I’ve read here on CC have warned me up a little to their mini-brougham looks. If only our Granada in the States looked even a little like the great-looking Granadas you had in the U.K. 🙂
Hi Joe, it was a slightly tongue in cheek observation on the overwhelming straight line nature of the Granada design, something the Euro Granada Mk2 managed to carry off, as Don Andreina showed us last week
Why, Ford, why did you not send us Yankees Euro Mk I and Mk II Granadas???
This Mercury successfully blends straight lines with just enough curves to look right. Seventies and later square-lined cars with their flat sides often didn’t have enough curves to give the eye a break. Like this 1990-ish Nissan Skyline.
I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a Mercury convertible from this time period on the road.
I think the first one of these I ever paid attention to was the ’65 (I think) 2-door hardtop that belonged to one of my dad’s tenants. It was parked for many months because the tenant had a DUI and wasn’t allowed to drive at all
I recall thinking that even though it wasn’t my kind of vehicle, it looked good in its spruce-y metallic dark green with its light-colored interior.
I’ve often wondered what happened to that car – it was in REALLY good condition at the time (1975-1976).
A square or rectangle or any combination of is the most efficient use of space. Of course with today’s cars soft sided luggage works much better and if people were only as supple and adaptable we could have the perfect aerodynamic car if you could drive your car half bent over on both axis.
I’m no “art and color” sort of dude, but to those that are, does that afterthought looking reverse lamp fit?
These Mercs fell on their faces early and hard, so many of their great running 410s etc.made sweet organ transplants for ’70s Ford pickups that started life with the not-so-great 360 powerplants.
The reverse lights: two of only ten circular forms on the entire exterior of the car. LOL I actually think they work well back there, given the linear look of everything else on the car.
Engel’s influence long outlasted his tenure at Lincoln-Mercury. Once he brought the same ethic to Chrysler, it was inevitable competing makes would wear similar styling.
Recalling these at introduction, they were pleasantly handsome but unexciting, lacked verve found in Pontiac and even Oldsmobile. 1965 & ’66 Mercurys are as static a design as the concurrent full-sized Dodge. Both makes appealed to a certain staid, stolid clientele. Monterey buyers were the most staid and stolid: sought full-size spaciousness but trimmed in a manner befitting a mid-line Ford so not to be too showy or luxurious, a odd ethic. 1967-’68 Mercury styling was positively brash compared to the prior two years.
Saw this upscale sibling to the featured car, a 1966 Mercury Park Lane, at a late season cruise night this past Friday evening.
Where is this 66 mercury parklane convertible located. Can you give me a vin # number and mileage and location of this car and a price if the car is currently for sale. THANK YOU KINDYM Bob V . PGH. PA.
Joseph Dennis, no matter my feelings toward the subjects of your articles, your writing and photography are always top-notch. I greatly enjoy reading your work.
Thank you so much – I appreciate that!
I enthusiastically second that emotion! Great work Joseph!
It’s somehow has all the elements of mid-century fashion wihtout any of the style. Quite an accomplishment.
Couldn’t help but see a 1969 Ford in the grill, though just a the softning of the sheet metal makes all the difference,
Thanks for a good Sunday morning read. Over the last few years I’ve been seeing a white ‘66 Park Lane convertible around our Toronto neighbourhood during the summer. I’ve always liked the big mid-‘60’s Ford and Mercury cars, and it’s always a (rare) treat to see one in the metal. The first time I saw that Park Lane convertible, I was reminded of just how big they are compared to modern cars. In a different world we might have had something like that in our driveway instead of a ‘61 VW and ‘67 Beaumont.