(first posted 4/4/2015) In part 1 of this series, I took a look at the cars that moved us from the Smokin’ Sixties to the Somnambulant Seventies. These are the transition cars, the ones whose styling got a bit convoluted compared with the simple purity of the “peak” generation before it. They didn’t all have opera windows and vinyl roofs but such frippery became more frequent, under the guise of “broadening market appeal”. Transition cars warmed us up for the Malaise Era, and reflected (or perhaps reacted to) the massive cultural changes that our country was experiencing.
I have loosely defined the transition era as 1969-1974. While not all the models will slot precisely into that six-year timeframe, it provides structure for the discussion. I waited until everyone weighed in with their commentary on part one before I created part two. But if your car didn’t make the cut, don’t worry–stay tuned for part three. Another convention – I limited my design analysis to the two-door models in the lineup, ignoring any convertible, sedan or wagon stable mates. The specialty hardtops had the most interesting styling as the designers were given a bit more freedom to stretch, with swoopy fastbacks and trick rear window shapes that were not possible on the workaday models.
1970-1971 Ford Torino / Mercury Montego
When I lined up three generations of Tornios, as seen in the header graphic, I really felt the malaise ooze off the screen, as I scanned from left to right.
The ’68-’69 design was clean and honest, if not a beauty contest winner. After all, it was up against the sexy new GM A-Body coupes. Although Ford went to the trouble of producing a fastback (aka SportsRoof) and hardtop, the Chevelle still outsold it by about 93,000 units [source ChevelleStuff.net & Hemmings.com], across the board with an all-new-for-’68 design. Still, this was Ford’s best effort to date in the growing intermediate market, with a big increase in sales from the ’66-’67 models.
Typically, the Mercury twin didn’t have much in the way of differentiation except for a fussier nose and more conservative tail end treatment. Small reason to pay extra for an allegedly upscale nameplate. But in retrospect, I’d take a ’69 Torino GT SportsRoof or Cyclone CJ with a 360 hp R-code Ram Air 428 over the contemporary Chevelle.
If you thought Ford wasn’t trying hard enough in ’68, just two years later the ’70 Torino / Montego swooped onto the scene.
It was the proverbial lower, longer, wider, heavier design, driven in part by a desire to win the NASCAR aero wars. Now sporting a 117″ wheelbase and 206.2″-209.9″ overall length, they began to stretch the size boundaries for mid-sized automobiles. Lead stylist Bill Shenk was influenced by supersonic aircraft. I recommend reading this fascinating piece about the design process for the ’70 models. The takeaway from Mr. Shenk was this. “…back in those styling days anything went, so long as it could be built and looked different.” It sounds like designers had a lot of fun right before the days of malaise, which ushered in worries about 5-mph bumpers, roll-over standards, and development budgets getting sapped by engineers struggling to meet new emission regulations with early 1970s tech.
Ford stuck with the SportsRoof/Hardtop split, although even the “regular” hardtop was so sleek one wonders why they bothered. That said, the Torino GT and Cobra SportsRoof was a dramatic design, and foreshadowed the flatback ’71 Mustang waiting in the wings. In case you suffered from Scopophobia, (an anxiety disorder characterized by a morbid fear of being seen or stared at by others), Ford thoughtfully provided window louvers (Sports Slats, in marketingese) on the Cobra and GT, thus eliminating the already small chance that anyone could see in or out of the steeply angled backlight.
For 1970, the Montego had only the 2-door hardtop roofline, settling for that famous Cyclone GT gunsight nose to stand out. Also note that in ’70-’71 the Montego had the greatest styling differentiation from the Torino than at any other time in its long and relatively anonymous career. Personally, I like the Torino much better. The Montego is more bulbous and unresolved, as though they were still trying to justify the higher price without investing too much in new tooling. If it speaks to me all it says, “I’m worth an extra $783 for my oddly hewed front clip, because I kinda look like a ’67 Olds 88”. Ironically, even though far more people bought Torinos than Montegos (as was always the case at FoMoCo), I think the Montego styling predicted what was to come for the Malaise generation that followed.
As one of the earlier Malaise mobiles, it appeared that Ford was out in front of GM by releasing their all-new intermediates for ’72, a year ahead of the Colonnade crew.
In reality, this was due to a strike that ended up delaying production of the GM A-bodies rather than genius product planning from Dearborn. Still, consider that FoMoCo intermediates body styles had been significantly revamped every 2-3 years since the 1962 introduction. (Yes, I’m counting the unfortunate looking ’65 model as revamped.) You just don’t see that much visual change anymore from year-to-year. Also note that Ford had taken unit construction about as far as it could go, and in the quest to achieve LTD style smoothness and silence, they switched to body-on-frame for ’72.
While some argue that the relatively slim-bumpered ’72s don’t deserve the Malaise label slapped on them, particularly in SportsRoof form (which oddly returned to the Montego again), they lasted only one year before being saddled with some of the most poorly integrated battering rams this side of the Matador Coupe. The ’72 SportsRoof grew a touch longer, with a 3-inch shorter wheelbase, while width ballooned from a hardly svelte 76.8″ wide to a fulsome 79.3″. Those are Malaise-style stats in my book: more overhang front, back and side-to-side, mixed with a cream puff ride. And that’s before the 5-mph bumper was tacked on for ’73 with a new nose to match, extending the length to 212 inches. The nail in the muscle car coffin was the 429 V8’s plunge in horsepower from 370 gross in ’71 to 208 net, along with a corresponding increase in 0-60 times from the six-second range to a sad 9.3 seconds in ’72. [Source: automobile-catalog.com]. Even the new name, Gran Torino, was a Malaise moniker if there ever was one–pretentious, overblown, and disappointing.
As you can see from the photo section, the Torino/Montego brought us to Broughamsville, with a plethora of opera windows, vinyl roofs, and even fender spats. The bumpers are so poorly integrated that they look bent in the side profile of view of the ’75 Montego. These bloated bodies were less space efficient than the prior generation. Huge on the outside, relatively small on the inside, sporting 100 inches of front and rear overhang by ’74.
Ford may have gotten a year’s lead time over GM in the intermediate market, but they didn’t seem to learn any lessons when it came time to redesign the Torino for ’77. Witness the LTD II, Thunderbird, and Cougar bodies, which were woefully out of step with the times, and clearly just a mild rehash of a platform that was obsolete back in ’72. In the meantime, GM went small in a big way with their radically downsized ’78 A-body platform. Ford no doubt sold quite a few more monster mid-sizers to customers in love with length, as both company and customer clung to a culture that reveled in the gloriously inefficient Malaise Era. But we have the General to thank for leading American cars out of one of the darkest decades in recent memory.
1971-1973 Ford Mustang / Mercury Cougar
I’ll bet tens of millions of words have been written about the original Mustang, so I’m not even going to try to top what the best automotive journalists have expertly depicted for the last 50 years.
The ’64-’66 was not only peak Mustang, it could be considered peak muscle / pony car, period. And its elegant Cougar cousin was proof that if a company really tried, they could achieve significant styling differentiation while platform sharing. Personally, I have always loved the original ’67-’68 Cougar, and even owned a ’70 many years ago. If there were ever a car that gave Mercury a genuine identity, it was the Cougar. Sadly, they frittered away that individuality in the Malaise Era, as we’ll see in a few paragraphs.
I’m cheating a bit here, and sneaking in the ’69-’70 models because I couldn’t bring myself to put them into either the peak or transition category.
I chose my favorite example of each: a ’69 Cougar XR-7 and a ’70 Boss 302 Mustang. Yes, they were bigger then their predecessors, but I already made up my mind that the ’71-’73 models were the transition targets. I received more compliments on my ’70 Cougar than anything I’ve driven since. But back to the ’69. With its hidden headlights, delicate chrome grin of a bumper, and well-defined body tuck-under, these sat very nicely on the street. The C-pillar flows gracefully into the short trunk, especially from the front 3/4 angle. Not too formal, not too fast. With all four windows down, it cuts a clean hardtop profile. And how can you not love the gimmicky sequential turn signals? When people malign this generation of Cougar for being a fat cat, it is only in comparison with the ultra-crisp ’67-’68 cars. True, the coke bottle hips and Buick-esque side spear that blossomed for ’69 could be interpreted as cribbing yet again from the GM design playbook, but I think they work rather well here.
As for the ’70 Mustang, it cut a mean fastback profile that when accentuated with the bold stripe package defined what muscle meant in 1970. I personally prefer the ’70 front end with its large dual headlights over the ’69’s staggered quad arrangement. Magnum 500 wheels are a must on these cars, and really on all the Fords of this era. They give that extra bit of depth and definition that just makes the body styles pop.
But for ’71-’73, things got longer, lower, wider, and weirder.
This generation was designed during the Bunkie years at Ford, and as discussed in part 1, Bunkie liked big. The hood length reached cartoonish proportions, the “flatback” SportsRoof on the Mustang provided a nearly horizontal sliver of glass for you not to look out of, all topped off with a steeply raked windscreen. Outward visibility must have been Job None at Ford in the early 70s. But it was the nearly 3″ increase in width over the prior design the really put people off. Admittedly, they had a functional engineering rationale. Bunkie wanted to fit the 429 engine under the hood without all the custom work required for the old Boss 429, but with so few produced it all seemed moot.
If you look at the ’70 and ’71 Mustang together in profile, you can definitely see the relation. But it’s as though they just took the ’70 design and turned all the styling cues up to 11 without any particular consideration of the outcome. It was clear that the larger Mustang was an evolutionary dead-end, reflected in the plummeting sales. The 429 only lasted one year, a victim of higher insurance premiums, tightening emissions standards, and lack of buyer interest in the whole package. The Mustang was a fish out of water, or more accurately, a high-compression 429 CJ out of Sunoco 360. I was even as kind as possible, by not showing a “Grande” model replete with whitewall tires and vinyl roof. Still, I have to admit that a ’71 SportsRoof Mach 1 with a dual-Ram Air induction 429 SCJ on Magnum 500 wheels had undeniable curb presence. It represented the absolute last gasp of the original muscle car revolution at Ford. I just don’t think I’d enjoy driving it much.
The Cougar of this era actually continued its journey down the path to excess, and I feel the ’71-’73 models were a clear harbinger of the opera-windowed mini Mark that we got for ’74. What’s most unfortunate about the ’71 is that the lithe, elegant feline of ’67-’70 appeared to have gotten into a Costco sized bag of Meow Mix. Did they have to make the grill so huge? The body so bloated? Where did my disappearing headlights disappear to? And where did that flying buttress roof come from? Surprisingly, while the Cougar gained an inch in wheelbase to 112″, it lost a little weight compared to the ’70 model. It just didn’t look that way.
Finally, Ford got in tune with the times, and let its Malaise flag fly for ’74 with both the Mustang and the Cougar, but in very different ways.
Ford took a lot of heat at the time for bloating its sweet little pony car into a lumbering Clydesdale. I uncovered some clay models intended to be extensions of the ’71-’73 platform. I’m not sure who would have been fired if those had made it to market. Speaking of firing, if Henry II didn’t have enough reasons to terminate Bunkie in September of ’69, the sales failure of the ’71 Mustang would have been just cause. But now Lee Iacocca was back in charge of the next generation Mustang, and he wasn’t looking back. Or maybe he was…to the original formula that worked so well ten years prior. Take one pedestrian economy car chassis, make the trunk smaller, the hood longer, build a youth image around it all and watch them fly off the showroom floor. He liked proven formulas for success, and turning a Falcon into a Mustang was a stroke of genius. So why not turn a Pinto into the Mustang II?
What makes this a Malaise Mustang isn’t its size, which was radically reduced from the prior year to a close approximation of the original pony. No, the ‘Stang II suffered from underpowered engines, typically terrible bumper integration, vinyl roofs, and silly decals on the King Cobra and Cobra II models. Also, I’m assigning T-tops the Mark of Malaise, as seen in my photo example. I shot that one myself at Caffeine and Octane here in Atlanta. I have to give the owner credit, he was not the least bit ashamed to show his ’78 King Cobra alongside the usual pristine ’69 Boss 302s and Z/28 Camaros. And while I would never buy one, then or now, you can’t argue with the sales numbers, which topped 385,000 for the first year.
The Cougar chose not to try the Pinto diet for ’74. Not everyone was worried about the oil embargo – precisely the 91,670 people who bought the newer, larger cat. It was substantial uptick from the 60,628 units moved in ’73. If they couldn’t get enough fuel to wet the bottom of the Cougar’s 26-gallon gas tank, they’d just walk to the disco. Although the Cougar seemed to have lost its way in the past few years, it was actually crouched, ready to pounce upon the burgeoning personal luxury market. This kitty has it all–hood ornament, stand-up grille, opera window and enough vinyl to side a subdivision. Really nothing more than a Torino in drag, it pushed potential buyers’ buttons, despite a rather awkward C-pillar compromised by Ford’s insistence on clinging to those exaggerated coke-bottle hips. Compared with the wildly popular Monte Carlo / Grand Prix Colonnade designs, it’s hard to see today why someone would have chosen the Cougar. But I believe it successfully marked its territory as a mini Mark IV. As long as the front could fool your neighbors into thinkin’ you were rollin’ in a Lincoln, perhaps no one was paying attention by the time their eyes wandered their way back to the lumpy trunk and fussy tail lamp detailing. Who knows. Fussy detailing was a Mercury hallmark, especially in the ’70s. For me, the only mark it carries is the Mark of Malaise.
1970-1973 Chevrolet Camaro
The ’69 design is generally acknowledged as “peak Camaro.” This is reflected in both the prices a first- generation car will bring, and in the current model’s heritage design, which slavishly pays homage to that one-year-only body. And yes, I’m giving the Firebird a “Get Out of Malaise Free” card, but more on that later.
While Ford may have gotten the muscle car / pony car ball rolling with the Mustang, Chevy perfected the look with the ’69 Camaro. Chevy clearly avoided any attempt to copy the wildly successful Mustang’s design, no doubt reflecting that famous GM hubris. But they also couldn’t afford to ignore the market any longer after watching Mustangs sell like ice cream in August for three years. There was one lesson they learned from Ford, which was platform sharing with an economy model. As the Falcon begat the Mustang, the upcoming ’68 Nova shared many bones with the new Camaro.
I find the ’69 to be a crisp, aggressive design that looked tight and right from any angle. Those character lines over the wheel wells might have seemed contrived on a lesser car, but on the Camaro they convey a genuine sense of speed. I do like the Rally Sport package with its hidden headlights, but perhaps people who went the Z/28 route preferred to spend their money on performance options like the cowl-induction hood or Positraction rear end. Also, as I searched for images of the peak years, all the sales literature I could find showed the RS package with vinyl roofs. Which kind of destroys my whole peak premise.
This is the first generation where I’m declaring the transition to malaise takes place within the same basic body design.
The ’70 model was a dramatic departure from the prior year, with a clean, fuselage-shaped core that introduced a high degree of tumblehome to the greenhouse and said goodbye to the convertible. The rear-quarter windows and corresponding hardtop styling were gone. In fact, they wouldn’t show up again until the 2010 homage- mobile, albeit with a fixed B-pillar. Fractionally longer, lower, and wider than the ’69, the wheelbase stayed the same and weight bumped up about 100 lbs. Along with the hardtop styling, the windshield wipers disappeared. I’ve noticed this is a characteristic of all the transition cars so far. And it’s a design element nearly ubiquitous on all modern cars. I can’t think of a new vehicle whose hood doesn’t stretch clear up to the cowl, to at least partially tuck away the wipers.
The strong horizontal crease along the sides accentuated the pronounced lower body tuck-under, which was common on ’70s cars. This set off the wheels and tires nicely, supporting that aggressive stance so key to the Camaro’s presence. Unfortunately, much of this effect was lost in its final years as a winged warrior when the Camaro sprouted all manner of spoilers, air dams and side scoops. Back to the sweet stuff – the split front bumper of the ’70 is by far my favorite feature. It could have come from Ferrari, or maybe Jaguar, but it flows with seamless form into a distinctly American hood of heroic proportions. Yes, many Jags and Ferraris have long hoods too, but the Camaro could be purchased by anyone with a job at Jiffy Lube. And herein lies the sales story, which wasn’t good for the first four years or so. In fact, it’s astonishing to think that this body style, which ultimately ran for an unprecedented 12 seasons and became an integral part of the American automotive landscape, was up for cancellation early in life.
Which brings us to 1974, the Camaro’s malaise debut.
A victim of middle-age spread, the Camaro’s weight increased 300 lbs., length was up over seven inches, and the most horsepower you could buy was 245. Larded up with safety and luxury equipment, it was sort of frustrating to car guys that production cleared 150,000 units for the first time. Wasn’t this the car GM had halfway to the guillotine just a couple of years before? Perhaps there was a backroom arrangement with the boys at Pontiac, who were making a concerted effort to keep the Firebird flames alive with smog-friendly 455 SD motors. We’ll let them worry about the gearheads, we’re selling plenty of Type LTs with color-coordinated vinyl roofs to the golf pros and secretaries. And as long as we’re comparing the Camaro to the Firebird, why on earth was Pontiac able to make decent looking bumpers all through the ‘70s while the Camaro cowcatchers were stricken with the same park bench disease that afflicted every other Malaisemobile? It just seemed like Chevy wasn’t trying very hard, although by ’77, they had developed a more integrated looking design.
By 1975, the Z/28 was cancelled out of embarrassment over the 155 hp LM-1 V8, though it did reappear in ’77. But with less than 200 hp, it was more cynical marketing tactic than an honest attempt at a performance car. It was clear people weren’t buying these Camaros for a fast rip down the drag strip.
Firebird Footnote
The Firebird is off the hook in my book, as Pontiac consistently handled the 5-mph bumper challenge with a deftness of design not seen anywhere else, with the possible exception of the Corvette. If anyone can think of other cars that had acceptable solutions, please comment below. Even more admirable was Pontiac’s ability to field a high performance V8 of some sort, while Chevy just transplanted a 155 hp 350 chuffer from some leftover Biscayne.
Automotive History: Muscle Cars To Malaise Era-Part 3
Good read,even a Ford fan like me disliked the fish face Torino.The 72 Montego while no oil painting looks a lot better.
It’s funny, I did a car design interactive project for Ford back in the late 90s and they were STILL sensitive about fish faced cars. They didn’t want the program to allow children to design cars that looked like a fish.
The latest British Fords have a fish face!
Should be a fish n’ chips face.
The 1990s Scorpio had the fishiest face of the lot!
What about the ’96 Ford Tortoise… um, I mean Taurus?
Ok, i’m going to be the odd person here, I like the 72 – 73 Gran Torino. Sorry, Paul, Gem, and Greg. I even owned one for a while.
Count me in as a fan of the ’72. Fish-faced? Maybe, but that’s one tasty fish if so. Once they lost the distinctive nose and pointed fenders, my enthusiasm fades.
I’ve personally always felt the Chevrolet could have saved itself and countless Z28 owners much needless embarrassment by offering the Corvette-based L82 engine as an option. Same with the Nova SS of the same time period.
Pontiac also squandered a great opportunity by not offering the 400 and 455SD engines in its Ventura-based GTO model. That would have transformed a rather unremarkable car into a legend, and would be a fitting continuation to Pontiac’s performance legacy.
I know at Pontiac it was a supply issue. But even if they could have put the the 455 SD in everything from an Astre to a Grand Safari, it would have made meeting CAFE standards impossible.
Can’t help thinking CAFE has caused more trouble than its worth.
CAFE is due to and will always be due to the inability for any American politician to argue for an increase in fuel taxes. It has not only stifled Americans fondness for more fuel efficient vehicles, it has hamstrung American automakers who seem to still be punch drunk on pickup and large body on frame SUV sales. If the price of fuel had simply gone up, even marginally, but regularly, over the past forty years like in the rest of the world, the new F-150 would not just have an aluminum body, I think that it might just be a more reasonably sized vehicle.
+1
Agree completely, they’d get tarred & feathered for a tax rise as democratic & obvious as that. More popular are taxes that claim to soak just Those Rich People.
Oh, I am sure the world would be a better place without CAFE….
I am a gearhead but give me a break; safety standards screwed up cars too?
Besides meeting the corporate CAFE standards average, another big headache was having to provide every specific vehicle/drivetrain combination for testing. This really cut down on the myriad engine/transmission/rear axle combinations that used to be offered in the sixties. It was a real shame and a complete turnaround from the good ‘ole days when you could walk into a dealership and get just about any engine, transmission, and rear axle you wanted.
This meant that, during the malaise era, low-po engines with an automatic and high (low numerical) rear axle ratio were just about the only thing available in ‘any’ vehicle and ruled the day. It was just too much of a hassle to get more engine options into cars, particularly with the huge wane in sales for bigger, more powerful engines.
CAFE did not prevent Pontiac from putting the 455SD in the Ventura based GTO since CAFE did not apply until 1978.
Ok, true. But the writing was on the wall by ’75, and Pontiac knew that the 455 would negatively impact the average so they discontinued it.
But the 400 “6.6” was a very strong motor for the late 70s, and you could still get it with a 4-speed in ’79. Here’s a terrific article from the January ’79 issue of Car And Driver, penned by the late, great Larry Griffin. Read this if you want a taste of peak automotive journalism.
http://transamcountry.com/community/index.php?topic=41925.0
I wonder if they had to try harder because the cars were generally pretty depressing, but when you got ahold of a rare gem like the T/A it was like a burst of sunshine. And you got a chance to sing its praises with your best prose.
CAFE wasn’t law until 1978. Long past the SD time.
I prefer the muscle cars of the 60s. What they lack in fuel economy and safety (according to the NHTSA) they more than make up for in personality, performance and style, something that went out the door by the time the 70s came along, and has yet to return.
Sad part is, today, even a KIA will out perform a 60’s musclecar, and that’s before you get to the first turn.
Only took 40 years to match….
60s muscle cars may not be king now but compared to cars 40 years prior to them(and at the very minimum 20-30 years after) were land rockets. I’m not impressed that an ugly, disposable, dull KIA might match the stats on cars originally tested with bias ply tires.
Who the hell would want a KIA for gods sake, give my a car from the sixties anyday……anyone that would think a KIA looks better has no damn taste.
Luddites…
That Stinger is a gorgeous car, though. Four-door hatch, 3.6L V6, twin turbo, 0-60 in 4.7 seconds or so. The only thing it lacks is a clutch.
Regarding the 1974 Camaro: 245 hp from 350 CID was not bad. The base engine on the 1974 Corvette (350 CID) was less than 200 hp. An optional 350 with 250 hp was available, as well as a 270 hp 454. My 1971 Buick Riviera with 455 was rated at 250 hp with dual exhausts. By 1974 Buick’s 455’s are only a bit more than 200 hp (210 or 230 Riviera).
Funny you mention that, as these engines still had plenty of torque. And it’s ironic how the small engine makers of today, like Briggs&Stratton, rate their engines by torque, not horsepower anymore. A 270hp 454 may, on paper sound like that 98 pound weakling you always wanted to stuff in the locker in high school,but trust me, they were not. Same for 390 Fords
One of the most scary rides I have ever been in (and I have been in a lot) was a 68 Mustang GTA with a “mildly built” 390 (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) in it. I knew the guy who built the engine, went to school with him, and he worked at the local engine machine shop here in Tigard, and this was his personal ride. Thank god for subframe connectors, otherwise this Beast of Tigard would have popped the windshield out every time he so much as blipped the throttle. Fun times, Indeed. A 390 Ford can make you wet your pants, even when bolted to a C6 that shifts so firm it would work in a D9 Cat. And yes it was “infused” with a couple of 427 parts 🙂
I did own a 1969 base GTO.
I found a couple of road tests of the Corvette from about 1973 comparing the 350 with the 454. There is not much difference in standing 1/4 miles in time or end point speed (about 14 to 15 seconds and 95 MPH).
It’s the torque that you get to the wheels that counts. A smaller engine with less torque that will run at higher speeds can stay in a lower gear longer putting more torque to the wheels. Todays smaller engines are tuned to run over 6000 RPM’s, with a flat torque curve, and six to eight speed transmissions, so performance is very good.
Excellent point.
And who ever uses 6000rpm anyway? The only time I’ve ever gone north of 5000 in my Mazda 3 was when I’ve missed a shift! Given an engine with enough low-down torque, most drivers don’t need all those revs.
My turbo 4 cylinder ATS would happily run to 6000 even though the peak horsepower was a 5500. My CTS’s V6 peak horsepower is a 6800 and the engine will happily run over 6000, although I try to keep my foot off the floor. Even so it will run at 4000 if I accelerate more quickly than usual. I do try to keep acceleration nominal to improve fuel consumption. This links to my car in the fuel economy website
Great series. Difficult period for Detroit. Looking forward to part 3. Your assessment of the rapid fall of the time period is pretty much spot on. Cars needed to get safer, more efficient and cleaner, in the long run it was worth it, but the transition was painful. The import’s got it right sooner, much to the dismay of the US manufacturers. Sad but true. In California it was even worse.
Thanks. I want to pick three cars for Part 3, here are my current candidates:
Galaxie / LTD:
peak: 65-68
transition: 69-72
malaise: 73-78
Toronado
’66-’67 = peak
’68-’70 = transition Toronado
’71-’78 = malaise Toronado
Satellite/Fury
’67-’70 = peak
’71-’72 = transition
’73-’78 = malaise
Nova
’66-’67 = peak
’68-’72 = transition
’73-’79 = malaise
Corvette
’63-’67 = peak
’68-’72 = transition
’73-’82= malaise
XKE / XJS
’61-’71 = peak (Series 1 & 2)
’72-’75 = transition (Series 3)
’75-’80 = malaise (XJS)
Good candidate selection, although I always preferred the ’68-’72 Nova over the earlier generation. That generation did gain a lot of weight, however so probably a good choice.
Articles from the era call the ’75-up Nova a huge improvement over the older ones, in handling in particular as they transplanted in the Camaro suspension.
JMHO but I always thought the ’66-67 looked clumsy compared to the ’62-65, and the ’75-79 was the most successful facelift it ever got (’68 having been a completely new design).
I don’t think the Nova really was that great with to begin with to go through a malaise transition, it was always kind of a compromised bottom feeder. Stylistically it had it’s highs and lows sure but it’s all somewhat subjective, it was never a stunner. I think you’d be hard pressed to say your average equipped 60s Chevy II/Nova was better than a similarly equipped 75+ model. Only real loss would be the hardtop(which was already gone by the supposed transition years) and the high performance engines that were briefly available, otherwise the 75s would probably be looked at as an improvement over the 60s model in most respects, it never even put on that much bloat
Totally agree, but rose colored 60’s nostalgia is what some value more. They ignore the drum brakes and lack of sway bars.
I don’t think of the corvette as malaise worthy. I think it just got hit by choked engines. It didn’t double in size
Be prepared for Jaguar folks to tell you that the XJS was never intended to be a direct replacement for the XKE. But when the older car disappeared from the catalogue and the XJS appeared, what else were we to think?
I’ve always been partial to the 1973-78 full-sized Fords, and own a 19,000 mile survivor ’74 Galaxie 500. But that said, I totally agree with your nomination.
“Malaise” is the most overused word on car blogs. Those 1965 muscle cars, with 400 gross HP, yet no stabilizer bars, bias tires, and drum brakes are not the “be all, end all” of car history.
Agree 100%. I have driven loads of 60’s cars and they are for the most part scary on anything but a straight line, devoid of steering feel, have no brakes and not really all that fast. Just go back and look at all the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times from that era and be prepared to be surprised. 7-8 second 0-60 times were the norm which is ironically what your typical 4 cylinder family sedan can do now such a Malibu or Honda Accord.
A perfect example is my dad who bought a nice low mileage 1975 Malibu with a 350 engine to replace his 1967 Olds 88. Other than being a little down on power but still more than adequate, the Malibu was a better driving car in most every way, the electronic ignition was far better than screwing about with points, mileage was better, the braking, steering, ride and handling were superior and overall it was a nicer car than the 60’s vehicles he owned. My uncle made the same comparison between his mid 60’s Cutlass and his 1975.
Today, which would fetch more at auction? The ’67 Olds 88 or the ’75 Malibu? Which is the better looking car? I’ll bet the ’67 was assembled more carefully, with higher quality materials. (Not that build quality was ever anything to brag about on American cars from the mid 50’s – late 80’s.) But it reached a low point in the 70s.
I remember riding in a friend’s ’75 Malibu in high school, it was about 12 years old, and genuinely horrible in every way. The interior in particular was literally rotting by then. I doubt it had more than 100K on the clock. It just didn’t wear well at all. Same story for another friend’s ’73 Cutlass.
If you don’t like the word “Malaise”, you might want to start shopping for another blog, Tom. We revel in here at CC.
And at least there were muscle cars in 1965. By 1975 your choices were.
A) One of the 847 TransAms with a L75 455 “HO” motor. This low revving, low compression torque specialist was transplanted from the B/G/A body cars in response to enthusiast demand.
B) Corvette (not really a muscle car)
C) … Ummm… help me out here.
The bottom line is this. In 1965, cars were fun. Not safe, economical, or environmentally sensitive. Just fun. Unrestrained. There were some landmark designs, horsepower was up, the future looked bright, the enthusiast had some fantastic options to choose from.
A mere 10 years later, not so much. Just from a design perspective alone, anyone with 2 eyes and a modicum of taste could only look at what was available in the showrooms in the mid 70s and weep at what had been lost since his youth. He probably wished he’d appreciated it more. He wished he’d stretched to get that new Tri-Power GTO. Sure, the TransAm 455 was nice, but it was a lot more money, and could he afford the gas? The insurance payments? The dirty looks from Toyota drivers? A massive cultural backlash had taken place against the automobile. Much of which was reversed in the following years, thanks to technological improvements that lets us have our high-compression engines and drive them too.
I will always consider the ’70-73 Camaro’s the greatest blue-collar car design ever. To think, somebody that had an ordinary job could afford to drive something that good looking.
Of course, the two revisions got worse and worse. The first revision car still looked pretty good, and the widening of the rear window bothers me more than the big bumpers. The final revision, however, was way overdone in the front; looking almost baroque and then trying to match up with the simplicity of line that was the body.
Why they couldn’t match the C3 Corvette in federalizing the bumps is always beyond me. I can only assume that the ‘Vette’s bumpers were a lot more expensive to design and make functional.
The final years of the Gen 2 Camaro Z/28 (and Firebird TransAm especially) remind me of an overweight, balding middle-aged guy with gold chains tangled in his chest hair wearing a neon pink speedo at the beach.
Never mind the Vette, why couldn’t they do as well as Pontiac did with the Firebird? It’s the same car. Note that Pontiac did a decent job with the ’73-’75 Grand Am’s bumpers too. But as no one bought that one, the business decision could have been “It doesn’t seem to matter if we make the bumpers look decent. It cost more, and everyone buys the LeMans or Grand Prix anyway.”
The Camaro sold, that’s why, and is still on the market today. And today’s hipsters are tomorrows ’embarrassment’.
+1 I can imagine Rocky or Bruce Springsteen driving one.
The original Cougar was a great design, just different and up market enough from the Mustang to forge it’s own identity. That 69 pictured is a real beauty. I wish that Ford had brought out a new Cougar based on the 2005 model but I guess there wouldn’t be enough sales to justify the model. Ford decided that the Grande would appeal to, and steal away Cougar buyers from Mercury, which it did. When I bought my 07 Mustang I told the salesman that they should bring back a Grande type trim level. I bought a “Pony” trim fastback with leather front seats but the plastic door panels, interior trim, total lack of any chrome or aluminum trim, cheap carpet, and lack of sound deadner was pretty dreary. I guess the premium coupe got that stuff.
I’ve been doing a lot of reading about Mustang IIs in the last few days. So much hate. It was a lucky move to base the Mustang off the Pinto. Really the Mustang became an economy car which turned out to be right for the times. I thought the quality of the car was pretty good and I like the fastback, but the graphics were horrendous. When you see one that has been resto-modded it usually looks cleaner and more cohesive. One last thought. It’s amazing that Pontiac kept a much clearer focus on the design of the Firebird and the Trans Am enjoyed strong sales to the end of it’s first gen models.
I’m with you on the II, Jose. Needless hate for a car that sold nearly as many as the original. And it was a huge upgrade from the fat, sloppy ’71-’73 series. The ’79 Fox brought a new, and hugely improved Mustang experience….but I can’t help but wonder if the name would have made it that long had the II not come along….
My first off-the-showroom floor car was a ’72 Gran Torino Sport, canary yellow with a black vinyl roof. What a hideous automobile. Couldn’t see out the back wimdow, and It taught me the lesson of first production year cars and to avoid them: recall for rear axels coming apart, broken A/C unit within 6-months, electrical shorts. Of course this was a terrible time for auto production quality. One day cruising at 60 or so, I hit a typical rut in a NJ highway and the car almost came off of it’s wallowing chassis. I drove it to a Volvo dealer and made an even-up trade for a ’71 142S, which I drove for 12 years and put 150K miles on it. It was the best thing I could have done to get away from that rattletrap!
Was it the SportsBack styling that hooked you in?
Pretty much, I would say so. I had an interest in the ’70 model, but couldn’t find one, so I kind of settled for the ’72.
Despite its glaring shortcomings as an automobile, I would happily take a ’72 Gran Torino Sport as a weekend cruiser / show queen, even now.
I’m a past Mustang 2 hater. Age has forced me into giving the car a little respect. And when I do run into someone who has one of these cars and treats it with pride and respect I do tip my hat. It hasn’t been lost on me that with all the respect given around the world to the Mustang 2 front end some respect has to be given to the breed. Even if it is a PInto….
I was thinking about this series, and 70s styling, and realized something interesting: Nearly every maker with a successful 60s design went through a fat period in the 70s and then recovered. It wasn’t just the muscle cars that suffered through this era of bloat.
The problem I have mixing Brougham into the analysis is that many Brougham cars were gorgeous, successful models that are classics today. Examples include the Mark III, first Monte Carlo, Grand Prix (including the Colonnades), ’76 Seville, ’77 GM B/C line. It also leaves out most of the imports, many of which got fat but rarely came in a Brougham motif…
Examples:
Mercedes
Peak: W108
Fat: W116
Recovery: W126
BMW
Peak: E3 Bavaria
Fat: First 7-series
Recovery: Second 7-series
Nissan:
Peak: 240Z
Fat: 280ZX / 300ZX (Nissan were slow learners back then)
Recovery: 1990 300ZX
Jag
Peak: Original XKE
Fat: XJS
Recovery: XJ8
Porsche
Peak: 70-73 911
Fat: 74-77 911 (big bumpers, narrow hips)
Recovery: 78-83 SC (big hips balanced out the big bumpers)
Memo: Chevrolet
Peak: 65-69
Fat: 71-76
Recovery: 77
Some didn’t survive the fat period like Triumph…
Peak: GT6
Fat: TR7
Recovery: None
The problem with assigning cars to a transition category is that there aren’t many examples; most went from great to bloated overnight, see above. Camaro doesn’t work because the ’70 was as attractive as the ’69.
Someone might say “No, that’s not right, GM picked the ’69 as the inspiration for the ’07 revival not the ‘70. That means the ’69 was better.” Well if you’re gonna go there why did Ford pick the ’69 as the inspiration for the ’05 Mustang revival? Many consider the ’69 Fastback to be far ahead of the smaller 67-68 and on par with the original ’64 for styling attractiveness.
Also to say ’74 is malaise for Camaro would mean having to call nearly every car in the industry malaise for ’74. Are there any examples of a good-looking car in ’73 that was not less attractive in ‘74?
Camaro / Firebird is one of the few lines that didn’t go through a fat period. These cars were rewarded for that with an extraordinarily long model run.
Personally I would say the Torino peaked in ’72. For design not performance obviously.
As for the Mustang II I sincerely believe its success gave GM the confidence to go forward with the Seville and more importantly the downsized ’77 line of full-sized cars. Note that every fat example above was locked and loaded before its maker could see how well the market accepted the Mustang II. It hastened the recovery of the entire industry if you ask me, though that may be a stretch 🙂
I think you could say this…
Lincoln
Peak: Mk III
Transition: Mk IV
Full-blown malaise: Mk V
I basically agree with much of what you’re saying, but I see very little 1969 Mustang in the 05 mustang, not enough to say it was the main inspiration anyway, the large fog lights on GTs mimic the 69s inboard high beams, but that’s about it. The body and roofline are pure 66-68 – prominent B pillar, C shaped side sculpting ect, and the pony package V6s use 66 style grilles with the small running lights. I think the 2015 is more like the 69/70s overall
I believe the Camaro sales expanded, starting in ’74, because the rest of the Chevy line went so far downhill that buyers moved over to the Camaro. The Colonnade Chevelle and the big-butt Monte Carlo just didn’t do it for many potential buyers, but the Camaro was inoffensively styled, and the revised bumper and end cap treatments shouted “mainstream” rather than “sporty”. The Berlinetta package added a tiny bit of élan to the car, even though one would be hard pressed to identify what that “extra” might have been. Never mind, it is all in the marketing. Get to the showroom, get turned off by the new product, the salesman shows you a new beige Camaro. If you are still reluctant, how about the Berlinetta? Just for you. European inspiration, you know. Boom, a sale.
to me it was always very simple why the Camaro /Firebird sales got so much better in the mid 70s…no more Challenger, Cuda, Javelin or Mustang…they got the whole market.
Interesting write up.
United States Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart once said “I know it when I see it” in reference to pornography (particularly to hard-core).
I think the same applies to Malaise era cars. To me, hard core malaise is a hard to define emasculated car that frequently showed signs of budget restraints in design and especially if the manufacturer threw in reliability problems as a bonus. Depending on your thinking, Malaise started between 1972 and 1980, and started to fade away during the later 1980s. During any year in those times, there were some relative gems to be had, life was not as bad as it is sometimes made out to be. A lot of malaise was self inflicted, people simply chose to buy underpowered versions of cars or new and untested technology, and then bitched about the experience. An ’84 Camaro 4 cylinder only happened to people who let it happen. Caveat emptor.
The post asks about better integrated federal bumpers, and it is usually said that Chrysler handled them better than most, and more significantly really nailed the effort in the very first year with the 1974 Imperial. Other manufactures bumbled along for as many as 15 years.
I actually thought the Matador coupe and some other AMC products handled the Federal bumpers in a unique and honest way. They look a lot like how bumpers were attached to cars from the 1930s through the mid 1950s.
Engines certainly saw a decline in output, but for average daily driving, many cars did just fine for the times, as well as their mission. True, you could not match any 1977 Pontiac to a hi-po 1967 GTO, but anything powered with a 350 V-8 that year was a pleasant and competent drive. If you were trading in a late 1960s 6 cylinder car on a ’77 Pontiac 350, you would have thought you were in heaven! Realistically, for every potent ’67 GTO sold, hundreds of very sloooowwwww 6 cylinder cars were sold in many brands and price classes. Hammer all you want on a 305 equipped Camaro, it was a more pleasant car than a 66 Mustang with a six – safer, better handling, less polluting, a bit faster and probably similar fuel economy. The balance, or average in 1967, was probably a 283 or 327 powered Chevy Impala. Competent, but no race car.
Speaking of 1967 Chevy’s, I occasionally raced a friend that had an Impala sedan with my 1982 Olds Delta 88 Royale Brougham 307. I was almost disappointed in the legend of 1960’s cars – my Olds could take that car with absolutely no effort. The Chevy’s engine size and state of tune (much more difficult to keep in 1967) is undetermined (but definitely a V-8, most likely with Power Glide).
YMMV.
The base V8 Chevy in 1967 was a 195 hp 283 only available with a powerglide automatic or manual transmissions, no turbohydramatic.
An “84 Camaro with a four cylinder and a four speed stick. I worked with a guy who bought one, new. He said it was the most underpowered thing you could imagine. Definitely a self inflicted wound. I have heard that the Fox bodied four cylinder Mustangs were very much the same.
I knew a guy in high school who drove an ’84 Firebird with a 4-cylinder and an automatic. I guess that had to be the absolute low point of Firebird performance. A 90-hp Iron Duke lugging around 3500 lbs of Poncho churning through 3 gears of TurboHydramatic slushiness. Thing accelerated like it had a boat anchor chained to the bumper.
I bought a 1992 Fox body Mustang, 4-cylinder 5 speed combo, brand new and loved it. I live in WV all hills and never had a problem staying at speed on any mountain at any time. I will never understand all the whining about it being underpowered. It wasn’t a race car but it got all the looks with the gas mileage to boot. It was still running great 7 yrs. and 107,000 miles later when I traded it in and I regret doin that and still wish I had it.
Same thing for v6 pony cars as well, the comtempt towards any non-v8 pony car even now is insane, yet they will go on to praise the 4 cylinder BRZ/FRS and V6 Genesis (FYI I do like both of those cars)
I have a Mustang, 3.8/5 speed and it gets great gas mileage, looks great inside and out, sounds nice (true dual flowmaster kit, headers and a CAI kit) and 193hp @ 5500/225tq @ 2800 is more than enough to move a 3000 pound car and also be fun. And they were priced around the same as a boring FWD econobox. I would imagine the F-body competitors were the same deal as well.
Luckily we are starting to kind of get back into RWD sports coupes, Camaro, Challenger, Mustang, BRZ/FRS and Genesis Coupe. Great offerings now as there was then.
Excellent article, I enjoyed it even more than the first one.
I like the crouching metaphor for the Cougar’s transition, that pretty much sums up the 71-73s perfectly. I think dramatic changes to the Cougar came primarily from the fact that the 67-70s were Tbird imitators, since the Tbird was pretty much the top dog style leader up to that point. The 67-68 Cougars in particular clearly wear the Tbird inspiration in plain view, using nearly identical the side sculpting to the 64-66, not to mention the wide sequential taillights which the Tbird used exclusively. By the time the 71s were ready to be designed however, the corporate style leader pendulum swung back to Lincoln with the Mark III coupe, which pretty much put the nails in the coffin for the Tbird’s style supremacy(if the self inflicted gunshot of the landau bared 4 door 67 Tbirds didn’t do already), the odd and heavy handed styling changes on the 71 Cougars were a direct result of that. It seemed as though it was trying to look more like a Mustang from the back, so as to wear it’s Ponycar roots on it’s sleeve maybe(or just to amortize the tooling cost by sharing back windows), whilst going full blown Lincoln Mark III up front, which is a rather odd looking mix of extremes.
It really is an odd mix of styling cues. The more I think about it, the ’71-’73 Cougar might be the ultimate transition car. It had its back wheels in the late ’60s and its front wheels in the early 70s.
I don’t buy into the ’74 Mustang II being a Malasie example. What other car from the 1970’s returned to its roots in general, let alone as sucussfy, as this car? No, the 1964-66 Mustangs were NOT muscle cares in any sense. To me, the padded roofs of the II’s are much atkin to the wire wheel covers on the originals. Both are much of the era, and sales reflect this. It’s only Malasie because enthusiasts think the minority’s performance examples they pick and choose represent the whole (rant over)…
I like this. Absolutely true. After that monstrosity of 73 it was refreshing to see a Mustang that went back to it’s roots: a something for everyone car, a car that was right for the times, sized right, priced right and looked like the original Mustang, unlike the 78- forever generation and the nearly mid size brougham wanna-be that was the 71-73
No cars really started getting performance back till the early 80s and better, more integrated fuel and emissions engineering.
I stand by my original statement – it’s as Malaisey as they come. You have the wheezy, underperforming motors, the tacked on battering ram bumpers, the ridiculous decals, and instead of a proper convertible – t-tops. A sporting variant of malaise, perhaps, but it’s not like Ford made any effort to compete with the Firebird in this era. Strictly for the secretarial pool, but as you pointed out they sold boatloads of ’em.
The only way the ’74 II measured up to the ’64 original was in physical size. Today, a first gen mustang fetches thousands more over a Mustang II. Is there even a real market for the Mustang II? Only for fetish collectors of 70s memorabilia.
*MOST* 1964-66 Mustangs were not muscle cares in any sense. MOST. That’s the key, minority or not enthusiasts tend to be more brand loyal and passionate than the average secretary buying a base wire wheel 6 in the 60s or a Lima 4 Ghia in the 70s, buying the latest fashion. There was NO Shelby or at the very least hipo 289 equivalent in the Mustang II era at all. The original cars really were good at everything for everybody, the Mustang IIs weren’t. That’s the problem
Notice I never said “most”, I said not. You want a V8 Mustang in the 64-66 years? Small block only. I diddnt realize all those muscle cars people clamor over were small blocks, Shelby models included…
They were powerful small blocks though, and there’s tons of highly regarded small block muscle cars, the Z/28, 340 Mopars, Boss302 and 351 Mustangs, ect. Not every hot car from that era needed 400+ CI to go fast and the hipo 289 Mustangs from that period and their racing success through Shelby ushered in all of those cars.
There was nothing at all remarkable about the Mustang II in terms of performance in any guise. Enthusiasts got an insipid stripe package and a totally neutered 302 belatedly on a totally incompetent chassis. The Mustang II was return to the 64-66 roots about as much as Green Day was a return to Punk
+1. Also, everyone I knew who had one (granted, not a huge survey sample) experienced very serious quality/service issues with the car. In all the time that has passed since its demise, nothing about the Mustang II can dredge up any nostalgia or positive thoughts for that awful little car. OTOH, the 65-67 Mustangs – wow, what great memories of a whole bunch of them. I also thought the 71-73 Mustang/Cougar (many friends had them back in the day) was a perfectly decent car (I understand I’m in a minority on this one).
The picture below is a 1974 Mustang Coupe. Cover the left half of the picture and look at the right half carefully. Now reverse the process. Now uncover the full picture and you will note that the scale of the front half of the car and the back are completely different. Essentially it seems like the two halves of the car were designed by different teams which never met.
Now toss in an 88 hp four cylinder engine without the torque of the old 120hp six, saddle it with pollution controls so it often won’t start, and never really runs well. Then sprinkle on some lack of quality, and don’t spare the rust. Now tell me again it’s not a maliase era car?
Not to mention you pretty much never hear about how “terrible” the imports of the same “Malaise” era were, as if a 55bhp Corolla or a 53bhp Civic would have been a joy to drive or any other foreign offering at the time.
Great article.
Funny that the “malaise era” only became that after Jimmy Carter’s State Of The Union message in the mid to late 70s. The media started referring to it “The Malaise Era”, though he never called it that.
Auto makers were spending capital and engineering productivity on emissions controls and 5 MPH bumpers. They were quick answers to legislation.
Many of the 70s cars were never designed to have 5 MPH bumpers and had to be re-engineered to fit them, with the unhappy results you’ve witnessed in this series.
All that money was siphoned off from developing new engines, transmissions and fresh styling permitting cars basically designed in the late 60s to go on for years before being replaced.
The Camaro seems to be the least affected. As were the Valiant/Dart and Maverick/Comet, Hornet and other small cars. Larger cars got more and more festooned, longer and more ridiculous. Part of it government mandates and safety laws, part of it, the Big 3 just can’t help themselves from adding length, bloat and weight with every new generation of car line. They still can’t
The new CTS is lighter weight than the old one. It it bigger, but now the ATS is what the CTS was trying to be, so the new CTS is the old STS (both FWD and RWD).
It’s odd how that 71 proposal looks a great deal like what the 79 Mustang became. Minus the Generic 70s Ford Face.
Another interesting piece, Greg. Bearing in mind that the US had just put a man on the moon, you can’t help but put the trajectory of US automotive design within the realm of ‘unbridled optimism’. Certainly ‘Unsafe at Any Speed’ and ‘The Silent Spring’ had entered parts of the collective consciousness, but Detroit was still an impervious force and the next model was still expected to be ‘more’ than the last. However that might be expressed.
I personally find US automotive design peaking as it entered the 70s, but it’s not a rule across the board. The 72 Gran Torino, fishface (hehehe) and all, is – to me – the ultimate expression of the Ford intermediate, as is the 71 Satellite range for Plymouth. Yet the Cougar never improved on the original body. And the gunsight Mercury still has me scratching my head.
That Bud Shenk article is fantastic. It’s just a great story of the ‘underdog’ showing up the tried-and-true ways with pure talent. It also, as you mention, highlights the prevailing attitude at the time and suggests to me that if someone were to recommend downsizing during this period, I can imagine everyone in Detroit listening to the request with a puzzled face and answering;
‘Why?’
I originally read the Bill Shenk article years ago in Collectible Automobile. (Remember print magazines?) I love the insider stories behind why cars look they way they do.
Yep. It’s also telling on the details. For example that fact that he had only 4 sculptors for the clay instead of 12. I never knew that many were involved on one body. I cherish what few CAs I have.
Very interesting write-up. Brought back some memories.
I owned a ’72 Ford Gran Torino, and it was a very good car. I would be one to argue the ’72 at least wasn’t really malaise era. Maybe a good foreshadow to it, but not truly malaise era. Mine had some minor mods, and it ran very strong. It easily out ran most of my friend’s later ’70’s cars (many times), much to their continual frustration, and it was much more reliable too (it didn’t have all the emissions equipment problems that many later ’70’s cars did).
I had my Torino until ’84 (and well over 100k miles), and the biggest problem with it was it began to rust from about 1980 on. Don’t see too many survivors around here (Midwest), with maybe an occasional SportsRoof at a car show.
Fun stuff from a fascinating time.
MEngineer, the thing about the ’72 Sport (and I use that term loosely, Ford certainly did) is that it lasted just one year without the giant malaise bumpers. Then in ’73 the 5-mph bumper tacked on with a new nose that was completely mismatched with the rear. If I were to call the ’72 a transition car, it would have be included with the rather attractive, if extravagant ’70-’71 design. And they were completely different cars.
Greg, I understand. It all depends on your criteria. But, as you point out in your article, some would argue the ’72’s don’t deserve the malaise label. I would be one of those people. Internet debates are never won, and I rarely engage in them, so as with Bill Mitchell (who made some excellent comments below), we’re just going to have to agree to disagree as well. To each their own, that’s part of what makes the car hobby so great. I enjoyed reading the article and all the comments.
While it’s true that they looked so-so and couldn’t match their predecessors’ straight-line performance, what many people overlook is the fact that the ’72 Torino and ’73 A-bodies were much better cars overall than their predecessors.
They didn’t have fire-breathing big-blocks or stunner styling, but they had niceties like standard disc brakes, high-caster steering with reasonably high gearing, front suspensions with proper camber gain to actually keep your tires upright during cornering so they don’t roll under and scrub uselessly while you plow into a ditch, shock absorbers that don’t aereate and lose all damping, much better rear axle location, vastly improved NVH and structural rigidity, the seats didn’t make you tired and provided some measure of lateral support… the list goes on.
Everyone loves to look at a 69 Camaro, or a ’70 Chevelle, but few people realize just how badly they were designed under the shell. I’m not talking about lack of IRS or no overhead cams, but very fundamental things like suspension and steering geometry, structural rigidity, completely insufficient shock damping…
If you ever get the chance, drive a stock ’69 Camaro, then a stock ’74 Camaro. I’d bet money you’d find the ’74 a lot more enjoyable.
Malaise is a general feeling of discomfort or uneasiness which is a good description of the US auto industry after the Clean Air Act was going through. This was followed by the oil embargo, and then imports really started to make inroads in the auto market. I think for GM at least, the malaise era continues into the bankruptcy.
GM was doing very well in the ’90s. Except the CAFE specialty models like Cavaliers, GEOs, larger cars were well designed in terms of design and durability for both front wheel drive and rear wheel drive ( B/D-Body H/C-Body. The only thing they missed is the rust resistance on H/C-Body but the B-Body has the best rust resistance on all sedans ever made. They even put GPS in olds 88 and head up display on Bonneville. Northstar has their problems though, as it takes too much knowledge to top off it. ) even they have very nice personal luxury coupe, Riviera. ( I think both Riviera and Mark VIII were the ultimate version as this specialty category came to a dead end for both model. Tbird was an unsuccessful attempt of cycle. And CTS coupe only has half of personal luxury just like last Eldorado ) GM had EV1 too. In mid-size cars, Buick Century was today’s Lexus ES and Chevy Lumina had really good reviews at the time ( but now probably they all regret. I’m sure people will regret about today’s Camry 15yrs later ) but when the whole industry was lured by SUVs so much to discontinue B-Body ( for GM ) AND neglect sedans ( both GM and Ford ) it went a straight dive. But even in late ’90s, GM still had many good offerings in sedans and it took quite a while for good designs to date out. ( Cadillac SeVille. It was a very handsome design by Chuck Jordan in early ’90s, but by ’02 it was dated already. They mysteriously managed to redesign everything underneath without much improvements though )
You’re forgetting one basic problem, decreasing market share. GM market share was steadily decreasing. Because GM long before had thought they could get away with charging off retirement benefits to current production, these costs were increasing per unit basis. Worse, the number of retired was also increasing due to layoffs as production decreased. The ultimate end was bankruptcy.
To me, the late 60’s was when Ford totally went off the rails, styling wise. Before that, I wasn’t thrilled with anything they made, Mustang included, but I was repelled by them. That all changed with the late 60’s/early 70’s cars, and IMHO, with the exception of a couple of “Well, that’s not bad for a Ford” truck or two, they stayed off the rails for about 35 years. Yes, I include the Taurus/Sable in the “repellent” category, I never got what was supposed to be good looking about them. But, since they were so common, I got used to them over time. These days, Ford makes some decent looking vehicles. Nothing really grabs me, but they aren’t “repellent” anymore.
The line should have been “Mustang included, but I wasn’t repelled by them.”
I’ve totally forgotten all about the 1974 Ford Gran Torino’s using fender skirts, I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen a Gran Torino with a fender skirt and always felt they were ugly on the mid 70’s Ford Gran Torino’s and LTD’s yet looked great on the Mercury Marquis’s.
Good piece. I have to take issue with one part of your narrative, however. There was no “looming energy crisis”. It’s not like they knew it was coming and began preparing for it.
The oil embargo blindsided America in October, 1973. Nobody saw it coming and the world was suddenly upside down. This is not true of the insurance and emissions issues. Those were indeed foreseeable, and any reduction in performance offerings should have been chalked up to those two factors alone.
Also, the market played as big role as anything. The target market had moved on, muscle cars not being practical propositions for growing numbers of buyers.
In conclusion, the oil crisis had no effect upon the demise of musclecars, other that playing havoc with the resale value of used examples.
You’re right, I edited it. – “The 429 only lasted one year, a victim of higher insurance premiums, tightening emissions standards, and lack of buyer interest in the whole package.”
That clarifies or confirms things, I hadn’t realised they dropped the big block from the Mustang as early as that when other competitors kept them. It is surprising they didn’t take the easy step of trying the 400.
Your argument on the Torino just doesn’t hold water in my opinion. When one looks at a 1972 Torino purely on the styling, I think it was clearly the transitional years, with many 1960’s styling traits. More than the 1970-71 models, it incorporated both coke bottle styling, and the long hood, short deck styling. It also used the late 1960’s Mopar fuselage styling along it’s flanks. Here are a few quotes about the 1972’s styling. Motor Trend: “The styling is racy, giving the slicker-back machine the appearance of being nimble.” Cars Magazine “Even though the Torino is not a supercar and is not merchandised as one, its overall appearance is hairier than the old genuine articles.” Further you also didn’t mention that 1972 was the first year Ford actually outsold the Chevelle.
I don’t know how the 1972 styling at all connects with the “Neo classic” malaise styling that followed in the mid 1970’s. The 1973 restyle of the nose definitely brought it closer to Malaise styling, but it really wasn’t until 1974 it was fully complete. I would argue the styling for the 1972 Torino was on par with the over-exaggerated styling of other early 1970’s cars, such as the 1971-73 Mustang, the 1971-74 Charger or the 1971-74 Satellite. In fact it wasn’t until 1974 that you could get a Torino with a hood ornament, opera windows, fender skirts, landau top, and more formal front and rear styling that was consistent with malaise era styling. I would argue that the ultimate Malaise Torino was in fact the 1974 Torino Elite, taking on pretty much every malaise styling cue possible.
While the 1972 Torino did grow from the 1971 models, it was actually not nearly as much as the 1969-1970 growth. Comparing 2-doors, 1969 a Torino was 201.1 inches long and 74.6″ wide. In 1970 the car grew to 206.2 inches long, and 76.8″ wide. In 1972, base models were actually shorter in length, at 203.7 inches long, while the longer “Gran Torino” nose was 207.3 inches while width did grow to 79.3″. So in 1970 the growth was 5.2″ in length, and 2.6″ in width. In 1972, it grew 1.1″ in length and 2.5″ in length. So in actual fact it grew more in 1970. Further a typical 1970 vs 1972 two door were actually within 100lbs of weight when actual curb weights were measured. Both were roughly 4000 lb cars. While I will agree the width of the 1972 Torino was excessive, it wasn’t all to waste. The Torino saw a significant track width increase as a result for improved stability, while reviews indicate that interior room grew from 1971.
As for performance the 429 was NOT the performance engine in 1972, it was the 351CJ. C/D tested this car to have a 0-60 of 6.8 seconds, while Cars ran through the 1/4 mile in 15.4 seconds. Automobile Catalog times are not accurate, they are just “estimates”. These numbers were pretty much on par with many “Big block” 1972 cars and were better than early high compression 351-4V Torinos. Base suspension was generally considered too soft by most enthusiast, but all reviews lauded the HD or competition suspension options as a overall improvement in ride and handling from previous models. Many of the sporty cars got these low cost suspension options.
Motor Trend: “The styling is racy, giving the slicker-back machine the appearance of being nimble.” Cars Magazine “Even though the Torino is not a supercar and is not merchandised as one, its overall appearance is hairier than the old genuine articles.”
— Regarding the contemporary magazine articles, MT was famous for giving editorial love to first year models that really didn’t deserve it. I wonder how many pages of advertising Ford bought in that issue?
Further you also didn’t mention that 1972 was the first year Ford actually outsold the Chevelle.
–The Chevelle was a 5 year old design at that point, and if the Colonnades had been released in ’72 as originally planned, it is unclear if Ford would have sold more Torinos. If you look up the sales numbers for ’73, you will find that the Torino outsold the Chevelle by 168,000 units, so I’ll give you that. But I’d also argue that plenty of the 250,000 ’73 Monte Carlo buyers were potential Chevelle customers who decided step up. So all in, the Chevy’s Colonnade intermediates beat the Torino in sales the year they were released.
I don’t know how the 1972 styling at all connects with the “Neo classic” malaise styling that followed in the mid 1970’s.
— It’s the same body with a different front end. Also, I’m looking at continuity and context here. Consider the sleek, low profile ’70-’71 body. It was a very attractive, extravagant design for a mild mannered intermediate car. Then in ’72, they crossed the line and everything just got puffier. As I pointed out, that ’72 body sprouted more overhang in all directions. That’s a mark of Malaise. Yes, styling is subjective, but from my point of view the ’72 earns its Malaise label with the whole emphasis on isolation, luxury, and less utility. How many people bought the Sport fastback, anyway? It was fading fast, and the fastback was cancelled for ’74. If I were to assign the ’72 transition status, it would have to be grouped with the ’70-’71 models. Just can’t see it.
While the 1972 Torino did grow from the 1971 models, it was actually not nearly as much as the 1969-1970 growth.
–But it LOOKS so much heavier, like it’s retaining water. Yes, styling is subjective, but if you were to conduct a retrospective focus group where you put up a ’70 Torino GT up against a ’72 Gran Torino Sport, I think the majority would choose the ’70 as the better looking, sharper car. In my book, one mark of Malaise was the trend towards heavier-looking, less attractive styling.
As for performance the 429 was NOT the performance engine in 1972, it was the 351CJ. C/D tested this car to have a 0-60 of 6.8 seconds..
— Was it faster or slower than a comparable prior generation Torino?
What about Cars magazine? They were known to call out cars for what they were and they called the Torino styling even “hairier” for 1972. Even Tom McCahill, stated “the gaping grille looks a little like it was patterned after Namu, the killer whale”, but also stated that the Torino had “kind of pleasing, no-nonsense styling.” He is often misquoted, but I have his actual article and that is what he stated about the styling. Further, a PM owners review showed that most people bought the 1972 Torino for it’s styling. Bottom line is on a purely styling front, the car had many elements from the so called “muscle car era.” Although, a 1974 was the same body as the 1972, the front and rear were completely restyled and it drastically changed the overall look of the car. The car looked much more formal than the 1972 models although it’s coke body hips still dated the car. The 1977 LTD II and T-bird really brought out the best of the Malaise in this body style.
As for the overhang, one of your other comments spoke of how the 1970-1972 GTO was a car you liked. It was 1″ shorter than a 1972 Torino, yet had a 2″ shorter wheelbase. This is a car that had just as much overhang, but it’s over the top styling was ok? Don’t get me wrong, I really like these over-the-top early 1970’s cars, which is why I like the 1972 Torino and the1972 GTO. As for which is better like the 1972 or 1970(1), I think the results would be much closer than you think. There was a thread on this site where that topic came up.
They sold about 60,000 (I don’t have the numbers in front of me) fastback Torino’s in 1972. Strong numbers for a car of that style in 1972 and in fact the fastbacks almost outsold the formal Gran Torino Sport 2 to 1.
I get that you don’t like the 1972 Torino styling, but I really don’t think most people who saw this car would not class it in the same category as a Gran Torino Elite, a 1975 Charger, a Granada, a Mustang II, a 1976 Buick Century, a 1975 Matador or other cars that really defined the Malaise era. I get that they weren’t the sleek styling of the 1960’s but the 1972 Torino represented Fords last attempt to release a car with no limits on its styling.
And as for performance, overall it was down for Torino in 1972, no question. But so were all cars as emission standards were raised. Most people look at the low net HP numbers and think it was a huge drop, but the look at the actual performance that cars put out in 1972 wasn’t that much different, especially for the average everyday car. A 1970-71 429 CJ or 429SCJ Torino is a supercar no doubt, but they didn’t build many. And they actually did build quite a few 1972 Gran Torino Sports with the very good performing 351CJ engine.
Well, it wouldn’t be as much fun if everyone agreed with me.
I knew we’d end up agreeing to disagree. However, I do like to have a good discussion and I think both of us have made good arguments for each side.
For further discussion, here is a 1972 Torino with its contemporaries. I really think it fits in just fine and doesn’t stand out as the Malaise in the muscle cars.
Are the fundamental styling elements really that different between the Chevelle and Torino for 1972? Sure the Torino is bigger, but overall the styling themes are on the same page. Similar rooflines, similar overall shape and proportions. The Torino is longer and lower overall though. Keep in mind that the Torino 4-door in this photo is a fully loaded Brougham while the 4-door Chevelle is a stripper base model.
And one other minor point, a 1973 Torino 2-door was 208″ long (base and Gran Torino), not 212″ long as you stated.
The 72 Torino line was a hit on the market and the GM A bodies were considered dated and old. But hindsight is 20-20, so the ‘dated’ GM cars are premium collecter vehicles, now.
Gas was still 30 cents a gallon in the fall of 1971, so Torino hit the mark. They were not all called Gran just yet.
An owner of a plain full sized car could trade in for a nicely equipped mid size for same price as a base biggie. That was one of many reasons Cutlass rose to #1 in ’76
Personally I don’t think heavier looking styling = less attractive. I think there’s a certain disconnect there. I’ve seen both models side by side in person and I can’t agree the 70 was lighter looking. The body is very long and the squared off wheel openings make it look very bloated compared to the 69. The 72 definitely looks bigger but I find the actual design to be much sportier looking than the 70-71s.
I have to agree with Bill Michell’s point here. The 72 Torino is kind of like the E-Body Barracudas in my mind – Both were all new, both were bigger than their immediate predecessors , and both are the pinnacle of no compromise muscular styling for their makers. I wouldn’t call the E bodies malaise cars but they all have the supposed traits that define it as well. Plus add the fact that the sportsroof was killed off after 73, that bodystyle could be looked at a transition alone, maybe a sort of subtransition if you will.
The thing about that shot of the ’72 Torino, GTO, Chevelle, and Charger is they were all at or near the end of their respective lifecycles while the Torino was just warmin’ up to continue on through to ’76.
I spotted this beauty at the Hilton Head Concours last fall. Ford’s last attempt at an aero coupe for NASCAR homologation. The King Cobra project was killed by Lee Iaccoca who apparently felt that money being spent to improve the breed through racing could be better spent developing the Fairmont.
Iacocca called it right on that one, but maybe not exactly as planned. The issue with the original King Cobra was the rear window styling. Although it’s mentioned in the CC above that the 1970 Torino rear window styling was an aero improvement over previous models, it’s actually the opposite, and the King Cobra would have taken custom reworking (not unlike what Chrysler had to do with the Daytona and Superbird’s respective rear windows) to get the aerodynamics in line for NASCAR racing. In fact, it probably would have been more difficult because just modding the window wouldn’t have been enough, and likely would have required an entire new rear deck, as well. The 1972 Torino ‘Sportsroof’ was better in that respect.
Ironically, the same rear window and deck issues would have cropped up with the new for 1971, fuselage styled B-body Mopars if NASCAR had allowed the specials to continue racing.
Ugly car. I know the Daytona/Superbird are polarizing and obnoxious but there is a certain attractiveness to them, in the same kind of way tailfin cars were in the late 50s anyway. The King Cobra to me looks like a 240z nose was grafted onto the Torino body, that goofy chrome bumper certainly doesn’t help. First time I ever saw it I thought for sure it was some bad late 70s customization
Although it was likely even more aerodynamic than the Mopar wing-cars (at least in the front), the King Cobra’s less than appealing appearance was surely another reason it got axed by Iacocca. I’m certain the very poor sales of the Plymouth Superbird wasn’t lost on him (they were priced at a loss even at MSRP, yet many were still on the dealer’s lots as late as 1972), and he was probably just as glad NASCAR pretty much made the decision for him to kill the whole program.
Quite true, a friend on mine got a smokin deal on a new yellow Superbird in 71 because the dealer needed it gone. He sold that bird a few years later for $4,500 because he wanted a Chevy pickup. I wanted that car bad, but as a broke college student, $4,500 wasn’t gonna happen.
There was a land-speed Superbird article in a Peterson Publishing Co. Mopar book decades ago where it was stated that the car was purchased from a dealership in 1972 for around $2000.
Imagine being able to buy a brand-new Superbird for the price of a strippo Valiant. I’m certain that if the King Cobra Torino had ever seen production, its sales would have been no better.
I have a soft spot in my heart for mid-’70’s Camaros. I would consider the Berlinetta real malaise-era Camaro.
Having owned both a ’70 Ranchero and a ’72 Torino hardtop as eight year old cheap $300 used cars, while both ran well enough, both were incredibly rust-prone in the northeast and displayed lousy build quality, neither was any great pleasure to drive. When I see restored ones these day, I have to wonder if the owner has extremely low standards for his collector cars……but there is nostalgia for every car imaginable….don’t ask me why.
BTW, I had the plain-Jane ’72 base model. I find the frontal styling of the ’72 Gran Torino its most interesting and appealing feature which unfortunately submerged into the safety bumper morass for ’73……malaise indeed.
Who knew we’d stir up so much love for the ’72 Gran Torino. Still can’t imagine how anyone thinks it’s better looking than the prior generation.
Aesthetic opinions are like a**holes; everyone’s got one. But thankfully CC is bereft of a**holes. It’s a great series, Greg. Looking forward to more.
FWIW, Even though I think the 72 Gran Torino is the bees knees, I also think the oz XA Falcon hardtop is a better proportioned veehickle than the US intermediates, even though its styling vernacular is straight from the imagination of Bill Shenk.
Thanks, I enjoy the riposte, if I’m using the term correctly. I really need to cut down the time required to create one of these. I may be victim of my own premise here, these entries are starting to suffer from a Malaise-like bloat.
No, it takes as many words as it takes. You garnered a goodly amount of comment because your premise was well expressed. Take heart from Paul’s DS series; there’s no agreement across the board but plenty of respect. From my point of view, I’m really enjoying your Grandish Unifying Theory even if I’m not fully in agreement. That’s not a riposte. That’s thanks.
Ah yes, I’ve often been accused of creating the grand unifying theory that nobody wanted. Perhaps I’ve finally found an audience here.
Hey now, I argued that bloat alone doesn’t equal Malaise, not if it’s good bloat like the 1972 Torino! I find this article and the comments to be good bloat thank you 🙂
When I’m done with part three, I think I’ll categorize the three blogs as peak, transition, and malaise.
Here’s an anomaly to consider: only for 1970 and 1971 did the Torino and Montego offer a four door hardtop although based on bodies already two years into their product cycle. Between rust-prone bodies, mediocre build quality and general anonymity, try to find a good example of either now.
That’s an interesting point, the subject of four-door hardtops deserves it’s own blog series. I think the intermediate four-door hardtops look like odd ducks today, but I can’t put my finger on why.
You can watch hours of Mecum auctions and never see a four-door cross the block. Station wagons are much hotter right now. Seems like four-door sedans just don’t push the right buttons in the collectible market.
Here’s my argument for the 72-73 Torino Sport being transition model over the 70-71:
-The 70-71 was essentially an extensive sheet metal restyle of the 68-69s, much like the 69-70 Mustangs and Cougars(which you still classified classify as peak years)
-The most prolific of the 72-76 Torino bodies were the 72-73 sportsroofs. That was the flagship bodystyle, the sedan and notchback were second fiddle. Why is that important? That bodystyle was completely dead with the transition into full malaise in 74, which retained the second fiddle bodystyles with tarted up 70s accessories.
-The argument that the 72 looks more bloated compared to the previous year again conflicts with your catagorization of the Mustang/Cougar I mentioned above. The 71-73s were bulky, they were less attractive in the eyes of many than the 69 or 70s, much like you say about the 72 Torino, but they are the transitional years though. The 72-73 Torino was the last gasp of the 60s design expressions that birthed those Mustangs/Cougars, they weren’t penned with the thoughts of opera windows, fender skirts, padded vinyl tops and 5 mph bumpers in mind, it just happened. Ford obviously didn’t want to (or couldn’t) spend the money on clean sheeting the 74s, so the malaise came midway through the cycle instead, unlike with the Mustang II or the Cougar which got clean sheet reboots in 74(the latter which happens to share the Montego’s sheet metal).
-The 70-71 was essentially an extensive sheet metal restyle of the 68-69s, much like the 69-70 Mustangs and Cougars(which you still classified classify as peak years)
**I actually hedged my bets on the ’69-’70 Cougar/Mustangs, and refused to call them either peak or transition. I admitted that I cheated. But with Ford’s obsessive 2-3 year styling cycles there was so much goodness to choose from and categorize, I had to draw the line somewhere. So I chose to declare the first Mustang body (’64-’66) and the first Cougar (’67-’68) as peak.
What I ignored (and I am surprised no one mentioned this) was the ’67-’68 Mustang, which I could have given peak styling status. Especially after reading some contemporary magazine reviews, which stated that the new one looked even better, tougher, more muscular. However my categorizations are skewed by the auction prices each generation fetches. Without looking up the data, I’m pretty sure the first 3 years of Mustangs fetch the highest prices, IF we’re talking about Shelby and GT variants. If anyone feels like digging up those data points, feel free to contradict me. I can say with confidence and without researching that no ’72 MontegOrino SportsRoof has ever brought more money at auction than one of its comparable high performance predecessors.
-The most prolific of the 72-76 Torino bodies were the 72-73 sportsroofs.
** When you say the most prolific ’72-’76 Torinos were the Sportsroof, do you mean the most sold? I agree they considered it a flagship style, but they gave up on the concept quickly and broughamed it up for the rest of the 70s.
-The argument that the 72 looks more bloated compared to the previous year again conflicts with your catagorization of the Mustang/Cougar I mentioned above.
** I’m not sure where the contradiction is re: my judgement of the ’72 Torino/Montego. Remember, I didn’t give peak status to the ’69-’70 Cougar/Stang. My picks for peak have been consistently the designs that I consider to be the most crisp, pure designs, which usually equates to the earliest version of the model. Remember, the only body generation (so far) which I felt compelled to apply the transition/malaise split was the ’70-’73 Camaro and the ’74+ Camaro. There are two reasons I felt that I couldn’t do the same for the ’72 MontegOrino.
1) The 2nd gen Camaro was and is still considered a masterpiece styling effort. There are some people (Paul N. himself) who consider it even better looking than my personal peak, the ’69. I don’t thing many people would give those kind of styling accolades to the ’72 MontegOrino, even the SportsRoof.
2) The 2nd gen Camaro clung to it’s slim bumpered body for three years, establishing at least a modicum of design continuity. Even in ’73, when most other companies just caved in and tacked on the front battering ram and portly new face to carry it, Chevy went the extra mile and managed to meet the new crash standards. Today, ’70-’73 Z/28 versions are highly sought after, and certainly bring more money at auction than the ’72 MontegOrino SportsRoof. I feel like the MontegOrino was so firmly rooted in the Malaise era out of the gate that I couldn’t put the ’72 in with the ’69-’70.
I’m kind surprised you ’72 MontegOrino lovers didn’t call me out for that apparent inconsistency! Now I’ve started a whole new discussion thread.
My final thoughts on the subject – At best, I could give the ’72 MontegOrino a grey area ‘sub-transition’ status, Matt, I think you came up with that categorization. Ok, I need to get started on Part Three…
I mean prolific as the one that stood out and remained most memorable. The notchbacks and sedans were fairly anonymous and forgettable (which I’d also say about all the previous years as well) and the bodystyle truly ruined by the big bumpers I’d say were the sportsroofs. It looked bad across the board of course but that rakish body really made that bumper seem out of place. (a 74 sedan doesn’t look that much worse to me than a 72 sedan)
I’m good with classifying it in a grey subtransition catagory. Unlike the Mustang/Cougar the Torino had to span a lineup of primarily everyday bodystyles, and I’d be fairly willing to concede the 72 Sedans and regular notchbacks could be classified as malaise since those bodystyles were so dumpy comparatively. My main argument purely lies with the 72 and 73 only sportsroof bodystyle being available, the brevity of that last gasp 60s era fastback design in the intermediate range I can’t help but see as a totally direct transition. One year only of small bumpers vs 3 for Camaros can’t really be counted against it, that’s just bad timing.
Also the 70-71s aren’t as collectable than the 68-69s from what I’ve seen on the collector market. Generally speaking the CJ428’s perceived reputation as a superior performance engine over the 1970 429 probably unfairly biases them though. In either case I think it would be hard to argue the 68-69s were actually the true peak years. I also think my argument still holds water regardless of whether or not you called the 69-70 Mustangs/Cougars peak or transition, the 70-71 Torino can equally fit into that limbo crevice between peak and transition since that styling cycle was very much in the same language.
You have a point there that the 70 Torino is more collectable. The 68’s are invisible at auctions. Maybe they are too plain and boxy, my opinion.
Also, the Camaro and Torino were not in same market class. Why compare?
Here is a question that may reflect the health of the industry at this time: are there figures available on how many cars the D3 exported? I would not be surprised if they dropped away as the bloat took hold and they lost touch with the rest of the world.
The D3 had overseas operations, that is how they covered markets. Didn’t really need to export. In fact, Ford has been #1 brand in England, home of Jeremy Clarkson, for long time.
“…they’d just walk to the disco.”
Disco music was not the “only” sounds produced back then. Saturday Night Fever came out in Dec. 1977, and by mid ’79, there was huge anti-disco ‘fever’, as it waned.
A period of about 2 years does not mean the “whole decade” was just one style of pop music.
Not “everyone” was into disco from 1/1/70 to 12/31/79.
A) Certainly disco existed before 1977, Saturday Night Fever being a cultural reflection of what had been happening for some time on the club / dance scene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disco
“In what is considered a forerunner to disco-style clubs, a New York City DJ, David Mancuso, opened The Loft, a members-only private dance club set in his own home, in February 1970.[18][19] The first article about disco was written in September 1973 by Vince Aletti for Rolling Stone magazine.[20] In 1974 New York City’s WPIX-FM premiered the first disco radio show.[19]”
B) I was referring to the ’74 Cougar, so lets assume that they were driving a slightly used model in say, 1975 or so when it is reasonable to assume that disco fans were piling into their personal luxury cars of various makes and cruising out for a night of dancing.
C) Not everything I write is mean to be interpreted literally. I try to inject a little color into the description when I feel it is warranted. This isn’t Consumer Reports, we’re all trying to have fun here.
“The nail in the muscle car coffin was the 429 V8’s plunge in horsepower from 370 gross in ’71 to 208 net, …”
There is a difference between gross and net HP ratings, not just a ‘plunge’.
“By 1975, the Z/28 was cancelled out of embarrassment over the 155 hp LM-1 V8”
No, it was due to noise regulations, per Motor Trend’s fall preview.
“…we’re selling plenty of Type LTs with color-coordinated vinyl roofs…”
And no, the Type LT was not available in 1970-74. The base Camaro coupe was main seller, don’t know where you assume that the LT was such. Not a lot had vinyl tops also.
“Chevy just transplanted a 155 hp 350 chuffer from some leftover Biscayne.”
There were no Biscaynes in the US after 1972! And the 350 could be modded via huge aftermarket. The motors had love HP ratings, but plenty of torque. So many look at HP #’s like [x rated] size.
Knowing the torque (which really mean peak torque) is a useful number, but the peak horsepower and the rpms tell you what speed range the engine is good in. Many here like the Cadillac 307 in the late 80’s but with peak torque @2000 RPMs and peak horsepower @3200 rpms, there is little performance there beyond ~3500 rpms.
So you’re saying they cancelled the Z/28 over noise regulations but somehow Pontiac was able to field a 455 HO in ’75? That may have been the official PR reason, but the truth was Chevy gave up on the performance Camaro when they realized they selling more of the 2nd Gen models than ever without the hassles of making hi-po smog certified engines.
When I wrote about the Camaro’s Malaise era, I was referring to 1974-1981, so I feel it is accurate to reference the Type LT, which was first available in ’73. Remember, I chose to define the ’70-’73 as the transition era, and the ’74-’81 as the Malaise era when in fact the emphasis for Camaro sales shifted from performance to luxury.
Yeah, I get it, I know there was no Biscayne in ’75. Again, I’m having a little fun by taking some literary license with the truth.
As for the aftermarket, that’s great, but it was not the subject of my series.
Regarding the ’72 Gran Torino Sport, I must do a followup post. I met a guy last weekend at Caffeine & Octane here in Atlanta with a 29,000 mile mint green ’72 with a 429. He’d owned it since new, and was full of the kind of nostalgic stories that can make even the most jaded car guy a little choked up. Dated his wife in it, brought his kids home from the hospital in it, that sort of thing. It was nearly perfect, garaged its whole life. I’ll bet it was the nicest original 429 ’72 Gran Torino Sport in existence today.
I might have to soften my stance on that particular model’s Malaise status. No, the owner was not Clint Eastwood, but he wasn’t much younger.
This was a good 2 part article. I’ve always been fascinated by the abrupt transition from the aerodynamic styling that had just begun in the late 60s and early 70s, to the more formal square styling with huge grilles and big bumpers of the mid 70s to early 80s. I always considered it a reaction to the new safety standards employed beginning in ’73. However, I consider the final years culninating in ’72 before the bumper standards to be the best in terms of styling. With an exception being the 2nd generation camaro, firebird. That bodystyle actually got better as the 70s progressed, which, along with the corvette, had the first uses of aero bumper skins which are ubiquitous now. But I was always a fan of the longer-lower-wider-sleeker look of the early 70s designs. The best examples of how malaise styling took effect are the Grand Torino and Lincoln Mark IV. When those designs debuted in 1972 they were stunning. When they tacked on the 5 mph. Bumpers in 1973, the grace was lost. But I’m only talking styling. Performance was another issue entirely, and only Pontiac and Mopar made any efforts to keep performance alive during the 70s.
I checked the mock-up clays photos of the proposed Mustang II in early 1971. The roofline as well as the A and C-pillars reminds me of some Fox-bodies Fairmont, Mustang notchback,
If I were to name the car that made the smoothest transition to the Malaise era, the Cougar would get my vote. It was as if it was pre-ordained from the start. When the Mustang was taking genesis, it’s been said that Henry Ford II wanted it to be a mini-Thunderbird. Iacocca, against type (given his predilection for brougham), knew better, and was able to convince The Deuce to hold the Mustang to a more sporting style (although some quasi-luxury options were always available).
And when it was determined that Mercury was going to build a Mustang variant, HFII would get his mini-Thunderbird. Oh, sure, there were a few musclecar versions for a while, but they never caught on. An upscale luxury ponycar was really the Cougar’s forte right from the beginning, and that made it quite easy to eventually make the Cougar’s eventual shift to a big, full-blown PLC by 1974.
I agree, biggest signal to malaise for the Cougar was the drastic change in the front end design from the split electric razor front end, but all cars get drastically facelifted eventually, just look at the 69 vs 70 Camaro. For the 74s however those 71-73s proved to be a very smooth transition for the name to upsize. The 67 Cougar’s big legacy I think was bringing the specialty bodied personal luxury coupe down in size from the Rivieras and Tbird’s of the time – think about it, what else was there pre-Monte Carlo and downsized Grand Prix? The Dodge Charger was the next closest thing, but the Cougar was much more in the brougham mould in its amenities and trim. – it just overshot what would become the sweetspot in the intermediate size as a compact PLC, but a PLC the original Cougar definitely was. The 74 turned out to be the “just right” size correction the market craved (look, I’m not saying they were great cars, but the sales shot up drastically).
That mini-Thunderbird wish was granted with the Mustang too in the Grande and later Ghia package. Actually in those forms the Mustang’s transition actually smooths out quite a bit more than when represented by the fastback performance models. If I have boss 302s on my mind a sticker and spoiler special King Cobra seems absolutely absurd, but a Ghia from a 69 Grande with wire wheels and a standard formal coupe clad with a vinyl top gels pretty well in the evolutionary chain.
Great post – good to re-read again…
A ’68 Torino Sportsroof GT with a 428CJ was my dream car in the late ’60s…
So here’s a question for the commentariat: which mass production car holds the record for greatest ratio of front/rear overhang to wheelbase? I honestly don’t know, but wouldn’t be surprised if it were a car from the malaise era.
I’ve never been a huge Ford styling fan, even as a little kid, I thought GM and Chrysler did a much better job (With the exception of the horrible early 60’s Mopars) of nailing a car’s design than Ford ever did. The Torino just got uglier and uglier as time went by, it almost seemed to me they were trying to ugly it up. Then came the AMC 2 door Matador, and that blew all the others away for peak ugly, IMHO. About the time the musclecar era was ending , Ford’s styling went into the toilet for decades. I like some of their stuff fine now, but the Mustang at present is hurt by it’s squinty-eyed front end and (to me) backwards leaning rear. It’s not horrible like the Mustang II, it’s just a distant second behind the Challenger, looks wise. The present Camaro is just a nightmare, and I just don’t get it at all.