Forgive my Vacation quote, but whenever I see one of these ’80s Country Squires, I am immediately transported back to Clark Griswold’s new wagon purchase on the silver screen. That is happening less and less, as few of the genuine Di-Noc Country Squires from the 1980s are still cruising around. But I caught this one recently at Wally World (ironic, no?). It was in quite good condition, and very nice to see. And this one looked a lot better without the quad taillights and octuplet headlights seen on a certain Metallic Pea version we all know and love!
Am I correct in assuming that Ford outsold its competitors in this segment, & the 3-Way Magic Doorgate & Dual-Facing Rear Seats were the major reasons?
Part of it. Chevy also had to compete with three GM siblings that offered a bit more prestige with their wagons, and wagons were always a relatively pricy buy. So, if you are willing to lay down the money for a fully loaded Caprice wagon, why not go Olds or Buick instead?
Also, beginning in ’73, Ford was willing to put a much more luxurious interior in its top wagon than Chevy. The Caprice (sometimes Kingswood Estate or Caprice Estate) used an Impala level interior from ’66 through ’76. After ’72, the top Ford trim was fairly comparable to what you’d find in an Olds 98 LS hardtop. Chevy simply didn’t offer the product range that the Ford line did.
Not to be anal, but the ’73 up Caprice Esates did have cloth seats like the seadns. And even have the Fleur d’lies on the doors. The ’71-72 Kingswood Esates had Impala level vinyl. This is going by memory, but also from Auto Show hand out on ’73 wagons.
Chevy made a push with wagons in ’73, by bringing back the sedan names, and also more ads. The ’77-79 sold fairly well, too, with Caprice wagon interiors matching the cars.
We looked at some numbers on this a while back. Every model year from 1966 to 1976, production of full-size Ford wagons exceeded that of full-size Chevrolet wagons, often by a sizable margin. This is really notable because overall production of full-size Chevrolets exceeded overall production of full-size Fords almost every year in that stretch (a possible exception being ’71, when fullsize GM production was artificially depressed by a UAW strike), often by a sizable margin. So Ford clearly was doing much better against Chevy in the fullsize wagon market than they were doing in the fullsize market in general.
Model year production of fullsize Ford wagons was over 200K every year from 1968 to 1973, while model year production of fullsize Chevrolet wagons never seriously threatened the 200K barrier anytime after the early 1960s. At the peak, I think there were a couple of years when wagons accounted for more than 25% of Ford’s total fullsize production.
The years after the 1973 energy crisis would see a sharp drop in fullsize wagon sales, but Chevy seemed to be narrowing the gap with Ford a bit by 1975-76, as the market started to come back (though it would never get all the way back to where it had been before ’73). The downsized ’77 Chevys then took a decisive lead over Ford, and Chevy was in the lead at least through 1979.
We didn’t look at post-1980 numbers, but my sense is that Chevy kept the lead through the ’80s (the market obviously continued to shrink over time, taking another big hit due to energy crisis II in 1979, then coming back, but never all the way back to where it had been before ’79). That would explain why Ford bailed on the fullsize wagon market after 1991, while GM included a wagon body style as part of its restyled ’91 B-body lineup, and continued making them for several more years.
I believe you are correct about the Chevrolet wagons outselling Ford through the 1980’s. I have checked the numbers in the past, and I am pretty certain I remember Chevrolet leading throughout.
I don’t know. I was around several Caprice wagons growing up, and through ’76, I never saw better than an Impala level interior. Sometimes the dash details were at Caprice level, and maybe a different vinyl, but usually Impala sew patterns.
From the ’73 Chevy brochure……
This ’73 Ford brochure is hard to see, but the top wagon has the LTD Brougham level door panels, full length armrests with rest mounted power controls, and a split high back lounge bucket style seat. You’d have to be in an Oldsmobile or Buick wagon to get close to this at GM.
Provided this has the quad headlight front end (and probably does as a Squire), the wagons were among the cleanest looking Fords in the early going after the ’79 downsizing. They didn’t suffer nearly as many trim indignities as other Ford / Mercury models did.
Nice clean example. My dad’s company fleet had one of these with the ’70s style wheel covers in base trim with no di-noc. It was a pretty clean look as well. But, the interior suffered all the weirdness that these cars had in the early ’80s.
Yes, it did. It was a 1983-85, as it had this type grille and no CHMSL.
I had never noticed before, but if you expand the picture you posted, it appears Ford grafted a 1 inch higher roof shell on to the wagons compared to the sedans. I also didn’t know they had put those raised ribs on the roof.
If my perception on the higher roof is correct, it may be efforts at details like this that kept Ford at the lead of the wagon game for so long.
Toyota also did roof-raising with the Corolla & Camry wagons.
These wagons were fun to ride in, and as a passenger always felt lighter than the GM counterparts, but to me at the time they both looked more dowdy and had an incredibly small back seat for a large wagon. The GM wagons felt bigger and more substantial in every direction.
Now looking back, though, I think I’d rather have one of these!
I WANT!!!
From a styling perspective, I find my 1991 Colony Park to be extremely clean from the C pillar forward. At the C pillar is where there is some incongruity caused by 3 distinct hard points that the engineers had to work with and one primary cost requirement. First, it was imperative that the station wagon continue to be able to hold a 4’x8′ sheet of plywood flat. This was an absolute must. As such, the distance between the interior rear quarter panels had to be 48″. Not a single quarter inch less. Second, the dual facing rear seats in the full size wagon was a distinct Ford tradition that was not going to go away. Third, number two meant that the spare tire could only go in the traditional rear quarter panel location. Furthermore, that location needed to fit a full size spare for purposes of having a full size spare for trailer towing package duties, again a convention that they certainly did not want to change in the downsizing.
The primary cost constraint as I understand it is that there would not be special rear doors for the wagon versus the sedan. You can see in the attached photos how the rear doors begin to taper inwards, which follows the design lines of the sedan. In order to properly clear the hard points noted above, the station wagon’s rear quarter panel needs to flow back outward again from the inward taper of the rear door, a styling quirk that is very noticeable from a rear 3/4 view of the car. Those various hard measurements also result in the very square and boxy rear end of these station wagons. Not the prettiest of rear ends to be sure, but in downsized form function was the single greatest concern with the rear styling at that time and era. Keep in mind that these were designed in the mid-1970’s and remained essentially unchanged from the 1979 introduction until the final 1991 model year.
One very unique distinction between the Ford and Mercury station wagons was the use of the simulated wood surround mouldings used on the Ford versus the chrome with dinoc insert mouldings used in the Mercury. I have long been of the opinion that the chrome mouldings add a distinctive class and style to the Mercury that makes the Ford look less sleek in some way. From a practical standpoint, the Ford mouldings of this era all have a clear applique applied that, no matter how much the car has been pampered, will eventually peel. It is impossible to find even a garage queen Squire without some peeling of the clear on the mouldings.
That’s interesting, I owned a Colony Park for two years and never noticed it. Truth be told, I had to view your full size picture to see it at all.
Agreed, Phil. Now that you know it’s there, it’s obvious!
On 79-91 Merc wagons, there is a small indent/cut out for the Ford’s vertical tailight. Visible on early plain sided Marquis wagons, i.e. non wood.
That Colony Park is a sweet ride.
The GM B-body wagons dealt with this issue differently. They actually use a unique rear door for the wagons that tapered wider. If you look at the top edge of the door where it meets the door glass, you can see the sheet metal taper outwards to the wider quarter panels. In my opinion, GM styling handled the grafting of the wide rear body better than Ford.
Also note that all GM B-body wagons used Chevrolet style sheet metal. Buick and Olds had different door sheet metal than Chevs and Pontiac. To simplify wagon production, GM used just Chevrolet sheet metal. So the front fenders for Buick and Olds wagons is not interchangeable with the sedans due to the different body lines.
Nice Colony Park Joe, I always preferred the Merc version to the Fords.
Once you have noticed that quirky rear quarter panel, you really can’t unsee it. I’ve never cared for the taillights on the Ford version, either — the Colony Park’s are a lot nicer. Even with all that, I like mine, all the more because it was so viciously defamed in that horrible movie …
Joe, what’s the quarter panel like on the other side? Does it too have this squarer profile, or keep to the sedan’s curvature?
It is the same on both sides.
With 4×8 cargo.
Nice car. BTW, I know it’s a quibble, but that looks like OSB (Oriented Strand Board), not plywood. Not that I blame you: it’s cheaper. I used it for an outdoor water-tank cover. well-painted of course.
Would love a 351W powered model as a great starting point for a wicked hot rod. No smog check in my part of NM. Boss 351 Country Squire, anyone?
Boss Squire! Or, LTD Boss Victoria.
Someday I plan to give this car’s 302 a lobotomy. I have the recipe from Sanjeev on turning this into a Mustang GT/Mark VII 302, which essentially amounts to removing the top half of the engine, replacing camshafts, fuel injectors, exhaust manifold, and engine computer with the proper bits from a GT or Mark. Throw in a better rear axle ratio and it will surprise a few people when peeling out from the local drive-in at the weekly classic car gathering.
The AOD transmission will be your weak link.
Dual facing rear seats.
I had a 76 Colony Park with these seats and they were unusable by adults, they were for kids only, the forward facing 3rd row on my 75 Buick Estate is much better, actual humans can sit in it.
Very true, but the forward facing third seat is no fun for kids. With these seats, all sorts of shenanigans can take place, including “face-offs” with other drivers! And in all honesty, how often are adults seated in a third row seat anyway?
Just the same, minivans are way better than DFRS: bona fide room for 7 or 8 adults. As a kid I spend many a mile on our family trips in DFRS, all to myself.
Yea, but minivans suck and always will suck. Wagons always were cool. I loved them as a kid.
The nice thing with this is that if you didn’t have the seats it was a large extra storage area. Came in quite handy in mine.
The seats are removable, which I have done several times, mostly for the extra storage space taking the kids gear to college. The bottom cushions remove with a simple catch/lever at the far end. The top cushions each have two screws underneath the bottom of the cushion and then they can be lifted out. It is not quite stow ‘n go efficient, but it is classic.
I never cared for the dual facing rear seats in the Ford wagons, the rear facing B-body was better in my opinion. Although even the GM seat wasn’t great for adults (the seat is low and has less padding, and leg room is tight), when I had mine, I did stuff adults back there for short hwy trips without too much grumbling. Further, the rear facing seat offered a reasonable amount of cargo space in the foot well without having to remove the seat.
The reason for the Ford dual seats had to do with the vertical fuel tank placement. This left no room for a rear facing seat cushion in it’s traditional place.
Wow…interesting setup! I’ve never seen the facing jump seats before. I’ve ridden in plenty of rear-facing 3rd seats in GMs (and one Volvo) but I actually don’t think I’ve ever traveled in a big Ford wagon. I also hadn’t noticed the peculiar bodyside curvature before now.
Very nice Colony Park, BTW!
Full size spare tucked in the quarter panel with no room to spare.
I come from a large family that over the years owned various Ford wagons from Escort to full-sized, yet no one ever owned a “Panther” wagon. I’ve come close, a few times, to buying a Colony Park….for some reason the only ones I seem to run across are white.
We had an ’83 Caprice growing up, and I owned an ’85 Colony Park as a winter beater at college. While the Colony Park had a somewhat nicer interior the Caprice was a better car IMO. Better mileage, power, handling. Then again, the Caprice didn’t come with lighted keyholes and the classy pillar lights. (OK, I admit, I kind of like those lights…pull up on the door handle and the car lit up nicely)
The 3-in-1 tailgates never really worked all that well in either. They functioned, just not very smoothly.
I prefer GM wagons, up until the Ford’s got the FI 302.
Many readers here are too young to know this; but before mini vans and gigantic SUV were created a new (or near new) Ford station wagon was considered quite the desirable suburban status symbol in the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s.
Years ago when I sold cars I was showing a customer a car that he really didn’t like and I had to use Eugene Levy’s line to Chevy Chase, “You hate it now…but wait ’till you drive it!”
Though never enshrined in movie lore I liked the line of a friend of my father’s who was a car salesman. Whenever someone complained about the price he’d say: “The quality remains, long after the price has been forgotten.” The fact that he could say that with a straight face means he was in the right business. 🙂
I’m gonna use that one
Ford is the “Wagonmaster”. Period.
As the tour manager for a rock band from 1978 through about 1985 I rented hundreds of these big Ford and GM wagons from Hertz at various airports. Hertz was great in putting these cars in the fleet but they were of course not top of the line cars – Country Sedans or Impalas or whatever, no woodies. But they did the working job great. Sometimes (Seattle once I remember) we’d get stuck with a Dodge (Diplomat was it?) wagon and any version of a Chrysler wagon was simply unacceptable – inferior cargo space.
We would rent two and it usually turned out to be two Fords or two Chevys but rarely one of each. These were never used by us for carrying people in the far back – just luggage. They were ideal for this job and the “magic door gate” on either type was great.
When a Hertz location did not have wagons we would settle for a Ford Club van or we could live with a large sedan (Lincoln Town Car was OK) but it was tough. The wagons were just so much more comfortable, easy to drive, luggage capable and discrete that we always wanted them.
I always preferred to drive the Ford (rarely did we ever get a Mercury) over a GM (almost always a Chevy). The Ford felt quicker, narrower and more durable. These are subjective feelings; we had these cars for only a few days at a time, but they were ideal tour cars.
This band did not use a tour bus; rather we flew commercial coach and used Hertz. It worked well and was cheaper than having a tour bus.
Eventually I owned my own Ford wagon, a ’79 LTD (the two headlight version) with a 351. It was also a fine car. I liked the vinyl seating surfaces and it was a workhorse.
– constellation –
I guess that the minivans and suvs killed off the good old American station wagon for good-the only lone exception being the 300 derived Dodge Magnum.. Nothing says “family vacation” or “road trip” like a REAL station wagon, especially one like a Colony Park. Classy vehicle.
Yeah, minivans did kill them off…but honestly, I don’t miss them. Our minivan is far superior to the wagons I grew up with. More space, more comfort, easier access especially with car seats.
SUV’s were the final axe. Chevy Suburbans started to gain buyers around the early 80’s and then took off in the 90’s. A new generation of parents just wanted something ‘different’ to drive.
But also, CAFE regs made the max size of cars limited, and as families added more ‘stuff’ to carry around, trucks filled the bill.
My best friend’s Dad had a 73 Country Squire. It was brown metallic with wood grain sides and brown and beige leather seats. It was always a race to the back of the wagon, to get the rear seat for yourself…while his Mother would drive us to the beach, she would let us put all the windows down…we all loved that car!
This 1980 Ltd Country Squire has been for sale by some firm here in Norway for at least a year now. Looks just like the one you posted. I guess, I’m the only one who would want it, but it costs about $12.000 , and my SO don’t trust 30+ year old cars, not to mentio, I guess it gets worse mileage than my current CRV… I still want it really bad though. Its mint condition, but I don’t know how a car like this will work as a daily driver (with a spare car on the side.), and the largest daily I’ve had was a European Granada, which is at least one size smaller.
http://www.finn.no/finn/car/used/viewimage?finnkode=46407599
Minivans may do the job but sylistically they’re a bread box on wheels.
I wish they’d stay like a breadbox; attempts to make minivans stylish fall flat. Even a Benz Sprinter looks better than most family vans, for it lacks pretense.
These are my favorites of the downsized big Fords. They are also my favorites of the downsized big wagons. Where the box Panther look on the sedans admittedly has some ungainly qualities as pointed out in the Caprice v. LTD debate last week, these wagons used that boxy look to full advantage. To me, they look better proportioned than the General’s models, and, overall, they have cleaner lines. Plus, once you get to the mid 80s I would prefer the 302 power to the 307. Unlike the sedans, I didn’t see these around as much after about 1998 or so. A lot had seen hard use, no doubt. I think the big woody wagons I see most from this era are the Buick Estate wagons, which are probably my favorite B wagons. I have a theory that this is because they were often bought by more affluent wagon-buyers, and thus possibly (a) garaged and (b) not always driven by people with kids or jobs that required heavy use. So they outlasted their GM cousins and Ford rivals.
Some of my earliest car memories are at the twilight of the wagon era, c. 1985-1992 or so. A camp counselor borrower her father’s Squire to take us to a picnic at the beach. A friend’s dad drove me home in his Squire after I slept over in 1st grade. I remember riding to school in various moms’ Safaris, Custom Cruisers, and Squires. Yes, some parents had purchased Dodge Caravans, and others, like mine, remained stubbornly in the compact Japanese camp. But these were mom cars to me in nursery school, kindergarten, up to about 3rd grade.
Then, suddenly around the time Ross Perot began running for President, everyone had SUVs.
These seem more graceful and distinctive.
Seems like the original release of ‘Vacation’ coinsided with decline of wood trim wagons. The movie seemed to tell young adults “Wagons are not cool and you dont want to ever own one”. 30 years later, average non-car people still joke about them.
But at the same time, CAFE regs pushed them off and SUVs got under the ‘truck MPG’ wire. Makers saw more $$$ with trucks, but also yuppies declared them as ‘rugged’.
While I like them, they were definitely “hopelessly parental” at that time. The only other reason to buy one would be if you were, say, a plumber who didn’t like driving a van.
In the mid 1960’s a lot of Farmers and Ranchers used full sized Station Wagons instead of panel trucks to haul around supplies and tools .
I miss them greatly .
Those wonderful full boat mid 1950’s Buick wagons too , once they were about 10 years old they were un sell able and got junked or broken for crash repair parts =8-( .
-Nate
Growing up my mom had a variety of Oldsmobile, Ford and Merc station wagons. Some with Dinoc sides, some not. Now, in my search for more space for tools in my garden business vehicle, I find myself the new owner of a 2001 Taurus wagon. The column shift, the split bench seat, the rear facing way back, all leave me feeling in a time warp. On the other hand the steering wheel actually attached to the front wheels, the lift gate rather then tailgate, and 4wheel disc brakes are all massive improvements from my perspective.