(first posted 9/26/2016) Ford Motor Company was likely nervous about the downsizing onslaught coming from General Motors, so they must have worked with Motor Trend to get a jump on the competition. All the new 1977 FoMoCo products were showcased in the September 1976 issue, a month before the new cars from GM, Chrysler and AMC were featured. Read on to see all the Blue Oval news, from jumbo to small.
FoMoCo hedged their bets for 1977. The Thunderbird was downsized and the (still big) mid size cars were given new styling and new names. Plenty of smaller cars were on offer as well, and these proved to be strong sellers. But the Blue Oval brigade opted to double down on their biggies, touting size and “road hugging weight” as advantages for full size cars, all in a push to attract traditional big car customers scared off by GM’s first wave of downsizing.
The smaller ’77 Thunderbird was definitely one of Ford’s better ideas. The previous “Big “Bird” was a slightly cheaper (and much less prestigious) Lincoln Continental Mark IV, and sales were unimpressive. The Ford Elite, a hastily-developed Chevrolet Monte Carlo challenger based on the Torino, was introduced midway through 1974 and had sold in decent volumes, though nowhere near the levels of Chevrolet’s personal luxury star. Clearly Ford needed a new approach in the booming personal luxury category, so they repackaged one of their best icons. The Thunderbird name still had enormous cachet with the buying public, so when Ford “downsized” the TBird to the mid-size platform and lowered the price, sales exploded. Compared to the 1976 Thunderbird, sales were up 501%!! Even adding in the 146,475 sales generated by the 1976 Ford Elite– the ’77 TBird was still up 60%. Either way, the smaller ‘Bird was one of 1977’s biggest success stories.
Ford had a bifurcated strategy to reach big car buyers. For customers potentially tempted by GM’s downsized full-sized cars, Ford served up the “smaller” LTD II, applying a big-car name to a re-skinned Torino. The mid-sized gimmick worked for 1977, as LTD II sales outpaced the ’76 Torino by 20%. For shoppers who would accept nothing less than a traditional whopper, Ford proudly maintained the XXL LTD in the roster. That approach worked as well, with LTD sales rising 18% year-over-year. In fact, other than the Thunderbird, the LTD and LTD II were the only Ford brand cars to post a sales increase compared to 1976.
The top-selling Granada saw few changes for 1977, and kept its positioning at the more “premium”-end of the Compact segment. At the “bottom”-end of the Compact segment, the ancient Maverick soldiered on unchanged as well. Both lines saw a 29% sales decrease compared with 1976. The Mustang II also was a virtual carryover, and sales dipped 18%–better than it could have been for a car that was rapidly losing appeal, save for being the vehicle of choice for two of Charlie’s Angels.
So let’s take a look at the final 1977 sales tally for the Ford Division:
| Granada | 390,579 |
| LTD | 343,318 |
| Thunderbird | 318,140 |
| LTD II | 232,324 |
| Pinto | 202,549 |
| Mustang II | 153,173 |
| Maverick | 98,506 |
| LTD Wagon/Country Squire | 90,711 |
Overall the Ford brand dipped just 5% versus 1976. The compact Granada was still the top selling Ford, while the big cars stayed strong. Hank The Deuce must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.
Ford also heavily promoted their truck and van line-up for 1977, replete with fancy paint jobs and unique styling features. The push was aimed at younger buyers, and was a big part of the Free Wheelin’ marketing campaign that centered around outdoor fun.
The big news at Lincoln was, well, big. No shrinking like arch rival Cadillac! Continental sedans and coupes received a new Mark-style vertical grille, while continuing to offer enormous size and luxurious trim selections. Buyers loved the updates to tradition, and sales climbed 39%.
The new-for-1977 Continental Mark V brought sharp-edged new styling to the carryover Mark IV platform. The Mark V continued to offer designer editions and a broad array of interiors, roof treatments and wheel designs, and it was the undisputed leader of super-sized personal luxury, with sales surging 43%.
With either big Lincoln, the 460 V8 was standard in 49 states, but pity the poor California market: they had to make due with a 400 V8 to tug along their baroque barges.
Not mentioned in the September 1976 Motor Trend, but ultimately part of Lincoln’s story for 1977, was the mid-year introduction of the Versaille. This was a very thinly disguised Granada, and was Lincoln’s cynical entry into the Luxury Compact segment and purported challenger to the Cadillac Seville.
As for the final count, take a look at Lincoln’s sales numbers for 1977.
| Continental | 95,600 |
| Continental Mark V | 80,321 |
| Versailles | 15,434 |
Lincoln brand sales rose 53% compared to 1976–beating Cadillac (up 11%) on a percentage basis, though Lincoln’s volume numbers were far smaller. Still, not half bad for the biggies!
Mercury division changes mostly mimicked those at Ford Division. The Cougar and Cougar XR-7 were refreshes of the old Montego-based cars, and sales increased 37% and 49% respectively. The defiantly large Marquis barely changed, but saw a 38% sales lift among buyers who valued their cars by the ton. At the other end of the size spectrum, Mercury’s compact offerings didn’t offer much news, and they didn’t sell as well as their 1976 counterparts: Comet -40%, Bobcat -34%, Capri II -29%, Monarch -12%. Here are all the Mercury sales totals for 1977:
| Marquis | 135,669 |
| Monarch | 127,697 |
| Cougar XR-7 | 124,799 |
| Cougar | 70,024 |
| Capri II | 60,000 |
| Bobcat | 31,452 |
| Comet | 21,545 |
| Marquis Wagon/Colony Park | 20,363 |
Adding up all the divisions, and Ford Motor Company car sales remained basically flat year-over-year, with 2,612,204 units sold. Given the intense competitive pressure from GM, this was a more than respectable showing for a line-up that was not particularly new. The results allowed FoMoCo to squeak through another year without having to face the pending efficiency reckoning.
“The most exciting options are an all-glass third door and moonroof.”
Exciting for thieves and for the makers of Ductape. For owners not so exciting.
“the basically sporting Granada . . .” Wow, don’t think I have ever read that anywhere else. 🙂
Unlike 1967 where almost everything built appealed to me, 1977 offered a lot fewer really good choices. While the styling of the LTD of this generation never did much for me, the big Marquis was a very good luxury cruiser.
This was the world I inhabited in 1977, as my father was a big FoMoCo guy. His new car years were 1976 (Monarch Ghia) and 1978 (Town Coupe). I actually prefer the 77 for the better dash and the full fender skirts. And the Mark V was a huge improvement over the final Mark IV. The smaller stuff was just depressing.
Same with me, I could appreciate anything from 67, but I wouldn’t take any of these even if they were free. Well maybe the Capri but that’s an import..
Unfortunately JPC I think that is a function of our age, that we love ’60s cars and despise ’70s cars.
I’m glad there are ’70s car enthusiasts so that I don’t have to be one. 🙂
The Capri II – the only truly great small Ford of the 70’s. Still would want the John Player Special all black coupe with gold accents. “Le Cat Black” or something stupid was what they called it Stateside.
Well, I suppose the Granada is “basically sporting” in that it sports the same basic components as a real performance car; four wheels, an engine, etc. Just as store brand club soda is basically fine champagne. It’s all in the perspective….
GN, you must have been listening in on us yesterday. My partner and I were in our ’77 Thunderbird Town Landau wondering aloud what the contemporary reviews of it read like, and now here we are!
Something I can confirm about the reviews and the sales numbers is that every time we roll up to the gas station, someone approaches us and says they had one in whatever color they had. Funny thing, though, is we hardly ever see them anymore, even in the land that celebrates classic Detroit steel. Ours came to us by way of my great-aunt, who in turn got it from her parents about two weeks after they ordered it brand new from the dealership. So the story goes, grandpa had a farm truck and grandma always had a Cadillac. For whatever reason they went with the Thunderbird, luxed-up of course, but when they got it grandma absolutely hated it. So, they sold the car to their daughter and went to buy another Cadillac.
I don’t know what more basic Thunderbirds looked like inside, but in Town Landau spec it’s absolutely a Lincoln in every way but for the body lines and the bird hood ornament (we have a ’78 Continental Town Coupe as a good basis for comparison). The interior is filled with deep-pile carpets as nice as in the Lincoln, the chairs are in as nice of velour as are our Continental’s chairs, and the only options our Continental has over the ‘Bird are a rear-window defroster and power radio antenna. The ride’s even appropriately posh (although honestly not Lincoln posh). And with the 400, it feels at least as spry as the Lincoln with the 460 while getting about 3 mpg better on the highway. I imagine, though, a Thunderbird with the 302 felt like an absolute dog.
So yeah, keep ’em coming!
I get the same comments when I am at the pump with my 1965 Galaxie e.g. my dad/uncle/grandpa/etc had one just like that. Ford made so many of them, just like your Tbird, that nearly everyone past a certain age had personal experience with one. Same as you, though, it is pretty rare to see one anymore.
Funny thing is, we get approached when we’re in the Continental, too. But, it’s much more envy and Oooh Aaah with the Conti. I’m sure there’s some psychological or sociological intrigue that would explain it and be fascinating to uncover.
I always love seeing pics of your cars. That is one fine FoMoCo driveway!
Thank you! We’re up to five now… Not pictured are a 2013 Taurus and a 1995 F-150.
Likewise: that’s a great-looking collection you have. I’d be interested in your thoughts on the Fiesta; that’s on my short list for our next car.
Just curious – wonder why grandma hated the Thunderbird? From your pic, it is a very beautiful edition of the car. And if she got a 77 Cadillac it would have been the newly downsized model so quite different from what she was used to…
I’ve never managed to get the full story, but I think part of it was going from a full-sized four-door to a mid-sized two-door. From what I’ve heard from the family, she griped about the doors with kids.
Beyond that, I don’t know. In Town Landau spec (which ours is), it’s pretty much a Lincoln minus the Lincoln star. I can’t imagine what was in the Caddy that would have made her that much happier (unless she got a bad time at some social function for riding up in a lowly Ford!).
Both issues make sense to me, especially if she went back to a four-door Cadillac. My Dad’s 1978 two-door Mark V doors were very long and heavy – that also might have been an issue for her as I assume the Bird’s doors are as well. His lady friend often complained about that problem. Also, with the T-Bird becoming far less exclusive in 77 the nameplate would not have had the prestige of a Cadillac even though your Landau is clearly top of the class. Glad you got it to care for and enjoy – Continued happy motoring to both of you!
To get a 1977 Thunderbird anywhere near the luxury level of previous years, one had to order the Town Landau edition. This option was very expensive, raising the base price from $5,063 to $7,990, a whopping 57%. It was quite rare.
Practically all T-Birds of this generation were the base model, decontented, faux luxurious slugs, powered by 302 and 351 2 bbls. They were little different from the Ford Elite on which it was based. A brilliant marketing move by Ford though, as 800,000 of this generation (’77-’79) were sold. Goes to show how much power the Thunderbird name still had.
I was living overseas in the late 70’s and not following American car closely (no internet and American magazines were expensive) so I didn’t learn about the ploy Ford pulled with the 77 T-Bird until I saw one on the street; apparently the car of some American military guy. It was, like the feature car above, white with a red basket handle roof. I thought it was the cheapest-looking pathetic excuse for a Thunderbird I could imagine: an opinion I hold to this day.
On a side note, Motor Trend comments that the Continental had,
“The ultimate in conveniences – an electrically heated outside left mirror””
I wonder what the “ultimate in conveniences” is 40 years later?
“The ultimate in conveniences 40 years later?” If I was feeling snarky I’d say “windows you can see out of” or “full-size spare tire,” but realistically I’d bet it would have to be the self-driving option. Unnerving, but convenient, I suppose.
Or how about the “scent-control system” in the S500 Mercedes?
A few things jump out at me reading this. In no particular order…
– The confusion of different engines and carburetors for the California market due to more strict emission regulations. The goal was ahead of the technology being used. Which lead to such things as….
– A 2.75:1 axle ratio in a pickup? Gads, talk about hamstringing yourself. The towing capacity and payload for that rig would have to be marginal. Definitely uses for it, but wow. No specificity on which engine(s) it came with, but I’m guessing 300 only.
– Air conditioning was available for the first time ever in a Ford van with a 300 straight-six. That 2.75 axle ratio was also available in vans with the 300 six; I shudder to think of the nosebleed one of these would have been.
– Ford did an admirable job of reshuffling their deck to give new appearing cars when they continued to use the same platforms as before. I’m not joking when I say putting the Thunderbird on the Torino platform, and the resulting sales rocket, was a stroke of genius.
The 2.75 rear was only available with an automatic transmission. I factory ordered a 1977 F150 with the 300 6-cyl, Warner T-18 4-speed and 3.0 rear. It worked out pretty good – the 3.0 rear helped with gas mileage on the highway, and if I had a heavy load or was on a steep grade I had the granny gear in the T-18 to get started moving.
I have a 2.96 rear axle in my ’04 Titan. It has a 5 speed automatic. In third gear it’s the equal of the 3.73. 4th is direct and 5th is overdrive ratio (not sure what the final drive ratio works out to, 2.25 maybe?) If you get the tow package, you get a 3.23 ratio axle. In third gear it’s the equal of the 4.11. My engine only turns over about 1600 RPM at 65.
This makes sense for good power and economy with a 5 speed, but with only a 3 speed auto it would be pretty worthless for towing. I would Imagine if my Titan was towing heavy trailer fifth gear wouldn’t really be used, I would probably turn on the tow/haul switch and leave the transmission selector in 4th. It runs great with a heavy load in the bed, but I’ve never towed with it.
Your Titan has about three times the horsepower of the 300 six at the time. makes a big difference.
Just think – a Granada was briefly on my list as my first new car purchase in 1975!
But I digress…
A friend had one of the basket-handle T-Birds, a 1978 model, burgundy, with padded broughamed landau roof . I was a back seat passenger a few times, and in a St. Louis summer, not a pleasant place to be until the A/C got up to speed – or down to cold, as it were! Unfortunately, that became true of just about all coupes by then. Condemned rear fixed glass…
Aside from that, it was a nice car, very smooth and quiet, too, but was somewhat of a gas-hog as many larger cars were at the time.
Moving to Ford pickups of that era – that design was among the first 4WD trucks I ever saw modified – that is, lifted – a lot! So much so we called them “spider wagons” because of the dual driveshafts very visibly angling down from the transfer case to the differentials! I thought they were pretty cool.
One note about those Ford trucks – after a while, they clearly sagged, or appeared to – the bed was visibly out of alignment with the cab body and I wondered why.
I’m absolutely certain the Granada you were considering was the four door. The windows in the rear rolled down.
We’re of the same mind, Zackman: fixed rear windows [and frameless door glass, stupid large consoles and digital dashes in my case] in any vehicle are a deal killer. And I’ve had three 2 doors with fixed rear windows. Styling won’t sell it for me any longer.
I’ve hated the idea since the first Maverick which aped the euro imports with fixed or hinged glass. Some ideas should just stay put. Not everything is better “over there”.
As stated above, the all new Thunderbird was a very big hit for Ford. Discounts were few and far between upon initial introduction and my brother paid a very dear price for an all black ’77 T-Bird that my sister-in-law insisted on.
Considering that the T-Bird was a re-skinned Torino, I think Ford did very well with just a few bucks of R&D. Also, most of the cars above were very well optioned (just ask my brother). Therefore, Hank had plenty of cash for his upcoming Panther platform.
Very shrewd!! 😉
One thing that jumps out to me; a 400-4bbl? I been looking at 400’s for 35 years, and I’ve never seen one. Has anybody?
Never happened, to the best of my knowledge. The 400s in that era were all spec’d with the Motorcraft 2150 2-barrel carb, which seems to be one of the better carbs Ford made in that era.
There was never a 400-4V manufactured by Ford through its life span from the 1971-82 MY in either car or truck. And earlier Ford 400’s used Autolite 2100 carbs. Most people seem to forget that these engines existed in the early 70’s since the majority came from the later 70’s, especially in pickups.
There was an experimental 400-4V intake made by Ford, which I attached to in a photo below. It’s too bad Ford didn’t offer the 400 with a 4V intake and carb as this engine really is strangled by the 2V carb. But I guess since the majority of these engines had such mild cams and retard cam timing (1973 and newer), poor flowing exhaust ports (1975 and newer), it wouldn’t have made a huge difference since they ran out of steam so low on the RPM range. These 400 Fords have tons of potential to be built as very strong engines, Ford just built them way too mild.
I recognize that spread-bore garbage! Maybe it’s just as well Ford never stuck the 4-barrel on the 400s. The 4350 carb was absolute junk-prone to leakage, hard to get tuned right…
And my favorite, courtesy of the 1978 Ford Service Manuals, was the imperative to never mess with the metering rod piston adjustment, as it was set at the factory and correct setting could not be determined in service. Fantastic and fine if your car was in factory condition, but if your carb’s been gone through untold times over nearly 40 years, it’s a rather worthless imperative and the fact that it’s designed in such a way is infinitely frustrating.
Agreed, though, that the 400 loses it pretty quickly. It’s great for normal driving around, feels nice and strong. Put it against the floor boards, though, and the limitations of the 2-barrel become readily apparent. Like I said, I imagine the ‘Bird with a base 302 was dreadful.
Ford 4-bbl carbs were pretty much limited to 460’s after 1975 and even from 1972-74 were pretty limited (Hi-po 351Cs and 429/460s). I can’t say I have messed with a 4350 much and never owned one. Even my dad’s old ’79 F-150 with a 460 had a factory Holley, which never gave any issues in about 120K miles. I will say the spreadbore GM Rochester Quadrajet were great carbs. I have owned, rebuilt and tuned many of these, and they are an excellent carb.
You’re later model 400 will run out of steam earlier than the 400’s from the early 70’s. The cams, cam timing and overall power band were all setup for low RPM operation. I have swapped a Holley 4-bbl, on an early 70’s 400 and it made a significant difference in power especially about 3500 RPM, although it is still not great at the high RPM due to the mild cam.
You’re T-bird looks like a very nice car. If you want to ever wake up that 400, check out TMeyer Inc. With his high compression pistons, your stock heads, a 4-bbl intake and carb, straight up timing set and a mild performance cam, your 400 would seriously wake-up power wise. Best of all, those mods could be made to look stock when you open the hood.
Should say above 3500 rpm not about 3500 rpm.
I’m loving that color pic of the T-bird roasting one whitewall tire while the other stays perfectly still.
I was working at Hertz summers starting in 1977, so I got to drive a few of these (back then Hertz seemed to specialize in Fords)…most commonly, the LTDII, the Granada, and the Pinto…in 1978, the Fairmont was a popular rental (Woody Allen even rented one in the movie Manhattan, wonder if it was from Hertz?…didn’t drive any Mavercks, nor any full sized (LTD, Lincoln, Marquis)…though my parents owned a ’73 Country Sedan (weird name for a wagon) so I was used to driving the large size Fords.
As I was 19 that year, I’d sometimes be driving a current model Tbird from Dorval Airport back to Burlington (my home location)….would always get checked at the border, must have fit a profile, a young kid driving a nice late-model car by himself (no parents)…didn’t look right, they had me pop the trunk just about every trip. We had stuff happen on most trips…one time we picked up several Florida rental cars in Framingham (guess they moved cars around a bit)…they gave us a bunch of registration papers, but they didn’t match the cars (color, VIN) we were picking up…had to pick up car that had been stolen (and beat-up in the process)…cars with failing alternators (trying to nurse the car back by avoiding turning on lights or other electrical loads)…for what turned out to be less than minimum wage (we were paid a fixed rate per trip, not based on time). A fun job for a car loving boy, I remember an “old-timer” (probably my age now) at the time telling us not to plan to make a career out of driving for them…I didn’t but I sometimes wonder what things would have been like if I kept driving 40 years for them.
Odd though it may seem now, 1977 was the year that my youthful car lust really kicked in and I really immersed myself in knowing everything about what was going on in the automotive world. I suppose it was a combination of turning 10, which is kind of an age of new perspectives, coupled with the fact that it seemed like everyone I knew was getting new ’77 cars, and I was privy to some of the discussions and shopping endeavors. There was a lot of excitement in 1977, both positive and negative, as the big downsizing at GM was shaking up the marketplace, and it seemed like everybody was talking about what was going on with cars. Maybe I was just newly aware, but to me at the time it really seemed like all eyes were on the auto industry in a way they hadn’t been for some time. That was about the time that I started subscribing to the buff books and pouring over the Consumer Reports auto guides, etc.
You and I are pretty much the same age and it looks like we had our “automotive awakening” at the same time. I really got into the ’77 cars when they were coming out, and I also remember there was a lot of “buzz” around the new cars that year. The first buff book and CG issues that I bought for myself happened at this time too (the older stuff I share is part of collections that I’ve acquired through the years).
A couple “random” thoughts:
When this issue of M/T hit the newstands, I was shopping for a new car (my 3rd NEW car, mixed in with 2 or 3 new to me cars). I wanted a Mustang II but the only one in the area that appealed to me was sold out from under me….to a girl. So I “settled” for a Pinto MPG. My plan was to eventually replace the 4 cylinder with a V8.
Of all the sales list here, I’m surprised that the Pinto outsold the Mustang II. None of the others surprised me.
Aside from downsizing the Thunderbird, Ford had no new ideas/cars for 1977, by June 1977 Ford execs must have been truly scared with only a new Fairmont/Zephyr on the horizon.
I’ve driven, at least briefly, nearly all the Fords and Mercurys and a Mark Lincoln, call me crazy, but for what it is/was, I really like the Monarch. Would love to find a V8 powered coupe….or even a sedan.
And I agree: it’s laughable what we once considered to be “the height of LUXURY”.
+1 on those Monarchs.
V8 only, though.
A friend’s parents had a new ’76 Monarch with a 302 that ran pretty strong. It seemed pretty well screwed together, too. Nothing fancy. 4-doors, vinyl interior, power steering, power brakes. No A/C.
“by June 1977 Ford execs must have been truly scared with only a new Fairmont/Zephyr on the horizon.”
And the Panthers. The Fox twins sold extremely well, though.
The Fairmont and Zephyr did, the Fox based Granada, Thunderbird and Cougar lineup, not so much. Downsizing didn’t go so well at Ford, the Fairmont and Mustang were successful, but neither really changed size from the Mustang II and Maverick. The 77 Tbird I don’t even think merits getting calling downsized considering how irrelevant the 73-76 version was, the 77 was still a very large car, just look it next to the comparably diminutive 57!
I wonder if there was some backlash to Ford’s true downsizing of 1980 after touting the girth of their cars in the last years of the 70s. There were economic factors that made 80-81 bad years, as well as Ford’s styling direction of course, but PLCs never recovered from their heights.
I recall as a teenager taking a trip with my parents and they rented a T-bird of this vintage. As a kid who always liked looking out the windows on trips, I was really frustrated in the back seat of this car, trying to peer through the little rectangular opera windows. Fast forward to today, I have a difficult time getting my teenage girl to look up from her phone and look out the window!
Ford mainly promoted that the T-Bird was new and had a “lower price!” this new year. Didn’t say ‘downsized’ in ads, was a bad word to them. With inflation in full swing, buyers came in droves, getting the T-Bird name at ‘affordable’ price. The Torino and Elite were forgotten overnight.
This is just my opinion, but I think the big LTD got some former full size Chrysler-Plymouth customers who were over their issues. GM loyalists rarely switched to Ford back in 70’s, but in the 80’s many did bail.
If we’re fair, they did slip “trimmer” in there…
https://youtu.be/2c3NgaTwGP4
I do remember the ads for “trimmer LTD II”, as if it was all new, and not restyled car. Tagline “Isn’t you in an LTD II!”
LTD tag was getting overused almost as much as Cutlass and LeBaron.
Hank The Deuce must have breathed a huge sigh of relief.
It was a short-lived sigh. By 1978, GM’s market share hit a final high of 47.6% of the total market, and Ford was about to start its slide that ended with a brush with bankruptcy. The market for out-of-date giant barges was officially over, and Ford was caught with a lot of cars in that category, with expired sell-by dates.
Paul sums it up. The delay in Panthers hurt them in short run. By the time they were new, Gas Crisis II started, and buyers ignored them. It wasn’t until the 11th hour that buyers finally accepted the cars and they made a huge comeback in ’83+.
The LTD II was out of style the day it came out, and by ’78-79 nobody cared. Those that did want [older type] mid size went to T-Bird.
And combine that with the fact that Ford’s profitability per unit had been on the slide since at least ’75. They had to at least have the inkling by the end of ’77 running into ’78 after the GM B-Bodies did so well that they were about to hit the mess pretty hard, but I’m not convinced their cash position was strong enough to really do much about it but shuffle some deck chairs around.
Outside of some fresh sheet metal that paid off, the Ford line really was pretty stagnant between the Granada and the Fairmont. And the Granada wasn’t much beyond a better Maverick. It makes you wonder if Ford managing to keep sales pretty even in these years wasn’t also a product of the troubles at AMC and Chrysler. In the full-size segment, there were almost just two players, Ford and GM. Chrysler could not give away its full-size Dodge and Plymouth products in these years, and they were dead after the 1977 model year. AMC’s largest car looked suspiciously like a 1967 Rebel that had been hit by the ugly stick – because it was. The LTD II was a rock star by comparison.
The oddity of manufacturers separating wagon numbers from coupes and sedans leads to some odd conclusions. Combine the big wagon with Ford’s big cars, and the full-size Ford was still handily the best selling Ford – very happy news for the financial guys.
These cars were everywhere in the Midwest, where Ford always sells well, including the ’76 LTD in our driveway. This generation Thunderbird / Cougar XR-7 made my personal shopping list, but the evergreen Cutlass was even easier to shop among used cars. My brother eventually bought an XR-7 that graced my parent’s driveway.
No doubt, the Thunderbird name carried some real weight, even if some of them were relative turkeys in some years. My junior high social studies teacher bought a new Thunderbird from this generation, and she was just beside herself that she had a THUNDERBIRD.
IMO:
The “downsized” ’77 Thunderbird was the right car at the right time.
The Torino/Thunderbird based Ranchero was a uniquely American car/truck that I wish FoMoCo made today.
The 1977 T-Bird was that one, most delightful exception to the rule about taking a premium car downmarket. In fact I’ll call that series the best-looking FoMoCos of the entire decade. Elegant yet sporty. A runaway hit that set up the line for another two decades of success (well, except for those 80-82 models, blech)…
I think Ford’s big botch with the ’80-’82 ‘Birds was the fact that the natural successor to the ’77-’79s had already been made and named with a different badge. I’m specifically referring to the Fairmont Futura. The body lines of the Futura are a logical evolution of what the ’77 ‘Birds started, and competent product planners working that product into a Thunderbird instead of a Fairmont probably could have done something a whole lot better than the brush with death the ’80 was.
I mean, I can completely imagine the Futura with a Town Landau tiara on it, and had they trimmed it right I think it would have worked a lot better than the square things did.
HS classmate got a new T-Bird in spring ’78 and was same as other post above: “… had a THUNDERBIRD!”
This generation was so popular that the ’80 was a let down and flopped.
Interesting time in Detroit. I always got a kick out of using a re-badge job to come out with an ‘all-new’ downsized car. Chrysler resorted to this a lot, but the Ford Elite cum Thunderbird is a pretty blatant example. The LTD II always confused me as well, nearly as big and heavy as a regular LTD but considered a mid-size. I remember looking at the Ford line-up in 1977 and thinking they didn’t make a single car I would consider owning. The Fox bodies couldn’t have come soon enough.
As for the 400, lots of experience with those. As posted earlier, the 1975-up versions were really weak, no match for either a Chevy 350 or a Mopar 360, both of which were still available with 4bbl. carburetors. And the 400’s fuel economy was worse as well.
Although the 1975 and newer 400-2Vs were slower than earlier versions, I’d argue they were still comparable to a GM/Mopar 350/360 4bbl in terms of performance. It certainly was an improvement over Ford 351-2V of the same era. Ford didn’t have a clean 4-bbl carb in this era (like GM’s Q-jet), so the 400-2V really was a replacement for a 351-4V and comparable to the 350-4bbl.
Attached is a road test results for a 1976 Elite 400-2V with a Olds-4bbl and a Mopar 360. They also test a Pontiac 350-2bbl which is significantly slower. The 350-4bbl, 360-4bbl and 400-2bbl are all pretty close in performance. I’d argue a 1977 Chevy LM1 350 would probably have beaten them all but none were barn-stormers.
Also note that the Elite has a significant weight penalty and the tallest tires, but it does have the best rear end ratio to help make up for that. Also interesting to note is in the handling test, all are pretty on par, the Cutlass having the highest speed. Note that the Elite, which appears to have HD suspension, handles as well as the other GM Colonnades and the Mopar, contrary to what many often post on this site.
Interesting. Ford compensating for engineering deficiencies with cubic inches was an old formula, where it took 312s from Ford to compete with 265s from Chevy. Crude, but effective.
And how many Elites were special ordered with the HD suspension? 14? 33?
Seriously, any floaty barge will do better with a stiffer suspension. But that just points out how floaty these cars were, in the state that folks (almost invariably) bought them from dealer stock. Who would think of ordering a HD suspension on an Elite? It’s like ordering a soft ice cream with brewer’s yeast sprinkles.
That handling package would been welcome on my parent’s 460 version.
The handling on that was downright dangerous, even for it’s intended mission. Ford must have realized this, as all ’77-’79 T-Birds had the rear sway bar. I’d imagine that, with the lower weight of Windsor and 335 series engines, tidied up the handling quite a bit.
If you really want to find out, Marti Auto Works would tell you for a fee. They have all the Ford production data from 1967 on, literally broken down by options. I can tell you that there was far more than your sarcastic response and that there were some dealer ordered cars that would have had this suspension. I agree most of them were likely ordered with the stock base suspension, which was equipped with springs too soft (really it’s only major flaw). This is also the case with other cars, like the ever beloved, including by me, 1977 Caprice, most of which had the soggy base suspension, not the excellent F41. And yes, I realize the base Caprice suspension was better than an Elites. As someone who’s owned a lot of B-bodies, I will only own an F41 car, or install the stiffer springs and sway bars from the F41 cars.
I try to simply keep to posting facts, not the biased memories of many that post on here. I am NOT a fan of the Elite, or any Torino made after 1973. In fact, I don’t think there is a single Ford car from 1977 that I would ever desire to own, although I do have a thing for Ford trucks from this era.
Based on people I know parts scavenge off these later 1970’s Ford midsized cars, quite a few of them had the HD suspension. Many people use these parts like rear sway bars on earlier model cars where they were less common. The quick and easy tell is the addition of a rear sway bar (in the later years). Please note that all the other cars in this test have a rear bar too and likely their equivalent of the HD suspension. It states the Cutlass not listed, so I am not sure they had no data, or just didn’t have a rear bar but based handling results from other PS tests of Colonnade cars, it appears to have the upgraded suspension.
I don’t know what your point is about the stiffer springs making these boats handle better? Every suspension package from this era, including the GM Colonnades, or the 1977 B-bodies, had suspension packages that included stiffer springs, better shocks, and typically bigger front bar and the addition of a rear sway bar that made them handle better. And most of the cars from this era had flabby base suspensions, but obviously some were worse than others.
Wow, interesting that the ’76 LeMans is so slow. Thanks for posting this, by the way. I have a ’76 Grand LeMans coupe, with the 350-4bbl, which was California-only that year. I’d never actually seen a road test of a ’76 LeMans, so this is pretty cool.
I had heard that GM started using really tall 2.41:1 axle ratios as standard with their larger V8s in ’76, so if that’s the case, it looks like the LeMans at least got a slight upgrade, and the Cutlass, a more notable. one.
Seems as though the bladed fender + large faux Rolls Royce grille inspired motif hit it’s pinnacle in 77, only cars without are the aging Maverick and Pinto(Bobcat has the grille though!).
Of course now the faux Aston Martin grille permeates the Ford lineup, if you’re going to do it, overdo it!
Ah the Variable Venturi Carburetor, such memories. Brings to mind charming phrases such as “Lean Burn”, “4-6-8” and other such automotive maladies imposed in the name of mandated cleaner running cars.
Well, no. What was imposed was a requirement for clean exhaust; it was up to the automakers to decide how to meet it. Thoughtful automakers correctly perceived that the right answer to the question was fuel injection. The US auto industry, on the other hand, cynically and shortsightedly decided to comply in cheap, nasty ways that made the cars run poorly and fail often. They did the same thing with safety compliance, and there’s more than enough evidence for sturdy support of the idea that they might (just might!) have taken this tack in hopes it would touch off a public backlash against the very idea of vehicle safety and emissions regulation.
Of course, there is the issue that nearly every model per company had several different engine families to retrofit. In Fords for example, the 2.3 OHC, Cologne V6, I6, the Windsor V8, the 335 series V8 and the 385 series V8, some of these families newer and barely amortized and some much older dating back to the early 60s. Implementing proper fuel injection systems, require at the very least unique intake manifold castings, so they’d need to tool up at least that many new manifolds per engine, and that’s not taking into account the different deck heights (like the 302 vs. 351), or then there’s the uncertainty of creating these parts for engine families where some are younger and more advanced, but aren’t viable in an efficiency conscious market, and creating them for engines like the 302 whose future at the time was equally unclear due to age. GM was in an even bigger pickle in this regard, on top of the already massive investment in downsizing
The 70s was a paradigm shift for the US auto market, and while you’ll get little argument from me that growth in both body and engine displacement through the 60s to the early 70s wasn’t the right direction, they sold and with very little recourse until OPEC happened, where then the hammer suddenly came down and all the fault rested in Detroit’s lap alone. US automakers were faced with an entire fleet of cars that were essentially obsolete, and just as you said the new regulations left it all up to them to figure it out. The answer was Fuel injection, and the answer was downsizing, but where to start? There were 4 classes of car by the 70s, what was the answer? Discontinue the top two? Downsize the top 3 into indistinguishable cars from the first with the absence of a ruler (which GM did in the 80s)? And to my first point what to do with the literal pile of engine families? The European and Japanese automakers on the other hand already had their cars in right sized form, with room to grow in fact,as we see all to clearly today. There is no Malaise era for them, their evolution was steady and seamless between 1969 and 1980. Thoughtful? Hardly. They had time to think, the big three can be thoughtful, but up against the firing squad they were facing in the 70s it’s no surprise they went for the good enough route to get out of it, there’s no such thing as honorable death in business.
Sorry, but your eloquent and lengthy apologia doesn’t cut it. Several of these engine families had already been fuel injected in Europe, so the basic development and tooling was available. Frankly, your argument carries no weight, as tooling up for an EFI intake manifold is hardly a big to-do. Ford (and the others) were constantly revising intake manifolds. Even small aftermarket companies can afford to tool up intakes.
The real issue is that the cheapest solution was to keep futzing around with carbs, as long as possible, until that solution just wouldn’t work properly anymore.
The US auto industry was by far the world’s biggest, The technology for building FI systems was well proven by then in Europe. It was just a matter of committing the resources to re-tool supplier lines to make enough of the systems, and to optimize them for both emissions, performance and economy. Cadillac already offered a FI system on the Seville and optional on the other models, although that one wasn’t yet a paragon of reliability, from what I’ve heard.
What Ford and the others did instead, dragging their feet as long as possible, will go down in history as a major black eye on the industry, and one that directly led to their demise, both in terms of market share as well as financial distress/bankruptcy.
Yes, the Japanese also continued to use carbs for a long time, but they had small and more modern engines (for the most part), and seemed to be able to make their carb engines run better and more reliable (for the most part) than the Big Three.
The Big Three needed to lead in this issue; instead they dragged their feet, rather pathetically.
Thank you for saying that Paul. It is a wonderful time to be alive that I can add TBI to more or less any carburated engine just by spending a little time on the Holley, MSD, etc. websites.
I can’t wait to be able to do it to my old 289 V8, there’s never a day that I miss carbs having had the experience of not being born until they were well past their sell by date.
But also, Big 3 loyalist were averse to change. “I ain’t getting no car with that e-lec-tron-ic bs, I want a carburetor!” Look at NASCAR for example.
So, “give ’em what they want”. But still….even when brought out EFI, had issues, like TBI on the 83 F bodies, etc.
Dan: I keep considering swapping in an injected 5.9 Magnum w/ four-speed OD Torqueflite (46RH/47RH) in my ’77 Dodge Chinook, which keeps trying to kill me when I have to pull out into a highway or street by stalling out on me when I hit the accelerator a bit too hard before it’s fully warmed up. I’ve even put a manual choke on it; it still runs lumpy and uneven until it”s good and really warm. A common Chrysler malady, perfectly cured by FI.
They should have led when they had the chance, coming off of the late 50s and early 60s when fuel injection(and many other technologies) were explored to some degree of success, or at least optimism, and abruptly abandoned as the decade wore on, despite very little outside pressure. The 70s as it unfolded it just wasn’t the time to innovate like before, it was adapt or die, pressing on with old tech whilst completely reforming lineups without turning off buyers. They were paying the price for the bloat and feet dragging of the mid to late 60s.
CFI/TBI were doable, and since it did exist it probably should have been expanded through the lines beyond the rather lofty SeVille, but in the end it too was a dead end technology, finicky or not. It gets better MPG than a carb but still has several drawbacks carburators have, and is utterly arcane compared to Chevrolet’s own old fuelly unit, the ill fated Electrojector and every multiport unit the Europeans were using. That was the way forward, even in mechanical form those systems are closer to what we have today, and with those systems manifold design does play a much more supporting role specific to the engine it’s used on. Just for Ford, beyond the Cologne and Lima, the varying physical sizes and displacement much more common V8s in the 70s really would necessitate some consolidation for that direction, there was already enough redundancy without fitting them all with new tech never implemented on such a scale before. It would all inevitably happen a decade later anyway, but for the most part the many other efficiency(and emissions and safety) killing factors were worked by the 80s and the decision to kill off engine families less than a decade old in favor of small/lighter but much older designs would be more clear decisions to make.
The head of Toyota (and JAMA, at that time) made the same argument Matt did back in the early ’70s after the publication of Japan’s first emissions standards: that the bigger automakers had a bunch of different engine families that all needed to be emissions-compliant. And Toyota and Nissan did adopt several different solutions for emissions compliance, many of them carbureted. (Toyota even licensed Honda’s CVCC system.)
I’ve said it before, but I think what ended up giving the Japanese an advantage in this area was simply that they were up against a wall in terms of engine displacement. Two liters was a premium engine and 1.5 liters was mainstream, so automakers HAD to make emissions-compliant smaller engines that had decent power and drivability. U.S. buyers then benefited from getting the higher-end versions. (For instance, the injected 4M-E engine in the first U.S. Supra and early Cressida, which had as much power as the Buick 3.8-liter V-6, was a top-of-the-line engine in the Japanese domestic market.)
Paul, we appear to substantially agree in principle. The particular coulda-shoulda-wouldas are intricate. I think it’s pretty clear the US auto industry deliberately treated vehicle regulation as a passing fad to be snuffed out by whatever means necessary (“Oh, your brand-new car is hard to start, stalls, knocks, hesitates, gets lousy gas mileage, buzzes at you if you don’t fasten the complicated and uncomfortable seat belt, has ugly bumpers? Gee, what a shame. Not our fault, though; the government has decided it knows better than we do what you want. Guess you should write to your congressman”).
The US auto industry spent enormous money, effort, and time fighting the regulations in congress and in the courts of law and public opinion. Which is a pity, because they had massive engineering talent in their employ. If they had put even a fraction of those resources into meeting the goddamn regs instead of making war on them, it would have been to everyone’s benefit.
(Oh, and don’t let’s forget that time Honda built a set of CVCC cylinder heads for a 350 in a ’73 Chev Impala. Tables III and V tell just about the whole story.)
Of course, the malfeasance and idiocy was not unilateral; the government really did do some dumb things. Such as preventing (“anti-trust”) the formation of consortiums to devise good strategies for compliance with the new regs and spread the cost around. I don’t know specifics, but I understand such cooperative efforts were undertaken in Europe and Japan.
As for fuel injection: the Cadillac Seville’s system was a pretty blatant rip-off of Bosch’s oldest D-Jetronic system, which was obsolete from Bosch’s perspective a few years before GM copied it (some of the components are even direct swaps from a D-Jet Volvo, Porsche, or Mercedes to a Seville). But even the obsolescent D-Jet gave a massive improvement in exhaust cleanliness as well as performance and driveability versus carburetors. The ’72 Volvo 164, for example, was available in the US with two versions of the 3-litre Six: twin Zenith-Stromberg carburetors (145 hp, 2.5% CO in the exhaust at idle) or D-Jetronic (160 hp, 1.5% CO in the exhaust at idle).
Volvo switched from D-Jet to the very simple mechanical K-Jet for ’74, and that system readily accepted an oxygen sensor for precise control of the fuel-air ratio, enabling the 3-way catalytic converter (the “Lambda-Sonde” system introduced in 1977) for massive reductions in all three pollutants without the lousy driveability and unreliability of the American makers’ motors strangled with tiny, lean carburetors and retarded timing and restricted exhaust and thrown-on gadgets.
And the American automakers, for all the times over the years they’ve done a Rocky-and-Bullwinkle “This time for sure!” rebrand of themselves, still tend to reflexively spend their effort and money fighting safety and emissions standards tooth and claw.
(…not that GM would’ve been champing at the bit to cooperate with other American automakers; their enormous size and market share advantage meant that their compliance costs per vehicle were a fraction of the costs for Ford, Chrysler, and AMC to meet the same regs.)
The federal government went to court to prevent the domestic auto makers from cooperating on the development of emissions control devices. They signed a consent decree agreeing to do just that, even though they had been planning to work together, based on what I had read.
AMC did get a waiver to share technology with GM, based on its small size and the resulting lack of engineering and financial resources to develop this technology. I believe that GM also let AMC use its testing facilities.
Three words: Uh. Glee. (Okeh, three: Blargh.)
Speaking of the Pinto, does anyone know how the V6 version performed? I’m guessing about the same as a Mustang II, but I’ve never read a review. I don’t think you could get a V6 with a four-speed in a Pinto, either (only the automatic), and may only have been available in the wagon, as well.
In any case, I’d wager that finding a running, factory V6-powered Pinto today would fall into the CC unicorn category.
The V6 Pinto probably enjoyed about a 300 lb weight advantage, but the Mustang II may have been the better handler.
I saw one (a hatchback) probably now three or four years ago. I don’t know for sure if it was running, but there was no obvious suggestion it wasn’t.
Maybe because they went with almost the same look for the box Panther Town Car and kept it throughout the ’80s, but for some reason the ’77-79 Cougar face looks half a generation newer than the T-bird and LTD II to me.
Not much new apart from the facelifts and rebrands of what had been the stagnant Torino/Elite which probably explains why it’s a month ahead of the rest – Ford probably found out when GM, Chrysler and AMC planned their long-lead press previews and held theirs a month early.
I doubt that Ford was worried about Chrysler and AMC. They both had even less to show for 1977 than Ford. GM, on the other hand…
Despite the fact that the new Thunderbird stole everybody’s thunder (pun intended) I actually think I prefer it’s Cougar linemate with the pseudo-Lincoln grill treatment and quad headlights and squarish hump on the trunk.
Agreed. Plus whatever appeal these Birds have is wiped completely away by the most rudimentary and clunky hidden headlight execution ever. Big single rounds in a 1977 “luxury” car?Clearly exposed and not even well detailed mechanism when open? I’ll take the Cougar’s face.
Those headlight covers were hard plastic too and cracked easily.
What a mind-**** it was to be a mid-teen in the mid-70s. Here we are at the age where we are most into cars, eagerly awaiting the annual new car issue, and finding a line-up like Ford’s. For me it was worse because I was obsessed with design details. Consider if you will the obvious error on the Capri II where they are showing a ’76 model and not a ’77. If you know the difference, my sympathies on your automotive formative years.
Don’t get me wrong, some of my favorite cars came from the 70s and I loved GM’s full-sized line-up in ’77. But I will never, ever warm up to any of these:
* The ’77 Pinto facelift. Just when you thought nothing could get worse than the Mercury Bobcat. Yeah I know there were bumper regulations, EPA, etc., etc. but ugly is ugly.
* Opera windows squeezed in EVERYWHERE. In the fake roll bar of the T-Bird and in the entire C-pillar of the LTD II. I believe it was the ’75 LTD that started this odd trend.
* The horrific Torino derivatives with the LTD II and Mercury Cougar 4-door (!) leading the pack. Was there ever a more generic model line? Today we complain about how generic the Camry is but it’s generic and pretty good at everything. Generic and good at nothing was the LTD II.
I ended up respecting the T-Bird after seeing it in person. It was like the perfect Brougham — not too big, cohesive and right-priced — and that’s what people wanted. Ford made lemonade out of a box full of lemons and I could appreciate the power of good marketing. It was no surprise it sold well but that wasn’t very heartening to a car guy wondering about the future. The Japanese were still a footnote and European cars were too expensive.
I would say ’76 was an even scarier year than ’77. By ’77 and ’78 there were the homerun GM products to admire, the fuel-injected Rabbit, the Fox-body cars, the Fiesta, the new Celica, Volvo Turbos and so on. The future seemed so much brighter than just one year before.
On a more positive note I love the fun & cheery type-set that Motor Trend used for the ’77 new car issue. It is much less serious than the dreary ’67 copy and still looks fresh today even if the cars don’t. We knew how to party in the 70s and that wasn’t a bad thing.
Looking forward to reading the GM section and re-living the trainwreck from Chrysler, this time with more certainty about the future. Thanks for posting GN.
“What a mind-**** it was to be a mid-teen in the mid-70s…”
What helped though, was tons of 60’s/70-72 cars were still on the road and cheap! At the same time, the ’77 Trans Am, still with a Pontiac 400, was HS dream car.
Ford was aiming at Middle Aged America, and many wanted big, luxo, leisure suit cars, since 1979 Oil Crisis II was still to come. Hank II retired just in time and change finally came about starting with Fox body.
Yes the Camaros and Firebirds were highly desirable back then, about the only cars from the Big 3 that were. Design-wise I also liked the Seville and Cutlass Supreme.
It just wasn’t fair. The earlier generation in their mid-teens had those 60s cars you talked about, the next generation the 80s cars I love so much and us the ’77 Cougar wagon. After the 90s the “want” went down for the young guys I think. They weren’t all watching TV and seeing the commercials like we were and electronic stuff competed for attention.
We had the biggest delta between desire and quality offerings, at least up until ’76.
As young adults things got better on the car front but then they were telling us cigarette smoking kills and if you have sex your junk will fall off.
It’s interesting that Ford didn’t even think the “big” LTD was worth square headlights or a new grille texture, in a segment where at least token annual changes were de rigeur just a couple years before.
I’m really surprised the Ford LTD II sold as well as it did considering I’ve never seen too many of these cars on the road growing up, I’ve thought the 1977 styling of the Ford Pinto was a huge letdown to the 1971-76 Pinto’s and the 1977 version of the Thunderbird was a major improvement over the previous version which was my second least favorite era of the T-Bird’s after the 1980-82 version.
We can’t forget about Ford’s ‘Spring Special’ blitz in the spring of 1977. Let’s haul out the tape stripes! The one that made me cringe the worst was the LTD II with the ersatz imitation kinda Starsky & Hutch stripe. Urk….
I’d forgotten all about that silly, ersatz ‘Starsky and Hutch’ stripe they affixed to the LTD II. Never much liked the stacked headlights, either. As a few others have mentioned, the 2-door Cougar was the best looking car in the Ford lineup for 1977.
Supposedly that was to replace the Torino on the series for the 1977 season and came to their senses. For all the bloat the 74-76 had it at least still had some muscular styling holdovers to fit the role, as long as you can suspend disbelief that a red striped 4200lb barge was an adequate undercover cop car. An LTD II looks like a stripped down Lincoln Mark V with an ugly mug
If I had to buy only a new Ford in ’77.
The Granada if I was looking for a family sedan.
The Continental if Luxury car was was I was looking for.
A Pinto Wagon 4 cyl 4 speed if I wanted a economy car.
Econoline, I always liked the extended nose on these, if I was after a van I’ll take it.
I probably would be driving home in a F series pickup, though. My first choice of everything Ford offered this year. That all glass optional Pinto hatch, what were they thinking?
All the rest are just too fugly to consider. The trucks and vans are a real improvement over their ’67 counterparts, the rest are just sad deformed ghost’s of what they once were 10 short years ago.
This brings back memories. I remember reading that issue and seeing the “new, trimmer” Thunderbird in vivid white with bright red trim.
I also remember seeing the photo of the orange Pinto hatchback. It was the first time I’d seen the Pinto facelift for 1977. A friend’s mother later bought a loaded, dark blue 1977 hatchback with the V-6, plaid seats and all-glass rear hatch. She traded a 1972 Runabout, which had also been fully equipped with air conditioning, automatic transmission and deluxe interior. They weren’t unreliable cars, by the standards of the day.
Overall, there wasn’t too much here to get anyone excited, unless you preferred that your big cars be really, really big.
I get a kick out of the fact they considered the 2.3 “Venerable” in the Pinto. It still had a long way to go!
From a novelty standpoint? Either the last of the LTD Hardtops or a big ass Thunderbird in one of the special edition trims. They’re just so exotic to me, seeing a car so purposefully wasteful. Even the largest family cars today (read: SUV’s) make great use of their interior space considering their girth whereas these boats just… didn’t.
Now from the perspective of 1977? Well, it’s hard to say. I’m a fairly conservative person, I don’t really like flashy cars nor anything that stands out in general. Assuming I’m an educated buyer in ’77 I would probably say screw all the cars, they probably won’t even make it to 100k miles, I’ll just buy an F150 in top trim. I’m thinking 351 2bbl, slushbox, A/C, radio, all the options a car would have in a much more durable package. Yeah, it wouldn’t be silky smooth but in 2wd form the ride wouldn’t be too punishing. Maybe in extended cab form too, I like how those look
A friend from my dorm had one of those T-Birds back in early ‘78. It was a cool ride. It definitely put my Pinto in the shade!
Depressing lineup. Yesterday’s cars. Not even the promising Fiesta, was being promoted yet.
It’s odd how they mention the Tbird sharing so much with the Cougar and how that might effect its sales, but zero mention of both of their strong resemblances to the LTD II that shares most of the same sheetmetal and dash, and not to mention showroom space with! Not that it mattered, these Birds sold like gangbusters so the name really was magical for buyers. I’ll admit, I kind of like the White/red color combo on the cover photo, thats a combination I never saw much of on the few derelict survivors I’d see lumbering through the burbs growing up, lots of earth tones, though I might just be remembering the extensive rust.
Capri II sold better than Bobcat and Comet COMBINED! Aint that a kick in the Lederhosen!
The base Birds were really popular, especially in the early years of this model. They probably appealed to first time buyers. Just like the majority of 73-77 Monte Carlos. Split bench front seats, base cloth upholstery, crank windows and cheap door panels. They already came with a small V8 /auto, a/c would be the next step up. Usually a vinyl top and an AM/FM radio was another step up.
I remember that fancier versions of the T Bird became more popular as their run progressed. The T Birds really did look like a luxury car, something that a Monte Carlo couldn’t quite pull off. I suppose that these were repeat buyers, or owners of the earlier larger Birds. One of my female co workers at GM assembly, bought a new ’77 and she just loved it. I didn’t consider it a REAL Thunderbird at the time, just a rip off. But it was a successful rip off. Actually it was just an example of “give the people what they want,” a triumph of marketing.
I’ve warmed up to the styling of those “basket handle Birds” over the years but they are still bigger than I remember them!
Here’s the photo that goes with my post. I kinda want any additional hobby cars that I buy to be able to fit in my garage. Not my car, nor my garage.
1977 must have been a good year for me because I currently own three cars featured here. They’re cool cheap examples of 70s cruisers, but at the time I wondered how any of them sold so well at the time, in the face of the superior driving characteristics of GM offerings.
I recall Ford got left behind in 1977 with older oversized cars due to Henry Ford II’s earlier cuts in Ford’s development budget, but they made the best of it, selling traditional cars to buyers wary of newfangled downsized offerings . I’m amazed to read the Marquis picked up 38% in sales (,I own one), as it’s driving dynamics are far behind the GM B body. But the huge size made it seem good value for people who bought cars by the yard.
Perhaps the number one reason for Ford’s declining domestic reputation in the mid to late ’70s, particularly here in Canada, was their notorious reputation for premature rust. A reputation on the street, as generally considered worse for premature rust, than any other domestic carmaker at the time. Subject of at least one major lawsuit here in Canada. Paul wrote a great article investigating and explaining Ford’s particularly bad 1970s reputation for rust. Inferior/inadequate rustproofing. Not adopting the ‘E-Coat’ process.
It was around 1977, that Ford seemed to take the issue more seriously.
I believe Ford had addressed the issue by 1975. I don’t recall post-1974 Fords as being more rust-prone that the domestic competition. I have a booklet that Ford distributed to dealers for 1977. It explains all of the rust-proofing measures taken for each individual car and truck line. Ford obviously felt the need to combat poor word-of-mouth regarding its early 1970s models.
I grew up in south-central Pennsylvania. My father’s cousin had a 1969 Galaxie four-door sedan, and a friend’s family had a 1969 Country Sedan. Another friend’s family had a 1974 Torino wagon. All of them were still in service in the early 1980s, and they hadn’t rusted any worse than other cars from the late 1960s and early 1970s. The story was probably different farther north and west, as winters are harsher in those regions, and more salt is used to keep the roads clear.
“If they had put even a fraction of those resources into meeting the goddamn regs instead of making war on them, it would have been to everyone’s benefit.”
True, but to this day, Muscle Car fans whine endlessly about how “Gov’t Regs destroyed cars” and wish for days of leaded gas and pouring oil in rivers. Check chat rooms of ‘classic car’ sites and even on B-J auctions, with the endless complaints about ‘choked engines’. Even some here will post similar gripes.
Ford got lucky, but their luck started running out. What saved them was the Fox bodies and the Escort. But barely. Ford fell to FOURTH PLACE by 1982 and Dearborn was close to filing for court protection from their creditors.
GM had 60 percent of the US market in 1980, then released the X-Cars. By 1989, it was over. Boom to bust. Sad.
Fortunes reversed for Ford and GM during that decade, right?
That said, the Torinobird wasn’t much, but it was very popular.
No Bronco? It would’ve been what I’d have headed for in a 1977 Ford showroom.
One small thing that jumps out at me is the terrible fuel-door fit on the Lincolns. I loved those cars then and still do, but for the price you’d have hoped Ford would spend more time on the details.
Is it just my aging eyes or are the headlights crooked on the black Mercury in the first picture?
I’m tempted to make a tart remark about build quality, but I think the apparent crookedness is probably an artefact of the page scan or something like that.
Oh dear.
Deep breath, couple of hours for reflection. Delete first thoughts, engage Politeness Mode. Here goes…
What a massive dichotomy there seemed to be between American aesthetics (as here exemplified by Ford), and the rest of the world. Craggy styling, short wheelbases with long overhangs (why, Ford?), inset anti-Pontiac ‘narrow-track’ wheels (again, why?). Lots of applied chrome and vinyl ornamentation over a pretty ordinary basic shape. Way more trim than the rest of the world would use. But strip off the trim and everyone can tell you bought the cheapest.
Unnecessarily-long front overhang just to look impressive. Likewise the sloping rear end on the LTD II; length for length’s sake; I’m trying to imagine that being a plus… Straighten that up, chop about a foot off the nose and smooth off those sticky-out fender ends and grille (and the over-flared wheel arches) and it mightn’t look bad.
Dad had been a Ford guy since ’62, and I guess I kinda was by default in ’77. I was glad the Aussie Falcon was going its own way, and that we didn’t get any of these. Okay, different culture I know, but some of these look pretty gruesome. Couldn’t Ford Styling do any better than these?
Perhaps too busy doing the worst job with the 5 MPH bumpers.
UGLY vehicle like most of them around late 70s.
For Ford, this was making magic from refrigerated leftovers. It was Thanksgiving turkey casserole dishes on December 7th. Tasty – but enough with the damn leftover turkey!
Had a opportunity to get a “77 Maverick” in 1980-81ish. It was low miles, nice looking, rather “optioned”. Price was quite reasonable.
Was young, stupid; “don’t want that old fashioned ride”. lol
Bet I could a got 5-6 years of service out of it.
Youth is “often” a handicap on the young..lol