(first posted 1/14/2017) The Bobcat was Mercury’s answer to the energy crisis. It wasn’t a very original answer, considering that it was just a Pinto with a big, chrome schnoz and better trim. But then that’s pretty much exactly what GM was doing with its Vega and Monza, although without the big car grille. But then this was something of a Ford trademark.
The Bobcat, even with a four cylinder and fours speed stick weighed fully 700 lbs more than a similarly-equipped Pinto in 1971. Admittedly, the weight wasn’t all due to being Bobcatted; the Pinto had a similar weight problem. it was the result of strengthening its body, which was widely criticized in its 1971 form as being very loosey-goosey, due to shortcuts in order to make aggressive weight targets. So Ford was largely undoing what it didn’t get right in the first place. For what it’s worth, the Vega had a substantially more solid body structure than the Pinto, and rode much better and quieter as a result. So Ford felt it needed to match the Vega, and in 1974, a number of major changes were made to that (fat) end. And then of course there were changes required due to safety, emission and the 5 mile bumpers, which were particularly huge in the Pinto and Bobcat.
All of this meant that now the Pinto and Bobcat were available with the 2.8 V6 as well as power steering. It was quite a change from the lightweight, tossable car it started out to be in 1971. As a point of comparison, the Bobcat was 19″ longer and weighed 900 lbs more than the Civic, with which it competed (very poorly) against, yet was less comfortable and not as efficient and fun to drive. The writing was on the wall: the Pinto and Bobcat were from another era when it came to competing against the new FWD cars.
0-60 in 15.4 seconds. That was slower than a 1971 Pinto with the base 1600cc engine. And its tested fuel economy of 17.5 mpg compares to the 24.6 of the 1971 version (C&D test). But it was quieter, and rode softer. That’s what Mercury assumed small car buyers wanted. Maybe they weren’t quite on target.
I’ve never understood Mercurys. Except for the mystique (no pun intended) that David Lyndley’s (sp.) lyrics, “I’m crazy ’bout a Mercury” gave the brand, and the 50s hot rods I assumed he was singing about, they always appealed less to me than their corporate cousins, Ford. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the original few year of Cougars, especially with the electric shaver grills and hidden headlights, as personal luxury Mustangs, and the last blacked-out Mercury Marauder, as a high performance, cool Crown Victoria. As for the subject car, I strongly preferred the Pinto, and for all the deservedly bad rap it got for safety issues, I quite liked, almost loved, the original (the Maverick, too, for that matter). Again, I could never quite understand the point of the Mercury, except as an upscaled Ford, but tackier at that. But that’s just me.
The Bobcat is a case in point. Fancy big-car grille, double-Pinto rear lights (with an extra brake light), and you want how much more? Why? Where’s the value?
In the years where the Mercury had its own distinct body, I can see the point. Where it’s just a tarted-up Ford, I can see a con job.
This is why Mercury died. Exact same cars except for minor trim differences.
To be fair to the ’75 Monza, it actually looked distinctly different than the Vega, though the cars shared much under the skin. The GM small car clone that came closest to the Pinto/Bobcat for 1975 was the Vega/Pontiac Astre, which like the FoMoCo products, was nothing more than grille, tail light and minor interior trim differences. Of course, considering the sad renaming of the Chevy Monza as an Oldsmobile Starfire and Buick Skyhawk for 1975, there was plenty of wretched badge-engineering to go around in the quest for more efficient cars.
Mercury seemed caught between Ford and Lincoln in the ’70s. Wanting to be a more upscale Ford and in some models like the Grand Marquis, approaching Lincoln levels of styling and luxury. Even the Mercury Grand Monarch was the basis for the Lincoln Versailles.
I like the Bobcats more for this than their lesser Ford counterparts. The interior in this car seems quite nice. It is quite ironic that part of the weight gain is in part due to bumper regs which meant strengthening the rear of the car and thus solving the exploding Pinto problem, which I don’t think Bobcat ever had.
All the interior trim options were common to Pintos and Bobcats. I don’t have info on the take rates so maybe the Bobcats skewed fancier, but maybe not.
They were (cosmetically). Usually had wheel covers, wide trims, “Mercury like” add on’s.
That and the recall retrofit kits for the pre-75s, Frank. The wagons never had the problem as the filler neck and gas tank were in a different location and thus not the comprising the floor of the trunk, IIRC.
I am not correct about the filler neck location. Sorry.
THE PRICE OF THAT CAR IN 1975!!!
Adjusted for inflation, $4,090 in 1975 would be $18,348.21 in 2016.
Source: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=4090&year1=1975&year2=2016
If anything, I would’ve thought $4,090 was quite expensive for such a car.
That was called “Sticker Shock” back then, Sean. Inflation and regulations were adding cost at a rapid rate. Manufacturers were raising prices two or three times a year.
Imagine entering the market with your three year old car as a trade and finding that what you paid for a full size Ford back then would only net you a base Granada in 75 loosely speaking.
The price of my parent’s new 72 Ambassador Brougham was $4995. By 1975 they could have gotten a Bobcat for $1000 less ? Which to choose, right ?
Such was the dilemma buyers were facing in the 70s: less car/more money.
The ’72 2.0 4 speed with AC and deluxe trim sedan (but what a tiny trunk) we had was much quicker, handled decently and got closer to 27 MPG. And the steering wasn’t heavy and the brakes worked fine.
The early ones were the best. And I’m sure the price paid was at least $1000 less then the no AC test car.
$2769 was base price for ’75 Pinto, $1960 was base for ’72.
Pinto Runabout was $2984 in ’75, which is the same body style as the Bobcat tested. So the article is correct about the $205 higher price. 72 2.0 stick 0-60 was 11.1 and top speed 100 MPH, MPG was 20.8, according to automobile-catalog.com. http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/pinto/pinto_runabout/1972.html
Link http://www.fordpinto.com/index.php?page=1971-1980_Ford_Pinto_Specifications
Totally ridiculous car for mercury to have at all. They should have just made grandad marquis, cougar, monarch and left the economy pinto and maverick to Ford.
Except that after the 1973 energy crisis (and the 1974-75 recession that followed) L-M dealers were in a world of hurt and needed something below the Comet to sell to Lincoln customers looking for an economical car to send their daughters off to college in.
Fat indeed. The Bobcat weighs 27 lbs more than the same year V8 Gremlin! You got 67hp less and I’m pretty sure the Gremlin was cheaper. And everybody knows, the Gremlin was far prettier 🙂
More “Road-hugging” weight…
I actually recall a lady at church bought one new. The salesman at the LM dealership used the fact that it was heavier as a selling point. Back then, weight = safety in the smaller cars, or at least that is what the buying public thought.
Ah, the Boobcart: burning its occupants to death in slightly flossier, rather less cost-effective style than the Pinto.
When my friend Randy’s grandma lost her 76 Comet in the 79 Tornado, she replaced it with a 80 Bobcat. It was red and I remember it had the digital display AM radio. Never rode in it though. I think she got good service from it, but traded it on a 83 Pontiac Bonneville sedan. I personally like Pinto’s and Bobcats. Almost as much as my Mavericks.
I always thought that the Bobcat front end looked best on the wagon. It was a real mismatch on the runabout, however.
Yup.
The “Bobcat Villager” was the one my sister wanted!!
I’ve always found the Merc Bobcat more attractive than the Ford Pinto.
I’m not sure why, but I kinda like it. It’s so 70’s.
You know, with this post I’m starting to get the ire directed at that omnipresent 70s Ford steering wheel. It looks good in a big Continental or Grand Marquis, even an F150 but ridiculous in this runabout. Completely incongruous to the rest of the car.
That being said, it’s obviously a good thing for those who would own a seventies FoMoCo product today if they need a new steering wheel.
If you didn’t like the Tolkien Special (“one ring to rule them all”), there was a three-spoke sport wheel as an option.
You mean the hard, three spoke wheel on my Parent’s ’75 Pinto was the ‘sport-wheel’ option in the Bob Cat? Things I never knew!
The only extras they got were the AM-FM radio (with lousy tuning lock in FM) and the dealer-installed Michelin Radials.
In the Popular Science test of the 1.6 71 Pinto, it took 17.6 seconds to 60. And in 75 also, a Pinto wagon with the 2.8/auto combo took 19.8 secs to 60. So 15.3 to 60 ain’t bad. Hell, a 250 75 Maverick took 18.5. I have said since day one that Cologne V6 was a total waste of time. You paid out the nose for less performance. Even in a test of the 79 Mustang it was slower than the 2.3. You were throwing your money away with the V6.
There’s also the state of light-duty automatics of the day to consider. It’s not surprising that the 2.3 four/4MT outran the 2.8V6/3AT.
Yes, that is true. However I think I remember a test of a 76 or 77 Pinto with the 2.3/auto that did 0-60 in 17.5. I’ll see if I can find it when I get back home. But I still stand by my view that the V6 was overpriced for what you got in return.
PopSci tests were consistently slower than the other “buff books” except Road Test, which I think probably reflected that the editors weren’t doing or weren’t skilled in aggressive dragstrip testing. The results were therefore probably more like what you’d get in the real world, but I’d hesitate to compare directly them to other publications’ results.
I agree that the V-6/auto combination undoubtedly wasn’t any quicker than this car, especially in the wagon (per the manufacturer figures, the wagon was 168 lb heavier than the Runabout).
It never ceases to infuriate me how the domestic manufacturers gouged consumers with optional equipment back in the day. How much would a day/night mirror have cost to include as standard, or a little bulb for the glove compartment? And no seat recliners? Grrr.
Compared to what is done today by the Japanese where they force you into a higher trim to get stuff? Want that vacuum cleaner worth about $50 in your $30K Odyssey? No problem, just step up to the $43K Touring Elite and a bunch of crap you don’t care about!
True; things do seem to be trending towards the other extreme, as you say. Want a manual, navigation, cloth seats in the same car? Sorry, can’t be done. Somewhere there has to be a happy medium between “nothing standard” and “you must take everything.”
Nav is easy, just get a clip to hold your smartphone in the horizontal and download the app. (I still use a dedicated-hardware one because I have it and updates are free…)
A sunroof, now that’s a bit more of a challenge to add on and have it come out as well as factory equipment.
Actually, the Japanese cars were worse for this in the ’70s and ’80s, too. Especially after ‘voluntary import controls’ were implemented under Mr. Reagan meant that they could sell any car they managed to bring into the country.
😂😂 so true!! The wife has one. She HAD a base model to start, then upped to the touring. Dvd player….that doesn’t get used, touch screen navigation…that’s difficult as hell to program…. The only USEFUL improvement is the remote rear hatch..😂😂
Even the price of a simple AM radio was absurd back in the ’70s.
The curb weight, if not a misprint, is absurd for a car of this size; the larger ’78 Fairmont weighed only a bit more with the same driveline. No wonder the MPG is abysmal.
But maybe some buyers thought the weight reassuring.
It’s not a misprint. The ’75 Pinto brochure lists the curb weight for the Runabout as 2,621 lb with this engine — that’s the base manufacturer’s curb weight, so I’d be curious to see a Road & Track review with a measured figure for the Pinto, but it means the Bobcat-Pinto difference was less than 100 lb.
What did the little badge behind the rear window say, I can’t remember. Also, did the Pinto have something similar?
Now you’ve got me curious about that too. Unfortunately it’s too small to read in any Google image searches I could find. A trim-level badge, perhaps?
I believe it said “Runabout”.
“I believe it said “Runabout”.”
The badge on the B pillar said Runabout ( on the hatchbacks, the sedans were blank).
I believe the lower right corner of the hatch read “Bobcat,* and the block letters across the base of the hatch read “Mercury.” On my 72 Pinto, there was only a “Pinto” badge in the lower right corner.
On ours….the bottom right corner of the hatch had bobcat written in chrome cursive script with black backing highlights.
These are cute – and I love the Bobcat’s taillights – but wow how quickly these became out-of-date! Such a huge increase in weight… Funny that Chrysler beat Ford and GM to the punch in the US with a modern FWD subcompact.
“Bobcat,” incidentally, was the preproduction code name of the car that became the Mk1 Fiesta.
Man cars really bad back then.
No, they weren’t.
I’m forever amazed at how bad these cars became after unleaded fuel and the 5 MPH bumpers and other safety issues were instituted.
I knew folks who had early Pintos and even with the Kent motor, they were fine little drivers. But by the mid-70’s they were thoroughly piggish. I had a 1979 Pinto ESS, the euro sport package. I bought the car as I had an 80 mile round trip for work and university at the time. My 10 MPG Olds 442 just wasn’t going to work for that. However, to my everlasting disappointment, the Pinto did not deliver the fuel mileage I was hoping for. Granted, going from 10 to 25 MPG is a 250% increase, but I gave up so much room and capability going from that Cutlass body to a three door hatchback. My wife’s 1977 Olds Delta 88 350ci V8 got 23 MPG on the freeway!
Typical of the times, that 2300 Lima motor developed a rear main seal leak.(Everyone I knew with this motor in their car eventually developed the same issue. Maybe part of planned obsolescence?) With my work/university schedule, I became lax about keeping after the oil level in the motor. Finally one day on the way home, it ran out of oil and scored the camshaft badly.
I had a racing friend re-build the motor with a Racer Brown cam and a couple of other minor mods, not to mention a new rear main seal. I added a “performance” catalytic converter and a turbo muffler. It seemed to run better with a little more punch (and I do mean just a little) and sounded great. Much to my horror, the fuel mileage went DOWN to 22 MPG…
I eventually sold the car off after it developed an issue with the trans tail shaft bearing and the rear axle seals leaking. I had such high hopes for the car after hearing so many good stories about the early Pintos. It was just another nail in the coffin between me and my love affairs with Ford products…
“planned obsolescence”, the objective of the Pinto to follow the VW in not doing change for the sake of change.
Actually a benefit that VW promoted and Chevy and Ford paid lip service.
Obviously they didn’t get the memo that it was also about reliable subsystems and mechanicals, as opposed to just styling, Geo.
Even the Pinto and Mustang II MPGs didn’t do very well in mileage in the real world according to the tests in the rags at the time.
“1979 Pinto ESS, the euro sport package.” – I could smell the disappointment coming just from the name of the car. ? By 1979, I could never detect anything either Euro or Sport about a Pinto. Of course, by then I was enamored of the Plodge TC3024 version of the Omnirizon. That the Pinto continued to exist by then was a source of amazement to me. It was such a shame that Chrysler was limited to 300K annual units by its engine supply agreement with VW. It would have been interesting to see how these would have sold had Chrysler been able to keep dealers supplied.
In college, I had a used ’74 Pinto Runabout with the 2.3L engine and 3-speed auto. It was a complete slug, slower even than the ’76 Chevette automatic my mom had. I can’t recall what kind of mileage I got with it (too long ago) but now that I know it was carrying all that extra heft compared to a ’71, it’s no surprise it was so slow, lol. In it’s defense, the Pinto was mostly reliable, but eventually, the engine issue you mentioned took over. The oil consumption got ridiculous – I never went anywhere without a spare litre. Eventually, I was moving, so my dad took the car to have the engine rebuilt before the car went to my sister, who hated it (she eventually bought an N-body 4 cyl Pontiac Grand AM, so what did she know, lol). I regularly drove the Pinto on 450 mile trips across the Canadian prairies and it never let me down during those trips, even in winter. The worst thing that ever happened was the muffler came loose in the middle of nowhere and was hanging by a rubber strap as I recall. I was able to cut the strap, throw the muffler in the hatch and drove about 10 miles to the nearest town where I was fortunate enough to get a new one put on. My Pinto did what it needed to do for me and it was faithful companion for almost 4 years but it was one of the dullest driving experiences I ever had. Oh, and it was also white over Avocado Green with matching interior. Just like the shag carpet my mom used to have in the living room.
My 2300 Limas never leaked a drop of anything even with 200K on the clock.
Wasn’t the Bobcat Canadian made ? I believe the Pontiac Astre was. Anyway remembering the awful back seat in the Bobcat/Pinto , when my neighbor took us for a ride. One thing they could have done with the wagon is offer a Vista Cruiser like raised roof so that the rear seat could be made higher and more comfortable. Would have increased the cargo area too. Just a thought.
The Bobcat was first offered for sale in 74 in Canada. But whether the ones sold there were built there, I can’t answer. But it makes sense.
Yes, the Bobcat was first offered for sale in 1974 in Canada from what I saw on these links.
http://www.oldcarscanada.com/2012/05/1974-ford-pinto-mercury-bobcat.html
https://www.xr793.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1974-Mercury-Bobcat.pdf
On my very first “blind date” I was picked up in a Mercury Bobcat. When I was a very young child my favorite car was the Ford Pinto. To break the ice I said that to my date that I hardly knew. He responded with an air of superiority “This is not a Ford Pinto, it is a Mercury Bobcat”
I stand corrected.
So,did you get married ? ?
Zero-60 in 15 seconds. I bet you can’t even buy a car that slow any more.
And 17 mpg?
Life truly has gotten better.
+1
75 for Ford at least was the worst year for emission controls just before the cat con came on board. In 76 they were able to use more aggresive spark advance curves and such. My own 76 Pinto wagon at 70mph consistently got 25-26 mpg. And 19 in town. So it did improve later. I took a cylinder head off a 75 200 ci Maverick and the thermactor tubes took up 1/3 of the exhaust port! Don’t know if the 2.3 was the same. But that’s why 75 was bad on fuel and power.
AMcA is spot-on. If you want to see how far cars have come, it’s best not to look at Lincolns or Mustangs but rather at subcompacts. Just look how far we’ve come when it comes to entry-level vehicles! Better comfort and packaging, more safety features, more power, better fuel-efficiency. A Chevrolet Spark is a vastly better econobox than a Pinto.
If anybody wants one, here you go!
My favorite Ford/Mercury sedan of that era was the Maverick/Comet. And by the way: those cars do have a niche following; the club catering to them has several hundred members, and many members have more than one Maverick or Comet they regularly take to shows.
I”ve owned 27 Maverick’s. Currently have 6 Mavericks and 1 Mercury Comet. Plus a building full of parts for ’em. Bought my first one in Nov. 83 and still own it! Your not the only one who likes them. Here’s a few pics. This one is my 76 Stallion option one.
My 71 4dr. I have wheelcovers on it now!
My 73.
Not bad! Are you planning to restore her?
Naw, just keep it in daily driver condition. That’s how I do my thing. Keep it clean and running. You probably haven’t read too many of my posts, but I’m a real cheap guy. Restoration is expensive, even with me doing it.
That’s a four-door. Those are pretty nice when they’re restored to factory specs. But there’s not too many of them around now. They get a lot of attention at car shows. Oh, and by the way: Auntie Helen’s gorgeous Maverick won Best of Show three summers ago.
Our “71” was a “Grabber”.
Wow! Now that’s a cool ride! Do you put her in shows?
And here’s a picture of my Maverick.
Nice one!
I see it’s a 76 with the Exterior Decor Group. Whats the drivetrain? Got a Marti on it yet?
Wow! You guessed the year correctly! How’d you do that? Mavericks changed very little from one year to the next. I inherited ”tis car from my aunt who lived in Lockport IL during the summer and Florida for the winters. It was garaged and never saw road salt, that’s how com she’s so clean and rust-free. It has a 250-6, auto, P/S and P/B (disc). Nice driver. I drive her only when the roads are not salted. 75000 on the odometer now.
Yup, 76 and 77 have plate that splits the grill but the 77 Mavericks don’t have Maverick Nameplates on fenders, that’s how I figured out the year.
To all the haters, if Mercury had never sold the Bobcat, we wouldn’t have had the classic advertising jingle, “Love that Bobcat!” At least classic to me; I can still hear it in my head after more than 40 years. On a more serious note, I only drove a few later 2300 Pintos, and I think all had automatics and were pretty sluggish. But the first 2 liter overhead cam Pintos, with a 4 speed, were pretty spritely cars for the time, regardless of what magazine road tests said. I’ve driven quite a few 1600 Kent cars (Pinto, Capri, Cortina and Fiesta, and even a Lotus 7 and a couple of Formula Fords) as well as 2 liter Pintos and Capris, and the Pintos were just fine. Standards were different then …
And this was the same year that Honda gave us the Civic CVCC. Look up “pathetic” in the dictionary and you’ll find a picture of the Mercury Bobcat.
All you “Buy ‘Murican” types out there: this is the absolute contempt Detroit had for the American car buyer until the imports posed an existential threat.
I would argue the Pinto, Vega and Gremlin, and Chrysler’s offering of the Colt and Cricket, were a timely reaction to the growing popularity of imports. It was refreshing that Ford and GM did try to make their subcompacts stylish rather than style them like penalty boxes. The problem was they were left to wither for too long and they suffered from government regulations. However, GM did supplant the Vega after, what, 5-6 years? With a practical, more modern option (Chevette) and a more stylish option with more powerful engines (Monza). Neither were perfect and the Chevette arrived later than its other T-Car platform-mates did, and GM was caught without a FWD subcompact in the US, but I would say GM was more oblivious than contemptuous. Ford, however, kept restyling the same car and left it woefully out-of-date (AMC did, too, but they had a much smaller budget).
The Escort, or something like it, should have arrived 4-5 years earlier. The Pinto was selling on price, perceived dependability and the Ford dealership network and logo by the end of its run.
I don’t think it was obliviousness so much as choking on the price tag. When this car came out, Ford was busy spending what ended up being about a billion dollars on the Fiesta — an absolutely staggering pile of money that was making the finance people tear out their hair. Ford desperately needed the Fiesta for the European market and the Pinto was selling pretty well in the U.S., so the priorities were pretty clear. The Fox-body was also a substantial investment and Ford’s resources were not unlimited — I don’t think it was coincidental that the Erika (FWD Escort) project began basically as soon as the Fairmont was introduced.
While contempt for the buying public is a general fault shared by the major “American” manufacturers, the simple fault is that a small car and a large car cost about the same to manufacture, and the small car sells for much less than the larger car. European manufacturers have always built small cars, and thus, they can upsize to build a larger car without a penalty, while American manufacturers were tasked with downsizing without decreasing the cost per unit. That is why we are seeing the rise of trucks and SUVs. The per unit cost is about the same as for a car, but without the CAFE fuel efficiency problems, and they sell at a premium and high profit. Manufacturers are smart enough to give the public what it wants, and apparently, the public wants big trucks and SUVs, not small, nimble, fuel efficient passenger cars. Wait until gas goes back to $4 per gallon and see what sells then, and what manufacturers pump out en masse.
Yup, thats part of the reason cars like the Vega were not quite what they could have been. Back when it was being designed and built the steel used for car bodies cost ten cents per pound. So taking 2000 pounds out of a car only reduced the manufacturing cost by $200. But the small cars had to sell for a lot less than a $200 price difference. That’s the main reason they spent so much effort to build the engine without liners. Those cost $2.00 a piece ( or $8 per engine) which over 300,000 cars added up quick. And all the other components also had to be built to a cheaper standard. And they had to use less of them. And profit per unit was still slim.
OT- Paul, your images aren’t showing correctly on my computer. This has been the case for about a month, and I waited to see if it was a temporary glitch. I haven’t seen a photo of a whole car here for all that time. It’s as if your images are oversized. I’m missing the right one-third of every photo and scanned document. I have no idea why, but if my 27-inch iMac can’t fit your images, what can?
John, nobody else seems to have this problem. We have hundreds of thousands of visitors each month, and I’ve never heard anyone else say this. It’s not on our end. You need some tech help; there’s something wrong.
Download a different web browser and try that. Or?
I just tried with Firefox, and the photos seem to fit normally. Before I was using Safari, which is not exactly “Brand X.” How could it just be me having problems, out of so many mac users? No other websites are giving me cropped photos in Safari. Odd…
I test your site later on my wife’s macbook.
Gimme an early Pinto/Bobcat (without the 5 MPH bumpers) with the 2.0L and 4-speed manual, interior decor group, and all glass rear hatch. I’ll run a long time… longer than a Vega and with less smoke/rust than a 1970s vintage Civic.
Pinto’s and Bobcat’s were sold in the Netherlands as well; this is my ’79 Runabout with interior sport package i owned in the eighties, 2.3L+manual gear box, it was a reliable nice car. Good memories!
I wonder what the appeal was over a Taunus or Capri?
I have no experience with either Bobcats or Pintos but for some reason this little ditty has stayed in my brain:
Mercury Bobcat
It’s a crisp little critter
It’s the pick of the litter
Its a Bobcat, Mercury Bobcat
Maybe just a Canadian jingle?
Test
Pass!
Back in the days when Ford had different vehicles for each country. Nowadays they’d just pick up an appropriate vehicle from Ford Europe and modify it slightly. Have our needs. as different nations really become more similar – or have we just accepted what we’re offered?
I used to wonder why they didn’t just pick up the Cortina/Taunus, but with a 101.5″ wheelbase it would be a bit larger. Maybe the Taunus for Mercury; it looked a bit more formal. Usefully roomier, if shorter overall, plus you’d get a four door sedan that Chevy didn’t offer in this size. Though I’ve no idea how much strengthening that shell would’ve needed to cope with the loads imposed by 5mph bumpers. Still, it would’ve given Mercury showrooms a distinct product. But then I guess the Ford dealers would start screaming, so give them the British Cortina; same platform, different skin, less formal/more sporty-looking.
May we say “All requests for acceleration must be submitted in writing”?
Such a disappointing car in so many ways. The shortcomkngs of the Pinto are not addressed. Instead, Ford added fake wood grain vinyl.
17.5 MPG seems positively abysmal for an economy-minded car. Makes me give a little more grace to the Pacer’s similar lack of fuel efficiency in a much more distinctive (and yes, more costly) package.
Ate up with Motor addressed on 1/15/17 why Pinto was not updated or replaced as soon as many think it should have been. I think the costs of developing Fiesta, Fox, Panther, and Erika platforms coupled with the horrible economy left Ford close to bankruptcy in the early 80’s. According to Wikipedia, Ford originally planned a short wheelbase version of Fox platform to replace the Pinto and Cortina but dropped the idea. The Pinto/Bobcat wagons were the only versions I found appealing.
For all their talk about fighting imports, American car companies really didn’t care enough about their compacts. I can forgive some lack of engineering know-how about smaller engines or front wheel drive, but they ignored even basic amenities like adjustable seat backs, rear window defrosters, carpeting, etc. It was like a big F-you to car buyers who chose a cheaper model: “You want cheap? OK, buddy, here’s your CHEAP car!” It makes me sad because I see a lot of missed opportunities.
I remember back in 1975 When the Bobcat was released, the television commercials boasted: “Hundreds of pounds more road hugging weight!” In the public’s mind set more weight equaled better handling.
Don’t remember that claim. Mostly just the “luxury” touches.