(first posted 11/16/2015) While GM had fully embraced downsizing their cars as a core business strategy, Ford seemed to be more reluctant in adapting to the changing landscape. The Blue Oval brigade was so used to selling its big cars by the pound (more road hugging weight for your dollar!), that transitioning the LTD to a newer, more efficient design, as mandated by CAFE requirements, would be challenging for the company. So how well did Ford do when they no longer had any choice but to put their dinosaur on a diet? Read on to see what the automotive press had to say when the Panther platform was brand new.
On the eve of the 1979 model year, downsizing was no longer an unfamiliar term to American car buyers. GM had already significantly scaled down the dimensions and weight for both their full size and mid size lines. That Ford would be doing the same with its full size cars was a foregone conclusion. The only mystery was in the specifics. Consumer Guide’s ’79 Auto Preview offered some surprisingly accurate renderings of the new design. As expected, the LTD looked to be crisper and boxier, wearing the more efficient look of the late 1970s.
Road Test magazine showcased highlights of the new Ford LTD for their new car announcement issue in the Fall of 1978. Their fact-filled assessment was heavy on useful content and light on engagement, much like the car itself.
In general, Consumer Guide Auto Test 1979 gave the new LTD high marks, noting that it was more efficient, easier to drive, still quite roomy inside with a bigger trunk. All plus points for pragmatic shoppers, and CG rated the Ford just behind Chevrolet, which was a big change from the previous few years. Some complaints centered around the placement of controls on the instrument panel, including the peculiar location for the horn, mounted on the end of the turn signal stalk. Not intuitive or easy to use at all.
From my perspective, Car and Driver offered the best and most accurate overview of the new Ford LTD. They noted FoMoCo’s unwillingness to fully embrace smaller big cars, though they gave credit that the new design was reasonably well done.
The Car and Driver test car was equipped with a bench seat upholstered in a psychedelic patterned cloth. Even for the disco era, I think the look would have been a hard sell, especially for Ford’s more conservative clientele.
Based on the pictures of the LTD lurching around the handling track, I’d guess that the car pictured did not have the suspension with the handling option. However, the Car and Driver editors did not detect that much difference between the handling option and the standard suspension, so my guess could be entirely wrong.
There was not much praise for the new styling, with Car and Driver calling it dull at best. My own assessment of the design is far harsher: I think the standard LTD, with its dual headlamp front end, resembles an oversized love child spawned from a Granada and a Fairmont.
The comparison data didn’t tell a particularly compelling story either. The test car, with its 351 V8, didn’t accelerate any more quickly or brake any better than the ’77 LTD, and performed far worse than the downsized the GM cars. At least the ’79 LTD was quieter than the Cadillac… Arguably for Ford fans, though, the new design did everything it needed to do, remaining true to most of the old school values that had kept sales of the big Ford humming along for many, many years.
Speaking of Ford fans, my father’s father, Granddaddy Will, was a true-Blue Oval man. After returning from service in WWI, he finished up school, started his career and bought his first new car, a Ford Model T. Granddaddy Will embraced the function, solidity and no-frills nature of Ford products, and he never bought any other make of car for the rest of his 82 years.
Granddaddy Will viewed his cars as appliances, and treated them as such. He drove them hard, never bothered to have cosmetic scuffs and dings fixed, and gave them nothing more than routine maintenance. He’d get rid of the cars when he felt that they “were acting up too much” and he didn’t want to spend money continually fixing an older beater. So, given that the average lifespan of a car was shorter, and he in no way babied the cars, he usually got about six years or so out of them before selling them on.
A key part of Granddaddy Will’s car buying philosophy was to shop at the end of the model year and bargain hard on the remnants the dealer wanted to unload before the new models arrived. In September 1979, Granddaddy Will decided that his 1973 LTD was just about done, so he went to see what he could pick up at the Ford dealer.
The leftover car he brought home was a non-metallic baby blue 1979 LTD with the standard 302 V8. While it was the color of the Landau in the top photo (Medium Light Blue for you Ford aficionados), his was a base model with dual headlamps like the car in the bottom shot. Though his didn’t have a vinyl roof, it did feature the same plain wheel covers, the same lack of decorative trim and the same blue vinyl base interior that can be glimpsed through the windows. It was a very boring, very boxy, very blue Ford. Perfect for Granddaddy Will, but not my cup of tea. I suppose it could have been worse–at least he didn’t find any ’79 LTD IIs languishing on the lot…
The Smurfs would have felt right at home in the blue interior. This picture shows the exact interior color, and the same dismally fake “wood” trim, that adorned the inside of Granddaddy Will’s car. His particular LTD also had a weird option load (maybe that’s why it was a remnant). It had some pricey options, like the power bench seat and Fingertip Speed Control, applied to a very basic car with crank windows. I would imagine that Granddaddy Will haggled so hard that he would have gotten the unwanted options thrown in for free.
This 1979 LTD was the last in his long line of Fords. Granddaddy Will passed away quickly and peacefully on New Year’s Eve just before the start of 1981. His wife, my step grandmother Mama Dora, held on to Granddaddy Will’s ’79 LTD along with her 1977 LTD Landau (she had managed to get him to spring for a fancier Ford for her) for a long enough period of time to be deemed proper. Then she traded both cars in and got her dream car, a 1982 Buick LeSabre Limited. It was truly the end of an era.
I suppose Ford had to follow GM with the boxy car style. But, following GM by three years ensured a ho-hum reaction. When the car market collapsed thanks to OPEC II, these also rans nearly ran Ford into the ground.
The amazing thing is that Ford’s incremental improvements to these cars during the 1980s turned them into a cash cow while GM engineered themselves into a disaster.
Ford got the last laugh in this segment.
I must agree with Dave B.
The 1977 Chevvy started off brilliant and gradually slipped into a dull, mediocre sedan.
The “downsized’, panther chassis based Ford/Mercury/Lincoln started off as just ok and slowly, gradually morphed into an outstanding car.
FoMoCo kept evolving & improving their full sized cars.
GM rested on their laurels; eventually overtaken by FoMoCo.
The panther never became “outstanding”. In fact, the drivetrain….350 LT1 and F41 chassis in the GM B body was the superior combo up until their demise in 1996. Ask any cop who drove a Caprice and was forced to switch to a Crown Victoria which was the superior car when GM stopped building the B body.
+1. Just like the 2011 P71, LE agencies stocked up on ’96 Caprice 9C1s. There were so many last minute orders for 9C1s (and the Impala SS) that Arlington didn’t shut down to convert to SUVs until December of ’96 – nearly five months into the ’97 build at every other plant.
I would hardly call the 1991-96 B-body cars engineering disasters. They were in some ways still superior to the Panthers that were being cranked out at the time. If GM kept making the B-bodies into the 2000’s they would have been LS1 equipped monsters with more updated suspensions and tech just like the Fords during that era. If Ford had canceled the Panther after 1996 then the B-body cars would have taken off as the choice for police and livery. It just so happens that GM saw more and better profits in the rising truck/SUV market and chose to go that route instead of revamping the B-body line any further.
I don’t believe anybody here has referred to the ’91-’96 B bodies as engineering disasters. This article and thread are a discussion of the 1st generation Panther introduced in 1979 and its relationship to the 1977-1990 GM B body.
But, since you brought it up, the ’91 B Body was dynamically a huge improvement, and the sins of the ’80s B-Body – crappy drivetrains and a lack of airbags when the time had come – were corrected. And, this generation B became a proper full-size car again, with powerful and versatile drive trains and useful towing packages. I rented a few, and enjoyed driving them. And, as pointed out above, fleet buyers generally preferred them over the updated 1990 Panther.
Still, GM missed the mark with the 1991 overhaul. Debatable exterior styling and weak interior design were a major problem, and consumer sales were always considered disappointing. That, along with the issues you mention, caused GM to cancel the car after 1996.
The Aero Panther wasn’t exactly a huge consumer success, but Ford did manage the 2nd generation Panther very well as a niche player in the fleet market – and kept the cars in production for 15 years after the GM B was gone.
I actually prefer the two-headlight styling of the plain LTD to the busier front of the upscale model. However, the regular LTD front was dropped after 1980.
The dual-headlight LTD actually would have been okay if they had found a better placement for the turn-signals than slapping them into the grille. In the bumper would have been perfect but that surely would have been too costly to have special bumpers and wiring for two cars within the same model line.
I’ve also always wondered how many LTD sales Ford lost to Chevy due to the idiotic placement of the horn on the turn-signal stalk. Ford’s PR guys can try all they want to claim that it was an improvement and more European, but for the domestic market, it was a really bad idea that I have no doubt frustrated every driver whenever they needed to use the horn. Was there anyone who actually preferred that location and know how long it lasted? Surely, it was a universally disliked feature and I can’t imagine the domestic stalk-horn being around for more than a couple years.
I remember driving a company Fairmont for a month and the never-ending frustration of having the horn on the stalk. I never quite got over fruitlessly banging on the steering wheel hub by reflex every time I needed to sound the horn.
What are you guys honking your horns at all the time? I can’t remember the last time I had to honk at someone.
Exactly. I am not a horn person either. My ’83 Ford Ranger came with the horn on the stalk. Took me 6 months to find it. When the turn signal switch broke, I replaced it with one without it, and pulled and tossed the horn itself. Do not miss it to this day.
I agree I can’t remember the last time I used the horn. I guess some of that depends on where you drive, or at least what the people around you drive like.
“What are you guys honking your horns at all the time?”
I think that’s exactly the point. Horn use is generally so infrequent, that on those rare times most people actually need or want to honk the horn, they can’t, because the button wasn’t where it normally is.
Scoutdude nailed it. The only time I’ve used my horn lately is when the car ahead of me is drifting into my lane.
Miami. Enough said.
Uh like when someone pulls right in front of you or decides to turn into your lane because they didn’t’ see you for starters. A horn is a safety item that never ever should have been put on any stalk for US vehicles. End of story!
Sadly, the horn-on-the-stalk thing lasted through most of the 1980s, at least on the Panther cars. I’ve heard and read, but cannot confirm, that the stalk placement was in preparation of mandatory airbags. My understanding is that there were safety concerns about having the wiring and button pads for the horn in front of the airbag, an understanding supported by Ford’s having two tiny horn buttons at the top of their wheels from 1990 through at least 1994. As we know, the mandatory airbags wound up coming for 1990, but Ford was doing a lot of testing on the airbag front all through the 1980s. Ford actually had a fleet of hundreds of Tempos equipped with airbags around 1985 or so (they actually had a specific model designation, but it’s been too long for me to recall anymore), most of them in government service.
Presuming the bit about preparing for airbags is true (and I believe it is), Ford tried to be ahead of the curve but created an ergonomic nightmare instead.
The stalk mounted horns were gone by 1985, if not sooner.
That’s correct. CR for one was highly critical of the stalk in the 1982 comparo between the big cars (A DeVille, Crown Vic, Caprice, and K-Car E Class). They were gone for the 1985 comparo between the FWD Electra, Grand Marquis, and Fifth Avenue. My 1987 Vic had them on the wheel like everyone else, as did my grandfather’s 1986 and 1988 Mercuries.
The only problem with the airbag theory for the horn on the turn-signal stalk is why wasn’t GM, the king of automotive cheapness, doing anything similar? Both GM and Chrysler simply moved the horn button from the center of the steering wheel to the spokes. Why Ford thought moving the horn to the turn signal stalk was a better idea is beyond my comprehension.
Sort of like when Ford decided that deleting the ‘cancel’ button from their speed control assemblies was a good idea. This sort of mickey-mouse decontenting goes a long way to swearing off Ford products.
OTOH, I don’t think Ford ever deleted roll-down windows on any of their sedans, even the cheapest ones, either.
The Airbag Theory was what I recall was cited by contemporary accounts. Note that Ford generally played it safe with other driver controls, like the dash headlight switch (in common with Mercedes, incidentally).
I don’t recall many people endorsing Honda’s long-standing spoke horn button placement, either.
I think we recently confirmed that 1988 was the last year roll-down windows were offered on the Panthers.
Because the spokes were where Ford put their cruise control switches.
@ Orrin I think he was referring to the downsized A bodies that had fixed windows in the rear doors, not manual vs power.
I never bought the airbag story- I think the decision was because it eliminated the horn slip ring, a long standing warranty issue.
I’m sure Ford sold it both internally and externally as a “European style feature,” but like other euro style features, they missed a key point-
Stalk mounted horn buttons were common to inexpensive European cars, not the top line models. Since BMW and Mercedes mounted the horn button on the wheel, this argument was met with laughs and derision, and eventually Ford gave in to consumer preference.
I have difficulty believing this in-prep-for-airbags explanation. Too many things about it don’t make any sense, starting with there having never been any suggestion existing cars would have to be retrofitted with airbags. Hence, no reason to “prepare” by moving the horn switch away from the steering wheel hub. Also, Ford already had years of experience putting switches (for the cruise control) in the steering wheel spokes, if they were really afraid they would have to abandon the wheel-hub location for the horn switch.
Also, what “preparation” do we imagine they were doing here? Even if they were pretty sure an airbag mandate was coming in some future year—which they were not, because they were putting a huge and successful amount of money and effort into beating back that regulatory plan, among others—they could easily have put the horn switch where it belongs, in the hub, then moved it elsewhere if they were forced to put in an airbag. It’s not like they could’ve carried on using the same steering wheel; airbags were very large for quite a few years.
I think it much more likely their dumbassery with the signal-stalk horn control was pure cost-cutting. Surely it’s a few pennies cheaper to add another contact, wire, and spring to the turn signal/headlight beam selector/hazard flasher switch than it is to have a separate switch with its own wiring located elsewhere—such as in the steering wheel hub.
Cost could be why they moved the horn switch the ability to use one switch set worldwide British and Australian Fords had the same set up One Ford part for the world think how much they saved.
“I’ve also always wondered how many LTD sales Ford lost to Chevy due to the idiotic placement of the horn on the turn-signal stalk.”
I couldn’t agree more – one of the stupidest ideas ever. My father-in-law had a 1978 Fairmont – a great car, but that horn on the turn signal? You’ve got to be kidding! Thankfully, it didn’t last long.
I liked the styling of these, in some ways better than the GM full-sizers, but never owned one. We owned the 5/8-scale version – the Plymouth Reliant K-car! After all, those were designed by ex-Ford engineers who went to Chrysler, at least that’s what I remember reading somewhere.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
They were designed by an ex-Ford exec who went to Chrysler, Lee something-or-other. Kind of a bit player. 😛
Now that’s funny. When I first looked at the straight-on pic of the single headlight LTD, I thought it was Reliant. I had never noticed the resemblance before.
I don’t know, I had an ’80 mustang with the horn stalk and I thought it was fine once I was used to it. Not a big deal, and more than a fair tradeoff for the cool spoked steering wheel IMO.
Obviously none of you have had the pleasure of driving a ford with the “rim-blow” feature like my dads ’73 Cougar.
Had a ’73 Cougar myself with the rim-blow steering wheel. Loved it and it always worked great. Olds, Dodge and a few other manufacturers also had them during the ’70’s. Then all of a sudden they disappeared.
Was the era that started the decontenting trend. I miss the underhood light, door courtesy lights, tinted windshield shade band and all the other little goodies no longer available that the manufactuters thought we wouldn’t miss.
The underhood lights are definitely worthy of mention. When trying to jump a dead battery a couple weeks ago, it was noteworthy that my 23 year old Volvo has an underhood light (well, once it was getting juice again, anyway) and that my 3 year old Kia does not.
(It could also be that one was a top-of-the-line luxury coupe and the other a mid-trim level compact, but still…)
The turn signals were actually in the outer lamp with the main parking lamps. The inboard lamps lit up with the parking lights only… at least on early models. The illuminated inboard lamps may have been decontented out of the later two headlamp cars, though I’m not 100% sure of that.
You’re right about the inboard lamps being auxiliary/decorative parking lights. Only the outboard lamps at the front of the headfins served as turn signals. I don’t think the single-lamp front end was changed over its short (’79-’81?) run; I think the inboard lights stayed the whole time. That’s a pity, as you can see in my quick-‘n’-crude workup here (or fine, be like that, don’t click the link and look at this much less entertaining static photochop):
Wow. I’m surprised how much those two simple deletions clean up the face of this car, which does look a tad too clutter-y for its own good as is. By night though, I did like how those decorative bits gave some identity to what would be an otherwise generic lighting signature. Ford did remove the grillework from the bumper for 1981-82, but the car still looked fussy with those lamp housings in the main grille… which I *think* were shorn of their ability to illuminate for those last two years. I’m only going on my faint memory on that last point, as the lower budget LTD S was never too common in my area growing up.
I guess I can only attach one image per comment. Here’s an earlier car with the inboard lamps illuminated:
I purchased a 1979 LTD 2 door off the showroom floor at the age of 19. Probably the best car for me for my age. Very safe and drivable. Mine was silver on black. I put nice rims and wide tires on it and “jacked up” the back end with air shocks. Beautiful car. Had it for 7 years. As far as the directional on the directional stem, I got totally used to it. My next car was a 1986 Olds 442. I was so used to the horn on the directional, that it took a while to get used to it being back on the steering wheel. Miss that car…
The LTD of this era always struck me as such a basic, spartan box, even in its most loaded up form. The interior, as evinced in the final picture, shows exactly how sparse it was – absolutely no frills.
If I was in the market for a downsized full-sizer in 1979, I’d go with the Chevy Impala. At least it made an effort to look a bit more glamorous than it actually was, whereas the LTD just accepted its plain-jane homeliness.
I did not like the feel of these cars one bit when they came out. Where the downsized GM cars felt substantial, these did not. Also, many of the interior details came across as cheap, which was quite a change from the 70s, where Ford-built cars always had a feel of solidity.
I have always been puzzled by Ford’s choice to go down to a 114 inch wheelbase instead of matching Chevy’s 116. The Ford wheelbase has always seemed just a touch too small to me.
Funny that my Dad thought otherwise, JP. We had a ’77 Caprice Estate and then an ’82 Country Squire. My father loved the way the Ford handled. He said it was one of the best handling cars he had ever owned. That car always felt solid, like it was built with care and quality parts. In comparison to the Chevy that literally fell apart after five years, the Ford stayed screwed together well and never gave us an ounce of trouble. It wasn’t perfect though. His two big complaints were the horn on the turn signal stalk and the lack of power from the 302 V-8. Yet the gas mileage was fantastic in comparison to the Chevy. And that Ford was as durable as they get (I know because I was 16 and learned to drive with that car!) People that rode in that wagon often commented on how smooth and quiet it was. Plus with the luxury interior group that car was like having a Lincoln station wagon. I have great memories of my family being in that car. I truly think from personal experience that Ford made a top quality car in the 80’s!
Exact opposite here. My high school friend’s parents had a 1981 Country Squire with the 302/4 speed setup vs my other friends folks who owned a 1983 Caprice wagon with the 305/4 speed auto. The interior fell apart in the Ford but the Caprice save the headliner had no issues. The Ford had all sorts of electrical issues, the A/C quit ( I remember this well as it was a very hot Summer in the later 80’s and I couldn’t stand riding in the Ford with it’s vinyl seats and non working A/C). The Chevy 305 ran so much better than there VV 302 it wasn’t even funny. That Ford went in so many times to have the carburetor rebuilt, adjusted etc that we lost count. It also suffered an under hood fire because of a leaky power steering pump and thankfully his father was close by with an extinguisher at there house. That little incident plus the stupid stalk horn button and my own personal poor experience with my 1979 Fairmont swore Ford products off up until this day.
Now the Caprice wasn’t perfect. It’s headliner eventually sagged and it’s two-tone blue paint got thin and peeled away in spots but that was in the early 90’s when the car was nearly 10 years of age through Upstate, NY Winters. The 305 still ran perfect when they got rid of it and it never had any issues with the 200R-4.
Our ’77 Caprice was an early production vehicle, so I forgive it for the quality control issues it had. But honestly our ’82 Country Squire was really a great car. Maybe we had an exceptional one? The VV carburetor only started acting up at around 100k miles. If you are comparing an ’81 Country Squire to an ’83 Caprice, GM had six years to get that car right! The ’81 Squire was only out for a couple of years. Still, there is no excuse for any car to simply fall apart.
Overall I think they are both great cars that over the years were able to prove themselves admirably. It is a matter of personal preference as to which one is actually a better car. The same can be said today of the Ford vs. Chevy truck rivalry.
The Ford was 144.4 and at least in the sedan it was ~3″ shorter than the B.
Re Mike Knepper’s counterpoint on the styling-He’d have to wait 13 years for any improvement. it begs the question, if Jack Telnack had his way, how well would the aero-panther styling have gone over in 1979?
I think it would have been the Chrysler Airstream of the era. Even when Ford released the somewhat aero Tempo for 1983, it was criticized as being a “jellybean.” There’s a clip from a Today broadcast where Bryant Gumbel actually called it a jellybean on the air.
I imagine a variation of the 1992 Aero-Vic released in 1979 would have been a disaster. Given the love of large cars in that era, and the styling that had come before, and the fear within the car companies of downsizing too much, and the fact that Ford made good bank on selling the large cars after GM and Chrysler downsized, I can’t see where the buying public would have suddenly accepted something not only radically downsized, but radically redesigned too.
I’m of the mind that, in many cases, what happened before had to happen in order to enable what happens next. We needed the acceptance of downsizing, the focus on high tech, and the cocaine-influenced design of the 1980s before the better-off, more conservative crowd that bought big cars would go for an aerodynamic shape.
Notice the aerodynamic trend from Ford went from least-profitable to most-profitable? The Big Three barely broke even on small cars at that point, so if they didn’t sell enough Tempos, they could call it failed experiment. Thunderbird was a money-maker, but it was an enthusiast car meant to appeal to magazine writers, not a huge volume car driven by actual people on actual roads aimed at the heart of the market. Even then, by all accounts Ford was betting the farm by going aero into the heart of the market with Taurus.
And even then, it wasn’t until 1992! when they finally released an aerodynamically-shaped Crown Victoria.
I agree with you to a point, although I think the least-to-most-profitable theory doesn’t exactly stand up. (The Tempo certainly wasn’t Ford’s least-profitable car, being in many respects a fat Escort, and the European Sierra, launched for 1982, was replacing FoE’s bread-and-butter Cortina.) Also, if you asked Ford designers of the period, I suspect they probably would have pointed to the 1979 Mustang as the beginning of Ford’s aero styling trend, at least in a production sense.
That said, I fully agree that the first Taurus really relied a lot on the prior success of the C2 Audi 100/5000 and Ford wouldn’t have fared well had they tried to lead the way in that segment. The response to the Sierra in Europe is probably telling in that regard — Ford replaced a boxy, conservative-looking, and very popular three-box sedan with a self-consciously aero five-door and a lot of their traditional buyers reacted with dismay.
He (nor anyone else) wouldn’t have been able to come up with the “aero-panther” styling in the mid-late seventies. And it wouldn’t have been accepted, even if he could have.
But that doesn’t mean the ’79 LTD couldn’t have been better designed. I know it’s subjective, and I’m really not a Ford hater, but it is not a well-designed car. Even boxy cars can be well-designed; many were during the boxy era. Not the Fords.
One of my favorite things about these cars is the deep trunk. The floor of the trunk drops down between the frame rails. I used to put two trash cans in standing up and close the trunk lid on dump runs. Other people at the dump were always amazed.
Same here. That trunk design was a Ford hallmark dating back to at least 1965. The spare tire on a shelf above the vertically oriented gas tank made for a very practical design and pretty much the safest tank placement in the industry in that era.
Ah, that deep-well trunk. The company I worked for in the ’80s and ’90s had both full-size Chevrolets and Fords, and I used to specifically reserve the Fords when I did trade shows.
The deep-well trunk was perfectly sized for the two bulky canisters that held a Skyline brand backdrop, and there was still had room left over for boxes of literature and giveaways. And then the back seat would hold even more trinkets, folding tables, drapes, and you name it.
The Chevrolet’s trunk may have matched it in volume, but as for usable space, the Ford was a clear winner, at least for my purposes.
No doubt one of the most profitable automotive platforms ever designed. The last generation is still ubiquitously pounding the pavement in all the liveries of law enforcement in the Ford loving state of Kentucky and elsewhere. After they’re retired from that service they will do another ten years as taxis. From what I understand some municipalities and cab companies are stocking up on parts as budgets permit because the Taurus police package simply isn’t measuring up in some areas.
I’m seeing much wider adoption of the Explorer by the cops than any sedan. Not sure what kind of future they’ll have post-resale since the cab companies’ response to the drop in oil prices has been to replace Crown Vics with Prii slightly less quickly than they had been.
Metro Louisville Police bought a few Escapes a couple of years ago. You can believe that’s true because I couldn’t have come up with that irony on my own.
it has a respectable drag coefficient of 0.54 Times have indeed changed.
And a rear axle ratio of 2.26:1.
I thought my ’86 with a 351 and a 2.73 rear axle was pokey; heaven help the person with a 302 (or 255) and that axle.
The drag coefficient and the 5.5 X 14 inch wheels were my takeaways from this write up. How could those FR78-14 tires deal with a car this hefty?
In the alpha numeric days of tire size designation the letter corresponded to the load capacity so a “F” would have had the same rating in 14″ or 15″. With the big drop in weight of the car they were probably carrying a smaller percentage of their max capacity than the predecessors wearing “G” tires in their base configuration even if they were 15″. A 5.5″ wheel was wider than average for the time as many cars came with 5″.
The road tests mirror my ’85C/V with the 351 2bbl and 2.73 rear end. Good on gas and smooth, but could really benefit from the addition of a quadrajet and a more responsive transmission. Quality on par with any of my G/M’s of the same vintage. To me, it was amazing that it could 60 in 11 seconds with a strangled two barrel and such a tall rear end,
I also have a granny special ’82 LeSabre Limited to keep it company…
Wow, that could be MY granny’s car! Mama Dora, when she traded in the Fords, got her ’82 LeSabre Limited in this exact same Medium Blue metallic with the Dark Blue vinyl roof. It looks like your car is loaded with options too, as was hers.
Uncanny how much it looks like her car and great to see!
This was a Grandma car bought in 1997 from a college friend. It has a decent load, but the bit that I really like is that analog clock on the dash!
IIRC, the same year Chevy (with the “Civilian” 305 engine) was just as pokey and slow as the Ford?
Interesting to re-read these all these decades later. And it helps explain why I really didn’t like these when they came out. Ford had the opportunity to learn from the GM cars, and jump ahead. But they didn’t do that, and instead came out with a duller, boxier, poorer-handling imitation.
Rarely have I disliked a new car more from this era. They embodied the polar opposite of everything that I appreciated and respected in cars at the time. The Fairmont, although a bit tinny and lacking the right engines, was such a relatively better effort.
They really didn’t, though. Car development at Ford in that era was a six- to seven-year affair. The downsized Caprice was released as a 1977. That left Ford with two years to apply the lessons of Caprice to the Panther cars. At that point, a lot of the major work was already done, and they would have been tooling up and getting ready for pre-production test vehicles. The lessons they could learn from the network of corporate spies pretty much got them to the car they released-downsize its footprint, get smart about the shape, preserve the interior space. They may have seen the Chevrolet direction, but by the time they knew the end result, they were already committed to what they’d designed.
I think the contemporary reviewers hit it right on the head-Ford wanted to continue catering to the audience they’d built over the years, and this LTD did it with aplomb.
No it was not a 6-7 year thing at the time. The fact is that after the first energy crisis many were saying that the full size car was dead. That was supported by the fact that the best selling car in the US quickly became the Pinto. So Ford went to work on the “right sized” Foxes.
The reality is that for many families the energy crisis changed their patterns significantly. In the past Dad would have used the full size car as his commuter and Mom would be more likely to have the compact or midsize car for “running errands”. That quickly changed to Dad taking the smaller car as his commuter and leaving the full size at home for Mom. That also led to many picking up a new Sub Compact as a commuter car, hence the Pinto skyrocketing to the top of the sales charts.
Ford went the conservative route by focusing on the Foxes first and taking a wait and see approach on the full size. GM on the other hand bet the farm on the B. Of course in retrospect we see that GM’s gamble payed off. Not that Ford did bad with the Foxes, the Fairmont sold well out of the gate and generated real profits and of course the Fox lent its skeleton to the Mustang and Thunderbird further enhancing the return on the investment in the platform.
Even into the 1990s, Ford’s development times were over five years. Read, “Car,” which is the inside account of the development of the 1996 bubble Taurus. One of the major factors cited for various engineering and other decisions made on that car was Ford’s “World Class Timing,” which mandated less than four years for development. That left the Taurus team scrambling to keep the project moving and compelled them to make a number of compromises.
I don’t know the exact development time on the LTD and Panther platform. What I do know is that even in an era with PCs all through the company (Based on the 1986-vintage IBM PC instructional videos that were still in the Ford Archives when I was there, I’d presume they were fully computerized by the 1991 start of development for the 1996 Taurus), they couldn’t get their development times under five years in any meaningful way.
Based on having worked at Ford and knowing the basic timing of product development, I maintain Ford would not have had enough time to make substantial changes to the Panther cars after Caprice was released, especially in that era. Even supposing that Ford started on Day 2 of the first OPEC crisis, that means a five-year development period. By the time you’re at year three, you’ve chosen a design, you’ve done most or all of the engineering, and you’re preparing to tool up for initial test mules and prototypes.
Ford, while technically remaining profitable through the 1970s (only to post the then second-largest loss in U.S. corporate history!), was rapidly losing profitability. That is to say-they were making less money even though running into the end of the ’70s they were making record sales. They barely broke even in ’74 and ’75, right in what would have been the heart of development of the platform and of the LTD itself. Even in 1978, half Ford’s profit came from overseas (source: Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1978/04/28/ford-profits-fall-as-sales-set-record-at-10-billion/21a813fa-1d95-4d45-a9d8-df41c54d8eef/) and Henry II had to reassure everyone that the company was still committed to its development budgets.
Consider this: Ford lost nearly 8 percentage points of market share from 1974 to 1980. (source: The Turnaround Experience: Real World Lessons in Revitalizing Corporations https://books.google.com/books?id=bHJPMRZ8BdAC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=ford+profits+1980&source=bl&ots=rXLDOivZE-&sig=aFYvY3K0JOBIx4fsjpbifO8JrYI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBmoVChMI3rj9zN2VyQIViLIeCh2bVAgU#v=onepage&q=ford%20profits%201980&f=false)
So you can believe that they’d avoid doing anything too radical at that point.
Pencil didn’t first go to paper until mid 1968 for the Pinto which was an “all new” car, sure they borrowed the engines and transmissions from overseas and dipped into the parts bin for items like u-joints and tie rod ends. That was a drop from their normal development time line which is quoted by many sources as 43 months at that point.
The Mustang II made it to market in about 3 years as development work on it didn’t start until the introduction of the 71. Of course much of that was based on the Pinto but a lot of it was heavily revised due to the greater weight.
The pencils for the Fox didn’t first hit paper until mid to late 1973 so they had the then normal development time of ~4 years.
The Foxy Stang didn’t start development until mid 75 but again that was an adaptation of an existing platform.
The Panther while considered all new was also based heavily on some predecessors. Some front suspension components actually date back to 1965 as does the basic architecture. The rear suspension borrowed heavily from the general architecture of that used in the Fox.
Fact is that the need to design crash worthiness in from the beginning, increasing importance of aerodynamics and more competition actually increased development times as the 80’s wore on.
Yes computers did help with design but the lack of sufficient computer modeling for things like crash structure meant they still had to go through much of the traditional development process.
I do agree that by the time the downsized Bs made it to market the bulk of it was set in stone, it was too late to make significant changes, it was time to order tooling and prepare for the change over.
The Pinto did indeed sell very well for a while, its peak years, except for 1974, were actually before the first energy crisis. 1974 was Pinto’s peak year with 544,000 built. Pinto sales tapered off quickly after that, there were too many new and more modern small import cars coming into the market for the Pinto to sustain that sales pace. The Pinto was below 200,000 units every year after 1977.
Production of the 1974 full size Chevy topped at 630,000 units.
The Pinto did edge out the full size Ford for 1974. Big Ford sales fell from 941,000 cars in 1973 to 520,000 in 1974. The full-size Ford was again the best selling Ford in 1975.
I believe that during the 1970s, the full size Chevy was the top selling car every year except 1976 when it was bested by the Oldsmobile Cutlass.
I’m a bit unsure about the ’78 and ’79 model years. The downsized Cutlass, except the sedan, was certainly a big seller.
I’m pretty sure that the full-size Chevrolet was still the best-selling car in the country – even for 1974 and 1975.
One source of confusion regarding this is that some charts separate sales of the Impala from sales of the Caprice and Bel Air. Add all three nameplates together, however, and the full-size Chevrolet is still the best-selling car.
The full-size Chevrolet regained the top spot from the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme for 1977. Oldsmobile, however, probably wasn’t complaining much, as the Cutlass still scored an increase in sales for 1977, even though that body style had been out since the 1973 model year. The Delta 88 and Ninety-Eight scored healthy increases in sales for 1977, too.
The full-size Chevrolet continued to hold the number-one spot for 1978 and 1979. The downsized Cutlass met some sales resistance for 1978.
Pinto wasn’t #1 car over all, for ’74 and ’75, the big Chevy was still #1. Only in ’76, the Cutlass line was #1, then back to Chevy for 2 years. Chevette then was #1 during Oil Crisis 2.
Pinto was maybe #1 selling Ford in ’74?
That was supported by the fact that the best selling car in the US quickly became the Pinto.
Typical “fact” from this commenter on any subject having to do with Fords.
The reality is that the Pinto was the best selling car in 1974. Yes if you combine the Bel Air, Impala and Caprice they sold better but at that point in time they were considered different enough cars that the sales numbers were not added together. Yes they were the “same” car but again they were not.
OMG! You’ve gone off the deep end, Eric!
All of the trim/model versions you mentioned are all part of the “Chevrolet” (full size) line. To try to justify your erroneous assertion that the Pinto outsold the full-size Chevrolet by doing this is a bad joke. Nobody ever breaks out the various body styles/trim levels in comparing sales.
Shall we break the Pinto’s sales into sedan, hatchback and station wagon. And then there’s the Pinto Squire.
Sorry; but that’s not going to fly….
Sorry but that was how they totaled the numbers back then. You can deny it all you want but the Pinto was the best selling name plate in 1974.
#1 Pinto
#2 Valiant,
#3 Chevelle
#4 Vega
#5 Impala
#6 Nova
Again I’m not denying that when you total Bel Air, Impala, and Caprice that it comes out ahead of the Pinto. Go back a year and the Impala was the top selling car and that was without including the Bel Air and Caprice in the totals.
Part of the reason that Olds was able to claim the stop spot in 1975 with the Cutlass was because all of the Olds Colonnades carried the Cutlass badge while over at Chevy the Monte Carlo was totaled separately from the Chevelle. Had the Monte Carlo instead been called the Chevelle Supreme it would have made the Chevelle the top seller.
1975
#1 Cutlass
#2 Granada
#3 Chevelle
#4 Pinto
#5 Monte Carlo
#6 Nova
By the mid-1970s, everyone knew that the Bel Air, Impala and Caprice were simply trim variations of the full-size Chevrolet. They were the same basic car.
The reason that Chevrolet Monte Carlo sales were tallied separately from the sales of the Chevelle/Malibu was that the Monte Carlo was extensively restyled and advertised as a separate model. It was the same with the Pontiac Grand Prix and the LeMans.
No one viewed the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix as two-door versions of their respective parent division’s “standard” intermediates.
Through 1975, the Cutlass Supreme coupes shared their front and rear styling with the Cutlass sedans and wagons. The main variation was the greenhouse. Oldsmobile even advertised them that way. And note that, for 1973, the flagship Cutlass Salon model was offered only as a four-door sedan. That was the Cutlass that most of the “buff books” tested that year.
For 1976, Oldsmobile did restyle the flanks and tail of the Supreme coupes, while leaving the sedans and wagons unchanged, except for the adoption of the quad, rectangular headlights and revised grille. Thus the front clip of the Supreme coupes still matched the front clips of the sedans and wagons.
“… best selling car in the US quickly became the Pinto.”
No, the Olds Cutlass [whole line, nut just the Supreme coupe] was #1 in 1976. Big Chevy still did well in 74 and 75, then came back to first in 77/78. For 1979 and up, no more full sized cars were a top seller.
Pinto was a top 10 seller, but never #1 in the entire USA.
You’re right; the time frame was too small. They simply didn’t put as much effort into them, and given Ford’s iffy finances at the time, that’s understandable. GM did not cut any significant corners with their new downsized B-Cs.
It’s just a reflection of Ford’s situation at the time, with Lee Iaccoca perpetually pushing the brougham look.
The really big difference between the LTD and Imapala/Caprice styling is how they look without vinyl roofs. The Chevys look better without them, and the Fords look extra-bad without them. It was designed with a padded halo roof from the get-go, which turned off those buyers looking for a sleeker, more international design.
The Fords ended up being popular with very traditional (older, conservative) buyers, but younger, more aspirational buyers were turned off by its looks and dowdy old-man image.
The Landau roof was made standard on all LTD Crown Vics in 1983, and then sales took off.
Only the fleet CV’s had ‘landau roof delete’.
Funny, Dad loved how his 1982 Country Squire handled – he said it was far superior to his ’77 Caprice Estate, and one of the best handling cars he had ever owned. Maybe by 1982 Ford had done some tweaking to the suspension? That car was quiet, rode well and was durable. It was built well and never gave us any problems – unlike the Caprice that fell apart and felt old after five years.
Did the wagon have towing package? That made a huge difference in handling.
I had an ’87 Mercury wagon [in 2002] with such package and it drove like a cop car. While a base LTD of same year had excess body lean, as in the C&D pics above.
I did forget my initial reaction to these cars in 1979. GM shocked me in 1977. I thought those cars were ugly. But they sold, especially well in Chicago. Ford might have been advertising how great their old cars were, but by 1979, the GM cars were normal looking and attractive. So, when the Panther came out, I thought – DULL.
I loved the Fairmont, but not the styling. I discovered it was a perfect little machine by driving one throughout Colorado. Then I got the Cougar four door version and then I really became a fan of the Fox body Fords. By the time I ended up with a 1992 Mustang, I was an even bigger Fox body diehard and wanted a Fox Continental, but I was too young for such an old man’s car.
It was my dad who ended up with a Panther. It was a stripper 1982 model. Terribly unimpressive. He loved it, but it wasn’t as good as the Fairmont, the Cougar or the Mustang, in my opinion. Too lethargic. Too disconnected from the road. Square and not terribly clever.
I didn’t get to be a Panther fan until my CV Sport. All the things I didn’t like about my dad’s car, was fixed in the twenty one years newer version. Police Interceptor suspension and handling, effortless power and size. The perfect Daddy mobile for my little kids, their car seats, their friends and all their crap.
But yeah – that first generation Panther wasn’t awesome at all. It took Ford a decade to figure out that they had something worthy of investing in. They got lucky by ignoring it for so long, and then putting everything it needed to hunt down criminals and take trips to the airport.
Sad to see it go. RWD, BOF, V8, in a car large enough to “man-spread” across the driver’s seat in. I want another.
It was galling for a Ford fan to see how badly they kept up with B-bodies after ca. 3 yrs. to crib. Inferior roadholding? ☑. Inferior braking/acceleration? ☑. Thirstier? ☑; even the big-block Caddy was more economical. It wasn’t even better-looking, & this was supposed to be their brand flagship.
It’s like supporting a loser ball team.
There’s a right way to make a car smaller and more efficient, and a wrong way. Chevy did it the right way; Ford did not. Never liked these Panthers much, way too square and boxy, with oversized wheel openings and too-small tires that made them look like they were tiptoeing around. Plus the Spartan interiors, which were not much better on upper-priced models.
I would have bought the Chevy in 1979 – elegant, classy and luxurious. The Ford? Um, no.
I wonder how much of a hand Iacocca had had in these cars’ development? In his autobiography, he has a picture of himself with the ’79 Mustang, which due to his firing, never got released.
Henry II and Iacocca were not enamored with smaller cars, and Iacocca’s typical response to changing market trends was to take what they had, such as the Falcon, restyle it slightly, and glop it up with profitable options as in Maverick LDO and Granada. Iacocca never seemed interested in the cars’ engineering, which would explain why these were so far behind the GM competition.
Iacocca never seemed interested in the cars’ engineering, which would explain why these were so far behind the GM competition.
I agree, yet he was an engineer by training and education.
I know I’m in the minority on this site, but I think Ford’s first effort at downsizing the full-sizers was a better one than Chevy’s in several ways and missed in one important way: Chevy got there two years ahead. The 1979 LTD was a much better looking car than the 1979 Caprice (with its droopy ass and stupid-looking grille). The commentary about handling from the car rags is mostly worthless, as one had to buy the handling package to get it (besides the fact that large car buyers in this era didn’t actually want to feel the road at all). The LTD had a nice clean dash layout, and I liked the LTD’s chairs better, at least as they held up decades later.
By 1990, the Caprice’s styling refreshes made that the better-looking car, and by all measures the Caprice’s downsizing was very well done. I think the zeal with which people on this site shit on the LTD, though, is unwarranted.
And looking at it through the eyes of, which would I buy if I were buying a new 1979 full-sizer between the Caprice and LTD? I’d buy the LTD, at least one with the quad headlights.
I’d have to agree with you on those points. People seem to want to bash the Ford’s interior but I remember when those full sized Chevys were around and a lot of them were not Caprices. Many were Impalas and even a smattering of Bel Airs. Some of those cars had very Spartan (even chintzy to me) vinyl interiors. The Fords also just seemed to have a more solid quality to me. You didn’t see all the falling-off adhesive trim and peeling Mylar that plagued GM’s offerings of the day and the styling of the Fords and Mercurys looked like something a little more than just connected boxes on a piece of graph paper. As far as ride and handling goes I owned a Crown Victoria and drove a customer’s Caprice and although the Chevy was a diesel I found them to be very similar performers. All in all if you fairly compare an LTD with an Impala and a Crown Victoria with a Caprice you have pretty close competitors.
Finally someone that feels the same as I do! My father owned both a ’77 Caprice Estate and an ’82 Country Squire. He hated the Caprice with a passion. Moldings fell off that car all the time, hubcaps always flew off of it and the fit and finish of that car was downright horrible. It literally fell apart after five years and felt old, whereas the Country Squire, even with nearly 100k miles on it, still felt solid and well-built. Dad always said it was the best handling car he ever owned, too. We had the luxury interior group so it was the next best thing to a Lincoln station wagon. People that rode in it often commented on how comfortable, smooth and quiet that car was. The seats were ultra comfortable, plus the fit and finish and quality of materials used on that car were excellent. I’m sorry, I don’t give Chevy the edge on this one.
Tom you have posted this story on here many times. As someone who has owned both B-bodies and Panthers I can’t say I had the same experience. There really wasn’t that big of a difference between these cars. We too had a GM wagon from the same era as your Dad’s Ford, a 1984 Parisienne. We kept it until 1998 when it had about 200K miles on the clock while still being rust free after many salty Ontario winters. It was one of the most trouble free and rock solid cars we’ve ever owned. I find it weird that your father preferred the “handling” of the Ford that much over the Chevrolet. Having owned both, there really isn’t a massive difference in the way these cars drive or handle. I always felt that the GM cars had the edge on handling crispness and steering feel but the Fords generally had a smoother ride. Mind you ever car I had had at least had upgraded suspension of some sort.
Obviously your father didn’t like his Caprice, and his didn’t sound to be a particularly good one. It’s also obvious he had a preference for the Ford product over the Chevrolet. That said, the number of magazines reviews, former owners have shown that the b-body was and is an excellent car even if it’s not your Dad’s preference. Generally I agree with most opinions that the B-body was overall a better car, especially in the earlier years. But by the later years the Panther had closed the gap, and in many ways had become better than the GM B-body.
Sorry if I have repeated myself Bill. I’ll be sure not to bring this up again.
All I am saying is that everyone on this site praises the Chevy like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Ours may have just been a lemon – honestly it really was not a very good car. It had rust all along the back windows and it was only five years old! Granted it was a first year model – but by the time you bought your ’84 Pontiac GM had seven years to perfect their full sized models so yours should have been a good car, don’t you think?
The funny thing is that when an article on a Panther comes up lots of people here rag on it while they proclaim how superior the B/C cars were but in the recent “what would you drive for 30 years” QOTD the Panther was a more common answer than the GM B/C.
I know in my area, no the entire west coast, there are far more Box Panthers still in daily use than B/C boxes. So maybe that influences things because there is a much higher chance that the Panther would still be on the road after 30 years. The earlier adoption of fuel injection certainly doesn’t hurt since they pretty much just keep going. The carbs just don’t and it is hard to find anyone that still knows how to work on them and rebuilts are an expensive crapshoot.
Tom, I didn’t mean to discourage your story, but I just think that you were being unfair basing things on two cars. We all have our biases and preferences, but I don’t think anyone on this site will deny that both the Panther and B-bodies are both excellent cars, each with there own strengths and weaknesses.
I’ve posted before about our 1977 Impala – I’m sorry, but having to have the transmission rebuilt twice in under 100K miles (with a turbo 350 that I rebuilt myself getting installed the second time to replace the Chevette-issue T200) and having to do major engine work (flat camshaft on the 305) also under 100K miles – those are not minor issues. None of our other American cars owned over a 30-year period ever required any transmission or major engine work.
And judging from the Consumer Reports articles from the early 1980s, we were not alone in having those major problems. I fixed all of them and my sister drove that car into the early 2000s, so it did have its good points.
Our 77 Caprice Wagon had a flat cam too and this was by late 79 or early 80 and my dad was pretty religious about oil changes so it was not due to neglect. The trans was starting to slip on some shifts by late 83 so it was limped into the dealer to be traded in on one of those new fangled minivans. In our case a Toyota. The interior was pretty ragged at that point but I don’t think I can blame that entirely on GM as my younger brothers were pretty hard on it and it did get used for hauling building materials, going to the dump ect.
The downsized LTD was not even in the same design league as the downsized Caprice. The boxy butt, the poorly proportioned B pillars that seemed to dominate the greenhouse, the overpowering character lines down the flanks all riding on too small a wheelbase added up to a busy mess. Ford was headed into its darkest styling period culminating with the awful 1980 T-bird and Cougar.
The boxy butt on the CV is way better looking than the droopy but on the Chevy. The C cars with their finlets looked a million times better than the Bs.
Spoken like like a true blue Ford man. 🙂 If you think the Ford is better looking than the Chevy, you’re in a very distinct minority. Click on the image below, spend two minutes looking at it closely, and then tell me that your still think the Panther was a better design.
I guess you missed our styling comparison we did here a while back: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/cc-design-question-1977-chevrolet-b-body-vs-1979-ford-ltd-the-boxing-match/ The many comments seem to confirm your minority opinion.
FWIW, I liked a number of Ford cars from this era (Fairmont, Mustang), so I don’t have an anti-Ford bias. But from a design POV, the LTD really can’t hold a candle to the Chevy. Or its chassis dynamics. And a few other things. It did have a more useful trunk; I’ll give it that! 🙂
Wow, the side by side comparison really makes the Ford look old and naive. Many folks (not me) will say aesthetics are subjective, but this pretty much objectively “proves” the Chevy was better looking. I’m now on my way to rereading the old article.
While the Chevy seems like the obvious better design in today’s eyes, keep in mind that GM soon squared-off the coupe and brougham-ified the B-bodies making them more like the Fords. So Ford may have actually hit the target market better, as far as looks go.
Either way though, it’s not like there was a whole lot of difference. GM did do the details better, but they were hardly lookers IMO. The wagons especially I thought looked droopy and the back sides awkward. As a kid at the time, I always thought the Fords looked more upscale. But again, not by a large margin.
That side-by-side comparo… I stand by what I said. That Caprice with ‘dat droopy ass and that rear glass/roofline combo that hint at fastback but hit a droopy trunk, those incongruous wheel arches that make the wheels look out of center within them… It’s a confused car, looking like it’s been left in the sun too long and started to melt. Ten years on, the Caprice’s refreshes made it the looker of the two. They fixed that sad rear end, put a much better grille in it, gave it a roofline to match the rest of the car, and the composite headlights they fitted dressed it up nicely.
The ’79 LTD, to me, looked like they took the ’78, put it on a diet, and the ’79 was the result. True, it didn’t break a lot of new ground, but it was a coherent design, looked good, and seems to have done well in the marketplace.
Oh well, you know what they say about opinions. I was also called crazy for my love of the Honda Element, a 2006-vintage example of which I bought brand new and drove for eight years.
Did anyone else notice the difference in the outside rearview mirrors? The Ford has the old, chrome, upright style, while the Chevy has the ‘rallye’, body-color type. And both fit in quite well with the rest of the cars’ styling. Pretty much says it all.
GM also had chrome mirrors available. I think the chrome ones were the base ones and possibly no remote adjustment but not sure.
I know CC orthodoxy is a moving target, but this makes me wonder what you were doing 1975-1985? The 1982 Coupe LTD, the car I drove in my first year with Ford Credit, was a far superior driver to the equivalent Chevrolet. The more I read this the less it compares to the real world of my experience. I was on the inside, looking out. What were you guys doing? I drove the cars given me and my wife drove the one assigned her. Two more different people you couldn’t find, regardless of our union. She liked the wagon better, too, but after always asked for a Ranger. Go figure.
I wonder if Ford could have just done a better job tuning the 302 and 351, added the overdrive auto and just restyled the old bodies. The od should increase efficiency almost as much as the lighter body and it would have continued to give buyers a real choice in full size cars the way they did in 1977 and 1978 with the still big Ford and Chrysler still available. The big one would have avoided the 14 wheels of these, I am glad GM did not copy that when they lightened the B body for 1980.
Is it just me or is there a really weird sag to the dome of the hood on the two door base LTD as it meets the grille? It’s like the front clip isn’t tall enough for the hood, so they had to add that precipitous droop!
Good catch on the ‘droop’. I think it’s due to requiring a shorter grille to center with the positioning of the shorter dual headlights. Hence, the short grille had to have an angled droop to mate with the hood, whereas the taller headlight/turn-signal combo of the quad headlight cars allowed for the taller grille and a much smoother transition from the hood to the grille header.
That’s because they used the same hood on both the base and the upper level LTD Landau model. I’m sure it was a cost savings measure. If you look at the hood on the LTD Landau model, it matches up much better with the header panel, grill, and headlights.
I don’t “know” these Fords all that well or their Chevy competitors as my BIL was the only one with the Chevy and that car was falling apart by the time it hit 100K miles. He was trying to sell it and that poor car broke down every time some prospective buyer took it for a test drive.
As great as the downsized Chevys were/are, I would have a hard time choosing between a Chevy or Ford in 1979. But something tells me that I would lean just a tiny bit towards the Chevy. Why? With all the “buff books” raving about the Chevy’s suspension and the Ford looking like it’s plodding along on wheels and tires 2 sizes too small, PLUS, the odd gearing used with the Ford…..
And yet, just last week I bought a late-model Panther.
The base 1979 LTD actually became the middle range model for 1980, when Ford introduced the 1980 LTD S. This model became the bare bones model without any woodgrain on the dashboard, practically no chrome moldings on the window frames,less sound insulation, fewer standard amenities, and the ugly grill/single headlight/droppy header panel up front.
The middle range 1980 LTD moved up the ranks a bit, and ended up with the nicer grille/dual headlight/nicer header panel.
The top range 1980 LTD received a new name, LTD Crown Victoria, and this year, there was a very plush optional leather interior with a very nice sew style.
Also, the 1980’s received different two tone paint treatments, where the paint break was above the body line. Plus, the landau roofs featured a wide chrome over the roof band. These items made the car look more in proportion.
I just found it weird how on the station wagon models, the body line and the end of the back doors didn’t really line up with the quarter panel. Not really noticeable on the Country Squire with the faux wood grain.
Patrick Bedard hit the nail on the head with his prediction of electronics becoming the “must have” options in the future–the money maker options for the manufacturers. The coefficent of drag used to be a very popular subject in road tests–The Audi 5000 was a game changer in aero drag.
I was never impressed with the early Fox body full sized Ford’s and always felt these cars have gotten better as you approach the mid 80’s due to better design and powertrain, I remember being surprised by the dual headlight models because they were far less common than the quad headlight models.
My only real world experiences with these were back in the early ’80’s when as an adolescent I competed on a private swim team a few towns away from home. My family carpooled with two other families we were socially close with. Practices were three nights a week at 7:30 pm all winter from October to late Spring. One of the mothers replaced a ’78 or ’79 Olds Delta 88 diesel with a new ’81 or ’82 Grand Marquis. On her nights to drive I recall how much more comfortable the back seat was in the GM as compared to the Delta, as we were often 4 across back there. The relatively straight flat seatback was so much more accommodating than the deep curvatures at the outboard corners of the Olds back seat. Neither car was very inspiring, but I recall the Mercury seemed to really pitch and roll more than the ’80 Toronado my parents had at th time when pushed over rough back roads fully loaded. (Incidentally, the third family in the carpool was still clinging to their ’74 Coupe de Ville as a family hauler. That, by far, was everyone’s favorite carpool cruiser. Even with a driver and six tired, hormonal, chlorinated teenagers on board there was room to spare, and that monster just floated over any surface it encountered…..at a modest cost of approximately 8 miles per gallon, I’d reckon.)
My employer in the early-mid ’80’s had two company-owned “pool cars” — a 1980 Ford LTD Wagon, and a 1983 Chevy Caprice Sedan. The LTD was equipped with the 351 V8 and was a blast to drive. Even in its’ well-worn state after a few years in service, the LTD was virtually everyone’s first choice. I can’t recall a single breakdown until the LTD was well past 100,000 miles.
The Caprice was saddled with a V6, and didn’t have enough power to get out of it’s own way. Going up and down hills, the poor Caprice would shift back and forth between 2nd, 3rd, and overdrive; but would never go any faster no matter how hard you stomped on the gas pedal. Also, after about a year in service, it seemed like the Caprice’s driver’s seat had turned to mush, so you sat low to the floor regardless of how the seat was adjusted.
The LTD finally suffered a major breakdown and was sold off to the highest bidder after about 150,000 very hard, multi-driver miles. Interestingly, it was replaced by the first Taurus wagon in town – a car that also stood up pretty well in fleet use.
During 1984 to 1986 I had a part time job with a company that did on site inventories. Their fleet consisted off one 1983 Crown Vic that was owned outright by the company and several leased Caprice Classic sedans and station wagon.
The Crown Vic was considered the “Driver’s Car”; coveted and first choice by many employees.
It’s keys were hidden, tires were flattened, “Won’t Start” signs placed on the windshield…….all by employees wanting to reserve the Crown Vic for their usage.
Strange when the same year Caprice would have out handled the Ford and out accelerated it too with 20 more HP and more torque. Any Caprice with the F-41 out handled the Panthers by a considerable margin especially with the smaller 14″ tires many of the Fords came with during these years vs the P225/70R15 tires on the Caprice.
The inventory company Chevvies we had were (IIRC) 305 carbureted engines, no F-41 suspensions.
They were slow, flaccid handlers with low (even with the power seat jacked up all the way to the top!) sitting, rapidly collapsing front seats. The station wagon models really “wagged their tails” if you came off an exit ramp too quickly.
Oil leaks from the valve covers (and other locations) were common. The otherwise excellent, equal to the Crown Vic’s air conditioners, had an annoying habit of dumping all the air flow from the dash vents to the floor & defroster vents.
The 4 speed overdrive automatic transmissions in all but the latest Chevy model had an irritating tendency to “hunt” between 3rd gear and overdrive 4th gear. The AOD in the Crown Vic shifed smoothly and STAYED in 4th gear overdrive.
The higher mileage Crown Vic was a solid, squeak free, high front seating car that kept on goin’ on….and on….and on….
I had a later box Panther, 1987 to be specific. Other than the enormous difficulty of learning how to service simple things like spark plugs, I didn’t think it was a bad car. It drove lighter and floatier than the GM Bs and Cs and had a quieter engine, at least with my EFI setup. It definitely had better pickup than the Olds 307 cars though not the earlier 350s.
I like that the article pointed out the good driving position. I had really forgotten about this but it’s true, in the Panther cars you sat looking out over the hood, not totally but halfway like sitting over a map at a table; with the Cadillac and Buick C-Bodies I’ve had it’s been more like looking out along the hood. While both have great greenhouses and visibility it’s definitely a different experience in the Fords; you feel a little less like you are riding around in a bathtub when today’s cars pass by.
I think these are a more conservative design and thus appealed to more conservative buyers as noted. But there is continuity in that, look at the pre-downsized versions…the gigantic Mitchell cars are definitely more “styled”–the sweepy Buicks, the puckered fenders on the olds, the coffin nose Cadillac hoods, contrasted to the slab-like Marquis and Continental. And then in the downsized versions you have the fins and shovel nose on the Buick, the bent window on the Caprice, the blade tip taillights on the DeVille. I think the problem is less the style itself and more that it didn’t fit on a smaller car as well as the somewhat reimagined GM concepts fit the Bs. The ’77 Caprice was not really trying to be a smaller version of the ’76 Caprice. The ’79 LTD was absolutely trying to be a smaller version of the ’78. The differences in concepts being applied is even clearer with the Eldorado and Mark…the ’79 Eldo really had very little in common with the ’78. The Mark VI, on the other hand, is a Mark V run through the dryer on one setting too high. One company was touting the new as a departure. The other was trying to reassure that nothing much would change. Then in 1985-86 they switched roles with the second GM downsize and the Taurus.
I agree with most of what you say. I have also lived with both. I always found the Ford to be more nimble, if a little floatier. Also quieter. The GM B body always drove “heavier”, and felt more substantial, both in driving and in the feel of the body, such as the way the doors shut.
I preferred the injected 302 to the carbed 307, but I preferred driving the GM automatic tranny to the Ford AOD. In truth, I considered both of them to be short of perfection. But then, what isnt? 🙂
Yes, I prefer the GM tranny as well. That 3-4 shift in the Ford AOD is never pretty, even on a good one.
I seem to recall the (all too often) 4th to 3rd downshift & upshift in the Chevvies rather abrupt and rough.
Properly adjusted, the Ford’s AOD automatic shifted slightly slower, but much smoother.
(Just my recollections, at an almost 30 year time disadvantage).
This was countered by the off set steering wheel angle on the Panthers that makes you turn a bit to align with the steering wheel and is a little annoying. Even my buddies 2004 does this. Keep in mind the 307 was only in the Olds and Buick cars up until 1985 and then for wagons only late 1986 onward. The Caprice by this point had a 165-170 HP 305 that felt livelier than the 302 and the transmission in the Caprice was more agreeable.
Mom’s ’86 Parisienne had the 307, and it wasn’t a wagon. Don’t know when in the production year it dated from, though, as we didn’t buy it new.
I like the part about the bottoms of the windows lowered and the seat raised so that the driver can see the road seven feet closer. So where have we gone wrong in the last 3-4 years with the window bottoms raised and the seat lowered so it is near impossible to see the road.
The Ltd is a fine car. The 2 headlight one looks cheap though. Ltd was a much better car than the caprice. It had a standard v8 while the Chevy had a 6 and no power. The Chevy was cheaply made and fell apart. In the Chevy you sat to low and the seats soon sagged. The Ford had vent windows and a 302 or 351. The Ford was quieter and faster and better on gas and the Ford’s lasted decades in daily use. Trim didn’t fall off a Ford. Ford’s had better trunks.
Comparing the base. To make it the best looking car you only had to go to the junk yard and get a 4 light header. To equal the Ford you had to order the optional v8 on the Chevy and up grade the interior and get a power seat to see over the dash.Ford’s lasted longer. Ford improved over the years and Chevy got way worse. Also the Ford handled way better too. Gm cars drove worse in the rain than a Ford in snow.
The Ford horn location sucks but you get used to it. My mark vi has it 1983.What really sucks is cheesy cruise and turn signal and wipers and hi beam and resume all on the turn signal. That’s horrible and dangerous. In a Chevy it’s common to have the switch burn out and shut off all the lights and to hit resume when signaling and have the car take off in a low speed turn. I say the b body was not half the car a panther is and would take a dodge st Regis over one any day.
Ford std engine 302
Chevy v6 or inline 6
Ford good for 250 thousand miles
Chevy lucky to get 100 thousand.
Chevy had weaker axle and transmission.
Ford 17-22mpg
Chevy 11-16 mpg
Repairs Ford cheap and seldom
Chevy constant and expensive.
Ford nice seats and you can see out.
Chevy cheap seats that broke and sagged and you need power seat or pillows to see over dash. ..
Only advantage to Chevy is the Vinal tops lasted longer and gm had better looking wire hubcaps.
I will never go back to gm. Panthers forever.
Chevy lucky to get 100 thousand
Tell that to all the police and taxi fleet operators that used Chevys almost exclusively until GM got out of that game. NYC was once a sea of Chevy Yellow cabs; nary a Ford to be seen. They all switched to Fords because they had no other choice.
In that era it was normal to replace a police car at about 60K.
And then they were sold for taxi use. Were you ever in NYC in the 80s? Wall-to-wall Chevys; nary a Ford to be seen.
Eric, arguing about Fords with you is like arguing with the pope about Catholicism. Neither productive or objective.
Here’s the bottom line: The Panthers started out weak, in many ways. And with time, they got better. And I respect Ford for making that effort, especially in the mid-late 80s. But they had some serious catching up to do. And stylistically, that obviously had to wait until the aero Panthers came along. By which time it was getting painful to look at the Fords. But I realize that aspect is subjective.
Yes I was in NYC in the 80’s.
Yes once they were done in police duty they went to taxi fleets. Because that was what was available at the fleet auctions so that is what they bought. It was not because they were more durable it was because they were plentiful and thus cheap at the auctions.
The other big plus as far as the Taxi companies were concerned was that due to the sheer numbers, demand and competition a rebuilt SBC or GM AT trans was way cheaper than anything else on the market. In the 80’s you could get a rebuilt 350 for $699 all day long while a 351 would set you back $899.
Paul, may I suggest that your pro-Chevy/anti-Ford continued viewpoint is also subjective?
Sounds like you weren’t even alive when these cars were new. Sure, the Bs suffered from the same hit and miss quality as any other ’70s GM car, but the early Panthers were absolute junk. Some good friends of my parents bought a ’79 LTD Landau as a replacement for for an LTD II that had been involved in a wreck. Almost from the beginning the transmission slipped or was slow to upshift. As the years went by electrical problems kept popping up until they finally traded it in for a FWD LeSabre. These Ford loyalists never owned another until many years later when they bought a Super Duty to pull an RV.
The decline of the B-body and the rise of the Panther intersected around 1985-86. Ford’s quality had vastly improved across the board while GM’s corporate mindset was already on its way to being the “front drive corporation” that Bob Stempel talked about in the early ’90s. The Bs were an afterthought kept alive by fleet and Cadillac Brougham sales while Ford kept making gradual improvement to the Panthers. It also didn’t hurt that they were making over $5K in profit on every Town Car that rolled out of Wixom.
Speaking of fleets, Panther cop cars and taxis really didn’t take off until the ’92 with the 4.6L. To the very end in ’91, Ford kept the troublesome variable venturi 2bbl on the 351 police engine. The taxi companies that lived on ex-cop cars stayed away in droves.
No the HO 351 used in later police cars used the old school Motorcraft 2100 series carbs, not the VV.
Check out any Ford parts catalog…..it was the 7200.
LOl this post is funny on so many levels. Fords with better axles. My 1979 Fairmont lost it’s rear end at 66K miles while backing out into the road at school. My grandfathers Granada grenaded it’s axle a short time later. The repair shop that swapped them out said he did Ford axles on an average of 3-5 per week!
The GM B-bodies had std V6 or 4.1 liter 250 sixes as std for cafe and mileage reasons not because GM wanted it that way. It offered the customer several choices in addition to the 5.7 diesel which did get superior mileage but before 1981 wasn’t known to be a long lived engine.
The only year a 302 was std was it’s first year in 1979. 1980 onward had the much lower output 255 V8 coupled to economy 2.26 gears which made them little faster than the V6 cars.
The base Ford interiors were cheaper and more sparten to the B cars.
Every article I have read and each early panther I had driven handles and steers worse than the B cars. if a B has F-41 and the optional P225/70R15 tires it isn’t even a contest. The 14″ tired Panthers up until the later 80’s squealed and howled and felt ponderous.
I have seen bucket loads of B cars with 250K miles and I have seen newer style panthers from the 90’s on up with the same mileage. Early 1979-on up Panthers were hard to find with this kind of mileage that didn’t have a replaced transmission or engine or axle. In fairness the Buick 231 V6 was also hardly known for longevity but the 250 Chevy six has been seen to go nearly a million miles in many cases so it’s inclusion in the 77-79 Caprice/Impala was a good choice IMO. The early 5.7 diesel was only offered on the Chevy wagons for 1980 and the on all body styles for 1981 onward.
Not sure where you pulled he mileage figures but I can verify a bunch of B-body owner experiences and also several Panther ones.
Examples 1983 caprice wagon with 305/4 speed got up to 25 on the open road during a field trip to Delhi.
Other friends 1981 Country Squire with 302 2BBL got 21 in comparison on the same exact trip. I made them both write down there mileage and calculate it out as a school project!
Our next door neighbors had a 1983 Caprice sedan with the same drivetrain and it often saw 26 on the open road and averaged 17-18 around town. Another neighbor with a 1986 CV with SFI 302 averaged about the same as the 83 Caprice with a carburetor.
Never had problems with the seats in either so that is a mystery unless the former owner weighted 400 LBS and broke them down. They both used foam and springs in a very similar design.
Neither car needed frequent repairs unless one got a lemon or severely neglected there cars. But parts are and have been cheap for both for many years.
Comparing optional engines the 305 always made more power than the 302 2BBL and from what I witnessed ran better than the 79-82 Panther cars with there junk VV carbs. The Chevy 350 4BBL was also much stronger than the Ford 351 2BBL in every test I could find. Ditto the Olds Rocket 350 and Buick of the same size.
Comparing transmissions Ford had a lawsuit in 1980 with there new AOD transmission due to stalling out while driving in traffic plus they had issues with them slipping out of gear into reverse. I know because it happened to me and almost broke my leg! Neither the Ford AOD or the GM 200R-4 were really great transmissions during the 80’s and I have seen equal amounts of both being replaced. Both improved as the 80’s wore on. The GM 200 metric was for sure weaker than Ford C3/C4 but the GM THM 350 was better than either.
Was always a fan of the cousin Mercury Marquis, especially the blue 4 door as below.
So much better looking than the LTD.
The two headlight look lasted until 1982, for the base/fleet LTD S.
And I always wondered when Ford green lit the Panther, being 2 years later. Myth is they “waited to see how GM would do” and “whipped them up in 2 years”. But some posted that it was planned about the same time, but delayed due to them “kicking and screaming” into downsizing.
After reading thru these comments I am reminded of the older mid-west farmers arguing who had the better pick up truck, Ford or “Shevvie”. My farm/ranch relatives were pretty evenly divided on this topic.
🙂
Nowadays it’s Apple vs Microsoft products. The more things change….
And they would look askance at their friend who bought a Dodge…
For a brief time in 2001, we were in the position of having a 1st-gen Panther and a downsized B-Body, specifically an ’86 Parisienne Brougham with the 307 and a ’91 LTD Crown Victoria LX. By that time, and with the caveat that you were comparing cars that were five years apart, they seemed pretty evenly matched. The Pontiac felt significantly more powerful and faster by the “butt dyno”. It also felt, as several others have commented, “heavier” on the road. More connected, slightly more direct, more road feel (the wide 225-series tires may have helped with that). Overall it was a more confidence-inspiring car to be behind the wheel of. The Ford felt overall more nimble, but the ride was so floaty that it was hard to discern other than during lower-speed maneuvers. Both rode very smoothly. I think the Ford had slightly more comfortable seats for the driver, though the Pontiac’s Brougham velour interior with sort of a semi-loose-pillow treatment were great for the passengers. And neither had a great dashboard but I liked the Ford’s slightly better overall there, even with a “ribbon” rather than round speedometer.
Exterior styiling? That’s where Ford made the biggest strides. The ’79 to ’87 pre-facelift models always looked a little awkward, a little overwrought, just not quite right. They had their angles, and weren’t unattracitve, but were just fussy and a bit old-fashioned. The ’88 semi-aero facelift fixed almost *all* of that. The clean wraparound taillights, the curved front panel with flush grille, the rear fender peaks, it just all came together into a much cleaner and more cohesive look, even though the roofline and doors were carried over. Over in the Caprice camp, the ’87 was a much milder refresh of the ’80 to ’85 styiling (’86 being transitional) and, while certainly handsome, didn’t make as much of a leap forward. I’d take a ’79 to ’87 Caprice hands down over the same year LTD, especially ’87 when the refreshed Caprice was competing with the LTD’s 8 year old styling. But I’d take an ’88 to ’90 LTD over the equivalent Caprice, styling-wise.
For whatever reason, I’m just now noticing that the rear styling has a very 1978 – ’79 Chrysler Cordoba look about it. Between those two cars, I wonder which styling proposal came first.
This article and the comments are the closest I have seen to a development history of the Panthers, since people who actually designed the cars seem to have been silent, compared to some of the designers of some Chrysler and GM cars. Since Iacocca was fired from Ford shortly before these cars debuted, I am sure he was greatly involved in their development. I have purchased three cars in my life (was given a 1985 1/2 Escort as a college graduation present and inherited a 1993 Taurus when my mother died in 2001), and all were Panthers, and I hope my 2010 Grand Marquis lasts the remainder of my life. First two Panthers (1989 and 2004 Crown Victorias) went well over 100,000 miles, and I regret not keeping both much longer.
Since Iacocca was fired from Ford shortly before these cars debuted, I am sure he was greatly involved in their development
I can assure that CEOs are never “greatly involved” in the development of any new car. They approve development budgets, the general goals and the final product, but are not directly involved in the actual development process.
My Dad looked at these in the fall of ’78, when he was looking to replace our family’s 1973 Ranch Wagon. I don’t recall what he didn’t like, but after 2 Fords, he bought (as his last wagon) a ’78 Chevrolet Caprice Classic Wagon instead. He did test drive the Ford, which of course was new (it was different from the LTD II and of course 1978 was the last year for the big Ford, which he already owned).
I know he liked the “Ford-style” rear tailgate that since 1977 was adopted by GM for their wagons. He never cared for the previous “clamshell” tailgate, guess because of perceived complexity, plus the extremely curved rear window. Also, he always bought the 6 passenger version which instead of the dual facing rear seat, had what he called “the well” which was a pretty sizeable storage space under the floor back in the wagon area. As my younger sisters liked to sleep back in the wagon area, he would put as many items as he could into the well, so as not to have too much left that had to go above. Don’t think this was as spacious on GM, though they did have rear facing seats on 8 passenger, due to the clamshell gate.
Anyhow, I went with him looking at the Ford, but he surprised us by buying the Chevy out of the Shearer Chevrolet showroom…he never owned a luxury car, but the ’78 was probably the plushest car he ever owned (by today’s standards not so much, but was pretty loaded for ’78). I recall it was around $9400…it was maroon, with maroon vinyl interior, the deluxe gauge package (with vacuum gage for fuel economy) and the 305.
We still had a pop-top camper at the time, he got it with the trailer towing package (transmission cooler, hitch and wiring for trailer), and it was his first car with power windows (the ’73 had power locks, but manual windows). It was a leftover 78 rather than a 79, not sure if there was much of a difference.
I just stopped driving for Hertz the 2nd year (’78) just before he bought the ’78 so I never drove the downsized LTD, but plenty of LTD II’s and Thunderbirds (probably the most common cars rented at our location) as a transporter. I think I only drove one B body car (Chevy Impala) for Hertz, back then they specialized in Ford, though I drove other GM cars, Fords were still the most common…and the Impala had been stolen so it was in a bit rough shape when we got it back.
About 6 months later (in ’79) the 2nd gas shortage happened, as the Chevy got better mileage than his previous Ford, I think he was glad he bought it. Lots of changes in our family, my sister and I moved out on our own, so need for wagon was gone, plus he sold the poptop camper…took it when they moved to Texas in ’82, it was only car they had with air conditioning so it was the favorite until it was in an accident in ’84, whereupon my Father decided not to get it fixed up, and instead bought the worst car he ever was to own (an ’84 Pontiac Sunbird). Should have fixed up the Chevy, but he probably thought he didn’t need a large car with just my 2 younger sisters left at home, but of course he couldn’t have predicted how bad the Pontiac would be. To be fair, the sister who moved out when I did bought a ’84 Sunbird that turned out fine (other than rust, but that’s normal up in Vermont)….I think it was the only new car that she and her husband have ever bought.
Maybe my Dad should have bought one of these in ’84 rather than the Sunbird…likely he was thinking of gas shortages, but he downsized a bit much, and certainly didn’t get his money’s worth out of the Sunbird (junked in ’89 after 2nd replacement engine threw a rod) despite it having much better fuel mileage than an LTD or an Impala would have.
I always found it interesting the wide gaps in 0-60 times between Consumer Reports, Consumer Guide and the normal magazines like C&D/Motor Trend etc. A good example is the 79 LTD’s tested above in this article with CG getting 13.9 seconds from the 352 2BBL V8 and C&D getting 11.2 with the same drivetrain. I always in my own tests got much closer to C&D and Motor Trend than CR or CG