(first posted 10/30/2016) The Ford Granada was one of Lee Iaccoca’s bigger hits, and a perfect follow-up to his Mustang II. It started out to just be the replacement for the Maverick, but Lee sensed the market was changing quickly, due to the energy crisis and other factors. So he quickly changed it into a mini-LTD with some Euro-affectations; one could say it was a poor-man’s Seville, with the same basic formula. And he pushed it as a cheaper Mercedes 280 competitor. Predictably, Americans lapped it up.
Road and Track, with a very acknowledged bias towards genuine sporty/small/enthusiast cars, was a bit wary of the Granada, in this case powered by the 302 V8. But except for the very poor (and predictable) rough road handling and numb steering, terrible fuel mileage (12.5 mpg) they found it reasonably adequate enough. Not for themselves personally, but as one staffer said: “it’s a car he’d like to see his mother buy”.
The interior was a mish-mash of European influence (the excellent front seats came directly from the European Granada) with very American-flavors, like the decidedly non-Euro dash. No one will confuse thta with a Mercedes dash.
One could say that the Granada was a precursor to highly successful Taurus ten years later. Both redefined what would become the effective standard-size American car, while the big cars became a cut above. And both had a mixture of American and European influences.
Like so many American cars back then, the Granada handled well enough on smooth pavement, but totally fell apart when the going got rough. That’s one of the very key differences between a crude suspension with a rigid axle on leaf springs and a genuine Mercedes suspension.
It’s a question that should not have ever been asked.
But it sold, and who knows how many Americans were taken in by the ads?
Now if R&T had tested the Granada with the 70 hp 250 six, the outcome might have been a bit different. We awarded that version with a major prize, based in part on the review of one with that engine:
Automotive History/Vintage Review: 1975 Ford Granada Wins “The Most Malaise Car Ever” Award – A Triumph of (Imitative) Style Over Substance
I had a Granada of similar vintage – 1978 ESS – and I can attest to the excellence of the bucket seats. Mine had a Mercedes-style headrest and that perfed/knit (can’t recall which) vinyl upholstery that wore like iron. Great blend of comfort and support.
I never knew the bucket seats (or any part of the car besides the name) was shared with the European Granada.
My mother actually drove a 1975 Black Ford Grenada 4 door sedan. Due to her distaste for automatic transmission, she actually ordered it new with a “three on the tree”. That was the car in which I took and passed my first driving test. (I think I was the only person I knew who took his/her driving test in 1977 with a manual transmission car.)
Music to my ears, ND! I bought a used black ’75 (two door, though) around 1980; the bottoms of the doors had already rusted through (Great Lakes winters), but I still think of how great those seats were on cross-country runs. Mine had the 3-speed and the 250 six; first owner had pulled off (or plugged) all the emissions stuff, and installed a manual choke–damned it the thing wouldn’t get well about 25 mpg in restrained freeway driving. It’s not at all a rational ambition, but the Granada is one of the cars I occasional look for on eBay, in case there’s a nice, similar “survivor” I could give a loving home to….
First car ‘76 Granada, 3 in the tree, 250 straight 6. LOVED that car. I would take it back in an instant. Best car I have ever driven on the highway.
“Like so many American cars back then, the Granada handled well enough on smooth pavement, but totally fell apart
when the going got rough“Fixed it for you….
I had perhaps the exact duplicate of this article’s car for 3 weeks as an “upscale” Hertz rental.
I didn’t always agree with “R&T” on their road test opinions; but do on this one.
The V8 Granada reminded me vividly of my Father’s and Grandfather’s Falcons. (Dad’s did have the 260 V8, at least).
Small wonder, since it was the same car underneath.
I saw one a while back with a 302…and a 4 speed manual. It had some tweaks (mostly, 2.5″ dual exhaust and an 1850 Holley on a Performer intake) and moved pretty well.
Even as a youngster at the time, I saw the Granada largely as a mini LTD. Nothing more. In spite of the Mercedes styling cues, the price and engineering showed informed consumers it was clearly a traditional American compact. I liked that it demonstrated (and convinced) many buyers, a more rationally sized American car could still suit their needs in most circumstances. As opposed to the standard-sized barges. All three of the major domestic car makers were guilty of giving their compacts European styling cues and faux luxury, if not true European engineering and quality.
I was pleased that this generation of domestic compacts succeeded in making smaller sedans significantly more palatable to many domestic barge buyers. If their choices weren’t yet nearly up to European standards of quality and engineering.
Look at the dimensions listed, this has about the same “footprint” as a Fusion.
It’s a comfortable size. The marginal increase in interior volume of a Gran Torino/Montego/LTD II or LTD/Marquis, seemed negligible, if children rode in the back. Compared to driving something more manageable, and practically scaled.
I was more than delighted my dad shopped compacts for the first time in the mid 70s. As opposed to the land whales.
Wonder what MB thought of their 280SE being compared o a lowly Granada be it one with Mercedes style front head restraints, wow!. ” A $5000 car that looks like a $20000 one.” Perhaps if your driving glasses needed a bloody good clean A 302 engine that produced all of 125hp and guzzled gas at a rate of 12.5 mpg and ther rear end dances above 50mph on rougher roads. The later Fairmont ES got slated by Motor Trend for being designed just for 55mph.
Yep, they sold the Monarch 302 Ghia in the UK thru Bristol Street Motors of Birmingham along side the bigger Aussie Fords and Mustang. Wonder whythere was not many buyers….
I drove one of these for a few minutes back in the fall of 76 and can attest they are DECENT cars on smooth roads at speeds UNDER the national speed limit.
If you know the history of Ford cars, this car comes across fairly honestly as a Maverick dipped in gold foil. To the casual eye it looks “premium”, but just like the Maverick….and the Falcon it eventually reveals itself as a large rhinestone and not the diamond it would like you to think it is.
Add the Granada/Monarch to a list of Ford products that (inexplicably?) will never be collected/restored by loving fans.
I don’t care for the Granada but I think the Monarch is fairly decent.
I’d collect a bunch of ’em if they were still widely available and cheap. But I’d want a 77. Six with overdrive.
Each time I see a photo of the backseat of a Granada I laugh as a friend of mine had one and I can confirm that it wasn’t a pleasant place for a normal sized adult to sit. Look at how short the seat bottom cushion is – all done to give the illusion of space.
In fact, when you find photos of people sitting in the back seat, they are almost always sitting side-saddle with their backs in the corner against the door.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Ford/1975_Ford/1975_Ford_Granada_Brochure/1975-Ford-Granada-08
http://oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Ford/1978_Ford/1978_Ford_Granada_Brochure/1978-Ford-Granada-08
I rode in the back of a Granada when I was about 13, not even grown up fully yet, and even then found the seat to be too short and too level, not giving any support under the knees. Still it had decent room. The other thing I remember is the unusual inside door release handles that looked more like window cranks and seemed out of place in a mid-1970s car – they looked like they hadn’t changed since the ’50s.
Haha, nice catch.
I can just picture that photo shoot:
“Hello, modeling agency? Gimme some midget models, under five feet. And make sure they’re flexible.”
I remember those Granada-Mercedes print ads from the 70s, even as a little kid I couldn’t believe they’d pull such a horse-manure stunt.
“Can you tell its looks from a $20,000 Mercedes-Benz?”
“Yes, because I’m not f*#@^$ blind”
This.
Apropos of the comment about the Granada being suitable for someone’s mother: Ca. 1975 I was driving around with my non-gearhead mother, and she spotted a Granada and asked what it was, presumably because she thought it was good-looking.
I notice that they also drove a Granada with a 72hp 250CID six and noted that a 200CID six was available. I can’t imagine that many Granadas with the latter engine were sold.
According to The Encyclopedia of American Cars, the 200 c.i. 6 cylinder engine made MORE power than the 250 c.i. (albeit only 3 more horsepower).
And my father had a Maverick 4 door with the 250 6 cylinder engine and automatic transmission….not hugely fast, but for a small family it was adequate for power.
I have a 75 200/250 cylinder head. One of the reasons Hp was so low was because the Thermactor air tubes actually go into the exhaust port and block a large portion of it. In 76, they rerouted it and Hp went back up. Of course the catalytic converter allowed more agressive spark advance curves to come back as well which also helps.
Yup, until 77 the 200 was not available in the Ghia. In the plain models it was never available with AC or automatic. However strangely enough, you could buy the 4 wheel power disc brakes with one theoretically. In 77, with the advent of the 3+overdrive tranny, it became available in the Ghia for one year. They dropped the gearing quite a bit because 1st gear was a 3.29 ( vs 2.99 for the 3 speed) and the rear gear dropped from 2.79 to 3.40, which was 4 cylinder Pinto territory. After 77, the 200 disappeared. There are a few 200 equipped ones listed in the Granada/Monarch fan page.
For what it was, the Granada was a good car. Ford’s problem has always been making things affordable for the average person, and one wonders what type of arguments that the engineering department had got into, versus the suits.
Having owned a ’75 four door, the build quality was awful. Ford had just started tinkering with glue in glass, and both the front and rear were loose, held in only by the trim. Mine had the 250 six and C4, and never got as good of mileage as their V8 test car. It was so gutless you had to firewall it everywhere, and the poor trans was constantly shifting, and started to slip around 50K miles. Only left me walking once when the lower radiator burst.. Best part? Paid $1500 for it, got t-boned by a dude with a glass eye, and got $1800 for it from the insurance company.
This was another car that the magazines absolutely hated. Just look at the title “A new breed or a shrunken LTD?”, like there was something terribly wrong with the LTD besides its size, which the Granada fixed. It’s funny (and at the same time quite insulting) they would say it was a good car for someone’s Mom, mine loved it.
The truth is the Granada was a brilliant idea with a damn good execution and spot on marketing campaign. It clicked with customers. The main drawbacks were the tight rear seat and limited trunk room. Engine performance wasn’t that great with the six but with the 302 it was a decent little performer. Fit and finish quality was top notch.
Talk about massive biases…
My folks test drove a brand new ’78 Granada in the spring of 1978. I was 14, my sister was 8. The car was light green with a dark green vinyl interior. It had auto and a 250 six but not much else. I remember the back seat not being as big or spacious as Dad’s ’69 Galaxie hardtop, and overall the car seemed tinny and cheap. It rode ok on smooth roads but was a bit rough on bumps. Again, it didn’t ride as good as the Galaxie, the only other car I had for comparison. They didn’t buy it.
I have heard that Versailles was a lot better. . .
The Versailles was quieter and had a even softer suspension. Other than that and a few more goodies and a much higher price, they were identical.
The Lincoln Versailles had Ford’s 9 inch rear axle with disc brakes, which came to be a very popular swap for Mustangs and hot rods.
Frank: my Mother always considered Fords as tinny. And the 66 Mercury Montclair they had, she never felt as if she ever had it under control.
I think she would have loved the Granada, especially if the power steering was more direct than the Mercury
She and Dad bought a 74 baby blue with vinyl top Mustang II and always had a tendency toward Ford products.
I’m really glad the Fords from this era I owned and drove were Australian built, no they werent perfect by any means but they did miss out on the heath Robinson measures taken to lower emissions the American cars had and the spare was recessed into the top of the fuel tank in the boot floor so plenty of space for luggage, The dash was much nicer as was the styling in general and the fuel consumption was much lower I regularly got 22 mpg out of 250 automatics on the highway and 24 out of a 302 auto wagon round town was naturally worse but not 12 mpg worse luckily as Aussie fuel was well over $3 per gallon when I was driving used 70s Fords over there, Oh and Ford NA really should have asked Ford AU how to make leaf sprung cars behave reasonably well on unpaved roads without removing the ride comfort.
Remember, that’s in US gallons. Theirs are smaller than ours, only 0.83 of an Imperial gallon, but still that makes 14.4mpg. Awful! As you point out, we missed all the early emission stuff (except for the HX Holden). Just as well.
American manufacturers took an awfully long time to get over their mortal terror of shock damping.
Amen! My ’81 Escort was transformed by an aftermarket strut replacement [$$]. I don’t know if was because Ford was cheap or were trying to “Broughamize” it; maybe both.
12.5 MPG in a cramped car. Wow! The early smog years were hard on Ford engines. May as well just get the LTD if you could swing it, unless you truly preferred something that was smaller.
It seemed like the pecking order in American smog engineering was as follows:
GM: Drivability, performance and gas mileage were the best available, most of the cars offered at least a few versions that were actually a good drive.
Ford: The cars generally ran fine, but performance and gas mileage were dismal.
Chrysler: Endless drivability and reliability problems.
AMC: The sample size was almost too small, but probably managed to combine the worst of Ford and Chrysler in one package.
One of the magazines said that a lot of customers were pissed because their new compact Granada was getting worse mileage than their previous full size cars. 75 was the nadir of fuel mileage until cat converters became more widely used which allowed better spark advance curves without all the low rpm spark retard devices.
It was a double whammy – as well as not having catalysts with all the Heath Robinson emission controls that entailed, you also had the added weight of those ‘safety’ bumpers, which were still in the experimental (very heavy) stage.
I had to Google “Heath Robinson,” and learned that he was the British equivalent of what we Americans refer to as “Rube Goldberg.”
Amazing the things you learn from this site…
At the time, it seemed Fords always got worse mileage than comparable GMs, don’t know why.
Well as much as I hate to admit it, although Ford’s 2100/2150 carbs are simple and require nowhere near as much attention, the quadrajet that GM put on most all their V8’s was better at fuel mileage because of the small primaries. Plus GM had better breathing cylinder heads as well.
For the times, these were decent cars. I mean, they were everywhere! Friends of the family had one. It was dark brown with a tan vinyl top and interior, I think a 1976 IIRC. Not even a radio – it had the woodgrain panel where the radio should have been! We took that car everywhere over the years. Well, the year was 1986 and I was out with their daughter and we hit a decent sized bump. The car made the most horrific sound and tilted wildly to the right. We figured it was a blow out, but upon further inspection the right rear tire was fine but barely visible. We opened the trunk and in our face was the leaf spring standing at attention. It was the strangest thing I had ever seen! That was the end of the line for that Granada, and they replaced it with a 1982 Olds Delta 88 Royale Brougham and never looked back.
It is hard to believe that only 10 years separates the Granada from the Taurus. What a difference a decade makes!
For just a few bucks per unit, Granda/Monarchs could have been so much better:
a) Sway bar in the rear for improved handling
b) optional instrumentation package for that Euro touch
c) space saver spare in a verticle position like my ’83 Cutlass
d) a tuned, freer breathing V6 from Germany for that Euro touch
Lido went for the American heartland and he scored a bulls eye!! Again, worthy of a CC profile of his own.
Just a bit higher, and he could have truly raised the anxiety level at Audi and MB.
I’m not sure the Köln 2.8 V6 would’ve been up to hauling that mini barge around even without pollution controls. It needed the 302 at least; my brother had the coupe with that & it went OK. Popular Science concluded the same thing in selecting one to compare with the MB 280.
In 1975, the U.S.-spec Cologne V-6 had less than 110 net hp and a third less torque than the 302, so it wasn’t going to raise anybody’s rent in a car this size.
And wasn’t the Köln/Cologne V6 in short supply, or perhaps became expensive due to exchange rates? I recall the Fox Mustang reverted to the inline six for some reason.
You’d think that decent handling would’ve at least been available as an option, considering that the basic platform was shared with the first generation Mustang (et al).
Well they did have a HD suspension option that was about 30% stiffer than base…but no one ever ordered it.
The thing with this “platform” is while it’s all in the template of the Falcon they don’t necessarily share geometrys and dimensions. The Maverick is probably closest to the original 60-65 Falcon, but even it has it’s differences, you wouldn’t have much luck for example using a Maverick as a structural doner to restore a Falcon or Mustang or Fairlane. The 66 Falcon/Fairlane as well as the Mustang almost from the start really evolved way away from that specific basis by the latter half of the decade, adding reinforcements, changing pivot points, changing component lengths all to suit the various purposes of those models, so what may have been refined by the 69-70 Mustang, wasn’t necessarily getting baked into all the other spin offs. I can’t say for sure though, but I suspect there’s more 60 Falcon Pedigree than Shelby pedigree in the Granada.
The Köln V6 only posed a supply problem when it was popular enough to compete with European demand, which was the case with the Fox Mustang because it was a reasonable midrange engine for it.
I’m not sure if this was a problem during the Pinto/Mustang II era (contemporaries of the Dearborn Granada which offered that engine).
XR7Matt: Motor Trend said that [ not an exact quote] “If you’ve driven a 64 Falcon, you’ve driven the new Maverick”.
Your speculation is spot on, I think.
I think Neil is correct. In the late ’70s, Ford of Europe decided to rationalize its sixes and decided the Köln V-6 would be better able to meet emissions requirements, so it started replacing the English Ford Essex family (except in South Africa, which kept making its own Essex V-6s for a while longer).
That 2.8 Cologne V6 couldn’t move Mustangs worth a crap. It would have been a disaster in the heavier Granada. 75 Pinto V6: 0-60 19.5 seconds….79 Mustang Ghia V6: 0-60 in 16.8 seconds, the 2.3 with a 4-speed did it in 14.3! To be fair though, the 4 cylinder Mustang was lighter and the Ghia had an automatic.
I have never ridden in a Granada…my grandpa had a Falcon, and I’ve ridden in Mavericks and Fairmonts, but somehow I missed the Granada.
I am intrigued by the concept of putting a strong-running 302 in a granny-looking Granada in some horrible light green color and have a cool little Q-ship.
My father bought a ’77, Completing his Falcon,Fairlane Maverick swing. While the 2 Door Maverick looked OK, 4 Door Mavericks looked goofy. The 4 Door Granada looked much better. For it’s time Granada seemed more modern than the Torino, Weird, considering it’s 15 year older origins. I’m not a Ford guy, But Granada seemed to be the right Ford for the time, The market said so!
I had a boss for a summer job in ’75 who traded in his troublesome Saab 99 for the new Granada. Vinyl top and all, it seemed the total antithesis of the Saab. I despised/ignored it, so I can’t honestly say that I looked at it objectively. His other car was 2 liter 4 speed Capri which I approved of ?
My dad had a Mercury Monarch in-line 6 cylinder. The Monarch was a badge-engineered version of the Ford Granada which was identical save for the grille, headlights, taillights and some interior and exterior trim. The Mercury Monarch automobile was manufactured by Mercury from 1975 to 1980.
It had problems with carburetor, I believe, and was not reliable.
This is the version that was sold in the UK as Ford wanted to compete against
the Jag XJ6 , this was years before the take over. Na….
I am amazed when I read comments like this. To think that Ford’s US management so out of touch that they really thought it was competitive against a Jaguar.
My parents shopped the Granada in 1976 along with the Aspen/Volare and Nova Concours. The Granada was my favorite – the brochure made it look so luxurious, especially the Ghia and *especially* the Ghia with the Luxury Decor Option which gave the interior the look of a big American luxury car (huge armrests on the doors, optional leather) and was later used in the Lincoln Versailles. My family had always driven stripped-down cars (including an early Falcon) and the Granada Ghia with the thick carpeting and woodgrain and reading lights and lighted mirrors and reclining seats just felt incredibly opulent to 11 year old me. I particularly liked (and still like) the way the glovebox door area picks up on the seat stitch pattern. But my mom found it easier to see out of the Aspen/Volare, especially rearward. We wound up waiting a year to buy a car and my dad was intrigued by the new downsized GM B/C bodies which promised big-car room in a package just a bit larger than what they were looking at, and wound up buying a ’77 Bonneville Brougham. I was there at the special-ordering session and persuaded my dad to order the cornering-lamp option. He wound up loving them and insisted on having cornering lights on every car he bought since.
I find it funny how R&T pointed out the pompous grille, as if the one used on the Mercedes benchmark is the paragon of modesty. I always found the 75 nose palatable, if not attractive, the 77 is where things got nasty.
I’ve never been the hugest fan but it’s definitely undercredeted for helping make this size appealing while retaining the interior space premium the full sizers still were better suited for up to this point, actually it’s what AMC should have been doing.
Matt, AMC could have done it. They introduced the 70 Hornet as “The Little Rich Car”. Played up it’s options list and finer trim than the competition.
Which was odd since even an SST didn’t compare with up-level offerings from GM and Chrysler. Ford wasn’t in the luxury game until 1973 with the Maverick LDO.
It would have been easy to Ambassadorize the Hornet since everything used in it was used in the Ambassador. .
The Concord came wayyy too late while AMC blew money on the Matador 2 door and Pacer.
My great uncle had a 1974 AMC Hornet four-door sedan. He was an AMC loyalist, as his previous two cars had been a 1963 Rambler Classic four-door sedan, followed by a 1968 Ambassador DPL four-door sedan.
The Hornet was a handsomely styled car (even with its 5-mph bumpers), but even as a young boy I could tell that the interior trim was low-rent. And he had bought a well-equipped version.
Interestingly, his next new car was a 1977 Pontiac Ventura hatchback. Apparently both the Ambassador and Hornet had been troublesome. The local AMC dealer also sold Pontiacs, and went to our church. So it was an easy switch for him to make.
I guess it’s a cultural thing. In the US they’d always wanted to ‘move you up’ to a ‘full-size’ car, as though there was some sort of social stigma in driving a small car. Of course everyone in the supply chain was after the fatter profits from the biggie.
Here in Australia this was the standard size for a car; you could buy bigger if you wanted, but few did. If you bought a big car it was because you wanted the size, but almost all the luxury equipment could be bought in to a smaller car. Our Falcons (and Holdens, and Valiants) could be optioned up to levels US compacts were apparently still discovering.
” Of course everyone in the supply chain was after the fatter profits from the biggie.”
You nailed it right there. At that time the Detroit 3 loathed small cars. Small cars=small profits.
In fact this is true to this day in the US. Chrysler pulled out of the small car market. Ford stopped offering any cars in the US save for the Mustang. I’m not sure where GM is at this moment other than you can’t buy Buick cars anymore. They are all chasing after higher profits on SUV/CUV’s and pickup trucks
I like it but the 231 mile cruising range would be a deal breaker. I’d have to refuel daily!
I first saw this car with diplomatic plate in Peking (Beijing) in 1975 when I live a section very close the diplomatic section of Beijing City. It was a two- tone color car –a metallic red color body and white roof, the car was most likely belong to the US Mission. Beside its bright color, I was amused by its size. The common cars used by the foreign diplomats were Toyota Crown, Datsun Cerdic, Volga, Mercedes-Benz or even Shanghai SH760 those. It was the first modern American car I saw. Before that most of them Ford and Chrysler were left in China before the revolution.
There is an old saying, “It’s better to be lucky than good”. Ford got lucky the mid 70’s twice. No one could have guessed that the Arab Oil Embargo was going to drive the price of gas through the roof and create shortages and rationing in 1973, but Ford was there with the 74 Mustang. Home run number one. Then with the market still concerned about gas prices and shortages Ford was there with the 75 Granada. Home run number two. The right cars at the right time.
They certainly did play their hands well for the moment. The other Ford I always defend is the Mustang II. not only was Mustang II the car “right” for it’s time, It WAS a real Mustang by any 1964-1/2 measure. The original lost it’s way. The “II” better represented the original concept of “Customized Sporty Coupe” based on “our” small platform than any ’73 ‘Stang. (By then,get a Torino and be done already) ?
James, I have been saying the same thing for years.
Still waiting for Ford to return to the original Mustang format, which they got close to again in 79, but the styling was mini Mercedes roadster [see MT of the period for the source with design studies for the new Mustang].
Compact, lightweight. Not the T-Bird effect still going on.
The new Mustangs more resemble the 71-73 version than the original.
Most Iacocca-moblies are clearly pitched at either the leading edge of Baby Boomers like the Mustang (even if most could only aspire to one until a few years after ’64) or the T115 minivans; or they’re just as clearly built for Lee’s own generation (the Lincoln Mark III and its’ successors, and both Imperial revivals). The Granada was a convergence point – a car that someone pushing 30 would feel like a real grown-up in and their parents could trade an LTD in for without the neighbors thinking they’d come down in the world.
The ’75 Granada was sort of significant as being the car that stole the best-seller title away from Chevrolet which must have made the people at Ford very happy.
As I recall, all through the 1960s and early 1970s the full-sized Chevrolet was the best-selling car in the U.S. (I’m not sure about the 1950s, but I think the full-sized Chevy was probably the best selling car then too, with the exception of 1959 when the full-sized Ford was.)
In 1975, the Ford Granada stole the title away from Chevy. In 1976 the best-seller was the Oldsmobile Cutlass, in 1977 the newly-downsized full-sized Chevrolet, and then in 1978 it was the Ford Fairmont. After that, I lost track.
The Ford Taurus was the best-seller in the mid 1980s and then it became the Toyota Camry, although the Honda Accord was the best-seller for a couple of years in there.
I got fairly extensive wheel time in a couple of these back when. My father replaced a 72 Mark IV with a seriously loaded Monarch Ghia sedan. In that trim level (and with the 351), it was a very nice car. My best friend’s father replaced a 72 Chrysler Newport with a 76 Granada sedan with the 250, which was a more basically trimmed car.
Both of those buyers could have afforded something much nicer, but these cars presented as high quality but smaller cars. This was sort of the ’65 LTD ten years later – they brought class and luxury to a segment that had never had it (at least here in the US.) To me, this was always the basis of the Mercedes comparison. Most of America knew nothing about Mercedes, but that they were really expensive and much smaller than a Caddy or Lincoln. These sort of picked up a “Mercedes vibe” for those who had never been within 50 feet of one, and it worked.
These cars did what Ford was really, really good at: They were attractive, looked really appealing in the showroom, and hit the market with exactly what it wanted in 1975. The problem was in the execution beneath the surface – they just didn’t hold up well as the time and miles piled on.
Not getting the “cramped” interior claims by some. Rear legroom was 36″ and head room 37.2. Very respectable numbers.
For comparison:
A Pinto had 31.1″ of rear leg room. 36.2″ headroom.
Ford Torino: 37.6″ rear leg and 37.0″ head.
LTD: 38.4 rear leg and 37.0 headroom.
Comparison with other 4 door intermediates nets a similar set of rear seat numbers.
It is in the hip room that the Granada falls down as it doesn’t have the width of a bloated Torino or LTD.
The vaunted Audi LS and Volvo have worse numbers than the Granada.
But that trunk at a little over 8 cubic feet is ridiculous.
The Granada was the right car at the right time.
Add in “sticker shock” experienced when people started going in to trade in their 3-4 year old fullsize cars for something similar seeing the increase in price and one can tell that there was a ready market for cars like the Granada.
Much easier to “downsize” without giving up full size luxuries and still save face with the neighbors without going into a Maverick or a Nova.
The spare tire ate up a lot of the available trunk space. It was a full-size spare tire, however, which was still important to a lot of people in the mid-1970s – particularly among the Granada’s intended audience.
It’s easy to scoff at the Granada now – particularly the ad campaign used to promote it – but viewed in the context of its time, it worked.
In an age when even Honda Fits have power windows as standard equipment, we forget that there once was a time when smaller cars were not available – at any price – with the nicer trim and some luxury options of the full-size cars. Domestic compacts, in particular, were built and sold as plain-Jane cars for tightwads or grandma.
The Maverick and Comet LDO, with their genuinely upscale interiors, had proven to be surprisingly popular. The Granada and Monarch were the next logical step – compacts that not only could be equipped as lavishly as the big cars, but didn’t merely look like more expensive versions of grandma’s Maverick or Dart.
The ad campaign comparing it to the Mercedes highlighted the new, “formal” styling. The more upright, “European influenced” styling was a new trend for the time. Remember that GM’s Colonnade intermediates had only debuted two years ago, and they were clearly of the longer, lower, wider school of styling, with some very baroque fender flares and swoops thrown in for good measure.
The Granada’s styling really did seem new – for a low-priced domestic car – in the fall of 1974. It looked practical and sober, but not cheap, which was just what the market wanted in the wake of the first fuel crunch and resulting recession.
Three years later, Ford would give us the next logical step of that evolutionary process in the form of the all-new, very European-looking Fairmont and Zephyr. And this time, the suspension set-up and steering could actually cash the checks written by the advertising people.
Official figures are not necessarily accurate reflections of usable space because there are all kinds of tricks you can play with seat height, length, and cushion thickness — FM’s comment speaks to that with respect to the Granada, and that doesn’t have anything to do with the seat width.
When I first saw photos of this car I was 13 and thought it was GREAT! I think what appealed to me was the look and size, and especially the interior. I tried so hard to get my grandparents to buy one — too small, and they came home with an LTD, though my great uncle did buy one. Rode in a few, and spent a few days with a 5-year old one as a loaner — and still liked it a lot for what it was.
If a nice one crossed my path today, I’d seriously consider it.
I remember the Ford Granada. I had a neighbour who owned one. At the time I found it more attractive than most Ford cars that were on the market. The only thing I didn’t appreciate, and still don’t appreciate is the use of warning (“idiot”) lights instead of proper needle gauges. I’ve never understood why most cars used warning lights for important things like water temperature and battery. That’s never made any sense. They’d be ok as a supplement to the gauges, but they’d make a poor substitute to the gauges.
There’s an old auto industry saying that “timing is everything” and, boy, if there was someone whose timing was good in the mid-seventies, it was Lee Iacocca. First there was the Mustang II, followed the very next year by the Granada. And, at first, they sold like gangbusters. From the mid-to-late seventies, they were everywhere.
But, then, as suddenly as they appeared, they were gone. I could never quite figure that one out. While not as numerous as the competing GM compacts, they didn’t seem that much worse, either. Hell, there were more Aspens and Volares still running around.
Were aging Granadas and Monarchs so bad that when major (or even minor) parts died, they weren’t worth fixing and people just junked them? Or maybe it was the horrid fuel mileage from any drivetrain combination during the gas price spike in the early eighties that did them in?
Based on what I saw at the time, the Aspen and Volare four-door sedans were more likely to be bought by older people who drove them less, and didn’t drive them very hard when they did take them out of the garage. The Granada and Monarch appealed to a wider audience.
The Mopar F-bodies most likely to be bought by younger people – the two-door coupe and the wagon – disappeared just as quickly as the Granadas and Monarchs of that era.
My father had a rental Granada Ghia for three weeks in 1976 while his 1970 Fairlane 500 was at a body shop for repairs because of a fender bender. I was 12. It was a treat having a luxurious car to ride around in instead of the austere Fairlane wagon (302, 3 speed manual, no power steering or brakes, but did have a power tailgate). My father said an LTD wagon cost the same as that loaded Granada, which he would have purchased had the Fairlane been totaled.
Remember a friends Granada being so “non aerodynamic”, anything above 45 mph, the wind noise was deafening.
Made our Maverick coupe sound almost quiet..lol
I’m surprised the Ford Granada weighs as much as it does TBH, I thought it would weigh a few hundred lbs lighter, must be the 5mph bumpers.
Early 80s and an old friend of mine and I were bantering back and forth about each others recent auto acquisitions. He had a nearly new Granada. 4 doors, I could swear it had a 170 engine, but review suggests not, and I had a 71 BMW Bavaria. 4 door, similar size, 170 engine. With twice the HP. True, not exactly apples to apples comparison, his nearly new car cost more, but it was an interesting contrast. And he was a car guy, he’d had MGs, a Datsun 510 he tweaked some and so on.
Still, even with it’s Falcon roots, which were beyond humble, I don’t think the Granada was a bad car for it’s era. It had some interior space, didn’t weigh 4500 pounds or get 10 MPG. A car for the ages, no. A disposable appliance for the era, yes, and not a bad one at that.