posted at the Cohort by William Rubano
I’m deeply impressed (and slightly nauseated) that Eric was able to present that 1975 Torino sedan in such an objective manner. If you were older than 7 or younger than 70 at the time, it’s hard to imagine being able to muster such a lack of emotion. I certainly, can’t; it most perfectly represents everything that I loathed about Ford and the 70s, right down to its baby-shit color. There’s no way I could have mustered such an objective write-up; my encounter with one ended up very differently; it was the only way I could keep from writing an endless diatribe to that blobby, flabby, sloppy, inefficient, mal-proportioned, terrible-space-utilizing, rolling cave of a car.
Do I dislike these Torino sedans? Is there a car I dislike more? Umm; how about this one?
The Mark VI vies with that generation Torino sedan (and its LTD II successor) as some of the the worst proportioned cars ever made, but in a different way. While the Torino looks like someone stretched a Maverick sedan body onto an LTD frame, in this case it looks like someone photoshopped a Mark V onto a Pinto platform. The “Mark II” name should have really been reserved for it, since it follows the Mustang II down the same road: too big a body on too little of wheelbase and wheels, among other sins.
It’s a crime against good taste; a pretentious, rolling clown-mobile, a pastiche of styling gimmicks from another era that had already passed. It’s everything that was wrong once again at Ford, in the very worst way. No company has ridden such a worse stylistic roller coaster. This is perhaps its all-time low. Well, I can think of a few others yet, actually.
Best description:
“It’s like Choo Choo Customs tried to make a Lincoln out of an LTD.”
C’mon, Paul, tell us how you really feel! Don’t hold anything back. 😉
Paul, eat a Snickers bar.
You know you get pithy and grumpy when you are hungry.
😉
Need some sugar. 🙂
While the Mark V was too big, at least it projected the proper image. Motor trend stated that the owner might be seen as an “elegant rogue.” Tom Sellick was featured in early Mark V ads. On the other hand, the Mark VI came off like a sixth grader dressed in a tuxedo, not a look I would want to emulate.
See the difference?
I’m not a fan of this car myself, in fact it’s cited as a reason for production of the ’81 Chrysler Imperial in internal marketing memos… People hated it so much even back then that Lincoln buyers were potential conquests for the Chrysler.
Of course it also points out why I prefer virtually every other author on this site over this Paul guy’s editorials.
“Of course it also points out why I prefer virtually every other author on this site over this Paul guy’s editorials”
That was a joke, right?
You have to really love cars to hate one this much. But, keep in mind, it is like a royal baby from the late 1800s. Too much inbreeding has left the gene pool too shallow to swim in, and the result is some mutant that is too hideous to be seen in public.
“Too much inbreeding has left the gene pool too shallow to swim in, and the result is some mutant that is too hideous to be seen in public.”
Pure gold! And so true.
Bingo!
I’m happy to read that you’ve fully recovered from your Detroit flu and are back to normal Paul.
You know, the proportions on this isn’t too far off the Roadkill “Missing Linc”. They should have brought Paul along for that episode, I can just imagine a waffle fight between Freiburger, Finnegan, and Niedermeyer…
Don’t forget the one-off shortened Mark V given to Ford’s retiring chief stylist, Gene Bordinat.
Is this a Mark V or a Mark VI?
From this picture angle; it is hard to tell them apart.
It’s a Mark V special that was built in 1978. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find additional photos.
I like it very much. It’s a good looking car and was way way better than the eldorado or imperial competition. What not to like about it.? Only thing I can think of is it should have used the longer town car chassis and had a slightly less tall roof. I don’t get mark vi hate often from people who like towncars. I think it is an improvement over the town car especially in the front with its shark gills and flip up lights. The round opera windows look better than square towncar windows and it has a hump!. It’s well made and comfortable and reliable. And compared to mark v is at least twice as efficient, rides better, is just as fast and has better body, interior and ride. This is the last real mark. After 83 it became a fancy t bird.
Agree, Warren.
Better looking than the downsized Eldorado? Maybe if you had two sets of beer goggles on!
The Cadillac, especially in it’s more unadorned trims, is stunning. Not just dumping the previous models styling cue on a smaller chassis, but an elegant reinterpretation of previous Eldorados.
Agreed. This Eldo is much better proportioned.
Warren hit the nail on the head. “Only thing I can think of is it should have used the longer town car chassis and had a slightly less tall roof.” So why couldn’t Ford see this?
I still maintain that the Eldorado and the Mark VI look more alike than different.
I got to ride in a Mark VI sedan once. Very comfortable, experience, felt pampered, and in the lap of luxury. Of course, this was in the mid 80’s when my parents were driving an 84 Cavalier and a 78 Cutlass Cruiser. My only complaint about the
Lincoln is its cassete player ate my brand new Bon Jovi tape!
Also agree, Warren
My first thought when I saw that lead photo was someone took a wide-angle 16:9 shot of an earlier, normal-sized Mark V, then changed the aspect ratio to 4:3.
Long overhang proportions look fine on a vehicle that’s truly big like the Mark V was. Nobody goes around proclaiming in bus stop classics how long the overhangs are on a GM old look right? It’s just that scaled down to “right size” they just suddenly don’t work, due largely to the fact that the body height remained the same, and the roof actually grew taller.
I think the biggest sin of the Mark VI was having a 4 door variant and not at all being different enough from the Continental coupe – which may have actually looked better.
I like it.
Preach it, brother! It occurs to me that these look bad in the same way that the 1985-86 Cadillac DeVille looked bad – trying to make traditional big car proportions look right on a much smaller car. Only the DeVille was at least an attempt at a clean new style. This thing was just a Mark V being left in the dryer too long.
The first FWD C body sedan looked nice; it’s rather like the 79 Eldorado.
When Cadillac stretched the C body sedan, they gave the same overhangs to the coupe without stretching the wheelbase. Woof.
https://cdn04.carsforsale.com/3/313964/9654759/873350641.jpg
Ha! Well, thanks for the compliment (well, at least I THINK it’s a compliment…)
But I’ve had my fill of malaise for a while — I don’t think I can look at a 1970s sedan for a few weeks. My next CC will be something completely different.
I assure it is a compliment. I wish I could muster your detached objectivity about cars that I have PTSD over. Your CC was most excellent, as always.
Your breakout of sedans to two-doors was particularly satisfying, because I never knew of anyone who bought one of these Torino sedans new, and it’s really quite hard for me to imagine anyone other than company car fleets, rentals, and old retired folks buying one new. The nation was in such a grip of two door coupes, and all the styling effort went into them, by all three of the Big 3 (and AMC), that these were just not something anyone would have gone into hock over to buy. These were just plain unloved; or hated, in the case of some of us.
The strange thing about the Mark VI, and many of Ford’s other cars back then is that they were going for a neoclassical look reminiscent of the 30’s, and they incorporated many of the styling features of the 30’s such as the long hood, fender vents, tire hump, coach roof etc., but they put the front wheels way to far back to pull off the look that they were going for. It’s like a football player walking on tip toes. They should have known better because they got the proportions just right on the original T bird and Mustang, and Lincoln Mark II, but it they tried to get out of it cheap on this car and it shows.
And for ’30s styling touches, don’t forget the optional “driving lamps”
Those always make me scratch my head WHY!?!? Why not just use 6″ single sealed beam headlights with a fixed filler panel rather than adding complication over complication to cancel out the styling effect of the original complication?
Same here, imagine if the engineers spent as much time on handling, emissions, better brakes, etc. as opposed to Brougham frippery.
That’s no fun though. Better brakes, sure but handling and emissions could take a flying leap.
The touring lamps were silly because they were on the regular headlight door. To better emulate Tripp lamps they should have put them in the grill or bumper. Imperial did a much better job of throwback lamps with the ’72 LeBaron and its Woodlite homage side lamps.
To each his own…yup, I like…
I’ll just leave this here for my north of the border compatriots.
I have seen Don driving this car around town.
It all makes sense now! I always had him figured for a Caddy man,but these two are perfect for each other.
Don Cherry and the Lincoln Mark VI – both tacky and overstyled.
These are one cars I like much better as a 4 door than a 2 door, I was surprised these cars came out in the early 1980’s instead of the late 1970’s that I’ve initially predicted
The Mark VI sedan has the same wheelbase as the Town Car, so the proportions are better.
Opinions vary about this car.
I viewed the Mark V as ill-proportioned.
I view the VI as a rational alternative to the circus wagons of the 1970’s.
The Mark VI is 600 pounds lighter than the V, has the same interior room and perhaps 1/3 (or more) better gas mileage than the V.
These cars were’t supposed to be rational, which is what makes them so great. Making a rational Mark is akin to veggie burgers and light beer. Kinda misses the point.
A “rational Mark” would be described as a “Town Car”.
🙂
I agree with this.The Mk VI was a reasonable and rational design, something the Mk V never was.
I own a Mk V and enjoy it. But the styling cues are utterly overdone to extreme degrees. For example, the hood is a full 2 feet longer than it needs to be, for the sake of style. The interior is deliberately shifted rearwards and the trunk shrunken for styling cues.
This does not bother me because the Mk V was intended to be irrational. If you wanted a more rational 2-door Lincoln, buy a Town Coupe. It had much more interior and trunk space in a car thats externally, the same size.
This, along with the Thunderbird and Cougar of the same generation was a shocking horror to me at the time, but today I’m kind of drawn to these. There’s something endearing about this car, in a kitschy, “Oh, isn’t that cute” kind of way.
You know what I liked about these cars?
In the TV shows of the period, they were always driven by a mobster or other bad guy. It was sooo enjoyable seeing them wrecked right after the last commercial.
“To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven.” Gotta be the reason Ford built ’em. Anybody got a better one?
These Mk VI are like shrunken heads, there is a resemblance to the original but the proportions are all wrong. I am also prejudiced against Fords from that period. In 1980 I was in Denver, on business, and had a new LTD Hertz rental. One day I had to make a trip to Fort Morgan and on the way back, to Denver, the car died. I suspected it was the NEW IMPROVED ignition black box. I sat at a rest stop for several hours waiting for Hertz to bring a replacement.
I owned a 1977 Mk V and loved it! No it wasn’t efficient in any way but it was well proportioned handsome car. Did you know that the Mk V was 700 lbs lighter than the Mk IV.
BTW, I also had a 1978 Eldorado Biarritz for several years and I much preferred the MK V to the the Eldo. When driving the Eldo at highway speeds I always feared that I would not be able to control the car in case of an emergency situation. Other than that the Eldo was pretty reliable.
some of them had these ugly lights on the headlight covers.
I agree w/ Paul. The S&H era Torino was the nadir of 1970’s bloat over function and that Mark is the Klown Edition.
It’s interesting to compare the ’80 Mark VI to the competing Cadillac Eldorado that debuted a year earlier. Both cars were drastically shrunken from their predecessors. Both tried to look like upscale American cars of the period with little influence from the German luxury cars that would soon overtake both brands in sales and prestige. But they took different approaches. Despite the numerous Brougham-y touches on the Eldo (squared-off usually vinyl roof, opera lamps, rectangular headlights, bladed front and rear fenders, whitewalls, etc.), the Eldorado actually looked quite a bit different from the pre-shrunken 1978 model. There were certainly several retained styling motifs, as well as several callouts to both earlier ’70s Eldos and the original 1967 model. But overall, the look was toned down quite a bit from ’78. Compare the simple front bladed fenders on the ’79 to the massive chrome “front fins” on the ’78, or the simpler ’79 rear quarter window shape instead of the unusually shaped ’78 opera window, or the simpler fender contours. The ’80 Mark by contrast was an attempt to look exactly like the larger ’79 model, with every styling element retained (and a few added, like huge chrome rocker panel moldings). The result was that the downsized Eldorado looked comfortable and attractive in its new skin, looking smaller and simpler but without tinkering with the essence of the previous model. The Mark VI on the other hand looked like an awkward shrunken version of its former self, a Mark V that was too short, too narrow, and too tall, and malproportioned with an overly short wheelbase and overly long front and rear overhangs. The longer-wheelbase ’80 Lincoln Continental Town Coupe wore the new dimensions better, but didn’t sell even as well as the Mark VI and was soon dropped.
Very observant, Ia673.
To my eyes, the Eldorado and the Mark VI look more alike than they do different.
The Mark VI provided continuity to and reminders of the past. Much less so from the Cadillac.
I personally do not find the Eldorado any more (or less) better looking than the Mark VI.
Compared to the over the top, wayyyyy too large past Eldorados; I find the “downsized” Eldorados kinda-sorta plain and vanilla looking by comparison.
And let’s not “go there” with Cadillac’s unreliable and under-powered 4-6-8 and HT (“Hand Tight”) 4100 engines. The Mark VI had the time proven, reliable and adequately powered 302, updated with modern (for the time period) fuel injection.
The ’79 and ’80 Eldorados still had reliable debored big-block Cadillac engines (except ’80 California cars which had the Olds 350) unless you ordered the unfortunate Olds diesel. The V8-6-4 in the ’81 was a reliable 368 once you disengaged the electronics that triggered the cylinder deactivation (though people who had bought these thinking they’d have a reasonably fuel-efficient car were understandably peeved that this was necessary to obtain a reliable car). It wasn’t until ’82s with the new, underpowered, unreliable HT4100 that you couldn’t get an Eldorado with a decent engine.
Here are some redesigns:
https://imgur.com/a/7fMhK
Had to laugh at this one!
Oh good lord, that’s funny.
The Smart Town Car
If they had made the two door wagon I would want one!
Pass on the one they did make. It’s not my style
I think Paul’s reaction to this car is a bit too harsh and critical. Ford had to downsize a very successful car, the Mk V, for a conservative clientele. I think they did a great job.
The car looks fine, for what it is, and nicely proportioned. If anything, the successful Mk V is the disproportional one. (And I own one). The Mk VI was far more rationally proportioned than a Mk V. The Panther chassis and conventional mechanical pieces function well and are reliable. And the conventional styling cues are intact, and still were very popular among traditional buyers, back in 1980.
So whats not to love? It was a great car, and a reasonable design for the intended market, at those turbulent times.
Well written, OntarioMike!
Actually, sales for the shrunken Marks were a disaster–with a 61% drop for 1980 versus 1979.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-review/vintage-review-1980-lincoln-continental-shrinking-a-giant-is-tough/
The early Mark VI/Town Car turned off big-car traditionalists while failing to attract younger luxury car buyers. Also, as a “luxury” car, you have to be careful even with the later “successful” Town Cars that used this same basic design. Yes, the Town Cars ultimately sold in high volume, but many units went into rental fleets and livery service, while the remaining retail buyers were typically older and ultra-conservative–not the recipe for exclusivity or snob appeal so vital to the true high-end car market.
In fairness, it wasn’t a great time for the economy or fuel prices.
But still, as your article points out GN, Lincoln fell harder than Cadillac and despite the addition of a new model (the Mark sedan).
Paul’s entitled to his opinion like everyone else. Witness the various insults levelled at the Aztek in my post this week. And Paul’s opinion is one I share for the most part: these are very poorly proportioned in my eyes.
The Mark V had outrageous proportions but it worked because it was, well, an outrageous car. The Mark VI tried to be more sensible. If they reduced the overhang length more proportionately with the overall size reductions, it could have worked. As it stands though, these are neither fish nor fowl to many enthusiasts (and to buyers then), lacking the trim, modern style of the Mark VII or the sheer swagger of the Mark V. An awkward mini-me without its own identity.
I get what Ford was trying to do with the ’80 Lincolns and ’80 T-Bird and Cougar but, as the sales figures indicate, they didn’t succeed. Fortunately, these failures were enough to make them take a risk, design-wise, in the 1980s with more modern and aerodynamic cars like the ’83 T-Bird.
Agreed. A 61% drop in sales is awful. But the 1980 auto sales year was awful for everyone, especially the domestics, which were down 20% from 1979.
In fact it was the worst sales year since 1961, for units sold. In reality, this figure is even worse because the US economy was considerably larger in 1980 over 1961.
I think you are right on about the MK VI, there is something about this 2-door along with the early Eighties 2-door Panther LTD; tidy, yet imbued with all American style.
I still would much rather have a ’77-78 MK V however, handsome hardtop styling, 9″ rear diff w/ 4 wheel disc brakes, C6 tranny and big block 460. The pinnacle of 50’s-60’s engineering (with superior electronics), and the last great American car IMO.
This Lincoln and the 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar marked the end of the Iacocca era of over the top faux luxury as a pre-eminent design theme at Ford. These cars, despite their new, trimmer dimensions, were totally out of sync with the rapidly emerging stylistic tastes of the yuppie Boomers who became the dominant force within the luxury car market in the 1980s. I can remember at least one neighbor trading a baroque Mark VI for a BMW 5 series, never to return to the domestic fold, and in fact making light of the differences between the two as having shed his fat suit.
Never was the design direction of Ford North America so divergent from that of its European divisions. Viewed side by side, it’s very hard to believe vehicles like the 1978 German Ford Granada were manufactured by the same company at the roughly the same time and that Ford could not have found some way to downsize its larger, more luxurious offerings more tastefully, to say nothing about incorporating the technical advances found in its European cars.
Of course Lee Iacocca would resume those over-the-top faux luxury themes after he moved to Chrysler well into the ’90s, sometimes successfully (New Yorker/Fifth Avenue), sometimes not (two attempts at reviving the Imperial).
WH: In the late 1970’s/early 1980’s most American luxury car buyers, esp the 2 door coupe buyers, didn’t give a damn about what German or European cars looked like. Only a small, fringe group, on both coasts, did.
But when those tastes changed in the early 1980s, which they did with a vengeance all across America, the traditional American luxury brands found themselves in a terrible spot. It wasn’t just a Baby Boomer phenomenon either: the huge sales spikes enjoyed by Audi, BMW, MB and Volvo in the late-’70s/early-’80s were driven by customers who were born from the late ’20s through WWII. Following the second Oil Shock in ’79, big, baroque cars were suddenly “out” in markets from coast-to-coast. The change had been in the wind prior to that time (Cadillac’s original ’75 Seville was developed to address that burgeoning market), so it really wasn’t shocking that the market shifted to more rational, international designs. Detroit just didn’t want to listen.
I am not seeing the issue here. The Mark pictured does not look too bad or odd looking because it is a coupe. In fact I think this looks better then the GM B-Body and C Body coupes (especially the Cadillac) and the later C/H FWD coupes
I have a positive COAL to write about these….
The one thing this mark vi did was fortell the advent of the sporty sedan. The car was clearly designed as a sedan first. The Problem here was that the mark rode the same platform as the Continental, for which the platform was better suited. Putting a sport/lux car on a full-size platform has always been a problem (just take a look at the horrid ’70 or ’78 placeholder Rivieras). Yuk.
When Mr Do…….drove home in his new MK 6, his eight year old daughter said-‘daddy, where`s the rest of the car’? BTW, the whole car was in that fecal brown color.
Mr. Niedermeyer’s bracingly astringent comments on Ford’s Grand Routino* are well-deserved, and he delivered still more justice by nailing the maladroitly-styled Lincoln Mark VI in the same piece. Who cares if the latter car handled semi-competently? Car and Driver described its predecessor, the deservedly-forgotten Versailles, as “a car for blind auto enthusiasts.” One gets the impression that Ford’s design department had been sent on unpaid leave during these (let’s not forget) Exploding Pinto years. These cars deserve a place in the Pantheon of Bad Design next to Virgil Exner’s Reverse Fin Dodges:
Are there more clueless examples of design out there? Well, at least a few prototypes. Keepers of the Detroit flame may take comfort in the possibility that the most hapless styling job ever came from England…but it was powered by Ford:
*We eagerly await Mr. Niedermeyer’s styling analysis of the Mustang II…
Ah, the red headed stepchild shows its face.
I’m not a fan of these at all, especially considering these came inbetween two of my favorite Marks. Cadillac had the much better looking car during this time period. I almost imagine these as having colorful signs and being hidden behind tents. “Come and witness the incredible shrunken Lincoln! Gaze upon the horrors of downsizing for only ten cents!!”
I will say this though. At least Ford didn’t put these on the Fairmont platform like they did with the Thunderbird.
It was not so much the Fairmont (Fox) platform that was the 1980 Thunderbird’s undoing as much as it was the shrunken 1979 Thunderbird styling cues – just as problematic as the Mark VI shrinking the Mark V.
The Thunderbird did become quite successful on the Fox platform, it just needed the periodic fresh styling required of a personal luxury coupe, and in 1883 Thunderbird delivered in a big way.
I agree with you. The problem was, the Fox Body didn’t really become what it was until 1983-84. Before that, with the exception of the Mustang and maybe the Capri, it seemed very low rung and almost bargain basement. Minus the Mustang, the two most predominant cars on the Fox platform where the Fairmont and the Zephyr, which, let’s be honest, weren’t the most prestigious cars. So it seems much more damning.
Even though I will admit the Panther body cars had the same growing pains, they at least gave some image of prestige, even if it seemed watered down to what came before it. Conceptually, it’s the difference between an Escalade and a Cimarron, both are very obvious badge jobs, and I would argue, just as stylistically unflattering as the Fairmont Bird and the Mark VI. But the difference is that a Suburban platform seems high end and prestigious, a Cavalier doesn’t.
You can get away with more (if only slightly) if the platform you build on has some semblance toward the panache of prestige.
As a postscript I want to second William Hall’s perceptive comparison of Ford’s European product lines with their American counterparts. The cleanly-styled German Ford Granada had four-wheel independent suspension and offered a fuel-injected V6 while the baroque American counterpart made do with a live rear axle and a heavier, outdated inline 6. One wonders if the problem was rooted in a condescending attitude towards American buyers by Ford management.
The Euro Granada was a car for the premium market, not a Maverick with delusions of grandeur. American Granada buyers were much more downmarket.
GM’s X cars show the potential consequences of too much change too fast.
Just call it a Ford DS. It’s over due.
With the passage of time the Mark VI, by itself, does not seem so bad.
But, if you were not there at the time, the collective jaw drop everybody had regarding the Mark VI is hard to appreciate. Literally shrinking the Mark V to fit the Panther platform in the face of very fresh competition from Cadillac, Buick and Oldsmobile was a terrible move.
I’ve said this before regarding the Mark VI, everything was so familiar, yet so wrong.
Here’s a better picture of a Mark VI, from a more pleasing camera angle than the one Paul used to accentuate his article.
Not working for me. How about one from underneath? 🙂
The proportions were really wrong, and from a company that “owned” the lux coupe segment for a decade. The VI was well engineered and far more efficient than the V, but that’s not what sold these cars. Style. And the VI didn’t have it. In fact, I’ve often said that the contemporary Eldorado, if given Lincoln styling cues would make a much more attractive Mark VI than the real one, and it takes a lot for me to have to say that!
I have a lot of experience with two of these when new: a maroon ’80 Signature Series sedan with the 351 V-8, and almost identical dark red metallic ’81 Signature Series sedan with the 302. The ’80 was an early production version with lots of teething troubles, but beautiful paint and interior. The ’81 was equally well crafted, much more trouble free, but a bit of a dog with the the 302. The ’80 would actually chirp the tires, something rare for the era! For those who don’t know, the Signature Series was the ultra-deluxe version, with only about 5 option choice remaining. One thing that impressed me: the amount of lights everywhere. The interior had 14 lights in it; the trunk, three. And there was a rechargeable flashlight with the Lincoln star in the glove box.
Style wise, to me at least, they were a bit ill proportioned but just as roomy and much more economical than the earlier, larger Continentals. If another Signature Series sedan crossed my path today that was in great shape, it would be very tempting.
1989-81 Signature is on my list lol I am curious what were those five options? Moonroof,CB radio and Touring lamps would be three
I’ll echo many of the thoughts above: The Mark VI is a more rational car than it’s predecessors. Functionally better in almost every way, but worse in the only area that really mattered in this market segment, styling.
Styling wise, the Lincoln Panther cars didn’t hold a candle to the Cadillac C-bodies or Eldorado, but at least Lincoln didn’t make any engine mistakes in the 80’s. I’d take a homely 82-83 Mark VI with a reliable engine over a pretty, well-proportioned Caddy with HT4100 any day of the week.
N the cadillac had besides the awful engine those awful self destruction bumper fillers and far less bling unless you got cc grill.
Hey y’all don’t be dissin so hard on those old conti’s. Yeah, sure, stock sucks so personalize the ride with a nice set of 24’s, a wet look metal flake paint job, do an engine swap with a 500hp 5.0 with straight pipes, 25,000 watt audio with 4 17inch subs in the trunk and 20 more speakers in the interior. Man the possibilities are endless. And watch the drool and thumbs up from everyone admiring ya. Dream on………