(first posted 7/23/2018) By now you undoubtedly know that I’m not exactly a fan of Fords of the seventies. Most of my vitriol (so far) has been directed at the big LTD/Galaxie and the Granada, which earned CC’s award of The Most Malaise Car Ever. And the Mustang II, of course. But that’s because we’ve managed to avoid the car that best sums up Ford’s “issues” during this period (bloat, crappy space efficiency, wallowing handling, mediocre performance, lousy fuel economy, and dated, overwrought styling). That would be the mysteriously-named LTD II. No longer.
But let’s not focus on all of those negatives. It’s 2018, the sun is shining, this is a terrific rare survivor (only 46k of these “S” sedans were ever made in three years), I’ve become mellow in my old age, and therefore I’ve found some positive qualities in this car for me to expound upon. And we’ll try to unravel the mystery of its name. But that might all be a bit more challenging than hoped for. It is a Ford from the seventies, after all.
Let’s start right out on a high note. Or a big one, anyway. What it all boils down to is that the LTD II was the longest mid-sized car ever, with a whopping 220″ of overall length. And with a wheelbase of 118″, it takes the cake in that category too. That’s a full foot longer than the comparable 1977 Malibu Sedan, and still a half foot longer than an Olds Cutlass sedan. Remember how the Buick Electra earned its “225” name? This should have been called the Torino 220. But that would have been too painfully truthful.
But there’s a silver lining in even this very large, dark cloud: Think of the LTD II as a bargain-priced stripper Continental Mark V four door sedan. For a mere 40% of the price of a 1977 Mark V, one got essentially the same car under the skin, with all the same proportions that made the Mark so mark-worthy. Admittedly, the Continental version was bestowed a two inch wheelbase stretch and an even longer front overhang. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to turn an LTD II sedan into a Mk V four door? It can’t be that hard.
Thinking of this as a MK V sedan has been very therapeutic for me. Instead of seeing a bloated, mammoth, mid-size sedan, I see a cheap, lighter and slightly shorter Mark V sedan. Isn’t it helpful to have an overly-active imagination? Or eyes that are going soft?
Does this help? it’s getting closer…somebody please photoshop me a Mark V four door sedan.
Of course there’s some trade-offs to be made for that 60% reduction in price. But frankly, this suits me much better than the pillow-tufted velour bordello interior of a Mark. I’m a frugal, practical kind of guy, and most of my local drives are to the hardware store in my dirty work pants. Or down a gravel road to a trailhead. I’d much rather do those in this. Well, that’s not to say I’d really like to do those in this; in fact the thought makes me rather queasy.
The parking lot at my local little hardware store is tiny. I like to nip and tuck in traffic. And this is how I like to bop down the gravel and curvy forest roads of Oregon in my xBox, at between 40 and 50 mph. I don’t exactly see myself drifting through some of these turns in this Mark V sedan. And I’m not exactly seeing it as the ideal long-distance road trip mobile either, although it would undoubtedly keep me from getting expensive tickets. Just keeping up with the flow of traffic would be more of a concern.
The default negative thing to say is that these cars have pathetic space efficiency, given their outside dimensions. It’s true, but I won’t repeat it here. The new 1978 Fairmont was undoubtedly every bit as roomy and of course drastically smaller and lighter overall. But compared to getting into a genuine Mark V back seat, this is a real treat. See, everything really is relative.
One might be tempted to assume that there would be serious trade-offs in terms of performance compared to the Mark. Admittedly, the LTD II’s standard 139hp 302 V8 gives away all of 20hp to the Mark’s 159hp 400 V8. But to pay two and a half times as much for an additional 20 hp is a pretty lousy deal, eh? And for few bucks more, one could get the LTD II with the optional 149hp 351. Oh wait; checking the ’77 brochure it says the 400 is optional too. And the Mk V weighs a whopping 700 lbs more. Now we’re really building a Mark V “S” sedan. Sadly, the automatic transmission is standard; a three-on-the-tree with the 400 would make a sweet combination. It might actually be able to peel a bit of rubber.
You see, the “S” in this car’s model designation really stands for Sport! What else? Stripper? Superlative? Stupid? Stellar? Stultifying? Naw; we know when Ford puts an “S” on one of its cars, it really means it.
That was the easy part. Figuring out why the hell Ford chose to call this Torino with a nose and butt enhancement “LTD II” is perhaps the last remaining mystery of automotive history that I have not yet figured out or heard a plausible explanation for. Ford used “II” when it downsized and changed the nature of its Mustang; in relative terms, that almost makes some sense. And Chevrolet used it after they fixed the worst problems of the Citation. But why this? To create confusion?
In search for a clue I went back to the brochure for some profound marketing insight/BS. Eureka! There it is! “It marries LTD quality and luxury with the sporty spirit of the Mustang II”. At last I am enlightened and the last remaining automotive history mystery is solved. My life’s work in understanding Ford in the 70s is finished, and I can now retire now and shut down CC. Good night and good luck.
Oh wait a minute; that’s for the top-of-the-line LTD II Brougham. What about the bottom-of-the-line LTD II S? Is this a marriage of LTD luxury and Mustang II sportiness? I’m still mystified.
How about “It marries LTD excess size with the bad proportions and long front overhangs of the Mustang II“?
That might work for me.
Ford’s lame explanation about the LTD II having “the sporty spirit of the Mustang II” blew up in its face in 1979 when the new downsized genuine LTD arrived, riding a four inch shorter 114″ wheelbase, and with a foot shorter overall length and about 500lbs lighter. The once semi-logical order of things was now truly turned upside down.
That might explain why LTD II sales went into the toilet in 1979, to under 50k for all versions. The naming of this car is mysterious enough, but why Ford decided to keep it around after the one and true LTD was downsized is a true headscratcher. Well, Ford was charging headlong into its near brush with bankruptcy just two years later, so if you’re going to self-immolate, the LTD II was useful tinder. More like a big log to throw on the fire.
Did I veer a bit astray from the path of positivity? And this all started out on such a high note. The thrill of finding a genuine LTD II, and an “S” no less, put me in the right mood. I just stood there in the golden glow of a summer sunset, squinting my eyes and seeing a Mark V stripper sedan. But now that I’m home and sitting here in my chair, which must be made of cynictium, trying to make sense of its name has put me on a downward slide. LTD II? The sporty spirit of the Mustang II?
They should have just called it the Mark V II. Just need to replace that damn Ford emblem with a genuine Continental one.
It’s actually no mystery why Ford called these LTD-II. They tried to pass them off as downsized full-sized cars! I can even remember a few print ads where they said something along the lines of “Only Ford gives you a choice in full-sized cars: Traditional sized LTD or new trim-size LTD-II!” They were trying to pass off the LTD-II as a rival to the Impala and Caprice, while bragging that with the LTD, you got a car the size of a Cadillac, for the price of a Chevy.
This was also nothing new by this time. Plymouth tried it with “The New, Small Fury” for ’75, and even Dodge did it for ’77, calling the midsized cars “Monaco” while the big C-bodies were all renamed Royal Monaco.
The space efficiency in these things was pretty bad, to be sure, but a good deal of that wasted length was in that long hood, those peaked fenders, and jutting bumpers. Overall, they were about on par with equivalent midsized cars like GM’s Colonades or Mopar’s ’71-78 B-bodies. From what I remember of Consumer Reports and other reviews, the Colonades tended to have the most comfortable seats, and the Mopars were the best if you needed 6 passenger seating.
Compared to a Fairmont though, an LTD-II gave you a lot more shoulder room, a smaller transmission/driveshaft hump, and in the back you didn’t have that wheel well intrusion that makes the outboard passengers tilt inward. A Fairmont most likely had more headroom, though.
I sat in an LTD-II that was for sale, years ago, and from what I can remember, the front seat had plenty of stretch out room, but was low to the floor.
One thing I’ll say in defense of these cars, is that I think Ford did a pretty good job of updating the sheetmetal, compared to the Torino, so it at least looked modern. They put more effort into them than Mopar did with the Monaco/Fury…although to be fair, those two went through a pretty major restyle for ’75, and the ’77 restyle was mainly just giving them stacked quad lights.
I also thought the LTD-II had a pretty nice interior. They also made the right decision in making a 302 the base engine. However, part of the issue there might have been that these cars were pretty heavy…definitely moreso than GM’s Colonades, and I believe a bit heavier than the Mopar B-bodies. And Ford’s 250-6 cyl always seemed to be a dog in those years. I mean, you can say that about most engines, but even among its peers, like the Chevy 250, Mopar 225 slant six, or Buick 231 V6, it seemed slow. So it probably just wasn’t enough engine for a car this size.
I seem to recall these as rentals wen new, non ? .
Its a decent automobile I am sure but sets firmly in the ‘blah’ scale to me .
Only 63K ever made ? .
-Nate
I guess if someone liked the bloated 1974-76 Gran Torino/Montego and wanted another one, they’d like the freshly creased, trimmer (at least trimmer looking) 1977-79 version (now called LTD II or Cougar), too. But they’re all the same car underneath.
But, yeah, when the new Caprice-fighter, downsized, standard LTD (aka Crown Victoria) arrived for 1979, that pretty much instantly made the LTD II obsolete.
I recall the “LTD II” name, as some others here have noted, was intended to imply Ford offered the choice of either a traditionally-sized land-yacht LTD and a “downsized” LTD II to compete with the new smaller Caprice and Impala. I also remember Consumer Guide’s publications saying don’t be fooled, the LTD II is not in the same league as the new GM cars, and noted the Ford still needed a thirsty standard V8 whereas the new Chevys were light enough to offer a 6 as standard motivation (in actuality, few B bodies were built with 6-bangers). But I also recall the LTD II, which debuted when I was 11 years old, was the car that taught me to recognize “new” cars that weren’t really new. Compared to the Caprice, something was off about the LTD II. Although the car at first seemed to have a modern, crisp look similar to the new Chevrolets, he bladed front fenders, the substantial tumblehome, the large wheel-opening flares, the smallish frameless side windows, and the long hood all looked a bit dated, and a bit familiar. A peek inside drove the point home even more – it looked just like an old Torino, save for flatter gauges and some revised trim. My suspicions that the LTD II wasn’t really a new car were confirmed when I first saw an LTD II wagon and the rear half was obviously from the Torino (or more accurately, the Mercury Montego) with a distinct early-’70s Coke-bottle shape. I’m still unclear as to which parts were carried over unchanged – clearly the hood (from the Elite) and wagon rear fenders and tailgate, but unsure about the windshield, front fenders, and front doors. The ’77 T-bird did a far better job of disguising the old Torino understructure, which was reflected in sales.
There were a few other “S”-for-stripper cars from around this time. One of them was the Impala S which took over for the Bel Air in 1976 but was dropped for ’77 (in Canada the Impala S was still called the Bel Air, and was continued on the downsized cars through 1981). I recall Ford had a similar Panther LTD S in 1980 to slot in for the discontinued LTD II; like Chevy still using an old name (Custom 500) in Canada through 1981.
In the late 1970s, when all of this was unfolding in real time, it seemed very depressing. But compared to 2024, when CUVs comprise the majority of automotive offerings, they seem like the glory days. I’d buy an LTD II coupe in a heartbeat if new ones were available now.
I have the (mis)fortune of having it’s 77 Ford Ranchero sibling in my driveway, along with a 77 Chevy Malibu Classic sedan. The Ford feels positively ancient compared to the crosstown rival, in both build and assembly. It is a more solid feeling structure, but at the same time sounds tinny when you close the doors like there’s not much sound deadening. Get them both out on the road, and the Chevy is a much better driver, easier to see out of, and just more comfortable. And yes, the Chevy is a foot shorter than the Ranchero (which uses the wagon frame and length)
I can’t directly compare ride quality because the Ford is very tired factory suspension and the Chevy has recent HD suspension parts under it, so one is surgically precise vs video game steering. The Ford does ride softly and with all 4 tired shocks actually in play, handles ok, you toss it into a corner and it heels over a bit, probably due to the sagging suspension making it ride about 2″ lower than it should.
Someone in the past swapped out the 2.50 axle ratio that the Ford had, with a 3.90 ratio, which does not help the anemic 148hp 351 at all in the 0-60 sprint by my stopwatch, matter of fact the smaller and less torquey 145hp 305 in the Chevy matches it with a lazy 2.56 axle ratio and will just about do 60mph in 1st gear. That same low gearing gets it off the line quick, but makes the big Windsor engine’s shortcomings more glaring – lack of top end power by the time it hits 40mph it’s getting winded, and by the time you hit 70 – it’s gassed, the Chevy is just starting to hit its stride. The Ford also has an aftermarket exhaust so it’s much louder than the factory setup on the Chevy.
the tidy overhang on the Chevy just makes it look visually much smaller car, park them both with the front bumpers lined up, and the front seat of the Ford puts you just about into the back seat area of the Chevy. But the longer wheelbase of the Ford gives you more front leg room than the Chevy has. the 116″wb of the Chevy is all in the rear seat legroom vs the 112″wb coupes.
So it’s a weird era for Ford, you can tell it was phoned in, the engineering was pretty dated by 1972, with the only chassis improvements all in the rear suspension – which actually seems to work pretty well. front suspension seems to be all 1965, but as soon as you look past the skin, it seems like a 50s car, where the GM products seem at least with the times.
I also have both cars from both platforms you mentioned, a ’76 Malibu 2-door and a ’72 Torino. While there are a myriad of variations, I don’t think your comparison of a what sounds like a somewhat clapped out Ranchero to your Chevelle is fair. Both of my cars are in similar shape and both are mechanically excellent. I would agree that the Chevy is better for tooling around town, and has a little better visibility (this is mostly because of the fastback on the Torino), but the difference isn’t massive. I also agree that the Ford feels more solid, is a more rigid platform and that the Ford has more legroom up front (but I’d say less headroom). I don’t think the doors on the Fords are tinny. In fact, I find the Ford doors of this era in general are superior to the GM doors, especially for the door latches and hinge pin durability.
That said, the Ford design, while far from cutting edge, was hardly phoned in. In 1972, contemporary tests of the time scored the Ford higher than the dated A-body. Gm closed the gap and surpassed Ford in some ways in 1973, but the Ford was still competitive. The front suspension on the Ford wasn’t much different than a ’65 Ford, but the ’77 Chevelle wasn’t much different than a ’64 Chevelle, other than improved geometry. Both platforms were considerably better than what was being offered in the 1950s. I like both cars, they both have there strengths and weaknesses, but they aren’t really all that different in the grand scheme of things. There is a reason both have been in our family for decades, because both are good cars.
All that said, the LTD II of this generation, would have been a more phone it in effort. Ford could have easily improved this car considerably, but I think it was more interested in selling this platform as more profitable T-Birds and Cougar XR-7s, which were done a lot better than these LTD IIs.
By any measure, in any decade, that is a full-sized car! And an example in good shape it seems.
Where side-view mirrors belong on cars!….
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/571936.jpg
And I don’t care who disagrees. So go on disagreeing to the walls.
Regarding the strange proportions being most obvious in the related Ranchero….
The hood was longer, considerably, than the pickup bed!
Outrageous!
I, for one, am not going to complain much about this car along with many similar ones at the time. What was in the pipeline was in the pipeline and there was nothing you could do about it. Like you can’t turn an aircraft carrier on a dime, much less stop it, you can’t turn around an assembly line any faster if nothing has been engineered some years prior. However, world events can happen in the blink of an eye rendering a lot of assumptions invalid almost over night. Then it could end in a blink of the eye only to recur later.
You wonder why the Fairmont was considered so radical?
These Torino/LTDIIs were what you found in a Ford showroom until 1978, and alongside the Fairmont for another two years in some kind of model name, like Thunderbird.
It isn’t until you see one in the flesh do you realize what a gargantuan waste these cars were. How they sold so many was always a mystery to me. Yes – during the 1970s – American manufacturers were offering GM Colonnades, Ford Torinos, Satellite/Coronets, and Matadors to buyers who wanted a “smaller car”. There was nothing small about them except usable interior space.
Get in one. You dropped down low and had to look over a cliffed intrument panel and down a neverending hood. You knew you got to the end of the hood because there would be some pot-metal hood “ornament” standing on your sight horizon. I used to drive a Cougar and I had to finally twist the hood ornament 45 degrees so that the image of “the sign of the cat!” couldn’t be in my sightline, staring back at me as I piloted that land barge around town. That thing drove me nuts, but then, I’m an artist and easily mesmerized. I cannot believe we drove land yachts this size and parallel parked too without the aid of cameras.
The front seat was a bench, usually. This meant that the backseat riders faced a vinyl wall with perhaps a tinny ashtray the size of a cough drop tin, wedged behind it. As a kid, that is where we put our gum and candy wrappers. Ask my dad. He hated opening that ashtray and digging out our hardened gum.
Not only did you struggle to see over the hood, you pretty much had no chance seeing out the back of those cars either. They had wide C pillars and these really needed backup cameras – but NO.
You wonder why GM sold so many of those new 1977 full sized cars. These cars are why Americans flocked to them by the half million. A right sized car? How revolutionary.
Finally, why “LTDII”? I remember this time of chaos. In my opinion, Ford used the same strategy as Chrysler, in that they dropped their old intermediate model names and renamed them using the full sized car’s model name. Ford used “II” on the intermediates, while Chrysler went with “Gran” on the full sizers. So, until the corporations sunk the billions needed to redo their lines, they kept the cars, refreshed them, and scrambled the names. Chrysler ran out of money during this process and Ford just about did the same. GM was first out the door with brilliant new full sizers and gobbled the markets. By 1980, GM had nearly 80% of the US car sales. It was a rough time for the domestic competition, right?
I remember when my uncle bought the maxed out “wood” clad wagon.
After his wife and daughter showed it off to us and were beginning to drive away, I turned to my mother and said: “They just bought a car that is already outdated”.
Later they complained loudly about how fast the “wood” deteriorated in the Arizona sun.
..This really says to me…SUDDENLY, IT’S 1957!..while the new Chevy B body then said..SUDDENLY IT’S 1980!…
I had a 1977 Ford LTD II S Brougham that I bought in the fall of ’85. I was a 21-year-old kid washing cars for $5 an hour at a Ford dealership. I had previously been riding a motorcycle and I decided I wasn’t going to go one more winter trying to rely on Ottawa’s horrible transit system. The LTD II had been traded in by an elderly couple for a new 1986 LTD Crown Victoria. The used-car dep’t gave them $400 for their old car in trade, and I looked it over and bought it for $500. It had 177,000 miles on it, it had the 351 Windsor V8 under the hood, and it passed a DOT safety inspection as it was. I drove that car for the next three and a half years and put another 45,000 miles on it, and sold it for $1000 in the spring of ’89. It still stands out as one of the best cars I’ve ever owned, and I have only owned one bad car; the ’85 Monte Carlo I replaced the LTD II with. The $500 Ford was a far better car than the $8000 Chevy. The only bad thing I could say about the LTD II was it got terrible gas mileage, about 14 mpg. But it was a joy to drive, and I have always liked the styling of those cars. But, again, the cars I like are 1970s and ’80s sedans and wagons. Geekmobiles, I call them, and when my lottery numbers come up, The LTD II is going to be the first acquisition toward my fleet of geekmobiles.
Point of order, guys: It’s Chevelle, not Malibu.
From 1964 to’77, Malibu was just an option package on the Chevelle line.
People keep calling those Chevelles Malibus, even if they don’t have the Malibu option package.
And, going back to the author’s comments about the length of the “Malibu” and the Olds Cutlass vs. the LTD II, It implies that the same-year Cutlass is 6″ longer than the Chevelle. Where did you get that information? They can’t possibly be 6″ different in length, because they’re basically the same car, being General Motors A-bodies. Factory literature puts them both at 209.6″ overall length.
Lastly, let’s not exaggerate; The LTD II is not quite a full foot longer than the Chevelle. It is 10′ longer, according to factory literature.