(first posted 10/17/2012) Let’s stop beating around the bush with such polite descriptions of the ’70s as The Great Brougham Epoch, The Faux Luxury Era, The Loose-Pillow Era, The Malaise Era, The Bordello Era, et al. In truth, the decade was The Stupid Era. How the hell else to explain this roof design: Two stupid fixed panes that in no way way line up with or relate to each other. It’s as though PPG called up Ford and said, “Hey, we’ve got a couple hundred thousand little window panes in two odd sizes, and we really need to get rid of them. We’ll make you a deal.” and Ford replied,”Yeah, send ’em on over. We’ll make ’em fit somehow.” And so they did. Incredibly, Ford actually managed to top that stroke of genius with what must be the stupidest name ever coined: The 2-Door Pillared Hardtop. How stupid did they think we were?
Seriously, they paid designers good money to come up with this? Why not just do like GM and have one big rear window, never mind that GM’s should have rolled down. And what did Ford’s designers call that little vertical mail slot? The Gun Slit?
With that in mind, let’s have a little contest in the comments section. Your challenge is to come up with a clever marketing-ese name for said slit, as Ford has, too conveniently, omitted its description in their brochures. Simply “2-Door Pillared Hardtop”? How about “Many-Pillared Hardtop? It’s too bad ‘Colonnade’ was already taken; it would be much more apt description here. After spending decades telling buyers that “hardtop” describes a coupe or sedan without pillars, this is really stupid, Ford–why not just “coupe”?
Maybe it just needs a padded vinyl top…well, that’s a bit better, if only for the psychedelic effect (even though that era had ended 10 years earlier). And that young couple: Don’t they represent the typical 1977 LTD Landau buyer just perfectly? “Hey babe, let’s just quit our jobs and travel around the country for a year–in our new LTD Landau. The seats are so wide and comfy, we’ll never even need a motel!”
Pretty sad, from the company that gave us one of the classiest and longest-lived pillarless roofs ever to grace a two-door hardtop. Virtually unchanged from 1957 through 1963, it beautified virtually every Ford model lineup as the hallmark of Ford’s best design idea since the 1939 Continental.
Even the Mustang’s roof was only a minor variation on that theme. I’m getting away from stupid, though.
That’s more like it. In the same way Ford used that classic roof for many years on many models, Ford’s brilliant front-end design graced just about everything that bore Henry’s name during the ’70s: The generic Ford-mobile. I guess the designers were too busy cobbling up the next great Landau roof. Or maybe a new Brougham emblem. Or the Granada ESS, or Mustang II King Cobra. It’s all in the name, stupid.
How about the “Futura Opera-ette” window….since it seems Ford took the Opera Windows from a 73 T-Bird and merged them with the upcoming “Futura Bird”.
I like frameless door glass and side glass that ALL goes all the way down. I don’t like opera windows – big sail panel C pillars look great. Here’s my ’77 Lincoln…vinyl roof removed.
A nice, nice Lincoln. You don’t often see the ones without that (IMHO) stupid opera window. It looks great shorn of its vinyl roof, as well. These cars are favorites of mine.
Yes, it looks clean, like a ’60s Continental, aided by the plainly but elegantly styled ‘Deluxe’ wheelcovers used 1975-1977.
Notice (previous photo) also I pulled the silly 5-mph impact bumpers in – like a ’72, before the Feds hijacked automobile styling.
Here’s my ’77 alongside a friend’s ’68
Beautiful cars, both of them. I like the wheel discs you are talking about. They are almost impossible to find in decent condition.
Beautiful car, and the tucked bumpers are a big improvement. The metal top really cleans up the looks too!
I look at this picture and then think of any modern Lincoln, and I just wanna go home and cry.
I hate frameless windows except on pillarless hardtops. I had a Probe with frameless windows and I hated them. They sealed poorly and I often had to roll the windows down then back up to get them to seal. Give me sedan style doors any day.
I never understood why, if the pillarless hardtopr HAD to die, why oh why did the back glass HAVE to be fixed? I don’t buy the “increased A/C use” argument. That just cheapened the car and made buying a coupe impractical.
Somewhere, somebody at Ford (GM, Chrysler, et. al.) knew about you. And decided to make your life miserable.
Who owns a 60s/70s American car with black wall tires??????? WHY??????
On our market and it didnt matter who made the car factory whitewalls signified automatic transmission, a trend dumped in the 70s when manual became optioned and auto standard equipment and even faker broughams turned up.
The pillarless hardtop didn’t have to die, but leaving a pillar in made it much easier to meet roll-over standards and helped make the entire structure stiffer. Both are goals lately.
Y’all too hard on the Big Three of the mid 1970s. Just because of f^^^ing OPEC once-loyal and manly Americans – who for YEARS had been buying homegrown and big – suddenly wanted pansy-ass little foreign jobs designed for midgets who like cramped, spartan interiors and hard seats, all in the name of frugality. As well, the 1970s after OPEC’s 1973 embargo, was a period of rampant inflation coupled with low growth – ‘stagflation’. It was too overwhelming for the Big Three to deal with all at once, understandably. Imagine if limp Europeans all of a sudden DEMANDED only great big wheeled landyachts with great big, single-digit mileage V8 engines and plush interiors. Would FIAT and CITROEN have coped better than Ford did when confronted with the opposite scenario? No.
As well, and given the culture and economy, and CAFE and speed limits and plunging power outputs from primitive emissions gear and greater crash safety etc mandated by Washington, people sought comfort in luxury – personal luxury car models BOOMED. The 1977-1979 Thunderbird was one of the great sales successes of all time.
Buyers WANTED what now looks like silly frippery (but which many of us admire, 35 years on).
Give Ford a break! I’d take a ’75 LTD Coupe over a ’75 Eurojap micro-blob a thousand times over.
+1. and silly pillar window aside (it was expected to have a vinyl roof) I still like the looks of that LTD better than anything they make now.
More xenophobia and bigotry. Nice use of a racial slur. Face it, American cars past 1972 were mostly garbage.
For real, if you take these cars this seriously you must have a secret hatred of them. I love these big-ass 70’s boats but I have no problem admitting they were trash and designed to be that way. I will say that I can agree with the fact that the Big Three were blindsided by harsh regulations and a violent fuel shortage, but they responded far more arrogantly than they should have. Just look at their efforts: Chevy built a nice-looking little coupe with a cool name that was built with idiotic engineering and probably designed to fail, Ford made a decent car that was too cramped (even for a compact) and actually a safety hazard (I won’t even mention the whole lawsuit debacle), and Chrysler… Chrysler didn’t even respond, they just stuck to their guns with the Dart. Sufficed to say, the Big Three acted like children at the worst possible time and ruined American cars for a lot of people.
That was great…!
Referring to Dermot
For some reason I can’t reply to Mobes, but yes – what Mobes said.
These cars were garbage from every point of view. Big outside, small inside, slow and ugly and made for really old people wearing polyester pants. But ain’t that ‘merica as J.C Mellencamp once sang. Little pink houses for you and me, indeed.
My aunt traded her beautiful 1966 Ford LTD 2door hardtop (Black over Vintage Burgundy, concave rear window, coke bottle curves) for one of these hideous vehicles. I still haven’t fully recovered.
So buy one yourself and enjoy it!
There was at least one coupe of the era that had a B pillar as well as roll-down rear quarter windows: the 1974-78 Matador.
yeah.. too bad Matador looked like a toad.
It looks like on first glance the car was designed with the larger triangler window and the other little one was put after as a hack to the design to fix it on the cheap.
Definitely not one of Ford’s better ideas. It looks as though the original design called for a “band” or “tiara” of some sort that would include the little opera window.
I’d call it the Ford Deuxcoupe de Verre, as it combined two thrilling design ideas into one car – the wide, formal C-pillar offered “Thunderbird Elegance” at LTD prices, while the “exciting new Glass Pillar” in the center (a Ford exclusive!) offered increased visibility and styling distinction.
Exactly my thought. The small rectangular window seems design to accept an applique of some sort that probably wasn’t finalised.
The PPG glass phone call had me laughing out loud — classic! I lack the creativity & humor to come up with a better name.
I’d like to see the Photoshop expert eliminate this window in two ways:
1. Wheelbase — chop 12 inches off the wheelbase — to heck with rear seat passengers!
2. Just fill it in.
Okay, thanks.
I’d probably cut Ford a little slack on this one if that middle window pivoted like a ventipane or rolled down. It’s not like there’s no place for it to go or anything. I mean “why not” throw a little more money at this design & make it semi-functional.
I can’t help another shameless plug but that Mustang looks very familiar. Hopefully it’s not hiding as much rust as ours is.
The Mazda Cosmo (RX-5/121) had a comparable treatment where the center pane did actually roll down.
” How stupid do you think we are?” Well, they sold at least one….
I never noticed how the two windows weren’t the same height. It looks so stupid now. It looks like a bad photoshop.
I have always hated windows that didn’t roll down.
My dad had a 1975 Coupe De Ville and as a little kid I wanted to take it to a shop and have the back windows at least open to the back if the couldn’t go down.
Note how the LTD in the first ad shot is parked on the water’s edge, just like the Omega ad posted the other day? Did Ford and GM use the same ad agency or was this just the style in the ’70’s?
They had to go somewhere after the fields-of-yellow-weeds period finished playing out.
Another, “how the hell are we getting out of here” couple
Kind of like all the Thunderbird ads that were shot on the tarmac 🙂
I’m assuming the vehicle was originally designed as a 2-dr hardtop and then with the imposition of rollover standards by the NHTSA, the designers at Ford had to come up with a quick fix and this was the result. “Two Door Pillared Hardtop” definitely sounds more classy than “Two Door Sedan”-which it basically was.
This wasn’t the first time such descriptive terminology was used, in the mid-sixties, several of the GM intermidiates-the Buick Skylark, Olds Cutlass and Pontiac Tempest offered two-door sedans only they were called “thin pillar coupes”. It sounds more upscale than simply two-door sedan, which were regarded as something of a bottom feeder in the automotive marketplace.
GM called the personal luxury versions of its 1973 intermediates “Colonnade hardtops.”
Actually all the two- and four-door 1973 GM intermediates (not just the personal luxury coupes) were called Colonnade Hardtops, according to perusal of brochures archived at http://www.oldcarbrochures.com. In 1974, Chevy was already dropping the “Colonnade” terminology in its brochures, and by 1975 most of the other divisions had followed suit – but in different ways; some used “Hardtop Coupe” and “Hardtop Sedan”; others, just “Coupe” and “Sedan.” Olds seems to have held onto the Colonnade label through 1976, the second-last year of the design.
Colonade always makes me think of that nasty liquid you have to down the night before a colonoscopy procedure.
Many GM cars make me think of the same thing. 🙂
Colonnade cars.. I can’t see any of those without being reminded of Kojak’s 1973(?) four door unmarked Buick Century cop car.
Kojak could make any car he was in cool.
Who loves ya baby?
The actual roof crush standards (49 CFR § 571.216) probably didn’t have anything to do with it — they went into effect a year or two before this and quite a few existing pillarless hardtops passed just fine. Tougher standards were considered (that was one of the reasons the Pacer’s roof pillars were as thick as they were, to allow room for a roll bar that was never actually added) but not enacted, and the standard is only now being increased from its 1974 level: new requirements are being phased in for MY2013.
Claims that rollover standards were the basis for this design shouldn’t be taken too seriously; after all, the equivalent (although longer-wheelbase) Mercury car, the Marquis, had a traditional two-door hardtop design during the same years. See photo at “jpcavanaugh” below.
The New 9 Window LTD Coupe For ’75. A Lesser Idea From Ford.
The more I look at that LTD the more I like it..
Odd duck window or not it’s a fairly clean design. The generic Ford face and the track width that’s about 8″ too narrow for the body are things i habe issues with
Some of this is due to preparing for ‘roll-over standards’ that never came about. But also to appeal to excess styling to ‘out do’ each other on Opera Windows.
Coupe de Vile? Pardon me, everyone – I speak Ford. In 1970s Ford-speak, a pillared hardtop was a car with a center pillar but with frameless window glass. Starting in 1971, 4 door models came as a sedan, a hardtop and a pillared hardtop that sort of split the difference. At some point, the sedan and hardtop went away (either 1973 or 1975, I don’t remember) and the pillared hardtop was left through the 78 models. I guess they just transferred the name to the 2 doors once the hardtop style went away after the 74s.
As for the design, here is my theory. Without the little center pane, the rear side window would be too long and ungainly looking. Just look at the 74 Fury 2 door hardtop. The rear side window was just too big and the proportions were never right.
Another possibility is that this design somehow used some of the 1973-74 coupe C pillar tooling, but with a big window cutout. The space where the old little narrow quarter window had been got filled by a fat piece of sheetmetal, that would have looked bad too. The little window panel was another variation on the opera window theme that was epidemic then.
FWIW, I never liked these coupes very well either.
Anyhow, it is not as though Ford cornered the market on ungainly looking coupes.
At least the quarter window does roll down on these.
All the more reason to move up to the Big M.
The Big M! I fell into this ’56 brochure the other night and didn’t want to climb out.
But the rear quarter windows on the Mercury are still fixed, though (at least after 1974).
Seems to be a lot of slamming of classic 1970s bread and butter Americana here. What would you guys prefer? A real man’s ’75 LTD with all the many styling faults you point out, or a limpdick Japanese or European car of 1975? Want a Passatt Wagon? With styling worse than a half-rotted corpse of a rodent? A Honda Civic, designed for eunuchs? An Audi, designed for runts with no pride? Or a big, roomy, comfortable, ruggedly engineered, All-American Ford with a V8 engine and easy servicing???? Man, I know which I’d take.
Were you alive in the ’70s? The Detroitus of the day was worse than indifferent in assembly quality and performance. People that couldn’t let go of their misplaced loyalty came to accept that their new cars would be worse made, slower, tackier, and less reliable than the ones they had before. With very few exceptions, the only way you could tell these clunkers had V8s under their hoods was by their fuel consumption. As for the pimpmobiles’ maniliness, these cars were completely false; fake convertible tops, fake radiator shells, fake wood interiors, fake wire wheel-covers, fake fender vents, fake gauges in the dash surrounded by fake stitching molded into fake leather. There is nothing masculine about wearing a costume. I’m not going to pretend the mid ’70s were a time of automotive excellence missed out on only by the UAW-3, but I would take a ’75 BMW 2002, Honda Civic, VW Scirocco, or Mercedes-Benz 300D over anything from Detroit in an instant.
I’ve driven a hell of a lot of the “classic 1970s bread and butter Americana” back in the day and I’ll tell you that, all things being equal, I’d rather drive a 1970s VW Scirocco or Honda Accord than a deep-malaise barge like the LTD.
I sense a lot of racism, xenophobia, and homophobia here. Look. I’m a US car guy. But I admit that ’70s cars, both foreign and domestic, were mostly terrible. The American cars were neutered by smog devices and the Asian cars were rustbuckets. European cars were OK but no ’70s car can compare to an equivalent ’60s car or a post ’90 car.
Demo Derby drivers at Rt 66 Raceway in Joliet IL love these big Fords. But, supply is down, wonder why? Now they have ‘after 1980’ car demo runs, before brining out the big metal.
But, how long can they last? I’d like to see full size SUV demo, with 10 year old Escalades, Navagators, Suburbans, getting trashed.
+100! I’ve been waiting for SUV demo derbies for the past ten years now! In eastern WA they have school bus demo derbies, and even combine demo derbies. I can just hear the announcer now: “OK folks, we’re gonna take a break from the heat races, and now it’s time for the Explorer rollover contest!”
Unfortunately, Cash for Clunkers took a lot of potential vehicles out of the derby gene pool.
Roll overs may be why there are no SUV demo derbies. But, I’ve seen minvan and pickup demo derby videos on You Tube.
I went to a minivan demo derby at the local fall fair last weekend. They ran it in between rounds of 4-cylinder figure-8 racing.
I’ve seen a Figure 8/Enduro race that had both pickups and SUVs running at once. (And for the record, there was an Explorer in there.)
The winner was a ’97-03 Ford F-150, which had basically broken in half by the time it reached the finish line the second time!
Its a disgrace trashing old American cars in demo derbies – what not use pansyass Eurojap junk instead?????? What side are we on? Wreck the imports!
Gee Paul – surprised to see this from you. After all, the 70’s had so many more design abominations than this one. If it weren’t for a few select automobiles, the entire decade could be criticized.
Gotta start somewhere; although this is hardly my first shot.
I own several objects of ridicule here but once I thickened my skin a little & came out of my POS-closet, I REALLY started enjoying this place!
Were they trying to evoke the ’55 Crown Victoria? Naw, probably not, or they’d have used the name. (I have a nice set of ’56 Crown Vic shots in the hopper at home for a CC one of these days.)
Wikipedia says:
Pillared Hardtop
This name was used by Ford in the 1970s to describe its bodies which had frameless door glass like a hardtop, but retained a center pillar like a sedan. The 1972-1976 Torino sedans and wagons were of this type, as were the 1975-1979 Lincoln Town Cars. When GM introduced a similar style on their intermediates for 1973–1977, they called the two-doors Colonnade Hardtop Coupe and the four-doors, in a triumph of ad agency gibberish, Colonnade Hardtop Sedan. The 1976 Buick Century sedan used this configuration. Before Ford introduced its “Pillared Hardtops” in the early seventies, GM had the same body style available on its “C” body cars (Buick Electra 225, Oldsmobile 98 and Cadillacs) from 1965 to 1970. GM called them “semi-thin pillar sedans” as they had a slightly larger center pillars than other GM sedans (that were called “thin pillar sedans”) but they had no window frames like the “thin pillar sedans” had. Chrysler’s 1979-1981 R-body sedans were marketed as pillared hardtops as they had frameless windows with a thin center pillar between them.
Thanks for the informative post! That clears up the terminology, somewhat.
How stupid do you think we are? – I have learned in my chosen profession to NEVER ask that question, although generally I want to direct it at the state education department.
Back to the car. I know I’m likely the only one but let me stick up for the last “full-size” LTD. I like it. The lines overall are crisp, there are no stupid hidden headlights (hidden headlights are stupid on a less than Lincoln/Cadillac/Imperial), and the 5 mph bumpers are well integrated into the design. (I’m also a defender of 5 mph bumpers generally, I like their ability to push when you need to.)
I would have this car painted a different color but I like the chrome and I like dual exhausts, I even like the cheesy aftermarket wheels. Giver her a good cleaning and shine up and let’s hit the highway for a coast to coast run! Interstate all the way!
Gotta respectfully disagree on the hidden headlights. They look pretty sweet on 1967-70 Mercury Cougars.
> They look pretty sweet on 1967-70 Mercury Cougars.
…and Dodge Chargers, 1970-71 Plymouth Sport Furies, 1968-71 Chrysler 300, Torinos…
…or one of these
I too don’t care much for hidden headlights (make an exception for Corvette and Miata), but the ’75-’78 top-of the-line LTD’s had ’em. They didn’t look as good with the headlight covers, fender skirts, and thick lower bodysde molding. Too much “frosting”.
Hidden headlights look good when they’re blended into the grille or part of the aero. Otherwise I never cared for the 70s versions found on Big cars like Lincolns, with the half blended to the body/half tinsel appearances.
And I still like hidden headlights more than the clear covers over ugly flashlight HID pods.
Hi all,
I’ve been lurking here for a few weeks and really like the site. Hope it’s not too forward to post without more of an introduction. I really had to see what that car would look like if that pesky window was gone:
Nicely done! Better looking too.
Welcome; and that is a big improvement. Thanks! Shall we forward it to Ford?
Thanks guys, glad you enjoyed it.
That’s exactly what I asked for above. ‘Preciate it!
Ford Granada Twindow!
+1 🙂
Another possibility – photoshopping is a little crude here but you get the idea:
Great improvement.
Here’s another way of doing it using a shortened frame with a full rear quarter glass.
I was going to have a little fun here by noting that in the 50’s, 60,s and 70,s, a non pillared hard top meant noise, leaks, and dust. The more I looked at the picture though the uglier it got. It’s still true about the noise, leaks, and dust but have it your way. That’s a car I don’t want.
Pane in the butt. That’s what those windows were. Ever try to clean one from the inside?
Ford was to come out with the very popular 77 Thunderbird, this seems to be an odd predecessor of that. This, a more awkward version to be sure. But I really like what they did on the 77 T-Bird.
This chop is more in that vein.
Nice!
Or, just getting rid of it all together!
Seems a little dour LOL.
Funny, with the large quarter window that you posted above it looks GM and with the “PPG Oops” window removed and a thick pillar it looks Chrysler..
I thought the exact same thing!
That looks much better. . . now, just add a vinyl top.
The “basket handle” 77 T-Bird for reference. There is a bit of the Tiara 56 Crown Vic to it.
Second stupidest roof ever.
It was quite popular then. It almost made it to the next generation, but was switched to Fairmont Futura. I’d bet most readers here would disagree, even now.
Don’t remind me; I had to look at it much more often than I wanted to at the time 🙂
I rather like this pic, it’s a good angle and the colors look good on it.
But you have understand that growing up I was around a LOT of this generation of ‘Bird. My grandparents and several aunts and uncles drove quite a few of these and Cougar XR7’s of this vintage throughout the 80’s and 90’s. So I kind of have a bit of a soft spot for them.
The 1975 Mazda RX-5 Cosmo had a similar window treatment, but with two differences:
– It lined up better
– The small rectangular window rolled down
I always thought the 77-79 T-Bird was a cheapened version of the 75-80 Mazda Cosmo.
Mazda succumbed to the Brougham disease as well, adding a “Coupe” version like this …
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mazda121left_02.jpg
I think even in that version, the “opera window” still rolls down, unlike the Detroit versions.
There are further similarities between Ford and Mazda …
The 1981 Cosmo has a roof treatment very similar to the “2dr Pillared Hardtop” Here again the little window rolls down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mazda_HB_Cosmo_003.JPG
That first Mazda coupe reminded me of this car:
http://auto.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/09/1976-monza.jpg
How about “The Crystal Palace.”
Love the ’59 Ford Galaxie brochure, it sold my father immediately, a Thunderbird look-alike at an affordable price. One of the best 2-door hardtop roofs ever.
My ’62 Galaxie 500s have the Thunderbird roofline. One of them has a “Thunderbird” 390 engine with 390 callout badges that are in the shape of birds with racing flags. Even the valve covers say “THUNDERBIRD”.
I kind of like the Ford 2 dr Pillared Hardtop. I can recall looking at them in 1976, but I really wanted a true 2 dr HT. New 2 dr HTs were rare in 76.
Ford must have come up with something. The 77-79 Thunderbirds are a refinement of that theme.
Am I the only one who finds that green version pictured in the article to be attractive? I know that window is ungainly, but I like it. Perhaps it’s why I am here.
You aren’t alone. I keep picturing it with a set of Cragars or Torq Thrusts.
I kind of like the stock wheels!
Me too!
I want a set of those wheels. They are almost the same as the optional aluminum wheels available on 1978-79 Cordobas, and should have the same 4.5″ bolt circle too.
I still think the “4-Door Coupe” BMW and Mercedes have been hocking in recent years is equal to, or more irritating than the stupid “pillared hardtop”.
Who do you think hired the marketing guys Ford was forced to fire due to the recession? 🙂
I agree. And the Benz CLS looks like a suppository.
Agreed. 4-door coupes are every bit as loathsome as personal luxury cars were.
Spelling Police: The Stupid*e*st Roof Design ever. Fix the title please, if its unintentional.
” It’s as though PPG called up Ford and said, “Hey, we’ve got a couple hundred thousand little window panes in two odd sizes, and we really need to get rid of them. We’ll make you a deal.” and Ford replied,”Yeah, send ‘em on over. We’ll make ‘em fit somehow.”
PPG? This is a Ford. Shouldn’t that be L-O-F? Libby-Owens-Ford.
Yes I know everybody used everybody elses glass.
First time I saw the ’75 full size Ford coupes, it DID look strange, but, in time, since these were everywhere, I guess I got used to them. Even in auto-diverse Northern California in the day, these were pretty common. But, as I mentioned in the Custom 500 post, I remember seeing quite a few of these as various business car/fleet models in and around the Bay Area – sans vinyl roof and with blackwalls and dog dish Ford wheel covers. Brown and Maroon were common mid ’70s Ford colors, or so it seemed.
I’ve never been a fan of Stupid-Era Fords, and this stylistic abomination is a case in point. Ford was fond of designer editions such as the Givancy Edition or the Bill Blass Edition and whatnot. Since this beast is essentially a Crown Victoria without a tiara, I’d call it the Wallis Warfield Simpson Edition LTD.
Well, I can chalk up another “Reverse CC Effect” moment. Yesterday afternoon I saw one of these a few blocks from the Rock Island County Courthouse. It was an olive green sedan, and there was a brown ’75 or ’76 Coupe de Ville in front of it. Why, oh why, didn’t I stop for pictures?
I’ve been in Davenport for the last 3 days looking at houses and REEEEEEEALLLLLY wish I wasn’t rushing from one place to another so I could grab some pics. Like the Pontiac 6000 at Hy Vee or Celebrity Eurosport at the Wally World or even the derelict Rambler and Corvair on River Drive near Caseys.
I’ve seen more CCs in these three days than I have in 10 years back in Chicago! I’m going to love it here!
So you got the job, cool. You will soon use up all the memory on your camera taking pictures. Last week I saw a white ’91 Custom Cruiser. And I just saw a 6000 myself yesterday. It was just a few blocks from my aunt’s house.
Forget the car, I like the house!
Haven’t we done this before?
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1978-ford-ltd-coupe-the-last-of-the-whoppers/
Way down in the string, I did a photochop of the feature car in that post, with the same results as the one today…
I was never a fan of this particular style, but it must have left quite the impression on Paul! And not a good one…
Yup. I submitted that piece just before I got so sick.
I have to agree that there seems to be only one way to skin this cat. I did try deleting the pillar(s) entirely, which necessitated some other adjustments… I still don’t like the end result as much however. It just doesn’t seem as well proportioned as the pillar-less mercury pictured above and I can only imagine there would be a helluva blind spot on both sides.
Nicely done-how about trying a Lincoln opera window for that final “Brougham” touch…
You do know that chopped door is about the length of a new Fiat 500, right? 😉
Paul, if you hadn’t found that brochure page with the green car, I would’ve thought that B-pillar window was some owner’s attempt to customize their car. Even the chrome bezel doesn’t seem to match the rest of the windows.
I don’t get what all the fuss is about. What’s wrong with “pillared hardtop” as a name? That’s what it is — frameless door glass combined with a B-pillar. Sounds less pretentious than GM’s “colonnade.”
The main goal of the design would appear to be to visually break up the expanse of the area behind the front door. As mentioned above, this also allowed the LTD to offer a family resemblance to the T-Bird. Say what you will about the latter, but at least it deviated a little from the usual notchback look.
Not saying the LTD looks that great by contemporary standards, but at the time the pillared hardtop was all the rage with mid-sized cars (e.g., Cordoba and Monte Carlo), and this was a cheap way for Ford to follow suit without shortening the wheelbase of the full-sized LTDs behind the doors in order to get the proportions right.
The term “hardtop” is supposed to mean that there is no B-pillar, in addition to having frameless windows. The idea is that a hardtop resembles a convertible with the roof up. Some hardtop cars even have sharp creases in the roof where the bows would be, to more closely resemble the shape of a convertible roof.
Part of the fuss is because “pillared hardtop” is an oxymoron. This is really a 2-door sedan with an opera window in the B-pillar.
IIRC, GM originally named the new body style the “hardtop convertible” in 1949.
I recalled that someone called the bodystyle a “hardtop convertible” but I couldn’t find a reference so I didn’t mention it. If you google “hardtop convertible” you get a zillion references to current cars with actual folding hardtops.
It was called that in part because it was built on the body (and frame) of the convertibles; literally a “hardtop convertible”, except that it wasn’t convertible anymore.
The 1948 Chrysler T&C Club Coupe was actually the first, but built in only very small numbers.
I agree with BOC. It is like saying a “station wagon sedan” or a “V8 six cylinder”.
Kaiser/Fraser had a car they called a “4 door hardtop” with sedan window frames. I don’t personally consider them hardtops but that is how they were marketed.
Hi everyone. I’ve been an avid reader of CC for about 6 months now and finally decided to register. CC is terriffic, with litttle drama, agendas or politics. Just a bunch of guys who love cars and well written articles by talented writers. One of my daily “must reads”.
My father bought one of these barges in 1975, a top of the line silver LTD Landau. As with most silver cars of this era, the paint was gone in 3 years. The handling was horrible and the 400 V8 did all that it could to get this beast moving. The 390 in his old ’69 LTD was much quicker. I agree that the 2 door roof and window treatment could best be described as odd. It just didn’t work. It’s hard to imagine some Ford designer looking at his efforts here and proclaiming “that’s it!”. The 4 door version was actually quite handsome, better than Caprice and Fury. I was puzzled why the old man bought the 2 door as all of his previous cars had been 4 doors. He said he “liked the looks”. Go figure.
Paul, I grew up and still live near Towson, MD and am quite familair with all the old haunts you’ve described. Towson Ford is long gone as I’m sure are most of their cars that you so lovingly drove.
Welcome! Yes, the Towson area isn’t exactly brimming with Curbside Classics. Good thing I moved!
I am loving this style.
FORD lives… I LOVE My Landau 2d
CPJ, if you’ve been here long enough and previously read his stuff at “The Truth About Cars” you’d know that Paul is no Ford fan! It’s not an agenda, but a definite bias. But that’s OK, I’m a BIG Ford fan…….and disagree with him a lot….and post accordingly!
This is one car where even I have to ask “WTF were they thinking?” The design worked much better on the 77 Thunderbird/Futura.
I wonder if the larger problem is that, by the 1970s, no two-door full-size car is really attractive. Cars that large simply look better as four-door sedans or four-door hardtops.
I can’t think of a single Big Three full-size car built between 1971 and 1976 that I’d rather have as a coupe than a four-door. After 1976, the only full-size car that is really attractive as a coupe is the 1977-79 Chevrolet Impala and Caprice with the wrap-around rear window.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree! As much as I adore the Boat-tail Riviera backlight, I find the three-piece rear window on the somewhat bland ’77-’79 Chevies a bit klunky.
The ’71-’73 Chevy Custom Coupe bodystyle on the other hand was just beautiful in its excessiveness…not to mention the fact that these cars had superb trunk access! The only awful part about this style is the package shelf could only accomodate those miserable 4×10 speakers.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/time-to-unwrap-the-wrapped-car-unwrapped-virtually/
I also happen to like the “sport coupe” styling on the ’71-3 B-body Pontiacs no more and no less than their 4-door hardtop brethren but I’ll spare attaching any more pics of those. I may sound biased in the Pontiac department since my drivers are 2-doors but that’s only because I haven’t run across any 4-door hardtop specimens — they are nearly impossible to find.
“I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree! As much as I adore the Boat-tail Riviera backlight, I find the three-piece rear window on the somewhat bland ’77-’79 Chevies a bit klunky. ”
I’m with you. I find the redesigned notchback version for 1980 more attractive. Of all the 77-79 downsizers, I think the most attractive coupe version is the LeSabre.
agreed
Now THAT’s a good looking big car.
The 1971-73 Rivieras were originally supposed to built on the intermediate platform. Mitchell designed it with the intention that it would be “downsized,” much as the Pontiac Grand Prix was for 1969. He was overruled by the Buick Division general manager.
I think it would have looked much better as an intermediate-size car.
Might have sold better, too.
Interesting proposition. I really like the 2 door versions of the 72-74 Lincoln, the 71-73 Cadillac and especially the 71-72 Ford LTD. I am also partial to the 76-78 New Yorker coupe. However, each of these also makes a very attractive 4 door car. I think that upon reflection, the 71-72 LTD may be the only one that looks better as a 2 door, with that unique formal roof with the huge blind C pillar. Not everyone’s cup of tea, but I have always liked the look.
Further reflection: my car-mentor Howard owned a black 72 Chrysler Newport 2 door – solid black in and out, and with no vinyl roof to mess it up. He liked to swap wheels among his vehicles, and the Chrysler got its turn with some wide slotted aluminum mags with white letter Goodrich T/As. It was one cool looking car that looked better than any 4 door 72 Newport I ever saw.
JP, I always thought that the fuselage Mopars (including the Dodge and Plymouth) looked better as four-door hardtops than as two-door hardtops.
The two-doors (not just on the Mopars, but on the Ford and GM cars, too) have a smaller greenhouse on a huge lower body…they don’t look as balanced as the four-door hardtops. The deck lids are WAY too long.
The best-looking full-size coupes from that era are the 1971-76 Cadillac DeVilles. I’d still prefer a Sedan DeVille or, better yet, a Fleetwood.
But, just like observed fuel mileage, our opinions obviously vary.
Thanks for reminding me — This 2-door bodystyle is a knockout to me and blows the 4-door away. Pic from imperialclub.com (a fantastic website, btw).
I’m with you on the 1971-76 Pontiacs. I also really like the ’77-’79 Bonneville and Catalina coupes, especially the ones with the brushed aluminum B-pillars and no vinyl roof.
I think the early 1970s Coupe de Ville’s look preferable to the Sedans
I felt same as Paul about the side window treatment when these first came out. The basket handle T-bird bothered me even more. But now (and I haven’t seen even a pic of one in years) it looks surprisingly good! Especially with those allow wheels and the blackwalls.
Why was it done this way? Because Ford was stuck with the same obsolete body they’d had unchanged since 1973 and based on the 1965 redesign. Ford in those days was in chaos; Hank da Deuce hiding a shiv in his sleeve for Lido; who wanted to make the joint Iacocca Motors. Meantime, the product planners were getting beat-up in board sessions as they tried to sell such insane ideas as the Mini-Max wagon, the minivan Lido later took with him to ChryCo; and the Tiger…the all-new FWD full-size car that would have branded Ford once again a leader.
Instead, Hank II, tired of his job, and Lundy, the miserly bookkeeper, opted for the half-fast remake, the Panther. And all the infighting and the Sacking of Lee, took a couple of years.
The stylists had to do SOMETHING with that horrid kit-bashed mess that was the 1973-1974 LTD. Why not make it MORE of a mess, on the same theme?
They succeeded. Not in making an appealing car; but as an evolution I can easily follow it.
Thanks for the colourful account. This at least makes some sense of this insane design.
The 1973-74 Ford LTD was an acceptable design for the period. It was hardly a “mess.”
The 1973 Chevrolet Bel Air/Impala/Caprice was better looking, but the 1974 version wasn’t any more attractive than the Ford.
The 1973 Plymouth Fury was a desperate attempt to keep the tired fuselage body “fresh” while meeting the 5 mph bumper standards. The “all-new” 1974 Fury was basically a 1972 Buick LeSabre with bigger bumpers and Plymouth badges.
Is there any info on the fwd Tiger available? I’ve never heard of that.
This is hardly the ‘stupidest’ roof design ever. Do an online image search for ‘Volvo 262 C’ and you may sing a different tune. Though that roof design may look so bad because it just simply doesn’t flow with the rest of the car.
Sadly, the “pillared hardtop” was what was being passed off as “innovation” by the Big 3 in the 70’s instead of making their products cheaper, better, more durable, etc. They resorted to pointless exercises like this which in the end was an exercise in “putting lipstick on the pig.” No small wonder that they had their heads handed to them by the Asian manufacturers and subsequently lost a generation of new car buyers, ‘en masse.’
I’m leaving this site…..I thought it might be for folks who admire big American cars of the 60s and 70s but its like being on a rice car forum.
Bye,
Dermot
come back – all is forgiven!
I had a 78 2dr Landau in Dove Grey like this one from 2000 to 2005. Loved that color. It was a fully loaded one. Never any problems, even being 22 years old. They were made with time tested materials. I miss mine very much! Should have gotten rid of the wife instead of it. Live and learn!
The windows are not that bad. I had a landau coupe and it was Beautiful sky blue glow with white top and trim. I like the flip up lights and the fender skirts. While a little odd the window looked better than the gm cars had. That was a rock solid reliable car. I still miss it. Only thing that ever broke and was defective was the flimsy self destructing arm rests. They always broke apart especially on the power window cars. Only fix and way to get a good one was to get one off a manual window car and cut a hole for the switch. These cars had solid engines and drivetrains and strong bumpers. They really held up well much better cars than the gm equivalents. I liked mine so much I replaced it with a 78 Lnndau sedan. I drove these cars for 25 years until I dounsized to panther Lincolns. Best version is the landau with fender skirts, 460, turbine wheels towing package with power everylhing. These were very nice cars. Close to a Lincoln in style and comfort. Both of mine were white top over blue. My sedan had Lincoln turbines and a Lincoln emblem on the hood and emblems removed with the holes filled. Most people thought it was a Cadillac or a Lincoln. That car lasted 34 years on the original engine and over 300 thousand miles. It was sold to an elderly friend who got t boned by a car going 55 and no one in the ford got hurt inspire of no air bags or seatbelt use.
Ford’s new Alcatraz ‘Safety Cell’ security glazing? Ford’s revolutionary ‘I Spy!’ luxury privacy windows? (There could be a more sophisticated, zen approach for the west coast market – something like ‘Life is random and meaningless…and so are our windows!’)
But for the whole campaign, I like the tagline –
For 1975, Ford gives America the cars it deserves! *
* Aussi Canada Also ( Prices slightly higher. )
‘Life is random and meaningless… and so are our windows.’
Gold.
Is the B pillar now counted as a B and a C pillar?
My father bought one of these things new in 1975. Time has not made my memory fonder- it’s a bloated, tacky, tasteless embarrassment of a vehicle now just as it was even in 1975.
Should have been PILLORIED for all the ridicule…
Uh oh, now your stomping on my turf! I had a Dove Grey 78 2Dr LTD Landau from 2002 to 2006. It was a great car. Paid $600 for it. I found nothing at all wrong about the roof line. And mine had the half vinyl roof also. Enjoyed many trouble free trips between home and Dallas/Ft. Worth in it. It was still a quiet smooth riding car. I shoulda kept it.
The concept of the window-in-the-b-pillar appeals to me for some strange reason. The execution, though, is horrid! How much harder would it have been to make it the same height as the windows on either side of it? Come on, Ford. The one in the T-bird looks intentionally smaller, with its own shape–this one just looks careless.
Omitted from the 1975 full-size Ford brochure due to an editing error:
“We’ve torn the LTD a new glasshole. Two, actually. One on each side.”
THIS is the article that got Paul the opportunity (sentenced?) to drive the Subaru 360.
JPC said it a few years ago, Ford hardly had a lock on ungainly rooflines in the mid-late ’70s.
I think two things were at play; stylists may have tired of the traditional two door hardtop after doing it constantly for about 25 years, and sometimes their experimentation was rewarded. A third factor may have been anticipated Federal roll over standards for stronger roofs that never materialized.
The ’73 GM Colonnade coupes epitomized the rewards of new rooflines on volume mainstream cars. Ford had a hit with the “opera” window.
My dad brought home one of these LTD coupes – a dealer loaner car when his LTD was in for service. It was white with a red vinyl top.
I do recall thinking the little center window was rather strange at the time, but got used to it. It did look a bit better with a vinyl top treatment, and stylists of the time definitely styled some vehicles with vinyl decoration in mind – the take rate on vinyl decoration was so high at that it was fair for them to assume how the typically equipped car would look.
The window treatment does not seem that bad to me. As with the Catalina and Delta 88 coupes from 74-76 they were pretty obviously trying to limit blindspots while meeting the then feared rollover standards. To do these conflicting things while also not scaring away the mature brougham loving LTD market was a challenge.
This was a rather raucous thread. The picture of the younger couple with the LTD on the beach is drawing attention. People do not believe that this couple would drive an LTD. Even in 77 probably true, but sad. And just as true and sad no matter what window treatment Ford came up with.
I was wondering about that, especially as a foreigner. I can see older traditional buyers continuing to buy full-size even when it became over-size, but would a young couple have bought one of these? Or would they have rejected it as being Dad’s or Grandpa’s car, and gone for a (not all that much smaller) intermediate?
Not sure it was size so much. The Panther that replaced these lost 8 inches of wheelbase and 500+ pounds and the age of the owner only went up. The next generation just did not want this type of car, and did not want it from the big three domestics. It is probably the same in Australia, with the few still buying Comodores and Falcons being much older than those buying Corolllas and Mazda 3s.
I’m posting this to brighten your day a bit, and run counter to young person bias against this car.
First, nobody really expected a 16 to 25 year old to buy a 1977 LTD Landau – it was a reasonably expensive luxury car. The demo for the most part simply could not afford to buy and gas up such a vehicle. The trust fund babies may have been buying BMWs, but it was on daddy’s dime.
Plausibly, the couple is around 30 years of age, and they probably have kids spending the weekend with grandma and grandpa. They may have been driving a Pinto and a LeMans a few years earlier, but now the paychecks are getting better and there are two additional occupants with (yes, in 1977) baby seats to consider.
The same physics that drive Explorer, Expedition and F-150 sales today are the ones that drove LTD sales in 1977. People that need space buy the big vehicles that fit their needs. Heck, my dad bought his first full size car in 1968 at the age of 33 and his second, a 1976 Ford LTD at 41. Not exactly a withered greybeard.
Anecdote: The young man that lived next door with his parents left for Vietnam and served his time there. His 1970 Camaro spent the time under his parent’s carport.
When he came back, he married rather quickly, got a decent job, and bought a 1974 Ford LTD Brougham with most of the trimmings.
As the “Mythbusters” would say: PLAUSIBLE
The window treatment looks like a few truckloads of miss matched windows arrived at the Ford plant. When the supplier was informed the pieces were not built to spec, the glass manufacturer said, “no charge dispose of them as you will”.
A bean counter told the stylists and production line to install these pieces in to what was to become the 1975 Ford 2-Door Pillared Hardtop.
It’s a good looking car, but seriously? A “pillared” hardtop? I thought hardtops weren’t supposed to be pillared.
OK, I’ll take the challenge. How about the Ford LTD Oriel Window Coupe? Totally agree this was the stupidest roof treatment of the era, with the 77-79 T-Bird and the 75-78 Mopar C Bodies with the padded landau treatment as my #2 and #3.
Three stupid ideas on one car: frameless door glass, an opera window and fixed rear side glass. Triple crown winner.
When in doubt add moar ! Just like the 70s.
But there is all that “road hugging weight” to compensate.
Regarding the naming contest – how about “Ford LTD Conversion Coupe?” Given the variety of mismatched windows in custom vans. . . It also would definitely need Lincoln’s thick shag carpeting in a burnt sienna color, with matching orange metallic paint and perhaps a gold vinyl top with matching square graphics fading out along sides. Or, it could just be brown. Add some swivelling seats from a Cutlass to add a little more bling and bang for your buck. An insulated center console for dockside fishing. And lastly, a velour barf receptacle. In all seriousness, though, vans are still b*tchin.’
I think this is a fine looking LTD — mags and all — in the top-most pic. All the elements (including window, imo) blend together quite nicely. If the small window was even, it would have a bus-like appearance, but I agree in that it looks better with the vinyl roof. Also the photo-shopped images in the comments really help with my imaginings (it was like magic! And poof they appeared in picture form when my brain needed help the most…)
I think the window is purpose-designed for the car. Without it, it would be a lesser vehicle — perhaps Ford Pinto? Much like the large Chrysler sedans of the 70s with their extra vents on the dashboard differentiating them from an A, F, or M body with their lesser vent numbers, perhaps Ford designers were saying the LTD was longer (thus more desired) car than its lesser brethren — kind of like a subliminal aesthetic signifying superiority and something more special.
I’m beginning to wonder whether there’s a size beyond which the two-door coupe design simply just does not work, no matter what window treatment you throw at it.
Thank you for pointing out the idiocy of the “pillared hardtop” name. It is an oxymoron like “4 door coupe”. I have gotten into many online arguments by folks claiming that these were true hardtops “because Ford said they were”. And yes, this was one of the dumbest roof designs of the ’70s. The ’77-’79 Thunderbird’s roof was even worse. Ford made some really ugly cars in the ’70s. GM and Chrysler had much better styling during that dark era.
“4-door coupe” would actually mean a vehicle with 4 doors, but a sloped rear roofline like a coupe. So, pretty much every sedan we have today, if you can’t sit in the rear seat without hitting your head, is a 4-door coupe.
I kinda like it . How about Tudor Twilight Hardtop? Ranks up there with Mongolian Civique or something like that which I believe was a proposed name for the Edsel.
I nearly gagged at the supper table when I saw the picture of the big grey LTD.
Another reminder how bad styling was during the latter part of the seventies. Funny how sometimes Ford stylists could come out with great designs and then…not. I always call this period a dark time in domestic automobile design and engineering. This is further evidenced by the 78 Córdoba now in my possession.
Once the ’71 Eldorado coupe appeared, every pretentious car had to have an opera window, whether there was a place for one or not. Ford latched onto that affectation as bad as any.
Come to think of it, didn’t the Mazda Cosmo have the same goofy window configuration?
And here it is!
If you’re looking for a stupid name for a car roof, I’d say, “hardtop convertible” from the mid-1950’s for pillarless cars whose roofs didn’t go down is even dumber than the pillared hardtop the author cited.
From the tone of these comments, I suggest we call it a pilloried hardtop.
Once again, Paul and I agree on a car.
Google Toronado XSR and tell me the LTD 2-door pillared hardtop is the stupidest design ever… lol
Ford managed to make a 4 door sedan look better than a 2 door! The kick up at the end of the rear door, the quarter panel crease accenting the raised rear deck…
You can even see better from the 4 door without the ‘rollover strength addition’.
If I had to have a 2 door Ford from 1975, I’d have bought a 351 Granada Ghia or a Ranchero.
Here’s the catalog for 1975: https://www.classiccarcatalogue.com/FORD_USA_1975.html
And yes, the 1974 2 door hardtop from the year before looked better. They should have just left it alone.
Toronado XSR
So much road-scraping weight!
I actually like this car quite a bit.
Luxo-boat with cool wheels.
Why not?
‘Hardtop’ was all for marketing and style. If car had frameless windows on the doors, it was still a ‘hardtop’ per Big 3 marketing executives. Buyers who could vividly remember 1955 in 1976 still thought so, too.
Slightly tangential, but with the mention of PPG, it’s notable that Ford did have its own glass plant in Nashville during this period.
https://www.nytimes.com/1958/06/19/archives/ford-motor-opens-huge-glass-plant-at-nashville-big-glass-plant.html
It’s now owned by a Japanese glass company.
https://www.glassonline.com/carlex-acquisition-of-ford-glass-plant/
I remember seeing this roof style and pretty confused about it. The mini pillar window was ridiculous. Intriging, but over the top.
The Consumer Report on these Fords recently presented here at CC reveals that these were good cars for this era. I always thought they were overwrought and gruesome, and I have had to adjust my view of them.
However, the Mercury line was more attractive in my opinion, and I find these Fords unattractive. This roofline didn’t help.
I’m a bit late to the party, but let’s see if we can’t top 200 comments.
Attached is a shot of the folks ’76 Ford Custom. I thought that it was a pretty decent package for the day with a 351M, air, AM/FM. It was a great cruising car, with the only net being the basic bench seat which was set too low and could be a strain on the back when going distance. Looks are subjective, but I didn’t recall it being more hideous than the contemporary cars in that period.
Back view.
A final look taken in the wrecking yard after the folks beat any and all goodness out of it.
Since it has two opera windows, they should have called it “Duet.”