(first posted 4/3/2015) The Big Three used to dance together so well. 1969 was one of those well-orchestrated moves when all of their full-size models were scheduled to be “new”. The last time that happened was 1965, when GM blew the other two off the dance floor with its dramatic ‘Coke-bottle’ semi-fastback cars, while Ford and Chrysler’s new ’65s were pale and boxy imitations of the 1963 Pontiac. Four years later, there was a lot anticipation as to how it would play out this time. Ford was determined to not be left in GM’s dust, and pulled out all the stops on an all-new car and chassis. Chrysler’s dramatic fuselage cars sat on familiar underpinnings, but the styling was all-new. And GM? It pulled a very clever trick on them both.
It bunted. The Impala and Caprice coupes may have convinced buyers that it really was ‘new’, but it was just a very successful re-skin, and some new roof-lines on the coupes, as the swoopy fastbacks gave way to a more formal look, anticipating successfully the full blossoming of the Great Brougham Epoch in the 70s.
But a comparison of the more prosaic Chevy sedans made it all-too obvious that under the fender blisters and Toronado-esque integrated C-pillar, it was essentially the same car, sitting on the same 119″ wheelbase chassis, and as it would through 1970. GM upset the four-year cycle applecart, choosing to hold their big-car ammo for 1971, when they unleashed the biggest big cars ever. And created a big problem for Ford and especially Chrysler.
Ford’s ambitions in 1969 were pretty serious too, as these cars now sat on a 121″ wheelbase, had wider tracks front and rear, and were some 216″ long. Ford stated that it now had the Pontiac Catalina solidly in its visor, especially so with its popular LTD. It was a new styling direction for Ford: wide, rounded, substantial, and decidedly more upscale looking than its predecessor.
The new frame and chassis would go on to have a long life, as a 124″ wheelbase version not only underpinned the 1969 Mercury, but a further stretch to 127″ would underpin the 1970 Lincoln. Looking at these two coupes makes the family resemblance all-too obvious; Ford’s decision to use the same basic platform and body for all of its large cars was undoubtedly a huge cost saving, but there’s no doubt it also led to the debasement of the classic suicide-door Continental.
Ironically, as forward-looking as the new 1969 Fords were, the decision to continue with a fast-back SportsRoof version is a bit questionable. The whole sporty big-car segment had been withering for a few years, as the center of gravity for sporty coupes shifted to the mid-size cars, and smaller.
But unlike its previous fastbacks as applied all across its line of cars, the ’69 SportsRoof adopted a tunnel-back roof, which GM had popularized back in 1966, and the Dodge Charger had adopted in 1968. It was a fad that was quickly running out of time. That’s not to say the XL doesn’t have a certain charm, but it’s just a bit out of context on a car designed to preview the 1970s. And perhaps was even more out of context on the similar but more extravagant Mercury Marauder X-100.
Speaking of debasement, both the XL and LTD had quite a bit of that in 1968 and 1969.
Whereas the XL once came with delicious bucket seats and a big chrome console, now its interior looked very basic. The so-called ‘Front Room’ clustered the dashboard close to the driver, including the radio and ventilation controls, giving the passenger nothing but an unbroken expanse of vinyl to gaze at.
Yes, these were wide, and the front room was very roomy. Looking at it brings back some vivid memories. I used to finagle a 1970 LTD coupe for week-end use when I worked at Towson Ford, and three girls from my neighborhood and high school used to pile in next to me for long summer evening drives out in the country to the Gunpowder River, including the first skinny dip in its waters for all of us. A groundbreaking car, in so many ways. But it should have had four sets of seat belts, not that we would have used them. Wait a minute; now that I look at those seat belts, I’m a bit confused: why are there so many? Oh, right; those miserable early shoulder belts had their own attachment buckle. They were a fixed length, and made any movement impossible. I can’t remember anyone using them, even if they did use the seat belts.
One night we were all going to drop some acid, but then the girls had something else to do, so my only partner was the LTD. I drove out to the Gunpowder Falls Friends Meeting house, and stretched out on the grass in the cemetery, staring up at the stars for hours. I was motionless and thoughtless for several hours, just being there, and had what would commonly be called a mystical experience. I felt one with the universe and all those that had been buried there, and lost my fear of death. And I stopped taking drugs after that night, and within a few months, took up meditation. I wanted to experience that again without any external aids.
Around three or so in the morning, I became aware of my body again and felt myself returning to earth. And the earth I was lying on was a bit chilly, so I walked over to the big Ford and snuggled up on that wide front seat, and just laid there in the Front Room, taking in that dashboard (which was not quite a mystical experience), and eventually fell asleep. I woke up in the morning with the windows all fogged up.
It felt good to start up its smooth V8, barely audible in the distant engine room. The sunrise drive home through the windy country roads was a gentle re-entry into the real world, thanks to the Ford’s plush ride and profound silence. These were qualities I would typically have lambasted it for, but on this morning I was in no rush, and the LTD was my magic carpet ride. And I’ve had a soft spot for these ’69-’70 big Fords ever since. Just think how different I would feel about the ’71-’72 Ford if one of those had been my ride into the unbounded absolute that night.
Back to more mundane earthly matters. The LTD went through the same de-contenting as the LX; the only thing they both shared that really separated them from the prosaic Galaxie was their hidden-headlight front end. Which of course rarely still work after all these decades; they are vacuum operated, but have a hefty spring to keep them open as the default position.
This one is obviously blessed with the optional 265 (gross) hp 390 a mildly-tuned two-barrel version of the FE V8 that was a happy companion to those looking for some decent low-end grunt but had no expectations of genuine performance. The perfect mill for a Country Squire.
The 240 six was technically the base standard engine in all ’69 Fords except the LTD and Country Squire, but I suspect that quite few made their way into an XL SportsRoof. The three-speed manual was also standard.
I’ve already told it before, but that same summer I drove a ’69 LTD four door that a service department customer dropped off with a 390, the three-speed on the column, manual steering and un-assisted brakes. But it had the padded roof and upgraded Brougham interior. Someone was insistent when they ordered that. It made for an odd ride, quite utterly defeating the purpose of an otherwise such a comfortable and effortless ride.
For those wanting more, two versions of the brand new 429 “Thunder-Jet” V8 were available; a 320 hp two-barrel carb version, and a 360 hp four barrel, dual exhaust job. Ford finally had a brand new big-block V8 to go along with its brand new big-block car. A happy mating. But they weren’t all-too common.
The XL SportsRoof soldiered on through 1970, in fairly modest numbers. Despite the weak XL sales, Ford’s bold 1969 move with an all-new car increased its sales over 1968 by a healthy margin (+17%). Meanwhile Chevy big car sales were about even. So Ford’s big move paid off. But GM must have saved a huge pile of cash by holding over their 1965-based big cars across all of their divisions for two more years.
1969 Ford sightings have become rare; this is my first since the CC treasure hunt began. I hear they were notorious rusters. This one is enjoying the healing rains of Eugene, which the tin worm is allergic to. Not having a vinyl top doesn’t hurt either; this one sports a rather unusual two-tone paint job. Or was its vinyl top removed along the way? More likely so.
Related reading:
CC 1970 Mercury Marauder X-100: Bootylicious
CC 1969 Ford LTD: My Father’s Day Present
I can’t tell if the roof was vinyl that has been painted over, or if’s that “instant vinyl roof” paint popular in the period, or a really crappy attempt at a 2-tone.
Also has the dreaded wobbly window syndrome. All FoMoCo products used glue-in windows in ’69, and were notorious for failing and letting go. They went back to bolt-ins for ’70.
This poor thing could use some TLC.
Or does it look like that because it’s been raining?
A little bit of both is my guess.
It brought back memories of those windows that weren’t flush. Wow, I haven’t thought about that in years. Makes you realize just how far we have come mechanically.
Now, if we could just work on style……….
With the direction CAFE is taking you can forget style. All anyone will be building in the next 10 years will be small blobby P.O.S.’s like the new Mitsu Mirage. Gotta hit that 52+mpg target somehow 🙁 .
My first new car was a ’71 Pinto. On a warm summer day I was cleaning the inside back window -using as much pressure as one would, and the daggone thing along with the black rubber gasket just slowly ooozed out of the body. I went outside the car and slowly pushed it back into place squeezing in as much as the gooey black adhesive as I could. I had that car for 3 years -and although the window never came out again I never did clean it from the inside.
‘It felt good to start up its smooth V8, barely audible in the distant engine room. The sunrise drive home through the windy country roads was a gentle re-entry into the real world, thanks to the Ford’s plush ride and profound silence.’
A great piece of writing and a very evocative coda to the preceding two paragraphs.
I know the ’69 Chevy was big, but a 199″ wheelbase chassis? 😉
That was the limo version, or a typo!
Beat me to it. If the energy crisis hadn’t happened in ’73, perhaps we would have seen American sedans grow to such lengths.
Super stretch version 🙂
Those wonderful days when the drugs were mild enough that one could indulge without worrying about frying one’s brain into zombie-dom. I have some parallel memories to yours, all very pleasant. And despite such behavior being illegal and considered risky, I don’t regret one moment.
Big, fat cars? Afraid they weren’t on my radar at the time, other than using mom’s ’66 Caprice wagon on the (as rare as possible) visits home. The only advantage I could see to such barges was the back seat being large enough to indulge in whatever sexual horseplay we were interested in, while still being reasonably comfortable and having enough space to be a more than a bit adventurous.
If I had been buying a new full-sized car in 1969 I would have run right over to the local Chrysler – Plymouth dealer for a Fury III or Sport Fury. The Ford is….striking, and the Chevy has a load of styling cues that it wore reasonably well, but the Fury…..it just hit the right notes.
When I was in high school taking driver’s ed our school had all 3 of the above cars. A 67 Ford, a 68 Chevy, and a 69 Plymouth and I so wanted to drive that Fury but never did. I always got “stuck” with the Ford, a Galaxie 500.
And I agree that the Mercury, at least in SportsRoof guise, doesn’t look all that appealing.
I never cared for ’69 Furys, they just look too bland for my tastes. Now a ’69 Monaco… now THAT’S a good looking ride!
My dad’s job went from private sector to public, resulting in a carless 8 months from January ’68, when the ’67 LTD 390 got turned in, to a strippo ’69 Galaxie 500 2 door government car with a 302 . Even as a kid I noticed how shoddily assembled the ’69 was in comparison to his ’67 LTD and ’68 Galaxie 500 company cars. I remember my Mom trying to use that left-side radio for the first time, the whole unit wobbled in it’s housing when she pushed the buttons. Still, it beat the H out of having no car at all!
Great informative write-up and love the photography from later 60’s- early 70’s… So hip and groovy. Lol
This XL wears the Sportsroof design very well… the 1971-73 Cougar, not so much.
I see the design translated more into the 71-73 Mustang coupes, really those to me always looked like a shrunken 69/70, mixed in with a few new lines from the 71 and 72 Fords. Overall I think the Mustang wears the roof worse than the Cougars, which at least had some additional length to help the proportions, on the Mustang the buttresses make the rear look stubby.
The big Fords were never my thing, but it certainly looks good in the ad with the white car.
I say this every time, but I just can’t help but love covered headlights. IMO, one of the greatest styling trends ever. I would love to see this again.
I believe the safety Nazis in Washington outlawed hidden headlights some time back.
I don’t think that’s true, not directly anyway. Popups existed will past the “camouflaged in the grille” look fell out of favor, I don’t remember the last car to use them but if I were to guess it was either the C5 Vettes or the Lotus Esprit in the mid 00s. Really it was the proliferation of flush mounted HID/LED headlights rendered them somewhat obsolete, especially since night aerodynamics(if that really matters) is negatively affected by pop ups. Considering hidden headlights disappeared(no pun intended) from Europe too you can’t really lay the blame on Washington.
Although having said that It would probably be harder to reintroduce them now with pedestrian safety standards, at least in the pop up variety. I can’t imagine there’d be anything preventing a future full width grille execution of hidden headlights though since the required front end height is irrelevant, it would just be criticized as anachronistic in the minds of many.
It would be easier to hide LED turn signals and (where necessary) DRLs among the elements of the full width grille and make the “fog lights” the actual headlights. Manufacturers probably want to reduce the number of unnecessary moving parts on top of everything else.
What a great find. I always liked the looks of these, even though they were dated even when new. I always thought this styling would have been better in 7/8 scale (or, heck, given how big these were, 3/4 scale) as a midsizer.
Well, they kind of tried that with the ’71-’73 Cougar…
I remember really liking the sportsroof on the 69 Ford when they were new, but looking at it now, it is awkward from more angles than not. A sales lot near me has a very similar 70 XL Sportsroof, right down to the color. And it just now hits me: when the sporty XL gets an LTD-style wreath under it’s badge, you know that the model had outlived it’s era.
I had not realized that Ford’s big cars dropped in sales for 69. I do recall that the 69 Impala/Caprice was simply everywhere.
I would really like to know what Ford did to the chassis for 1971. These cars felt tight and solid, while the 71-72 was very much not.
Dad had a ’69 Galaxie 500 4-dr hardtop, and even without the center pillar that thing was rock solid. It was also huge inside, plenty of space for me and my sister in the back seat. Ah, mid 70s memories of me and sis in the back seat with Dad driving and Mom looking like a queen with her hair all done up and cruising the city streets with Freddy Fender playing on the old 8-track! Life seemed pretty idyllic when I was 10 or 11.
Frank- that’s a magnificent piece of prose…composed by someone who not only has a fascination with the artistic and engineering character of the automobile but also feels deeply the romanticism of memories that intertwines the halcyon days of youth, family and culture. Well done!
Those productions figures sounded funny to me as well. From the Standard Catalogue of American cars 802,000 of the big Fords were produced in ’68 (including 56,000 XL’s) and just over 1 million in ’69 (including 61,000 XL’s). Seems about right to me as the ’69’s were very popular, although still behind Chevy.
Dad bought a ’69 LTD new. That ubiquitous lime green with the vinyl roof. At least it had the 390. I was really surprised how decontented it was from earlier years. Inside it was basically a Galaxie 500. Didn’t even have a clock. To get the same level of luxury as in previous years you had to get the optional Brougham package. Was quite reliable as I recall, lasting for years with over 125,000 miles with no significant problems.
I’ve recently been working on a project to compile production numbers, starting with Chevrolet. I am amazed at how much disagreement and discrepancy there is between different sources. Sometimes the differences are fairly minor and inconsequential, but sometimes less so. You’d think “How many did they make” would be a pretty easy question to answer, but I’m finding that it’s often surprisingly difficult, at least in exact terms.
1968 fullsize Ford production: From the Standard Catalog, I get 867,247; from the Encyclopedia of American Cars, I get 867,292. The discrepancy is in the number of Custom 500 two-door sedans built. The Standard Catalog says 8,938; the Encyclopedia says 8,983.
1969 fullsize Ford production: From the Standard Catalog, I get 998,796; from the Encyclopedia of American Cars, I get 1,014,850. The discrepancy is in the number of Country Sedan station wagons built. The Standard Catalog shows 36,287 six-passenger models and 11,563 ten-passenger models; the Encyclopedia shows 36,387 and 27,517.
1968 fullsize Chevrolet production: In figures rounded to the nearest hundred, I get 1,206,500 from the Standard Catalog and 1,206,300 from the Encyclopedia. Both sources have breakdowns by model and Six/V8; the discrepancy is that the Standard Catalog shows 28,900 Bel Air sixes and 11,500 Impala sixes, while the Encyclopedia shows 28,800 and 11,400. I believe that I found an exact 1968 full-size Chevy production figure in another source which was close to these numbers, but I don’t have my notebook handy at the moment. Note that in this era, Chevrolet apparently didn’t publish exact model-by-model/body style-by-body style numbers, so there’s no way to check the numbers down to that level.
1969 fullsize Chevrolet production: The “rounded to the nearest hundred” numbers in the Standard Catalog sum to 1,168,300; unlike other years, the Standard Catalog indicates that station wagons are included, which is odd because Chevrolet began marketing the wagons as distinct models this year. The Encyclopedia agrees with those numbers, but it also reports a separate number for station wagons, of 59,300. Including that figure, the grand total would be 1,227,600. While the Encyclopedia’s presentation of a separate number for wagons is consistent with Chevy data for other years in this era, that figure of 59,300 is extremely low relative to other years; for example, both the Standard Catalog and the Encyclopedia show 1968 wagon production as 175,600. To add to the confusion, the Standard Catalog has an exact 1969 full-size Chevy production figure, which I’ve also seen in other sources, of 1,109,013.
The bottom line that I’m getting out of all this: Ford’s 1969 full-sizes had a very good year, with production up quite a bit from ’68, approaching or maybe even slightly exceeding a million (depending on which source you believe), but they were still outsold pretty comfortably by their Chevrolet counterparts. I hadn’t realized that Ford’s fullsize model year production got this close to a million this late in time. The last time Ford’s fullsize calendar year production ever hit a million was in 1965.
My general sense is that the big Fords were much more competitive with the big Chevys in the late ’60s/early ’70s than they had been in the early/mid ’60s, but 1) this was more a matter of the big Fords’ sales dropping less over time in a shrinking market than of the big Fords’ sales going up in absolute numbers and 2) I don’t think the big Fords ever caught the big Chevrolets in any year where Chevy’s numbers weren’t artificially depressed due to strikes.
Finding production numbers to agree between sources is indeed a headache at times. When I wrote the K-car history, there were sizable discrepancies with certain models and years.
When looking at the 1968 model year production figures, remember that Ford was closed for a few weeks by a strike in late 1967, just as the 1968 model year was beginning.
Oops! This got late last night, and I transposed the ’68 and ’69 model years. My bad! Yes, the 69 was a good improvement over the 68s. I’ll change the text now.
” Striking ” , yes .
This old Ford is very pretty to these old eyes .
-Nate
LSD in an LTD. Gotta love that kind of prose!
That dashboard was cribbed from Pontiac’s Grand Prix which did the same thing:: everything swept toward the driver. This was during Semon E Knudsen’s reign and also brought the Thunderbird “beak”.
From the shot of the roof, it appears a badly prepped ex- vinyl roof painted black. It looks like a rough surface [left over glue] painted black, not the pebbled look of paint used to imitate vinyl.
Earl Scheib offered spray on textured roof paint that mimicked a vinyl roof for a modest price, but it was flat, low gloss, textured. This is too shiny, so I would think it was a response to removal of a rotting vinyl top.
Both GP and the Ford appeared in the same year. Whether one was “cribbed” from the other is up for debate, but if it was, it was via industrial espionage of some sort. At least Pontiac put the radio in the proper place, unless you had teenagers, then maybe the Ford had the radio in the right place 🙂
Thanks for the touch of auto-biography, Paul.
Was ’69 a recession year? I know ’70 was. Full-size sales were less than expected at Mopar too, despite the new designs.
“I can’t remember anyone using [add-on shoulder straps], even if they did use the seat belts.”
Guilty.
I used them in my 68 Newport, but this was in the mid 90s, about 5 years after getting in an accident in my Colt. In that wreck, I vividly recall the sensation of the deceleration caused by that shoulder harness, and thinking “holy shit, glad I didn’t drive the 61 T-Bird today.” But I may be one of 9 people in the entire US who ever used them. Even then, I had to unbuckle to reach certain things too far to the right on the dash.
Similar scene in my ’72 Pontiac Grandville which still had the separate shoulder belts. In the mid/late ’80s, my college era friends, particularly the girls, began using seatbelts. The constant public message, and the advent of reasonably comfortable lap / shoulder combos finally caused a shift in attitudes. Even my parents suddenly found seat belt religion in that era.
The way that shoulder belt connected into the lap belt and finally the lap belt latch was not particularly comfortable or user friendly. The early shoulder belt seemed better designed to stay in that handy color coordinated pocket in the ceiling than for its intended use.
RE : those wretched third shoulder belts
I tried to use them in my ’68 Malibu 700 Cop Car but they were just awful .
GM obviously did a slap – dash design to keep the Feds happy .
After suffering a week or so I cleaned them up well and carefully tucked them into the thoughtfully provided headliner clips where they remained for years until we (stupidly) sold the car .
I never , _EVER_ go anywhere sans safety belts ~ they have saved my worthless life several times over .
-Nate
The single design difference between the Chevy and the Ford, and one which seemed to me to make the Ford instantly dated by comparison, was the “hidden” windshield wipers of the Chevy. The uncluttered back edge of the Chevy hood as it curved slightly upward toward the windshield. Not a trace of the peasant-like wiper mechanisms. As a blue oval youngster, I must admit I felt jealously when looking at the clunky exposed wiper arms on the family’s 1970 Ford compared to the clean lines presented by a neighbor’s Chevrolet.
Those hidden wiper arms looked great, until the car spent some time parked under trees. Maple seeds, wet matted leaves, and all sorts of flotsam filled the area. Then there was the snow. Thankfully the folly of concealed wipers eventually went away. They are still on my mother’s Lacrosse. Just one more thing to hate about that car.
And cowl rust was a great way to let water into the interior (and electrics).
The ’69 Ford line was sure good-looking. I thought the full-sized Fords outsold the full-sized Chevys that year but maybe it was the whole line-up of cars that I’m remembering. Didn’t know the XL had been decontented. This maroon one is crying out for a set of body color sport mirrors.
I bet the whole neighborhood loves that car like a favorite old dog or ancient tree in the center of town. Mother nature is showing her respect with the healing rains and dusting of early spring blossoms. Great pics.
By the time these cars were available to me, they had no trunks or floors in the rear, having rusted completely through. It was remarkable, literally the trunk needed to be emptied because there was no floor at all, just the frame. The carpeting over the rear seat floor was all the kept a foot dry.
Yeah – rust was very bad for these cars.
Perhaps I’m in the minority but I really like the sportsroof design on the ’69 and ’70. It just works, especially with that chrome trim to set it off from the rest of the body. And that roof *and* hidden lamps, both excellent things on their own, work surprisingly well together!
I like it too. I wish I could see what it was like to sit in the back seat.
I’m with you, I’ve always liked the Sportsroof, too. Especially on the Marauder.
But I can do without the whole back area from inside the window tunnels and the entire trunk lid in that god-awful flat black paint .Nice that the Ford division didn`t go Maurader with this one.
Count me as a fan also.Black cherry my favoutite American Ford colourtTime for some more full size muscle cars please
Big fastbacks are my weakness and these XLs are one of my favorites. The car looks so long and streamlined and the tunneled back light gives good visibility to the rear. These types of big coupes were the “reward cars” for the average middle class, approaching middle age guy in the 60’s. Yes they started to lose their appeal as the personal luxury cars came on strong. To me these cars projected a very strong masculine image with the big v8, bucket seat interiors and imposing size. I recall an ad in Hot Rod featuring the XL on the centerline of a deserted rural highway. It referred to it as the “Dearborn Delight” and extolled it’s roadability. This example is a clearly de-contented example of the model with it’s oh so plain interior and poor re-paint over the stripped vinyl top, I like the alloy wheels and it looks like some one cared enough about it to preserve it and keep it on the road. Beautiful car.
As a former owner od a 1969 XL conv. 429 4 bbl. c6 auto. w/ console shift, bucket seats, p/ top, am/fm, that treated me with 21 mpg @ 70 mph on I-5. Thank you Paul for this excellent posting. Norm
Paul was skeptical of my claims that my dad’s 460 Elite would get 23 MPG to the Imperial gallon , thanks for a bit of backup:)
Nice write up. I also lament the debasement of the XL and LTD names. You could still build nice versions, but had to add the “Brougham” trim to the LTD to get started. It seemed especially irrelevant to have unique model names when they were all quite similar when lacking options – not a big surprise that the XL was done for after 1970.
What is rather strange is that Ford has such success with the original Mustang being marketed as a fully and nicely trimmed car just four years before this XL.
Chrysler’s 300 drove me crazy in these years as well. Without options it was just a Newport Custom with very slightly different trim.
“The 240 six was technically the base standard engine in all ’69 Fords except the LTD and Country Squire, but I suspect that quite few made their way into an XL SportsRoof.”
When looking up information on which low-priced fullsize models were available with sixes a while back, I had noted that the ’69 XL was available with a six, even though it never had been in the past. Part of the decontenting discussed elsewhere in the article, I guess. For ’70 the XL went back to being V8-only.
IINM, 1969 was the first year that this car was just the “XL”. In prior years, it had always been the Galaxie 500XL.
Calling the car XL saved my bacon several times as a kid when I could keep a game of alphabetical car spotting going through the letter X.
I don’t see any way that the ’65 Chrysler was a “pale and boxy imitation of the ’63 Pontiac”
It was clearly a pale and boxy imitation of the ’61 Lincoln. 😉
The ’69 Ford does look nice, but I think I prefer the actual fastback from ’68 to the tunnel roof.
The Meteor Montcalm S33 seemed to be the Canadian counterpart of the XL and the Mercury Marauder M100 but without the fastback tunnel roofline of the XL. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/Canada/1970%20Mercury%20Meteor%20Brochure/1970%20Mercury%20Meteor-02.html
http://canadianford.activeboard.com/t56724304/1970-mercury-s33/
How Ford and Chrysler would had fared if GM had released their redesigned 1971 B-body earlier in 1969?
A teacher that used to give me rides to junior high school picked me up one day in his brand new 2 door red with black interior 69 Galaxie XL 500. No Sportsroof on his car. When brand new it was a powerful quiet and smooth running beauty. The flat dash on the passenger side was designed to be out of impact range if only using lap bet. I was an early user of shoulder belts, went so far as to put in high back seats and 3 point belts in my ’66 Beetle out of a ’70 from a junkyard. The mounting point for the belts were in my car, I only had to unscrew the threaded plugs to install the bolts. In the Beetle you could still reach everything no problem with the shoulder belts on. In 1972 about 9 months after I got my license I didn’t see a stop sign and I was glad I had them. I walked away from the totaled Beetle with only belt bruises. Always used them after that. Even went so far as to have threaded plates welded in the B pillar of my 66 Bus and installed 3 point belts out of a 69 VW Bus in it. Glad I never had to test them in that thing.
The XL was offered only in SportsRoof and convertible. In ’69, you could get buckets and console in a Galaxie 500, are you sure the teacher’s car wasn’t one of those?
I do remember it had a bench seat and column shifter. Found a picture of a red 69 Galaxie 500 on the internet, that’s what it was, the car is identical to his.
Damn fine looking car. These were the last full size Fords(really full size anything) that I found appealing on a purely aesthetic level.
I for one lament the 69 and 70 Chevys for blanding and broughamifying the great looking 65-68 designs. I do find find some odd appeal to the hardtop coupe at certain angles, but the trunk looks gigantic because of it, and the front and rear styling just don’t have the payoff I’d expect, they’re just kind on anonymous (don’t get me wrong they look good by today’s standards). The elimination of the bubbletop earlier gives me similar feelings, but I quite like the 63s in their own right at least, never got that with either the 69 or 70.
Sharp car but those rims need to go back to the trailer park they came from.
I love the look of this car.
With a 429 4V and a C6, it would be a great obscure musclecar.
Just don’t ride in the back.
One of Ford’s last truly awesome-looking full size rides. Yeah, a little rough as someone mentioned before, but its had some work done since it was built to keep it together. Hanging in there for a 46-year-old car.
Hell, I’m a late’66 model myself and I’m probably more banged up than this car…
I have a 1970 XL that I bought from the original owner. With a few altercations I have it running 14 second quarters. I don’t think the 69 and 70 have peaked yet…but they will. Cheers!
I am not a Ford guy but I like the XL and yours is one of the finest I’ve seen.
Congrats.
I don’t remember the ads from my long-ago days, but to my eye the last one (gold everything, next-to-last pic) does not do the looks of this car any favors.
This model looks better in most photos of the maroon subject coupe.
Was the 69 an all new chassis or an update of the 65? Was it related in any way to the body on frame 67 Thunderbird and 68 Mark III platform?
My understanding is that it was an update of the ’65. And that this style of perimeter frame and suspension was used (with some minor changes) through the end of the big car era at Ford, and also on the ’72 and up intermediates (Torino, etc.) I assume that it was very much related also to the BOF TBird and Marks. There was lots of incentive to reuse as many elements of these chassis as possible. And there wasn’t much room for improvement, in terms of what they were designed to do.
The ’69 body shell is of course all new.
Maybe Vince will chime in with more details. He’s the master of them.
Road & Track, October 1968, describing changes in the 1969 “Big Ford/Mercury,” says: “New frame has front siderail designed for crash deformation.”
I think another issue has pictures/drawings of the 1968 versus 1969 frames, but I haven’t found it yet. As I recall, they mentioned that Ford was quite proud of the improved crashworthiness, but I never knew if it extended to the Thunderbird or Mark III.
Almost the right colour, too!
Good stuff man. Now you got me thinking about those crazy old days and doing drugs in cars. Have already spent too much time remembering that, as each car/memory leads into the next. Sure thank God that he spared me from hurting or killing anyone back then. Good times for sure. Yeah those old cars were huge then.
Having had a big Ford as my first car, I started paying attention to what came before my ‘73 LTD. For me, styling-wise, these ‘69 XL(s) were the perfect LTD. I wouldn’t kick a ‘70 out of my fantasy garage either.
My ‘73 LTD was a 2-door hardtop, my favorite body style, but that was as sporty as it got in 1973, as things were all brougham all the time by then.
While I’ve professed my desire for a ‘72 LTD convertible on these pages many times, I actually think it is these ‘69 XL(s) that were peak style for the big Fords.
Of course that’s just my opinion. As always, YMMV.
About 2 years ago, my Dad and I went up to Carlisle to their big Ford show (anyone remember car shows?)… anyway, Dad spotted this ‘73 first, not looking too different from the one we had, but the owner had 2 sporty LTD Hardtops, the ‘70 of course being an XL.
You can really see the styling changes in just a few short years here. While both are sporting that Bunkie Beak, the ‘70 XL had so much more style than our ‘73 LTD.
This lucky guy gets to enjoy BOTH.
WordPress are my picture. Let’s try a smaller size.
This car remains my favorite example of a 69 big Ford, must be the color combination and the stance with the aftermarket wheels and tires(not my preferred style, but the sizes and backspacing are spot on). Proportionally these blow the Mopar fuselages out of the water in coupe form and their not quite fastback is a happier medium than the similarly styled intermediate Torino full on fastback, which seems the most out of step for 69. Chevy may have literally jumped head first into the brougham epoch, but whatever contemporary accolades they had for their visionary prediction of 70s trends is washed away by the judgment of taste shed of misleading freshness. I’m not really a fan of huge full size cars after roughly 1964, but if I had to choose this ticks a lot of the right boxes for a cool late 60s car, where the Impala/Caprice may as well be from 1975, ick.
As much of a dead end the styling was for the following decade as a capper to the 60s they’re hard to beat, this is the ONLY car Ford made the buttresses/tunnelback window look attractive on, and unlike the 65-67 styles that so strongly aped Pontiac, these struck a nice balance of contemporary era cues and being strong with defining Ford elements. The taillights are where the 69 wins me over the 70, they carry on the classic afterburner heritage but with an angular 70s sci-fi twist, the 70 rear end is very nondescript and derivative of GM designs and marks the end of that iconic styling element.
That’s a great promo shot of the 69 Caprice coupe, I love how they adjusted the hubcaps so that the cars name was horizontal and readable. I’m constantly amazed at the infinite combination of options that were available back then. Right now I’m looking for a car and for the most part my only choices are new or cpo and what color do I want. Despite the fact that the that Caprice was a top of the line model, in an extra cost body style with an extra cost vinyl roof, it appears it’s equipped with the base 327 v8. I wonder what automatic transmission it had, the Powerglide was avail that year with the 327. While I’m sure that car was chosen for this photo shoot, I’m still surprised how some people would spend a lot of money on some options, but not on others. On Hemmings I saw an ad for a 65 Impala Sport sedan, black vinyl roof and a 327, but with the standard 3 on the tree. I got the impression that this guy really didn’t like the Powerglide…