Eric Clem has found, shot and posted a car that I have been banned from writing about, as the last time I tried, it was a total disaster. There’s just something about 1970s Fords that puts me in a strange state of mind, and I end up saying things I later regret. So I will just post the shots, and you all will have to add the commentary. Really; it’s much better that way, for everyone.
Great looking rear three quarter. Great colour. Great patina. Great side accent. Great body variant. Great right rear wheel cover. Disgraceful front bumper. Thanks Bunkie.
Blame the Feds, they came up with that damn 5mph bumper crap.
Great looking rear three quarter? I think that is it’s least attractive angle. The 4-door sedan version still managed to pull off the Coke-bottle styling of the coupe version, but it’s lost on the wagon because the body doesn’t taper downward at all past the rear door. The tailgate is so high and the windows so short, it makes the back of the car look HUGE. Rear visibility must be as bad as new cars today.
having grown up riding in the back seat of a neighbors 72 Gran Torino sedan, they sucked to see out of when you were 5 years old. my parents 76 Chevelle sedan was downright airy and spacious in comparison.
No, nothing is THAT bad…..
Respectfully Don, the ’72 would have been the one for which to thank Bunkie. As noted, the Federal bumper standards took effect for ’73 and as can be easily seen by most of the efforts of that year, there wasn’t time to properly integrate them into the styling, which was still determined a couple years out.
Hmmm,… I’m not very emojinal so my sarcasm was not apparent. In Paul’s article on the Mercury Montego brougham, glen.h mentioned the reason for the 5 mph bumpers was insurance companies lobbying against designs such as the Bunkie beak. Those big bumpers interrupted my favourite US car period and are the line in the sand for me. I think the 72 Torino is the best looking mid size ever.
And in ’74 the rear bumper became disgraceful.
Not to be too nitpicky – but is that a ’73?
I second your observation, Mike. Those 70s Fords do indeed have a strange effect on Paul. 🙂
It is indeed a ’73.
The 74 has a different front grille than the 73.
The front bumper’s different too.
Hi. I’m afraid I’ve never owned such a car, but I’ve seen plenty of 1972-74 Gran Torinos. I prefer the 1974 Gran Torino over the 1972. I think it has a better looking front end styling. I was disappointed that the 74 didn’t make it on to the movie Gran Torino.
It’s hard for me to actually look at them that closely 🙂 But I’ve fixed the headline.
I have a strange fondness for the things…
The only thing I can say is that is one huge vehicle, considering that it is “mid-sized”. For me, Fords of this era are perfect examples of the malaise that took over the automobile industry in the seventies. Some of this was not the manufacturers’ fault (eg exhaust emmissions standards and how to deal with them), but much of it can be put on Ford, and GM, and Chrysler. For years the industry mantra had been bigger is better and eventually cars ended up as lumbering dinosaurs, a pillow soft ride but also single digit fuel mileage and no handlling to speak of. When these cars where new I’m not sure I would have taken one if it was given to me; now I appreciate them for what they were and the appeal they had for the original buyers.
The only thing worse than that is the brougham version. Maybe not worse. At least as a brougham, its living up to its potential.
Worse? The Brougham is the 70’s personified–a super-sized serving of everything Brougham-y. There is a well preserved Gran Torino Brougham in my town, and whenever I see it I start having 70’s flashbacks.
Odd, considering I wasn’t even alive in the 70’s.
Amen. Admittedly, I’m biased to Mopars, but the first-gen fuselage B bodies were much better resolved than this odd assemblage, especially the wagons. And Ford handling in that pre Richard Parry-Jones era toggled between dreadful and frightening. I can still remember a particularly nasty drive along the Erie canal outside Rochester in an ’87 Thunderbird – the steering seemed connected to some other car.
I for one really appreciate Paul’s over the top writing. I’ll bet it makes him feel better too, just before the complaints start coming in.
The only thing I can say about this is that it looks like something that should be destroyed in a Blues Brothers movie. It would have made a bigger bang then the Pinto when dropped from a helicopter.
If I were to leave a note on that car, I would have told the owner to put a red Starsky & Hutch paint job on it and slap 5-slot Mag wheels on that baby. He would really get a lot of attention by doing such a thing. 🙂
What do you guys think of this Torino having Starsky & Hutch colors on it?
You mean like this:
http://classiccars.com/listings/view/508989/1973-ford-gran-torino-for-sale-in-fairmont-city-illinois-62201
Wow, that’s a lot of awesome for twelve grand.
If Starsky and Hutch were to drive a station wagon, I reckon this is what it would’ve looked like. 🙂
It’s too bad Starsky and Hutch didn’t drive a Pinto, or there could have been a Starsky and Hutch hatch.
One of the earliest CCs was a Starsky and Hutch Fiesta MkI. It pulled the look off better than the original, imo, because the stripe was carried all the way to the back of the car and the slim C-pillar constrained its’ width to a tasteful proportion.
A Ford Pinto? Why would Starsky and Hutch use a car like that?
Nope
The Starsky & Hutch thing was overdone in the ’70s. Just like the ’69 Charger and “General Lee” paint. I don’t have an interest in going back to that.
Wait til you see a Starsky & Hutch Marina.A sad lad on my street drove one of these
Oh no!
I saw a Leyland P76 General Lee last week!
That is just so many levels of awful. The truly amazing thing about the P76 is that some human being actually designed it.
Hehehe. I like the looks of the P76, love the wagon.
This vintage Torino makes me think of that Leyland P76.
Even worse!
One of the bag boys at our local supermarket drove a Starsky & Hutch Torino. Kinda killed the cool for me.
Ford actually had a hand in it, as they built some 1300 S&H replicas in 1976. Given what prolific rusters Torinos were, “genuine” S&H replicas (as opposed to the many homebrew ones) are particularly scarse.
That look doesn’t translate well to the wagon bodystyle.
That look doesn’t translate well to anything! It’s just an awful looking car, in a horrible color. The green one in one of the other pics is pretty awful too. I had a friend whose dad drove a green Torino wagon, a ’74, I think, and it was as bad to drive as it looked. I don’t get Ford’s “styling” at all, from about 1970 or so, until about 2000, their cars were weird looking, or just plain ugly, or both. Now, their stuff at least looks ok. I can’t say the same for some other car makers, they have gone the bizarre route or the “Almost every car looks like a squashed egg” or the “Whale Shark” giant mouth look.
The worlds needs no more General Lees, KITTs, fake Black/Gold “Bandit”s, and Starsky & Hutch wannabees. I do not understand the attraction.
+1 I’d like to see a Moulin Rouge Charger instead of another General Lee
Don’t forget the ECTO-1
Despite my being accused of being the resident Ford home-boy, this thing gives me indigestion. Seriously. For a mid-sizer it looks more bloated than the trim, yet big-boned, full-sizers of the same year. This thing needs liposuction.
My parents bought a ’73 base Torino brand new, having swapped off a ’69 Fairlane for it. The Torino was powered by a mighty 2 barrel 302 and got 12 mpg regardless of how it was driven. Even as a child, I could tell they didn’t like the thing and my dad drove it like he hated it. It did,however, provide 123,000 completely trouble free miles of service.
On a positive note, this critter being located in Washington is the only rational explanation for the visible lack of rust.
That’s 10,000 gallons … did he have his own lane at the filling station?
I don’t understand the hate on these cars. The competing GM wagons were generally better drivers, but had some odd styling quirks. The Mopar wagons were generally a step behind in all respects, the AMC wagons were very dated and had the dreaded coffin nose by ’74. Based on the article on CC a while back comparing several foreign wagons in the early ’70s, most had pretty terrible build quality and barely served their intended function. One can only imagine how bad those little cars were in a crash.
Maybe it’s just because this was the way cars looked when I was a kid, I’m quite accepting. I actually like the side sculpting, the frameless door glass and the simple side trim. The government mandated front bumper was not Ford’s worst for the times.
Friends has this wagon in red with a black interior. It seemed sharp compared to my Dad’s aging ’68 Impala.
Add the correct wheel covers and some thin whitewalls and this car would be very representative of its times.
Once again, it’s the rust Dave. There were lawsuits in Canada, over Ford and rust in the 70s. These, and the LTDs were exhibit ‘A’. Supported by the Maverick. Ford, from about 1969 through 1976, did rust more than the competition. And because they sold so many cars, compared to say Toyota, it caused them the black eye. Ford was a high profile manufacturer, with a bad durability reputation through the early to mid 70s.
By 1977, Ford of Canada was forced to heavily advertise their improved rust protection and durability. Including many repeated prime time commercials during ‘Hockey Night in Canada’ broadcasts. Touting the quality improvement efforts they went to, hoping to restore Ford’s image in Canada.
I’ve always liked American station wagons.
While I am a big land-barge kind of guy, these just don’t do it for me. Which is odd, because I normally love wagons of all kinds. There was always something about the styling of these that put me off – maybe it was the little slit-like rear side windows. Maybe a bunch of fake wood slathered all over the sides would help it.
It is, however, a rare experience to see one of these that still has metal in the lower doors and in the rear quarters. And tailgate. And that can still hold its spare tire without it falling through to the street.
I share the same sentiments.
History has taught me that I should be able to completely press my thumb through the lower sheetmetal of the tailgate or quarter panels. I came to expect it with Ford, during this era.
The police department where I worked got this model Torino one year, for patrol. Low Bid Junk, is all I have to say about them. Of course nobody checked out the cars with a tape measure before soliciting the bids. Space utilization, for a car with such a wide body, was poor. The console containing the radio, siren controls, shotgun mount and light switches intruded on the driver’s compartment; some officers liked being able to lean their knees on it until it wore a hole in their uniform pants. The rest hated it from the start. A second officer in the passenger seat was cramped even worse. The cars did understeer less than standard Torinos, credit due to a rear stabilizer bar. But you couldn’t tell that through the steering wheel, which felt like you were spinning a propeller in a bucket of water.
The 351 engine was adequate.
The only person in the department who liked his Torino was a Captain whose car was specially equipped. Here, we’d say, “Broughamized” with dark metallic green paint, vinyl roof, velour upholstery and thick carpeting. It had been ordered for the Chief but he didn’t like it and kept his plain-wrapper Plymouth Fury, passing the “new” Torino on to his subordinate.
!974 was a bad year for most American cars not just Fords.Questionable styling,strangled engines,the demise of the Javelin,Barracuda & Challenger are just a few things that were wrong
I’ve had some experience with this model – my first car was a used 74 Gran Torino 2-door that I bought in 82.
It had been in accident before I bought it and the repair was half-a**ed to say the least.
The passenger door had been replaced – and there was no key for it. And I’m pretty sure they put a 73 front end on it – as all the pictures I’ve seen of 74’s have a different grill.
Here is a picture of it – the only one I have – B&W because I borrowed my college newspaper’s camera to take this photo – used in the newspaper ad I posted when I sold it.
How is that Torino any worse than the Colonade wagons, especially the clift-lip Buicks? At least it has a real tailgate instead of that craptastic liftgate on the Colonades, or that stupid clamshell crap on GM’s full size wagons.
My sentiments exactly. IMHO these get a bad rap. Sure they’d were bloated, slow and terribly thirsty. So was the competition. These look far better than the awful Colonades, especially the Malibu. (What an ugly rear end with that huge lift gate and those tail lights in the bumper). Ford did a better job with the front bumper too, at least on the Torino. The 351 was solid, if unspectacular. These things were everywhere back in the day and outsold all of its competitors.
I’ve seen Colonades that look attractive, and I’ve seen Colonades that look just awful!
I don’t care for mid-sizes at all. I don’t know why. And that’s mid-size anything, not just cars. SUVS? Once the Explorer became midsized in 2002, I lost most interest. The TrailBlazer/Envoy was mildly intriguing because of its EXT/XL model, which was actually bigger than a full-sized Tahoe, as well as the ambitious XUV. Only when the Explorer upsized again to a full-sized CUV did it become interesting.
I think it’s because of two reasons: One, our family has had nothing but either compact or full-sized vehicles since the late 80’s, when my father sold off his Thunderbird (unless you consider minivans to be mid-size, though lately they’ve really become full-sized). Various minivans and full-size pickups, a Mazda Tribute, Ford Focus, Kia Sportage, and Honda CR-V.
And two, with compacts, you have the attraction of (if you’re me) being able to reach the other side of the car while sitting in the driver’s seat, and the size feels “manageable”. With full-sizes, you can sit three across, and the size feels “comfortable”. But mid-size is an unhappy medium.
Anyway, that’s my $.02.
This makes me glad that the 4 door and shooting brake Mustangs never came to pass. Trying to turn a muscle car into a family car is always massive fail. With the exception of the current Charger.
I used to consider the current Charger a failure too, until they brought out the Challenger. A 2-door Charger would’ve sold to exactly the same market as the Challenger.
I still think they should’ve named the Charger and Magnum as Monaco or Polara instead, and shared the same front end between them. Much like today’s featured Torino, auto manufacturers used to sell 2-doors, 4-doors and wagons with the same name. Why don’t they do that anymore?
This steaming pile was called a Charger too.
And don’t forget the Chardoba of the mid-to-late 70s. Mopar guys tend to forget those messes when they start bickering over the Charger nameplate on a 4 door sedan. I always thought it was interesting that the Chevy guys praise the 94-96 Impala SS but the Mopar guys pi$$ and moan.
Im good with a 175-mph, Hemi V8, RWD sedan wearing the Charger name.
The Impala comparison isn’t perfect, as there was historically a 4-door Impala, just not an “SS” version. You may not, but I remember Chevy and Ford guys complaining that they should’ve made 2-door versions of the 90’s Impala SS and Mercury Marauder. They didn’t at the time because there was no market for large 2-doors.
The thing with the Charger is that “back in the day” it was only ever offered as a 2-door hardtop. Unlike most other muscle cars, it didn’t share a bodyshell with a family car that was offered as a 4-door and usually a wagon too.
> Im good with a 175-mph, Hemi V8, RWD sedan wearing the Charger name.
You make a good point. The present is a relatively good time to be a performance car enthusiast. Don’t forget that the Challenger name was dragged through the mud at one point too, being applied to a rebadged Mitsubishi.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1981-dodge-challenger-that-thing-does-got-a-hemi/
unfortunately I remember that steaming pile too. A friend in high school had one and whenever he called it a “Challenger” I would correct him and call it a Mitsubishi.
Chrysler almost brought the ‘Cuda name back in 1985. SMH. http://www.hamtramck-historical.com/vintageRacing/1985Cuda/1985Cuda-02.shtml
Don’t take for granted any of the supercars the Big 3 are selling today cuz they may be gone tomorrow, no matter what they call them.
A *convertible* 2-door Marauder made the auto show rounds at one point. Now that was absolutely gorgeous (and proved that the late Panther design would have worked quite well with 2 less doors). You’re right in that they wouldn’t have sold many, heck, they only sold about 11,000 Marauders total. But it would have been a beautiful design. Not sure if the SS lent itself as well to a coupe but it would have been fun to see also.
Chris, the Marauder Convertible did manage to escape the crusher it shows up on Ebay every couple of years. Since it is a prototype it doesn’t have a title and isn’t street legal. The reality is of course that a 2dr convertible would have been very expensive to build while the Marauder was mostly built from the parts bin keeping the investment needed to bring it to market very low.
“Trying to turn a muscle car into a family car is always massive fail.”
Huh?
The Torino line was not just a ‘muscle car’. It started out as the top trim Fairlane in 1968. There were Torino four doors and wagon during the height of muscle car mania, too.
The Torino Cobra or GT was the ‘muscle’. The ’72 Gran Torino GT is only a muscle car with the hi-po motors, not the 2bbl 302.
Tomcatt, I was thinking of abominations like the Cougar name going from Personal Luxury Muscle to coupe/sedan/wagon in the 70s. That is sad, sad, sad…
+1 the 67/68 Cougar was right first time.Each generation got more bloated and the name degraded.
I think I agree with tomcatt630. Muscle cars typically had their roots as 2-door midsize family cars that had big engines stuffed in them. The family car variants were also available as 4-doors and often wagons.
I think a more appropriate statement would be “Trying to turn a ponycar into a family car is always a massive fail.”
The Gran Torino exemplifies the seventies. While there wasn’t anything particularly wrong with them mechanically (for the time, anyway), they were just so ‘meh’, sort of like that era’s version of the soccer mom minivan. Even the competing blah-mobiles from GM and Chrysler had a tiny bit of personality. The Gran Torino? Absolutely none. It wasn’t bad; it wasn’t good; it was just ‘car’. The fact that an ungainly, bright red, striped 2-door version (which could even be ordered from the factory that way!) would be considered as the ‘hot’ car in a popular (but still bad) cop television series pretty much says it all about the decade. It was a far, far cry from the ultimate cool Charger and Mustang in ‘Bullitt’.
Frankly, the most noteworthy thing about the seventies’ Gran Torino is that it was possible to get a big-block 460 in one all the way until it was mercifully discontinued in 1976. If it had had a better name, it would have been perfect as Red Forman’s car.
I suspect that if Paul had written something about them, it likely would have been along those lines.
Even today, I still prefer the 1974 Ford Gran Torino over the 1972 and 73 model. It has the best looking front end styling of the three years.
Even now , I still think the 1972 Torino was a great looking automobile. The 1973 looked awful. Not even Starsky & Hutch could give this ugly slug any kind of following. Having said that , the quality of these was abysmal. BY the time I made my 36th and final payment on my 72 , it was rusting thru along the doors,trunk & the lower edges of the vinyl roof. Ford came forward with a “warranty” repair on the rust , that was bondo. Within 6 months , the bondo was swelling. I traded for a new 76 Cutlass. Haven’t purchased a Ford since. Oh , BTW , the 76 Cutlass was no quality master either. No wonder the imports came on so strong in the 1980’s
Hmmm… no comment here, too.
I must say this: Look at this thing! – it’s MID-SIZED! We tend to forget how gargantuan most cars got by this time. It’s larger than my 2012 Impala!
Final comment: I really dislike most Fords of this era, mainly because the Chevy/GM mid-size Colonnades looked so much better, whether in coupe, sedan or in wagon form. That doesn’t mean I liked them especially, but the years have dimmed my feelings somewhat.
A whole lot of sexy
I generally like wagons of this era, but I’ll agree with most of you that these don’t do much for me. I think it’s because in one very real way, these were prescient of one current trend in
wagonsCUVs — specifically the rising beltline and ridiculously low side windows.I have a ’72 (good, small bumpers) “mid-sized” Ford. My iteration has a 351 Cleveland in a Ranchero – so it is fun.
It is my official “Earth Day” carbon footprint parade vehicle.
I like that!
Nice the 72 is my all time favorite Ranchero at least as they left the factory. For non factory versions a 77-9 with T-bird front end swapped on is tied with the 72.
Oh, that is so beautiful. I have an illustration from a brochure or ad of a 72 Ranchero white with red interior on my pin board. Soooooo beeeyooootiful.
Ah the good version before they made the length of the hood match the length of the bed!
hehehe
Nice! Love the correct wheelcovers & whitewalls.
My mom’s wagon was was a blue ’73 and was the car that taught me to drive. Said teaching duties earned the beast its nickname, “Demon Seed”. Ah, the memories come flooding back…Thanks
I think the ’73-74 non-Gran Torino’s full-width grille and wraparound turn signals looked a lot better…well, less worse…than the contemporary Gran setup.
For the Gran Torino’s I prefer the 1972-73 taillights over the 1974-76’s, I only wish these cars came with the high compression engines of the earlier Torino’s instead of the strangled engines, I thought the taillights of the 1974-76’s totally ruined the car for me, I thought the 1972 Gran Torino was the right choice for the movie “Gran Torino”
It looks like a XA series Falcon….. That ate all the pies.
Where are the “Big Lebowski” references?
The Dude’s ’73 Torino was a 4-door, but the color is correct.
I still can’t see those 3D hidden pictures from the 90s and I still don’t get The Big Lebowski.
That’s actually an XB series. I thought the XB front end was a good improvement over the XA though. That wagon is downright sporty looking compared to the fuddy duddy fat-lipped gran torino! Especially with the mach-1 mustang style hood scoops. Thankfully Australia was spared of federalized bumper standards.
My dad had the Mercury version: Montego MX Villager. He got a new wagon every 2 years as a company car. By 76 full sizes were out, and dad didnt like the collonades 1 piece tailgate, so this was the first non-Pontiac we had. And also the first with Di-Nic, I thought we had truly arrived. Thats me polishing my grandfather’s Volare.
Hey, it could be worse! We could be staring at an LTD II wagon, a Mercury Cougar wagon or a Mercury Montego Wagon.
Or God forbid, a Gran Torino Elite coupe! *shudder*
’72 was the only year I fancied these cars. Still my least favorite intermediate that year though.
I think, overall, the first half of the ’70s were a low point for all automakers, caught out with giant gas guzzlers. We’ve all heard the stories, and they are mostly true. I have been driving and have owned cars since the mid 1950s, and this period was probably the worst. Ford products were rusting when they came off the assembly line and GM had door, hood and trunk lid gaps so wide you could lose a new baby through them. Chrysler took their sharp ’69-72 body styles and turned them into the crates the parts came in. Just be glad those days are over.
When I was in high school in the mid 70s, I wanted nothing more than to work for a car dealer. I actually got a respectful hearing at the local AMC dealer. The service manager was looking for someone to help with new car prep. Perfect, I thought. Pulling plastic covers off and cleaning up new AMC cars for customer delivery. Great after school job. Then he said that this job required quite a lot of mechanical experience because there was often a fair amount of re-assembly that some of the new cars needed, so I was out.
After staring at that giant posterior I couldn’t help myself…
May I present to you the new Ford Gran Ute-ino!
Just for fun.
Now all I need to do is find a torino wagon and a ranchero….
The Torino/Montego awkward styling period was not corrected, IMO, until the 1977 T’Bird/Cougar came along and better integrated those awful bumpers and disjointed lines. The ’75-’76 Elite was getting closer but not quite there yet. A four-door T’Bird or Cougar in 1977 would have been out of the question for the times, much less a wagon. Then the name game with LTD II came along and screwed up the design again with the gap-stacked headlights and oddly-spaced tail lamps. I agree with others that a good first design was really messed up by regulatory interference that was never truly corrected until the body style was scrapped. However, I would never want to go back to the bloat, overhang, poor outward visibility, huge heavy door, wasted space period that these vehicles represent.
These were all over the place when I was a kid!
It’s just natural that when someone else criticizes something that you are very passionate about you go on the defensive. I do the same when someone starts spewing out hate for Volkswagens and there are plenty of times I have to hold myself back.
Personally I wouldn’t want to drive this wagon. That being said, seeing it on the road would make me smile. It’s just soooooo ’70s and I have this weird nostalgia for that era even though I wasn’t even born until the following decade. As I type this, I’m listening to the Doobie Brothers.
I actually have one of these. A ’73 Gran Torino wagon, sort of like the one posted. Mine has a few more options (like a luggage rack), and we’ve had it for almost 37 years.