(first posted 1/11/2012) Henry Ford II was in many ways, a lot like his grandfather. They both were not big fans of change. The idea of smaller cars drove “Hank The Deuce” crazy. His motto, “Mini cars, mini profits”.
When GM introduced the downsized B bodies in 1977, Henry was determined to hold on to the old ways and keep his cars big. Many years ago I stumbled upon an old copy of Motor Magazine that my grandpa had and in it they referred to Ford as “Home of the Whopper”. After walking around this one I would have to agree.
There were no year identifiers on this particular car that I found for sale on US 23, just south of Tawas City, MI back in June. So for today we will say it’s a 1978, the last year for the big LTDs.
All things considered, this car is a real survivor. I can tell it has been repainted at some point in its life, and the vinyl top is no longer vinyl. After looking it over though, it’s obvious that the Ziebart rustproofing did its job. I was disappointed to find that the LTD hood ornament was replaced with a Marquis ornament, but I guess it could have been worse…
This car would be considered a midrange model, in that it’s a step below the Landau model, but has a nicer interior than the base.
This car is decently equipped inside. I noticed that it has the automatic climate control, power options, tilt and cruise. The vinyl on the seats was still very much like new. I didn’t get to have a look under the hood, but I’m guessing it would most likely have a 351 under there.
As much as ol’ Henry didn’t want it to happen, he did see the writing on the wall and in 1979 we saw the birth of the Panther.
These were pretty decent cars in their day. There were two of them in my extended family, a rather plain 1975 coupe that my grandparents bought for my aunt as a teenager, and my other aunt had a 1977 sedan with the same interior as this one but in brown and cloth. Both cars lasted a long time, despite looking rather battle weary as the years wore on.
I have always wondered if these cars did well in places like Texas, or just in Cattle country in general, because let’s face it, much like my grandparents’ 1976 Mark IV, there is a lot of Meaty goodness here, and I would imagine that Texans, with their affinity for all things big, would have devoured these.
Beef, it’s what’s for dinner. Or at least a Whopper.
Hard to said if it’s a 1975 (the year then Ford redesigned the Coupe rear roof and pillars) or 1978 since it didn’t got a lot of changes during those model years. Interesting to note then Mercury didn’t got the fixed rear roof and they kept the 2-door hardtop from 1973 until 1978.
The reason I know it isn’t a 1975 because the ’75’s used regular gas, and this one says “Unleaded Fuel Only” on the gas gauge.
My grandma’s ’75 Marquis definitely had the Unleaded Fuel Only requirement, and it was definitely a ’75. (But it also had the 460, don’t know if that varied among engines.)
Catalytic converters were used starting for the 1975 model year (CA in 73?) so unleaded fuel was a requirement. Today we take it for granted that all fuel is unleaded, but back when I was a kid, we used to have to specify to the gas station attendant “Unleaded!” when Regular leaded was also available.
I think that the sole exception was Chrysler, which managed to put off the catcon until 1976. But you are correct, everything else required unleaded fuel by 1975. Indiana did not have emissions inspections, and there were a lot of late 70s cars that had the restrictor in the fuel filler pipe punched out so that the cheaper leaded gas could be used, which would of course, ruin the catcon.
You’re right. I also forgot about Honda not using cats until the late 70s. Their CVCC engines didn’t need them to meet EPA regs.
Back in the day, when my dad would buy a car with the “Cadillac Converter” he would take it to the local muffler shop and have the converter removed and replaced with a straight piece of pipe. He would also remove much of the vacuum smog equipment under the hood and punch the fuel filler pipe out.
Cats in Calif. came for ’75; light duty trucks – some in ’75. (small displacement engines) and most 1/2 ton trucks had catalysts in Cal by ’77.
Engine/transmission choices started to become limited in California in ’73.
I think SupremeBrougham is incorrect in assuming the ’75 LTD’s ran on regular; I was driving age by then and a relative’s friend (Aunt) was pissed off that her new ’75 LTD had to use “that Goddamn unleaded gasoline – why? It COSTS more!”.
California didn’t have periodic emission control tests in the late ’70’s. Knew quite a few guys who cut off/hollowed out cats and punched the fuel nozzle restrictor out (dent puller).
Ford started off the ’75 model year with non-catalytic converter models burning regular gas, and phased in converters during the year, so early ’75s don’t have them and late ’75s do.
These cars were so similar from ’75 to ’78 that the only way to know what year one is, is to consult the ID tag in the doorjamb. Even the ’73-’74s used the same sheetmetal except for the nose and tail treatment.
These cars were as popular as nickel beer in August in my hometown (Reserve, LA). My dad used to buy clapped-out ones whenever he could to strip for parts for his body shop. I still have a lot of parts for them in the attic of his old shop. Any takers?
Hey Karl,
Do you have a list of the parts you have on hand?
I respectfully disagree. My dad worked for Ford many years. He got a new big Ford each year. We had a 1974 LTD that was regular. I clearly remember our 1975 the next year being the 1st unleaded fuel car I had seen.
This car has to be a 1977 or a 1978 because it has an 85 mph speedometer.
Yes its a 78 i have one just like it
Off-the-cuff memory tells me that Ford was kind of late to the party when Chevy dropped the hardtop coupe in 1975(?) and replaced the quarter window with a very thick B pillar and a very large piece of fixed glass. Ford just divided that space with a slightly narrower B pillar and TWO pieces of fixed glass! Double the sin!
By this time though, I had abandoned any love for the full-sizers after the 1968 models and went Malibu-and-smaller and went tiny to our Gremlin after I got rid of my ’76 Chevy truck shortly after we were married. Wifey kept her 1970 Mustang convertible until she quit work in preparation for the arrival of our first child in ’79.
No, I don’t miss these tanks regardless of who built them. Excessive excess to the Nth degree. Think small! Fairmont! My father-in-law loved his. I liked it too.
Over and over, seeing these and other boats from back then just makes me just that much more secure in our choices of cars from AMC and in the ’80’s to the late ’90’s, Chrysler products in that we made the right decisions.
HOWEVER…when the first “box panther” coupes arrived and the GM B bodies, the Impala coupe especially, those two were at the top of my fantasy list!
I think the 85 mph speedometers came in during 1977, so this one therefore might be either ’77 or ’78. If you could look at this car up close, I believe there were differences in the Ford “Duraguard” rust protection system between ’77 and ’78 (an ad in Canada at the time said this applied to all North American built Fords starting in ’77..). For the first year (’77), I remember that the vinyl coating (chip guard) was sprayed on the rocker panels only immediately behind each wheel opening. Then in ’78, they also coated the bottoms of the doors (entire rocker from front wheel opening back….). That’s if I recall correctly. Still didn’t stop em from rusting…..
That has to be the worst-integrated 5 mph rear bumper ever…..
Yeah, if you look at the ’73 LTD article the writer cracks a joke about the bumpers. Or maybe it was a comment, I don’t remember. Regardless it’s funny how Ford got all pissy about the bumpers, I wouldn’t be surprised Hank The Deuce made them purposely obnoxious to prove how ridiculous they are (to Ford history buffs, it’s a joke)
I would suggest very little effort was made on the parts of Ford engineers and stylists to better blend the bumpers into the design of their cars. Chrysler was certainly able to provide the 5 mph impact protection and make the bumpers better integrated into the fenders.
I would say Chrysler easily made the sexiest cars of the 70’s, even the later “stacked headlights” cars were pretty well-designed when Ford was making hideous shoeboxes and GM was revolutionizing the industry with their vanilla B-bodies. Seriously, I would argue that the LTD II was one of the ugliest cars in the history of automobiles, it’s tied with the Dodge Mirada.
Yes, Chrysler stylists did pull off some nice designs. Even my 78 Córdoba looks striking compared to similar class cars from the other manufacturers. Mind you the car didn’t impress a young me back then. But I certainly like its looks now. Unfortunately, I bought the car more as a favour to someone and it’s time to sell to a person who would really appreciate it. I take US dollars by the way….(big grin on face)
It is really interesting to me how these cars and the contemporary Chevies diverged. These sold at rates very comparable to the 77-78 Impala/Caprice. But while the Chevy B bodies are still seen fairly regularly (even after over 30 years), these have largely disappeared.
The Ford mechanicals were pretty stout at that time, usually a 351 or a 400, a C6 auto and a beefy differential. The bodies were not the best Ford ever built, but they were probably the best of any Ford of the 1970s.
I have to conclude that cars of this size just became obsolete faster. Although gas prices were fairly low when these were cheap used cars, they were just too big and thirsty for cheap-car duty. And somehow, these never took off in an urban-retro sort of way like the 71-76 Chevies, although I remain convinced that the Ford was a better car.
Maybe the looks of these just left everyone else as cold as they left me. I always considered the 71-72 to be extremely attractive cars, but they were quality basket cases and rustbuckets. The 73-74 was bloated and just not that attractive. This car looked a tad trimmer, but never really did anything for me. I would have chosen a Marquis every time over the LTD in the 75-78 era.
Edit – Another thing: Some cars just shouldn’t be red.
I agree that the 1971-76 Chevrolets were nothing to write home about, either. All of the GM full-size cars from that era seemed flimsy. The Fords felt more solid, and had better workmanship as well.
You’re right about these cars becoming obsolete rather quickly. GM’s downsized full-size cars for 1977 were a major change, and looked new and fresh. They made the full-size cars from Ford and Chrysler look like dinosaurs in every sense of the word, although it didn’t quite matter as much with the Lincolns and the Chrysler New Yorker.
Driving one of these (or an equivalent Mercury, or one of the last full-size Dodges and Plymouths) in 1979 was like driving a tailfin-era car in 1962.
Compared to the full size GM’s, the Ford products were prodigiously thirsty and handling was nonexistent. The 70’s Ford approach to smog controls somehow made their engines wheezier, and Ford’s electronic ignition was less reliable than GM’s HEI as the cars aged. The 1971-76 GM cars weren’t perfect, but take one out on the road and you could sense it had good bones. I’ve owned a ’77 T-Bird and a ’77 Town Car, so I have sort of bracketed the LTD. Nothing about either experience makes me want to repeat it. On the other hand I have owned six different 1974-76 GM full sizers (Buick, Olds, Caddy) and I would gladly take most of them back. Especially the ’74 Electra.
The Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Cadillacs in those years were still definitely a cut above the Chevrolet.
I had a ’77 LTD wagon, 400 2BBL.
Gas mileage: Hwy 10, City 10.
Thankfully it was a company car.
You are right about these cars not being cheap rides any more. I drive 2000 miles a month. If I drove my 79 Continental Town Car instead of my Corolla for my commute it would cost me approximately 2000/10=200 gallons x3.69 (premium needed to compensate for the ethanol) =$738.00 per month, more or less. Just in fuel …
It sure would be cool, though
We pay $10 for that gallon guess how many of these things I see thats right Zero.
Different times, Bryce. When these cars where new, Americans were sh!@$# bricks at gasoline being $0.60 a gallon! Yet, they sold quite well.
Even though today, Americans pay relatively low fuel prices compared with other countries, to have a car like this today for most people would be a weekend or holiday driver. Too thirsty. Plus is that these big cruisers are great cars for long distance driving and comfortable to cruise around town (until it’s time to park it – or fill up. Ka-ching!! $$$$)
I Still drive a 77 ltd landau. when I think about what our forefathers paid to keep this country it makes the fuel price not so important anymore.Besides no computer to deal with, Can run on hydrogen!
Correction: This is the wrong shade of red for this car. On a car this size, you look like the fire chief. My dad once resprayed an LTD coupe identical to this car. The lady owner picked a Chrysler Starfire Red for the new color (the Starfire colors were gorgeous, in my opinion). It was one of those happy jobs where the paint just lays on like glass, and the car came out of the paintroom looking stunning.
We had lots of these (and their Marquis cousins) in our family and my grandparents’ friends had a whole slew of them, too. My best friend in high school had a ’78, loaded and surprisingly quick for its girth and weight. Great cruiser. His dad swore by them, and had a ’74 until about ’91 that he kept in showroom condition.
I never understood why Ford parted from the lovely and graceful pillarless coupe roof for this roof.
I think because the market itself was changing.
The buyer for that sort of barge would definitely be a gray-head. Younger buyers had other offerings, other sizes, to choose from – many of which were not available ten years earlier, and certainly ten years before that.
The ripple effect takes time. Models other than the “standard” car were introduced, and nobody knew how the market would fragment. Younger people went with Mustangs; people with no need for status-symbols sought Falcons. An intermediate offered as much utility for a lower price; so what was left was an older demographic who’d trade every year or other year and just say, “Find me a new LTD.”
That buyer is not going to be impressed with fastbacks or graceful coupes. The Age of Brougham hath arrived.
And it quickly passed, as this limited market went the way of all flesh.
Air conditioning became much more popular in the mid-1970s, and I would imagine that very few full-size Fords (or Chevrolets) were sold without it. With air conditioning, the advantage of the unbroken sweep of the side glass on hardtops is largely wasted.
I wonder what the production numbers were for these beasts and their Mercury and Lincoln cousins. The LTDs are rare today and the Town Cars and Grand Marquis seem to have much higher survival rates, though they could not have had higher sales when new (at least I wouldn’t think so.) Even in my childhood (born 1977) I can only recall the Lincolns, a few Mercurys, and MAYBE one LTD. But I did grow up in a rusty area of NW Ohio.
1976-79 production numbers, lifted from another recent thread where I had posted them (on the ’89 Mercury Grand Marquis):
FULL-SIZE FORDS:
1976 402,861
1977 445,156
1978 313,883
1979 356,535
FULL-SIZE MERCURYS
1976 115,968
1977 156,032
1978 145,627
1979 140,800
FULL-SIZE LINCOLNS (Continental/Town Car only, does not include Mark V)
1976 68,646
1977 95,600
1978 88,087
1979 92,600
In the 1980s, the gaps between the three would narrow, as sales of the full-size Mercurys and Lincolns seemed to hold up better through the early ’80s energy crisis/recession than sales of the full-size Fords did (the demographic that bought full-size Fords presumably abandoned large cars in greater numbers). The data I have only goes up through 1986; at no time in that period did Mercury actually pass Ford, but from 1983 on they were very close behind. By ’86 Lincoln had passed Mercury and actually wasn’t all that far behind Ford. In the mid ’80s Ford was producing far fewer full-size cars than it had in the late ’70s (their best year of that period was 1985, at about 199K), while Mercury and Lincoln actually exceeded their 1976-79 peaks in ’85, and Lincoln would do so again in ’86.
So 1.5 million Fords
550000+ Mercurys
less than 400000 Lincolns and right now on eBay… in the 1976-1979 range
20 (give or take) full size Fords
1 Mercury that’s not a Cougar
and 33 Lincolns but many are Marks…
Now that I put that stats up there I guess that doesn’t prove anything. LOL
These cars had a lot of minor issues with quality and one major one-Catastrophic engine failure at low miles in the 351M and 400 engines. There were 2 different foundries producing these, the Cleveland one and the Michigan one. The Michigan sourced blocks were notorious for cracking down the lifter valley, as well as dropping valves .
I knew of several people who had this happen at low miles. A sortie behind any local dealer at the time would usually reveal at least a half dozen or more sans engines, awaiting replacements. And if it was off the 12,000 mile warranty by even 2 or 3 thousand, you were on your own. Of course it wasn’t just these cars that M-series were installed in, they were peppered throughout the whole line, resulting in thousands of irate ex-customers. These engines were none too powerful either, even for the malaise period. Especially the 1975 models. The 1976s were somewhat better. I remember timing my friends parents ’75 LTD 400 with a stopwatch to 60, taking around 15 seconds. The city police in my home town had 351M versions which they just despised, what with their 85 mph-ish top speeds. The solution? Order the 460 and and break out the gas card.
The Cleveland and the Modified engines are not the same even though they are similar and share a number of parts. The Cleavland was dead by the time the 78’s rolled around. The Modified uses the 400 deck height block and corresponding intake. Yes they were known for cracking as well as core shift that can cause issues if you rebuild it as the cyl wall becomes too thin. All around the 351M and 400 are some of the worst engines to come from Ford.
I was referring to the Cleveland casting plant, not the design. The final Cleveland as a design was in 1974.
Car And Driver timed an LTD with a 400 at 12.3 seconds from 0 to 60 in the January 1977 issue. Just throwing that out there to use as a yardstick.
The 1975s were the worst for performance. They actually improved in later years.
In 1970 Motor Trend times a 200/3-speed Maverick at 12.3 to 60 also. But it weighed a whole ton less than a 77 or 78 LTD.
In six years of selling parts (from ’83 to ’89) over a NAPA parts counter, and having listened to every complaint imaginable from car owners and mechanics, I never heard of this. On top of that, my dad owned two F-150 4x4s (one ’77, one ’78) originally equipped with 351Ms, at the same time. One was his going-off-the-road-in-deep-mud truck; the other was his pull-a-trawl-boat-on-150-mile-round-trips truck. Neither gave a lick of trouble. Later on he upgraded both to 400s for extra power, both engines coming out of the junkyard. They never gave any trouble, either. Daddy kept the ’77 from ’79 until ’97. If that’s the worst Ford engines ever made, sign me up!
Well actually according to Tom Monroe’s book on rebuilding the Cleveland style engines, on page 28, he shows a picture and says that 400 blocks cast at the Michigan Casting Center before March 2,1977 had the block cracking issue. My friends 77 T-Bird did it! Car would run fine at anything over idle, but would not idle at all because the crack makes an internal vacuum leak. When we removed the intake, we saw it.
I know this post is years old, but I should clarify a common misconception about the 351C, 351M and 400. The 351C, 351M and 400 (NOT 400M) all belong to the 335 series engine family. This family also includes the Australian only 302 Cleveland. The 400 was developed in 1971 as the big brother to the 351C. To increase the stroke, Ford increased the deck height and increase the main bearings to 3″, as well as using the 385 series bell housing bolt pattern. The overall engine design though is largely the same as a 351C. Early 400’s (1971-74) share their same cylinder heads with the 351C-2V engines. Obviously the taller deck height of the 400 requires a wider intake manifold.
In 1975, the 351M was introduced while the 351C was dropped (except in Aussie markets). The 351M was created by using the tall deck 400 block and destroking it to a 351 cid. This was likely done as a cost saving measuring allowing more parts sharing. The exhaust ports were altered in 1975 to add the thermactor system which reduced the cylinder head efficiency.
As for cracking, only block cast at the Michigan Casting Centre from 1973-77 had this issue. These blocks were also cast at Dearborn and Cleveland. 1977-79 (sold until 1982 MY) truck blocks were actually reinforced versus early blocks.
Although these engines have a bad reputation, this was mainly because most were lo-po smog engines. In the truck world they have good support. TMeyer Inc build some pretty mean 400 Fords.
http://www.tmeyerinc.com
Interesting you mention Tmeyer. I put a 434 Stroker kit in a Ford 400.
I wanted a torquey engine so I went with a conservative camshaft. I left the stock exhaust manifolds for reliability and only went for a Edelbrock 650 cfm carb for good all around running. For compression, I went 9.5:1 so it will easily run on Chevron 94.
The car makes 272 rear wheel horsepower at 4000 rpm and 380 fl/lbs and 3500 rpm. More than 300 ft/lbs are available by 1500 rpm. Those are real, honest to goodness horsepowers, not, “it must be making 400 hp” horsepower.
It is an absolute blast to drive. It really isn’t all that fast in a huge car like a Lincoln Mk V but it makes all the appropriate vibrations and rumbly sounds. It also runs smoothly and is very easy to live with.
When I first started to work as a police officer, we had 1975 fullsize Fords with 460s. The next year, 1976 Torinos with 351s. The 460s were pretty strong, the 351s pretty weak.
I found that I had an irrational hate for these when my sister bought one. It rode like a land barge. Very comfortable but I was into small cars. Bought an AMC concorde at the time and still think that was a great car that was overlooked by people who should have known better. AMC’s 258 backed (I think) by Chryslers 747.
It made me wonder why anyone bought the land barges made by anyone.
No, I think it was the 904 transmission in Concords. The 727 was the big tranny for 340 cubic inch and up. In this case I’d rather have the grape than this whopper.
727 was used inAuissie 265s in the factory towing package my Regal was so equipped
The 727 was the Auto option in 72 and later AMC and IH vehicles.
I always have 2 recollections about this era LTD,
1) Barnaby Jones!
2) Our local parish priest drove a 4-dr- and not just a Ford- the seemingly top of the line LTD model, it was gold, with a white pleather roof. That car was sharp- of course this was early 80’s so it was a few years old but it was a flashy car especially with the filagree taillight adorments. The nuns drove early 70’s navy blue Impala sedans with framed side glass, that looked like Air Force Base specials, but Father tooled around in a Gold LTD deluxe.
1978 Ford LTD Landau……A Quinn Martin Production
I have always nicknamed these, “Barnaby Jones” in a 2dr and “Streets of San Francisco” in a 4 door and “McGarrett” for the Grand Marquis.
The ’74 Grand Marquis used in last seven seasons of Hawaii Five-O survives. Car is in Nanakuli in a garage in decent shape, although the car, mechanically was trashed when the current owner acquired it. Especially the front end (driving over curbs, powerslides, and the like).
. . . many a (mid-western) relative drove these in the day. My Grandma had the Country Squire version of this car; 400 2V.
Both cars still exist, the 1968 was found by a collector in the late 80’s, it was still sitting in the back of the CBS lot in Hawaii where they were filming Magnum P.I, he shipped the car back to the US and restored it, it was pretty rough when he found it.
Good to hear they found the ’68 Park Lane! Many an early season contained shots of McGarrett’s Merc sans a wheel cover flying around corners of King Street down Punchbowl to Ala Moana.
Dan-O and Chin-Ho roasted tires in the Galaxie and Custom 500’s. HPD then (and now) uses mostly Fords for the marked cruisers.
Mahalo Nui Loa
I always wondered how Steve McGarrett managed to keep that black ’68 for so many seasons. In almost every other TV show, the star got a new car every season. Particularly if it was a cop show. But McGarrett kept that 68 for several seasons. Was it to keep the show less dated for syndication? Or were the producers just being cheap? Either way, it was OK by me, because the 68 Mercury was one of my favorite cars as a kid.
I never understood that either, all the other cars on the show changed, Dano and the other Five-O squad would have current year Fords, but McGarrett would still keep showing up in the 68 Mercury. It was the same after they changed to the 1974 Mercury, they used that until the end of the series in 1980, so McGarrett never got a Panther Grand Ma in 1979.
Oddly enough, McGarrett drove a 2dr Park Lane in the pilot which was never seen again.
I practically grew up in a 76 4 door version of this car. Dark blue with dark blue vinyl and the 400m. We had many Griswold like vacations in that thing.
Looking back I can’t say I’m sure which pre-downsizing full size I liked more. I think it’d be a tie between the 76 Caprice with the rectangle headlights and the LTD.
My grandmother used to buy a new car off the lot about every 4-5 years. Her actual vehicle choices seemed fairly random, not aligned with any particular dealership, brand, nor vehicle size.
She bought a LTD in this bodystyle to replace her 1972 Dodge Coronet. Hers was a 4-door though, and the best I could describe the color was maple syrup brown, with a brown vinyl landau top. My parents bought the Coronet from her. I don’t have many memories of the LTD because it’s one of the few cars she owned that my parents didn’t buy from her later, and I was quite young when she owned it. She later replaced it with a 1981 Fairmont, then a 1986 Monte Carlo.
The design of this car’s greenhouse/roof is truly mindboggling, one of the all-time lows of the whole era and the history of automotive design. What were they thinking/smoking, to squeeze in a tiny opera roof into the B-Pillar? It looked so ridiculous when it came out, I just couldn’t believe it. They were paying “designers” to come up with this? Can we go to deansgarage.com and request whoever designed this to do a little retrospective on it? Not too likely. End of my rant.
I love it!
Ha! I should have corrected my post above to say Ford put in an even thicker B pillar with a hole in it!
Ridiculous in any case.
I’m a structural designer of packaging, and I wouldn’t have designed anything like this except at the point of a gun!
HEY at least it has good sight lines and lack of blind-spots. Can’t say that about modern cars.
Well, phooey – you got me on that. True, of course.
I would have fought tooth-and-nail to make it at least a two-door sedan in the most practical sense by allowing a back window to open somehow. Perhaps the OEM’s realized that most who bought these types of coupes never had more than one passenger at any time anyway, so save the money. Sad.
Good sight lines and lack of blind spots would be worthwhile subjects to teach at the Art Center College Of Design!
@Zackman: I remember when these cars were released, I too wondered WTH? about the little window in the middle. In the intervening years, I’ve read about the never-enacted rollover/roof crush standards that were supposed to take place. I’ve wondered if that extra pillar and window was a response to that reg.
I absolutely agree this car would have been much better looking as a regular hardtop. Maybe it looked too generic? I don’t know. When I took out the extra window, it reminded me greatly of the 2 door Chevy Impala from about 1974 or so.
Agreed on the comment about sightlines, but again, I wonder about crash regs and so on.
The LTD is a better baby Lincoln than the Caprice is a baby Caddie. “Styled in the LINCOLN Continental tradition”
The death of the hardtop was due to the proposed rollover regs that didn’t materialize. That dual window thing likely wouldn’t have done any better than a large single window.
Paul, to paraphrase Studebaker in regards to the LTD opera window, “different . . . . by design!”
These cars remind me of the Frank Zappa song that stated:
All of our stuff,
Is American made,
It’s a little bit cheesy,
But’s it’s nicely displayed,
We don’t get excited,
When it crumbles and breaks,
We just get on the phone,
And call up some flakes.
Really, these cars fit this to a tee. The reason there are so few of them left is they were, for the most part, crap. I have driven more than a few of them and to a one, this generation of LTD is underpowered and drives like a barge on drugs. Just pointing them down the road in a straight like took considerable mental powers. About the only thing that didn’t blow-up and or malfunction on these dinosaurs (even for 1978) were the C-4 transmission and the 9 inch rear and. Endless mechanical and electrical problems plagued these cars.
The Chevrolet of 1978 was a far better car and was actually larger inside, with more usable room. Ford were masters of having huge cars with tiny interiors for some reason. Even the 1976 Caprice was a much better car. At least they drove pretty well for their heft and with the 400 CID engine could at least keep out of its way on the freeway.
I can’t say I have much love for them, nor does anyone else seem to, or at very best very few, because there are practically none left on the roads today.
As for Lincolns, when the cars were new they were not, I repeat, not cheap. This would mean they were purchased by people who had the time and money to keep them up. Often they are retired and don’t drive much. This is why an older luxury car is often a better used buy that a relatively new mainstream car. Luxury cars often have low km, service records and have been kept in a garage. By the way, there are loads of MK Vs around here for sale at reasonable prices.
We had a 1971 LTD (with the first year of the 400 engine, which lasted about 230K miles before developing a lower engine knock, and the heads were never taken off in that time) in the family for 30 years, and a 1977 Impala for 25 years. I disagree that the downsized Chevy was a better car. The doors, hinges, and latches on the Ford were worlds better than on the Chevy; they felt more substantial and the latches worked more smoothly. I HATED it when people slammed my LTD doors, thinking it was a GM product. Even after 30 years, my LTD door hinges were perfectly tight (yes, I did spray-grease them every few years), while most GM door hinges on their cars and trucks of the era were shot long before that.
In the 77+ Chevies, the front seat was about 8″ off of the floor (we had a manual seat so it couldn’t be adjusted up) which was never comfortable for me. The interior of the Impala was really bad, way worse than the 1971 Ford (not a fair comparison I know, Ford’s interior quality really took a dump in the late 70s as well).
Yes, the downsized B-body handled better and had tighter steering, but ours came with an anemic 305 with the defective camshaft (lobes wore down by 80K miles) and a THM200 tranny that bit the bullet at 40K miles.
The full-sized Fords mostly came with the FMX or the C6 transmission, I can’t remember seeing a C4 in one of the full-sized cars (maybe behind a 302 or the 6-cylinder, but either was rare in the big cars). And the C4s had a known weakness where the teeth sheared off one of the sun gears (or the input shaft driving it, can’t remember which), rendering all forward gears inoperative (happened in our 1969 F100 while I was driving it and same thing happened to friends who had one).
And endless mechanical and electrical problems??? Seriously? The only electrical problem that the LTD ever had was that it puked an alternator every 30-35K miles like clockwork. The ’77 Impala had similar alternator issues but they weren’t as frequent. Other than the normal bulb replacements, I can’t remember any other electrical issues – oh, one failed temperature switch (which prevents the A/C evaporator from freezing up) went out on the Impala. Of course, both cars had manual windows and door locks so no issues there. Sure, cars of this era required more maintenance than today’s cars, but it was easy to do, and parts were far more inexpensive than they are today.
Both the LTD and Impala were reliable cars for our family; we put over 200K on the LTD and close to that on the Impala. The C6 trans in the LTD was never rebuilt either.
So I don’t remember these as particularly bad cars. I’ve had FAR more electrical problems with my 2001 Buick Lesabre than I ever did with the 1970s cars. And the Lesabre has a multiplexed, multi-module electrical system that requires a GM Tech-2000 scantool to properly troubleshoot, and this tool is so expensive that I’ll never own one. And having a car that forces me to take it to the dealer for proper troubleshooting really makes me mad!
I’m not so sure that Chevrolets were that much better from a quality or reliability standpoint than Fords in the 1970s.
The downsized 1977 Chevrolets did offer much better handling, braking and interior packaging, so that made people willing to overlook other faults. By 1977, the LTD was looking very much like stale bread.
No debate there. Chevy door hinges and latches stank, leading to those famous GM, “two slam” doors. In addition, the Impala had really cheap and generally crappy interior materials and without the power seat, they were not much fun to drive for long. This is the reason I liked the Buick and Olds models so much better.
For taxi use, however, in the 1970s and 80s you saw a lot more Chevrolets than Fords, because they stood up better.
It’s not really a fair to compare the survival rates of these against a 78 B-box as it’s pretty hard to distinguish the early B-boxes and due to interchangeability people have been known to swap the aero headlights onto sealed beam boxes. Once you are comparing box to box the survival rate of the Panther at leas in my area is way higher. It is a rare day I don’t see a P-box on the road and 1 a week is about average for the B-boxes.
The Chevy 400 was not known for it’s durability. Rather than raise the deck height as Ford liked to do so they could increase the displacement via a longer stroke they bored it past the design limit of the block. So they ended up with siamesed cylinders with “steam holes” providing the only cooling between adjacent cyls. This made them prone to overheating, blowing head gaskets, cracking heads and a loss of compression much earlier than SBCs that had cooling jackets between cyls.
Don’t forget the soft cams, weak rods, and how the block splits down the middle when strained..
The 350 models were much better in every respect and even had a larger read end and better brakes on it. They also used 25% more fuel than a 305!
The above mentioned points is the reason we switched to Oldsmobile for taxi use. The better parts in the car more than made up for the extra initial purchase cost.
Surprisingly I saw a 74ish Impalla on the road today when I was coming back from lunch. The even more surprising thing is that it was at the same intersection where I often cross paths with a 66ish Buick Sport Wagon.
Excellent quote! What a horrible, disgusting, indefensible example of automotive degradation.
It’s true but ironic that Henry the First didn’t like to change things, considering how much he changed the world.
HF I damn near killed the company twice, HF II damn near killed it again with products like this.
Ford seems to slide in and out of near bankruptcy on a regular basis Over this way zero product testing has been to blame a couple of times but sheer stupidity seems to reign in Dearborn in the HF genetics.
“HF I damn near killed the company twice, HF II damn near killed it again with products like this.”
I was thinking this, but didn’t want to come out and say it. However, if an American can say that, I’ll happily agree. It must be hard to keep in step with changing trends when you’re in a management position, you’re getting older and more set in your ways, and your name’s on the building.
Sorry, but these cars were pretty reliable. My family owned them, I worked on them in my dad’s body shop, and I sold parts for them in a NAPA store all through the 1980’s. If they were that troublesome, I would know about it. They weren’t glamorous, but they were simple and reasonably reliable, certainly no worse than their competition.
And yes, Ford did put the C4 in them, whenever the car had a 302 or 351W, I believe. Once again, from the parts-counter observation post, they were no worse than the GM turbo 350.
Demo Derbiers love these tanks, so that is why hard to find them. But also, by the 2nd Gas Crunch of ’79, cars this big were as in style as poodle skits and zoot suits. And used GM cars were more popular with blue collar workers.
Once old timers accepted [got used to] the size of the Panther cars, they started selling well, too. one other thing, the Panthers had more room inside and drove better.
And, yes, Ford seemed to love big bumpers, to make cars ‘look big’.
I’d swear that the rear bumper on this LTD is the same as an F-150 front bumper from the same year range!
I hadn’t thought of the demo derby aspect and by gum, you are right! Excellent insight!
Lots of Donkeys met there death at the Demo Derby. Near where I used to live there was a guy that was a regular competitor and he somehow kept finding them and there was always one on a trailer in his yard. Either waiting to be prepped, ready for action, or having parts salvaged for the next one. Never once did I see a non-Chevy version.
One other thing is to me, these beasts are very ugly and far from the cool 1965-72 big Fords. These were for the leisure suit, elevator Muzak adults of the mid 70’s, with floaty ride and opera windows, out of style as men’s white shoes/belt sets and green toilets by the 80’s.
I guess this just goes to show, you never know what’s going to show up on the Curb around here.
Long Live Malaise, for it shall forever provide fodder for our viewing and reading pleasures!!!
Makes me miss my ’73 Galaxie 500 2 door hardtop. I didn’t quite recognize the back up lights ’cause mine were in the bumper. On the 400M, the one in my car was pretty solid, no cracks, no dropped lifters and it had enough horsepower once I put in an Edelbrock cam, carb, intake and muffler shop duals. It got 16 mpg at 60 with the a/c blasting. No two slams either, the doors closed and opened when I wanted.
That’s a nice survivor you found Richard, but if I was the buyer that steering wheel cover would have to go! For some reason I’ve always liked the looks of these, although more so the sedans and Country Squires. I especially liked the 4-door Landau with the fender skirts. I don’t know what they were thinking on the two door roof though. “Should we use window A or window B? Oh, let’s just put BOTH of them on!”
Thanks, and I agree about the steering wheel cover. When I took these pictures I was tempted to remove it but I figured the owner would probably show up the moment I did it (thankfully he didn’t).
I don’t know if the car sold, but after about a month of sitting there it suddenly disappeared.
ITA that the 1965-1972 Fords/LTDs were the real beauties.
My aunt bought a new LTD in 1966 (my favorite year), a two-door hardtop (with the concave rear window) in Vintage Burgundy with a Raven Black painted top and burgundy “panty cloth” upholstery, standard 289 engine, Cruiseomatic, PS,PB. I loved that car: it was almost as beautiful as the 1963 Grand Prix that inspired the design. And the ‘66 was a quality vehicle – quiet, well-built, luxurious interior – that my aunt drove until she traded it in 1977 for a new LTD, one of these monsters, metallic blue with white vinyl top and interior. I was horrified when I saw the badly styled 1977 for the first time in her garage. She was not happy later when the reliability issues identified here began developing.
An uncle bought a new 1972 LTD two-door hardtop, metallic brown with black vinyl top. Beautiful car but the quality was gone by then; he had problems from day one and wished he’d kept his 1966 Ambassador.
My parents have owned a 76 LTD Country Squire since brand new. It’s cream colored, wood-grained of course and with a brown vinyl top. It’s still driven occasionally by my mother and has outlasted many smaller cars throughout the years. The most notable replacement was an 82 Camaro which lost all of it’s silver paint within two years and was never repainted. What a mess!
I had an ’82 Camaro, one of the notorious “Norwood Nightmares”. Worst POS car I ever had. One of the best? 2000 Chevy Venture. Go figure.
get some ford hot rods
I have a 78 landau 2 door with the 400 same color make an offer goes like he’ll and is my daily driver.
I had a 78 2dr Landau and a 78 4dr base from 2000-2006. Even after all those years, they were still reliable. Neither one of them ever quit on me. The Landau was nice (it had the $472 Landau Luxury Group!). The 4dr was OK. The 2dr was Dove Grey, the 78 was Light Blue (which I hated). Paid $600 for the Landau and $500 for the 4dr. The 4dr had an engine fire and the 78 Landau went to the junk yard when the wife started bitching about having too many cars! Should have got rid of her instead. At least I still have a $700 76 Grand Marquis in excellent condition I bought back in 01. And also my $600 79 Lincoln Continental. Have owned it since 2001 also. Right now my two daily drivers are a $900 79 T-Bird bought in April 2002 and a 76 Maverick with the Stallion Package I bought for $800 back in March of 99. Both of those have working AC units which are a necessity in Texas. I’ll switch back to the Marquis and Lincoln next year for a year. So on and so forth. That’s how I do it.
Texas, no rust, working AC. how can you throw it away…
Got the Marti on my old 78 2dr Landau. Trailer Tow package explains a lot of things I wondered about during my ownership experience. The hitch had been removed before I got the car. Now I know why it had 3:1 gears in the rear and why it handled better than most of you say it did. Also why it sagged in the rear. Whoever must have pulled a trailer quite often.
I had 2 78 ltd landaus. Coupe 400 acid and sedan 460. Best 2 cars I ever had. The 400 got 18 to 27 mpg with the cam advanced 8 degrees and with gutted catalylic converters n blocked off egr and straight line to the destributer with advanced timing. All kinds of power and no mechanical issues except occasional ignition module. The 460 had more power. Out ran friends 77 and 85 trans am in both
. Only bad part on them was the vinal top and the crappy plastic armrests. These cars purchaced for 600 and 800 $ each gave me 21 years of service. The body was strong and bumpers were awesome. My wife and I took out a s10 blazer a caravan 3 neons and a ford aspire with these over the years and knocked a trail or off its foundation with only cosmetic damage to the car. They would go through 2 feet of snow and would cruise all day at 90. They were the best cars long term durability wise and road good. Handling was not that bad. I would buy another in a heartbeat. Only thing that comes close is the panther.
These were truly beefy cars, and their rather plain, slab-sided styling made them look even bigger than the last big Chryslers and GMs.
Among two door cars with sort of goofy ’70s side window treatments, I was and am pretty accepting of this one.
This was the second long term car my parents had while I was growing up. Ours was this trim level, a few less options, and a four door. It had its faults regarding handling, was lethargic with the base 351, but it was quiet, roomy, and had great AC. Pulled our moderate size camper or our boat all day without complaint.
I learned to drive in it, and you always remember your first!
My parents had a coupe very similar to this (1977, I believe) in the mid 1980s as a second car. Brown exterior with a brown cloth interior and a brown landau roof…same wheel covers as pictured above. I have no idea why my dad would have bought such a huge car, but it sure was cool to me (a 5 year old kid) to climb on and around. It was a decent car right up until he decided to put a “for sale” sign on it a few years later. Then it proceeded to have a small engine fire, got backed into by the neighbor’s father (parked on the street in case of another fire), had the seat belt fail, and a couple of other little things all in the matter of about a week. To my young mind, it was like the car was protesting being put up for sale.
I was never a big fan of the 1975-78 Ford LTD’s but for some odd reason I really dig that red exterior color of this car, I would gladly own this car over the 1974-76 full sized GM cars, I thought the best era of the full sized Ford’s was 1965 to 1972.
What about the full-size Mercury of the same era? Lucky for Mercury, the design wasn’t mess up like the LTD and Uncle Buck thought it was a cool ride for him. 😉
Macaulay Culkin….
a world before 9/11, and financial crisis and broken mid-class.
Generally I prefer coupes but for some reason the biggest of the big full sizers by the 70s never looked well proportioned as Coupes, same with the pre-downsized GM B/C bodies and Mopar C bodies
Those little opera windows say “Frazer convertible” to me. The most tasteless version was on the T-Bird, hung as it was on a pinstripe. Still I found, and find it strangely compelling.
I love these Fords / Mercury’s from the mid ’70s. My dad had a ’73 Colony Park with 460, great car it was, damn reliable. These rigs are built tougher than most of todays full size pick-ups. I have had, for several years now, a weird closet fantasy of finding one, and swapping in a 7.3L Powerstroke diesel. They certainly have the chassis for it. I think that would be cool. 🙂
Here’s one in very nice shape.
What year?
I’m almost certain a 73 or 74 because of the grille and rear treatment. Which hardens back to the earlier generation of LTD and Galaxie
I remember being very disappointed in seeing the new LTD at a Ford dealer preview in my city. They looked so bloated. A film shown at the preview promoted the advanced engineering that went into the cars.
A few years later I would buy a used 71 custom four door and later a used 75 Custom 500, ex-RCMP car with a 460/4V. I miss the 71, even with its anemic 302/2V. Both were great highway cars with the 75 very thirsty. Thankfully my gas for the last beast was paid for by the radio station I worked for.
“Advanced engineering”
It’s been the same car since 1962, but it sure is advanced!
EXTREMELY late to the party here, but it is most ceartainly a 1973. I know, because that was my first car (although mine was gold with a brown vinyl top). This car was actually a hardtop (as was mine)… no B pillar and the back window did roll down unlike today’s coupes.
The 1974 had the extended bumpers in the back as well as the front, unlike this car that only has them in the front. Also, the grill on the ’73 was sectioned into a glorified egg crate, like you see here. The 74’s parking lights had finer meshed chrome strips to match the 74’s finer mesh grill. The 73’s parking lights had three horizontal chrome strips (not including top and bottom) making for an appearance of caged lamp of 4 sections. The ’74 had like 8 chrome strips which looked a lot busier, and less elegant in my opinion, which is likely biased because mine was a ’73.
The car below is not my car, but one like it I found browsing the web…
I remember a dark green four door version parked on the street a few blocks from where I grew up in the late 80s/early 90s. As far as I can recall that’s the last one I’ve seen, and I can’t recall ever seeing the Mercury version. Lincolns and some of the Country Squires, on the other hand, seem better preserved.
They all look like nice cruisers to me.
“MATLOCK!” as Grampa Simpson would say! Certainly durable enough but the goofy two door greenhouse was just poor design. These were pleasant enough cars which one got sick of seeing very quickly. From the 1960’s years when there were glamorous Galaxie XL500 convertibles to lust over, these were so sterile no one could lust over them.
Its hard to lust over this model ,especially with the weird roof design, but I can definately lust over a `65 or `66 LTD coupe-especially with that sensuous “panty cloth” interior. In black of course.
I had both a 1971 and a 1978 LTD (both wagons). The 71 was the far superior car. By 78 the car had been cheapened a great deal and was unreliable with many component failures. The suspension was also softened to the point where the car was virtually uncontrollable.
The only drawback with the 1971 was the requirement for 5000 mile tuneups. Changing to an electronic ignition fixed that.
The 71 was a joy to drive and I wish I had kept it.
My dads friend bought a 1978 Ford LTD 2 door 351 Cleveland big block. Car only has 135 original miles. Was wondering what the value of car is.
Jim, I have appraised a couple of similar Fords and depending on condition, options, values can range from $4,000 to $6,000. Not much interest in these cars now but I believe that will change in a few years as these brutes were built ai the height of the Malaise era.
The overal size and the big bumpers hold a fascination for some younger collectors. Wagons of this era would be the ultimate catch if you can find one that is complete and roadworthy. There are a few out there.
Geez, 4 to 6 thousand? Glad I bought all mine from elderly original owners back in late 90’s early 2000’s for 500 to 700 dollars. All 18 cars I own now only set me back $7200 between 1983 and 2015. Cheapest two were free, most expensive was $1200. Guess they got to last me now. I could NEVER pay thousands to replace one.
Dads friend has 1978 LTD 2 door 351 big block with only 145 original miles. Yes 145 miles
will have to take pictures next time I’m over there. He’s original owner.
The final year of these 73-78 abominations. I’m not entirely sure if there was a desire to downsize for 1979, or if the Ford designers had finally exhausted how much bad taste they could apply over a 19 foot area.
The downsized Chevrolet Impala, Caprice likely shocked the old boys at Ford and Chrysler to rethink what a full-size sedan, wagon should be. Times were changing and the smaller Fairmont was on the horizon.
The so-called energy crisis in 1973-74 was also a factor of course.
Here’s an interesting look at what Consumer Guide thought the front of the LTD would look like in 78 from their 78 new model preview book. I think it looks horrible. What do you guys think? Text of article first, then the pic.
Picture.
Looks much like that of the Bonneville? Ya think? It’s a dead ringer for the ’75 Bonneville except with six grille divisions rather than four. (Which was essentially the grille design of the ’75 Catalina.). How lazy can you get?
My girlfriends parents had a 1978 LTD during our dating years in the late 70’s. The first time I drove it, I turned pretty briskly left onto a street. If my girlfriend had not been sitting next to me, I’d been next to the passenger door! Quite possibly the worst handling car I ever driven. My parents drove Oldsmobile 88’s and 98’s during my teenage years and I drove a 1969 Cutlass. I was shocked that there was so much difference in the way these two brands handled.
Seeing these photos of a red LTD out in all this greenery reminded me of this photo of a whole bunch of them abandoned (apparently) out in a field.
This car was never new. It was old and outdated, yet Ford made millions of them because they could get away with it. Pure profit. It was a car that had paid for itself years before. With every Ford Tank, thousands were collected and then put into smaller rides. They paid for the Fox body cars, the Taurus, FWD, and new computerization.
So, don’t look upon them as vehicles, look upon them as rolling piggy banks.
I cannot believe that people bought these things in the 70s. I was born in 1976 so I grew up with them and they always seemed ridiculously bloated and overstyled with lots of bizarre character lines, a curious mish mash of non shapes in the front end and grille v. the GM competition, and had small interior space for the vast bulk. The grille and front headlights are generic and uninteresting; gm had better looking headlight surrounds faired better into the body and much better grilles and taillight shapes. Most of these growing up were just awful body fluid colours too. At least it’s not as badly proportioned as the Chrysler Fuselage products, which had tiny little greenhouses set on top of barge like bodies. They were roomier than the midsize cars down below, but not that great for the extreme bulk and weight. It’s pretty easy to see why the Granada was a hit; it had decent interior room for 4 people, offered all the comfort features, but at a fraction of the bulk.
I’m sure I could have bought one of these cheaply when I was looking for my first car in 1993 but these things just seemed ridiculous. Even the 71-76 GM full sizers didn’t seem as heavy, bloated and silly. I did consider a 77 Olds Delta 88 and it seemed like a nice car, and I would have driven it, but it wasn’t fancy enough for my taste. I would never have thought about this.
Henry Ford II did drag his feet on launching the next wave of cars when even poor Chrysler was able to adapt the Simca into the Omnirizon. Ford did come up with the Fairmont, but everyone wanted a FWD family car in 1980/1981 and Ford had bupkus. The Fairmont also was unrelentingly cheap, unlike the Granada which offered some plushness. My question, though, is how much Iacocca backed Henry II? It’s quite possible that Iacocca enthusiastically backed Ford’s reluctance despite what Iacocca says.
I am not nostalgic for this particular boat.
This is how these cars were made!
Looks like a photoshopped photo to me. But still pretty cool……
The top half of this car never seemed to match the bottom. The window line is just weird. The bottom of the car, up to the belt line is very blocky. The Mercury and the earlier Ford’s are just more proportional. This car is just ugly and odd.
I worked for Hertz as a transporter in ’77-’78, but they didn’t have any of these in our location; though we did have lots of LTDII and Thunderbirds as probably their most popular rentals. At home, my Dad had a ’73 Ranch Wagon (in brown, of course) which I drove on occasion but he traded it in on a ’78 Caprice Classic wagon (last wagon he was to own). The Ranch Wagon had the 400 and trailer towing package (we had a small poptop trailer at the time) but being a ’73, it was bought early in that year, maybe 6 months before the 1st gas crisis. Like a lot of people, my Dad freaked about the gas shortage (though it had never happened before). My mother mostly drove the Ranch Wagon, and my Dad wanted her to drive a more economical car, his 2nd car, but it was a standard transmission, which my mother was never really comfortable with. He kept the Ranch Wagon until 1978 and the 305 in the Caprice probably got better mileage, which helped a bit in ’79 when the 2nd gas shortage occurred. I’d guess that’s what did in a lot of the Fords, people didn’t like the poor mileage, plus I guess the frames had a problem with rusting. Though the Chevy was even better equipped than the Ford, the Ford was big and comfortable, didn’t handle very well; my Mother used to call it “the boat”, if not for the gas shortages, I think they might have held onto it a bit longer (though my Father didn’t usually hold onto cars very long back then).