(first posted 5/17/2018) Last week, Paul covered the 1983 generation Fairmont-based LTD and its challenging mission of bridging between the “Brougham” and “Aero” eras at Ford. The resulting car did not set the world on fire, though it wound up as a decent success during a tumultuous period for U.S. automakers. However, engine and equipment choice played a huge role in determining how good the car was for everyday transportation—period reviews from Consumer Guide Auto Test and Car and Driver help pinpoint the good, the bad and the ugly when it came to the “Fairmont LTDs.”
The brief for the Ford LTD (and companion Mercury Marquis) was a tough one. The 2nd Oil Shock had thrown a monkey wrench into Motown’s product planning machine, and suddenly makers were scrambling to flee big cars while still retaining big car customers. It was common knowledge around Detroit that GM would once again be downsizing its full-sized fleet and converting to front-wheel-drive—the originally expected timing was 1983 (GM missed that by a mile as deep corporate rot set in). So for 1983, FoMoCo would have wanted to be ready with “smaller full-sized” rivals—hence the reskinning and rebadging of the former “compact” Fairmont.
Plus, the precedent had already been set. Pontiac, for example, dumped its full-sized B-Body Catalina/Bonneville and gave a nose job to the mid-sized LeMans to create the “new” Bonneville Model G for 1982. It wasn’t really a full-sized car, but it carried a full-sized name, so maybe fuel-price-shocked buyers would take the bait.
Chrysler deployed the same strategy with the New Yorker by applying the storied name to the former rear-wheel-drive LeBaron line for 1982. Voila! Instant big car! But in a more rational size, in keeping with the tone of the energy-conscious times.
Aero-fever had taken hold at Ford, so the “new” LTD would get its dose of the new look. The design was not as comprehensively well-executed as on the Thunderbird (which effectively masked its Fox-Body origins by deploying a redesigned cowl with hidden wipers, aircraft style doors and a very slick body), the LTD was nonetheless a move in a more modern direction, though it did still look quite a lot like the outgoing “compact” Fairmont, especially around the greenhouse.
So where to place the ’83 LTD in the competitive set? That was the challenge facing Consumer Guide. Despite the “big car” name on a platform originally marketed as a “compact,” the LTD was lumped in with mid-sized rivals (mostly fwd). Reflecting this schizophrenia between large and small, the car evaluated in Auto Test 1983 carried an odd mix of equipment.
That’s right, Consumer Guide drove an LTD with Brougham trim, wire wheel covers and the woefully underpowered 2.3L I4 and 3-speed auto. As you would expect, this powertrain combo was terrible for the car, being very sluggish but not offering the sort of fuel efficiency that would have been expected from a 4-cylinder. Calling it “lethargic” was a compliment. Proof that with the technology available in the early 1980s, larger cars with smaller, normally-aspirated engines were not a satisfactory combination. And I can only imagine how the propane-fueled 4-cylinder worked out….
But stuffing a bigger engine in a reasonably sized car was always a Detroit favorite, and the LTD got that treatment as well. However, rather than just offering the 4.9L V8 (known as the 5.0L V8 in Ford marketing-speak) as an option on any LTD, it only came with the “Euro-inspired” performance model introduced in mid-1984 as the LTD LX. Naturally, Car and Driver had to spend some wheel time with this one.
There was “like” but not “love.” The compromises that went into creating the “Fairmont LTD” were still on display, though FoMoCo was given credit for making a lot out of a little. However, the car looked almost clichéd with the blackout trim, satisfying neither the European crowd nor the American crowd. Though the anticipated price of $12,000 ($29,388 adjusted) was aggressive, Ford may have been better served by offering both the V8 and the LX package as standalone options. The brutal truth was the market was not interested in the “performance” LTD, as only 3,260 were produced for 1984 and 1985 combined. The Mercury Marquis LTS mentioned in the article turned out to be a Canadian offering only, and a mere 134 were produced (thanks to mercury6768 and VinceC (Bill Mitchell) for this data). These “tuned” old-school family cars just weren’t what the market wanted in the mid-1980s.
But there was one variant of the LTD that was “just right” for the car’s mission as unassuming middle class “quasi-brougham, quasi-modern” transportation. Consumer Guide Auto Test 1985 took a spin in a more “typical” LTD of the period and found a lot to like (enough to even bestow the LTD with a “Best Buy” designation).
The 1985 test LTD came in Brougham trim (this time with the “sail cloth canvas” roof covering—so much “classier” than vinyl…but note the CG content error: this roof treatment was optional on any LTD, but not standard on the Brougham.) and finally the right engine for most of the car’s owners: the 3.8L V6. This “dutiful” engine provided enough pep for the average buyer, with decent (but not outstanding) fuel economy. Basically “just right” for traditional customers easing into the expectations of the 1980s. Without a doubt, the majority of the 647,509 Fox-Body LTDs (plus 307,950 Marquis) sold from 1983 through 1986 carried this engine.
So there you have it, from back in the day, the best way to have your Fox LTD—a transitional car at its finest!
Ford LTD: It’s A Car!
The Fairmont was good enough that it wasn’t terribly behind five years later. Aside from being a useful family sedan today for someone with a garage full of Mustang parts, the LTD has gone to the meh-mory hole.
Remember that this was more a replacement for the Fox Granada than the Fairmont. The Tempo was aimed where the Fairmont had been.
I have actually driven the propane variant. Slow is not a way to describe it-glacial was more like it. This is not necessarily bad for taxi use, but LPG LTD was so under-powered that I was seriously concerned whether it could have four passengers and make it up a steep hill. It was that bad.
I never knew these cars were available with the 4 speed manual transmission, I wish a 5 speed manual was offered with the 5.0 V8, I bet that would’ve been a fun car to drive.
I would love to get my hands on one of these. they are few now and getting harder to find.
I have a 1985 Mercury Marquis Broughm in good condition. I am the second owner and has it has been a trusty daily driver since 1989. I am now willing to part with it. Totally remanufactured 3.8 liter engine with 4000 miles on it and drives great. Just turned 201,000 and still going.
I am trying to find used parts for a 1986 ford ltd wagon (fox type). do you know any possible sources. Even a clue might help. Al
Sorry, I don’t know of a good place to get used parts. Auto salvage places maybe.
I love the C/D counterpoint that calls this car the last gasp of the Fox platform. They were premature by about a decade.
This car is maddening because it came soooo close. That V8 was only 165 horsepower, so better than the normal LoPo 5.0 but still not the fully developed version from the 5 speed Mustang GT. This was the one detuned so that it would not kill the balky AOD automatic (at least until the warranty was gone). Another 50 horsepower and an available stick and this car would have turned some heads.
I also wonder what might have happened if the stylists and engineers had given the aero T-Bird treatment to the LTD’s 1983 transformation from the Granada. Ford could have owned the American sports sedan market. The Taurus got the looks and the Mustang got the power and handling. This car could have combined them. I realize it would have been a small market, but the car would have at least earned a halo of respect that would have kept your neighbors from laughing when they saw it.
I wish that Ford had kept this platform for the Lincoln Continental, and given it a thorough do-over for 1988 (on the order of what the Mustang would receive for 1994), instead of switching to the Taurus-based model for 1988.
The refinement would have fallen short of BMW/Mercedes standards, but the car would have been better for Lincolns’ reputation in the long run, and would have stolen more than a few Cadillac customers, too.
Why not just a four-door MN12? (Isn’t that basically what the Aussie EA-EL Falcon were?)
That would have been better, the SN95 was adequate for a muscle car, but it still had all of the shortcomings from the fox carried over that kept it from being truly world class even in the 80s. The MN12 had great bones and with some continued investment it could have been a very capable platform, it’s a shame it never branched out from the three three lowish volume cars in a disappearing segment.
As an MN12 fan be interested to hear what commonality there may be to the EA-EL Falcon, that’s news to me, but it would be really cool if there was 🙂
No; all the AU Falcons were continuous evolutions of the previous ones; there never was a totally new Falcon except in 1960. Maybe it used some aspect of the MN12 irs, but other than that possibility, I have a hard time seeing what else would have readily fit. The MN12 was a clean-sheet platform; the Falcon not.
There was pressure to “go all FWD” from some execs. At same time, the MN12 was purely meant to be a coupe, and came out just when PLC’s were declining.
FWD ‘Connie’ was meant to go against Seville and imports, but was a rush job.
Yes. Remember the Mustang almost became FWD.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1994-mustang-the-car-that-almost-wasnt/
I’m sure the MN12 could have been configured for a sedan, it wasn’t a sports car, it is as conventional in design and layout as a modern day RWD chassis, and there was some flirtation for it being the basis for a Panther replacement in the early 90s, at least those were the rumors from the time. The DEW98 actually has some oddly reminiscent MN12 traits in the chassis, and Thunderbirds were used as test mules during development.
Also before the decision was made to continue with RWD there was concurrent development of a Taurus based Thunderbird to succeed the Fox, early clays were all Taurus based, before the Taurus debuted. The FWD Tbird never got as far as the FWD Mustang(Probe) though.
I am with you (and Geeber) in thinking it’s a shame Ford didn’t do more for this LTD, plus more fully differentiated companion offerings from Mercury (and maybe even Lincoln). I actually think that there could have been a decent-sized market for well-executed, not-too-big and not-too-small rwd American sedans. For specifics, I’d have done the following:
• Stretch the wheelbase to around 108″ or 109″
• Overall length around 200″ to 202″
• Comprehensive aero redesign of all body panels and roofline, like the Thunderbird and Tempo
• Standard 3.8 V6, with optional V8s in regular-tune and high-output
• Plus, if you really want to dream, a fully independent rear suspension (to be shared with the Mustang and T-Bird)
The increase in wheelbase and length (and corresponding interior volume) would have moved it far enough away from the Taurus size-wise so that it could compete on its own in a different segment. The resulting car would have been around the same size as GM’s fwd full-sized cars and Chrysler’s M-Body, which came to be the new definition of “big” cars at the time (Caprice, Crown Vic, etc. were seen as “huge” and “oversized” for most 30- and 40-something buyers).
Like the T-Bird, this “LTD done right” could have redefined and modernized the traditional rwd American car and kept it relevant to a much broader cross-section of buyers.
@ J P Cavanaugh “I love the C/D counterpoint that calls this car the last gasp of the Fox platform. They were premature by about a decade.”
Two decades, actually, if we count the SN95 chassis derived from the Fox platform that carried the Mustang for another 11 years. My ’01 Mustang GT was still considered a “Fox body,” as were those that followed until the ’05 arrived with a completely new platform.
In the “Counterpoint” section of the Car and Driver test, David E. Davis, Jr., calls the Fox platform “old” and says that this car represents its “last gasp.” That “old” platform had debuted in late 1977, or a whopping seven years ago.
One wonders what he would have thought if someone from the future had gone back to 1984 and told him that this “old” platform would hang around for another two decades through the Mustang! (Edit – J P Cavanaugh noticed this at the same time I did!)
Yeah, DED Jr.’s crystal ball not running on all cylinders during his counterpoint; he also would have preferred a Tempo with the same power-to-weight ratio as the RWD V8 LTD/LX. Now that’s a scary thought! (and yes I know someone’s going to chime in about the later V6/5-speed version. It’s still a Tempo).
As the former owner of a 1992 Ford Tempo GLS V6/manual, I will definitely chime in here.
Given the specs listed in the C&D article (165hp, 3300#), the LTD LX had a ratio of 20 lb/hp.
Edmunds lists the 1992 Tempo at 2600#. But it also lists that weight for all trims, which were 4-cyl. The Vulcan V6 definitely weight more, and the GLS was typically always optioned up fully. So assume a weight of 2800 #. The V6 was rated at 135hp in the Tempo. That gives it a ratio of 20.7 lb/hp.
So the LTD has a slightly better power to weight ratio. The big difference is that the Tempo GLS V6 could be had with the 5-speed manual, the LTD could not. I’ve not driven the LTD LX, but I loved how much fun my GLS 5-speed was.
And pic just to show off. 🙂
Don’t forget the Tempo has first-generation Escort brakes- which were barely enough for the Escort, let alone a vehicle several hundred pounds heavier. A hot-rod Tempo could only be stopped by colliding with something…
C&D for years would call any design over 3-4 years old as “dated” or “antediluvian”.
I remember all the predictions in 1980 era C&D magazines that “by 1983, gas will be $5 a gallon!” and the “Panther/B Body [full size cars] were to be “killed off and gone for good.” Over and over they were saying “we [USA] will all be buying compact FWD cars from now on…”. They were giddy at the prospect.
When GM said that their newly styled 1981 RWD PLC’s [G bodies] were going to stick around until 1984, replaced by N body, C&C said “by then, they will be dinosaurs”.
We know what happened for real. And who knew that by now, small cars would get “dropped” in favor of larger CUV’s? And 5 bucks is pocket change?
I doubt that anyone in 1983 would be surprised that $5 today is worth about $2 in 1983.
When I read all these predictions of driverless cars “coming to all by 2020”, I think of the 1980 “we all will be in small cars by ’85” ones.
Interesting in one aspect the four cylinder engine, Ford Australia experimented with that idea on their Falcon during this era fitting a Pinto engine for evaluation whether the 2.0 or 2.3 I dont know however road testing proved the 3.3 six to be more economical and the idea never saw production,
Having driven a 2.0 automatic Cortina for a long time, I dread to think of that engine in a period Falcon. And when they finally got a decent four in the recent Ecoboost Falcon, hardly anybody bought one.
Bondurant Racing School had some of the V8’s with the floor shift. They were featured in one of the prints ads in one or more of the auto publications at the time.
The Marquis LTS variant was only sold in Canada and was pretty rare. (See pic from Google below.)
I had an ’86 Marquis Wagon with the V-6, fairly well optioned. In the year I owned it, I drove it “spiritedly” enough that I wore the front tires out! A quiet, solid, unassuming car. Other than tires and a battery, I never spent a dime on it.
There were 134 Mercury Marquis LTS built in 1985 for the Canadian market only. This is confirmed by Marti Auto Works.
Thank you for this data! I will amend the text to point out the Canadian output on the Mercury Marquis LTS–explains why the production did not show up in the U.S. Standard Catalog.
That LTS looks significantly better to my eye, the LTD grille and taillights are clunky looking, and I can’t help but feel the “euro” blackout just made it look more like a police/taxi fleet vehicle.
I own one 🙂 , a VERY rough one tho. Hope to start working on it someday soon.
As a teen, what drove me crazy about these was the massive expanse of red taillight with only the lower, outer strips lighting up. On the Mercury, the upper part was initially grayed-out, making slightly more sense, but it was just dumb overall.
Was it really that expensive to add another bulb? The half-lit look always screamed “cheap!”
Ford was notoriously bad with this, the 83-93 Mustangs had a giant reflector section below the reverse and turn signal indicators and the 89 Thunderbirds and Cougars had massive full width reflector panels with only the outboard taillights doing any illumination.
If this car was on the market today, with the required safety features, it would probably be an enthusiast’s car. RWD when most are not, offered with a variety of engines, from an anemic 4 to a V8, and choice of a manual, it would be every fanboy’s number 1 choice (before they buy a pickup instead because, you know, towing….lol). The problem was that they tried too hard to make it something for everyone, and that almost never works. Was it a brougham mini-barge, a gussied-up small car, or a sports sedan? By trying to be all three, it never successfully became any of the choices. Was it a bad car? No, just confused. Did Ford try too hard, or not hard enough?
4 doors were still referred to as “too many doors” by domestic car enthusiasts, so wasn’t too many sales.
Ford kind of used Fox LTD as a bridge to the Taurus. Which, IIRC, was the code name of project. Imagine a “1986.5 LTD”, with Taurus body.
It was always a placeholder product, not some complex self defeating strategy. Ford had two FWD sedans in the pipeline before the LTD hit the showroom. A recyled Fairmont was what they had on hand to work with, because there wasn’t enough time or money to do something better sooner.
Great write-up GN. I liked these the LTD LXs, but I agree with the C/D counterpoints general consensus that they were far from a home run. As much as many of us lament that it these cars didn’t get the 5-speed and the higher powered carburetor and roller cam equipped 5.0L engine, I really don’t think they would have sold well. Everyone knew these were a lipstick job on a dated car when they were introduced other than maybe a handful of enthusiasts, people weren’t interested. At the time the domestic manufactures had concluded that FWD was the future and anything that didn’t have it was an old dinosaur.
Ford offered a Police package that was essentially the same as this LTD LX. It was a fast car, and it out ran the 351 powered LTD Crown Victoria. However, it had very poor brakes for police duty and didn’t seem to have the durability of the Panther either.
Here are 1985 Production stats
In my humble opinion, a big saving grace for these cars was that they were available as wagons as well as 4 door sedans.
My parents owned a Marquis, a V6 that replaced a V8 Zephyr. Oddly, both of those cars had engines with nearly the same horsepower.
On a scale of 1 to 10, the Zephyr was a 5 while the Marquis was at best a 7. To some extent, these cars were like Xerox copies of Xerox copies in that they barely improved on the originals.
You are definitely right about the wagons driving a decent-sized chunk of the model mix. About 25% of LTD output was the wagon (160,369 produced from ’83 through ’86). Mercury was more sedan-oriented, with 16% of Marquis output going to wagons (50,387 produced from ’83 through ’86).
In this case I think the xerox copy looked better than the original for probably the only time in history
Brock Yates wrote the C&D road test of LTD LX. And in 2nd to last paragraph repeats what they were predicting: “Surely were are coming to the day … when a Detroit sedan meets European targets” [paraphrasing]
Oh, if only he was alive today to see headlines of “Ford is cutting cars”, i.e. no more ‘European style sports sedans’ from Ford.
Even BMW is moving to more and more CUV’s. Hmm, could there be a day when the 3 Series is dropped in the US, “due to market conditions”?
Another enjoyable read and throwback articles. I think the four-cylinder car was as interesting to me as the V8-powered LX. Imagine an aspirational, ersatz upscale car (equipped with wire wheel covers, no less) being barely able to get out of its own way.
I agree! But if you want to know something really sad (and bad), I was flipping through this issue of Consumer Guide Auto Test 1983 and found another car with equally pathetic acceleration and marginal fuel economy. But in this case, the price tag and positioning were solidly in the luxury category. That car? The 1983 Cadillac Sedan DeVille with the HT4100. Just depressing….
Depressing, indeed! Wow.
As Ford is mostly getting out of the car business, this is a rather timely article since the LTD was the last gasp of the RWD Ford intermediate sedan (and still with a V8, no less). For that reason, alone, I’m rather fond of them. Yeah, time marches on and the Taurus was the right vehicle at the right time, but the LTD was plenty good enough, particularly when one considers the competition of the day.
Ford was nearly bankrupt in 1980s due to old bad management and old bad products. Read “The CAR” to see how the Taurus saved Ford
All I can add to this is… my real first car was an 86 Marquis Brougham.
No vinyl top. But bucket seats power windows and locks. It had 173K miles when my grandma gave it to me. It was 12 years old and if I hadn’t been a dumb ass 16 year old it might still be on the road. It got decent mileage at the time (20ish) was comfortable and fast enough to bark the tires with the V-6. I still miss it.
See my comment above if you are interested:
I have a 1985 Mercury Marquis Broughm in good condition. I am the second owner and has it has been a trusty daily driver since 1989. I am now willing to part with it. Totally remanufactured 3.8 liter engine with 4000 miles on it and drives great. Just turned 201,000 and still going.
Thanks GN! These vintage reviews really made my day.
Drove my 85 ltd lx yesterday, it loves the curvy mountain roads of Va. any links to parts or or current owners?
I am a current owner of a 85 Marquis if you are interested.
I remember owning one, BRIEFLY, in the Late 1980’s –
I inherited this “Grandma Car” when my granny decided to stop driving.
It was a “Generic FORD 1.0”:
-Basic white paint with blackout (i.e. cheap vinyly / rubber) trim
-Basic Blue cloth interior
-Manual windows / seats. Only “Power” stuff was brakes / steering
-AM/FM radio (might have had 2 speakers in the dash or front doors only)
-6-cylinder with throttle-body fuel injection
Even as a college student at the time – I remember it as an all-around compromise:
-The POWER was so-so at best (V6 in this car should have had more “giddeyup”)
-Handling was so-so (soft suspension, lots of body roll, but not exactly “comfort”)
-A 4-door, but rear seats were still pretty cramped for a largish mid-size car
-Fuel mileage was so-so (better than carbureted V-8’s, but other 6-cyl cars of the time had more power and/or got better economy)
Only good thing = it was RELIABLE / cheap to operate
When the opportunity came to Trade-UP – I took it:
-Local used car lot had LOW mileage 1976 Buick Riviera “Pimp-Mobile”
(7.7l V8 when gas was first hitting $2+/gallon – but I got it for a song and enjoyed it for a LONG time. THAT car had Style, Power, and was as reliable as ever.
I had a ’85 LX, with the 6. It was a mediocre car- cheep interior and materials throughout. Handling was barely average, and so so reliability. Not terrible for the day, nor above average on most criteria (except perhaps the 5.0) But, there were better alternatives- more substantial cars, with similar gas mileage available in the same price range.
Not sure if Mustang had 4 wheel disc brakes at this time. If so, swap out rear ends in LX, add open-air flip-up roof and extended range gas tank.
One hell of an Audi killer!!!!!!!
Some folks here commented that they wish Ford had given the 1983 LTD as thorough a makeover as the Thunderbird. However, Ford was in poor financial condition at the time and its plate was probably full with the Thunderbird and Tempo as well as the billions being spent developing Taurus, so this was probably the best Ford could do at the time.
I always wondered why Ford dropped the Fox Granada after two years, and this article gave a good explanation – the FWD full-size GM cars were expected for 1983 (but delayed because of transmission development issues), and this was a quick response, just as the LTD II may have been a cheap response to the 1977 GM downsizing.
..
I drove an employees loaded 1983 Ford LTD on Farmont frame in mid 1990s and could not believe how it drove like a very old car from 1960s. I had been driving VW product for 10 years and Chrysler minvan, so I like front wheel drive, but Ford just seemed so dated.
This was a pretty good car considering that it was just thrown together with what they had. Importantly it wasn’t a bad car so Ford was cleared to launch the Taurus without baggage.
I like these compact luxury floater cars. They had all those comfy Brougham touches without the heft. I have kept an eye out for GM’s versions as well. The Bonneville, the Cutlass Supreme sedan, the Buick Regal sedan, the Park Avenue, these Ford/Mercury products. They were a good size and stuffed with lots of Broughamage.
The cheesiest is the Park Avenue that rode on that craptastic Aspen/Volare bones. Lee Iacocca really cheeesed that car up and it was surprisingly popular with folks looking for an inexpensive cheesemobile. My brother was tempted, but ended up taking his young family around in a new Aerostar for years and years.
I think my favorite is the LTD/Marquis. It would have been the Fox Continental, but that rear deck is just too much.
Dated, conservative design, increased the impact of the Taurus.
Now I want to find a 1984 Toyota Cressida. It’s weird how much Car and Driver faint-praised the LTD LX for hiding its Fairmont roots. They used to gush about Fairmonts, when that’s what their second biggest advertiser was selling.
As much of a lemon as our 1985 Marquis Brougham was, when it ran, it was a pleasure to drive.
Ours had the Essux engine and it wasn’t easy on gas, averaging about 18-19 on the road and 15-16 in town. I wished it had been equipped with the overdrive transmission.
The local LM dealer had ordered a bunch of these, all loaded up about the same with the Brougham package, V6 engine, and most of the regular things like power windows/ locks, tilt, cruise, then advertised them as a great deal either for purchase or lease.
I know of 5 people that bought these in a three month period due to the pricing! In fact, both of my wife’s grandparents bought one.
Ford tried. But then the taurus hit!
I remember this car from that Seinfeld episode where the crew lost their car in the New Jersey mall parking garage. It was Kramer’s poo brown LTD that didnt start at the end. And the fact that it didnt start was completely unscripted lol. I relived that episode when I lost my 1991 Cadillac in a parking garage in downtown Atlana. Looked for over an hour before I realized I was in the wrong parking garage for the same building that was painted/marked the same
Motor Week did a review of the LTD LX. Other than the stiff ride, they were impressed: