(first posted 4/17/2013) Deception–and self deception–is a very significant factor in the automobile business, maybe the biggest. Unless we buy a stripper Corolla (so conveniently parked here) or the like, we’re happy enough to pay more to feel like we’re not just getting basic transportation, but something that enhances our sense of well-being and social status.
One of the biggest questions for automobile executives forever is how much of a premium folks are willing to pay for that. What’s the upper limit you can charge strictly for the sizzle when there’s no steak? The folks at Ford wondered that too, so they decided to turn this question into a research experiment, using real buyers. The name of the project was called Versailles.
The 1982 Cadillac Cimarron is usually trotted out as the most egregious winner=loser of this category. But lets take a closer look: the Cimarron’s mark up over the price of a base Cavalier was almost exactly 100%. Same basic car and engine, except for a nicer interior, alloy wheels, some exterior trim bits and such. At least the Cimarron was positioned at the bottom of the Cadillac line-up: a small and economical Caddy for those that felt so inclined/suckered. Still, a pretty rich markup (and price, $30k, adjusted) for a wheezy 1.8 liter econo-box with a leather interior.
But the Versailles was decidedly more ambitious than that; in its pricing, that is. Certainly not in the quality of its materials, aesthetics, assembly, handling or performance.
Cadillac had rocked the luxury car market pretty hard with its Seville (CC here) in 1975. For once, GM outfoxed Ford in identifying a new personal luxury car market niche, although with a smaller four door sedan. For some reason, Ford’s biggest hits were almost always coupes. The Seville was a response to the onslaught of the more compact Mercedes sedans, which themselves were pushing the sizzle envelope in relation to what taxi drivers in Germany were paying for theirs. At least some real steak came with the Seville.
The Seville was loosely based on the Nova platform of the times, which it shared with the Camaro. That was considered to be about the best handling domestic platform then. But that was just a jumping off point; the Seville had a longer wheelbase and a completely different body, rather tastefully designed for its intended mission. It also got a unique engine, a fuel injected version of the Olds 350. And it was extensively engineered for a decent ride-to-handling relationship, as well as a completely unique and appropriately upscale interior. It wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but not many folks likely have guessed it started life as a Nova.
Ford was caught napping with the Seville, which was priced about 20% higher than the most expensive big Fleetwood Brougham. And the Seville did its intended job, selling some 43-55k units per year during its successful first incarnation. So what was Ford’s response? A pig in a poke. (The derivation of that expression goes back to the Middle Ages, when pigs were scarce, but dogs and cats weren’t, and unscrupulous folks would deceive unwary buyers by selling a (non-existent) pig sewn into a poke (burlap bag)). Yup; the Versailles was a dog wrapped in a vinyl bag.
Or more factually, the 1977 Versailles is a 1977 Ford Granada (shown here with its proud daddy), along with a borrowed Continental grille and fake spare-tire hump on its ass, and some leather thrown around inside as well as a few other goodies.
I’m sure some softer suspension bushings and springs were part of that “notable engineering achievement”. The 132 hp carbureted 302 engine certainly wasn’t. It certainly wasn’t unmistakably a Granada, from looking at it.
And there was the Granada’s notoriously mediocre handling, thanks to carrying almost 4000 lbs on its Falcon platform underpinnings. Never mind the build quality.
But if anyone could sell a pig in a poke at unheard of prices, it would be Lee Iaccoca, America’s SuperSalesman. And just how did he price his tarted-up Granada? Exactly three times higher than its lowly donor. $12,529 ($52k in 2017 dollars) was a big piece of change back then, and like the Seville, the Versailles was the most expensive Lincoln money could buy.
Here’s an even more effective picture to put that price in perspective: it’s virtually identical to the inflation-adjusted price of the 1961 Lincoln Continental. There really is a sucker born every minute.
In reality, more like one every 35 minutes, which works out to the 15,000 per year average annual sales the first three years. But by 1980, the jig was up and sales collapsed when word got out that there was no pig in the poke.
Visiting Europe in ’78, I was astounded to see many Sevilles on the road in Switzerland. Could this have been Cadillac’s 1st major success in the European market? Anyone know how many GM exported?
The Versailles built by Louis XIV, unlike Lincoln’s, was propaganda which worked: It was the envy of Europe. And it was well-executed.
It also led to France’s bankruptcy, and subsequent revolution. Kind of like Cadillac in many ways.
Exactly. So we got the revolution, which is a very good thing, AND kept Versailles, which still brings highly-needed tourist money in our gaping national coffers 200+ years on. Thus, in the long run and in retrospect, the original Versailles (as opposed to Lincoln’s) was at least worth a shot.
The same applies to these gigantic, nonsensical classic Caddys without which the world would be a more boring place. Of course I’m not talking about post-1980s models either. I totally agree it is sad to see such a great name go the way it did the last 20 years. Escalade, anyone?
To answer Neil’s question above, if I ever saw a Cadillac on the street when I was a kid, it had to be a Seville. So yes, all other things being equal (big reservation here), the Seville was certainly SOME kind of a success in Europe. Not least in affluent Switzerland.
PS. Paul, are you saying that in 1977 the Versailles was more expensive in America than a Mark V ??? That’s truly amazing. I hate to think of what it says about Ford at that time.
From the figures that I have seen the Mark V and the Versailles were prices about the same. The Seville was the highest priced non-limo Cadillac for 1976 but by only about a $1k over the Eldorado.
Interestingly, the Versailles sold poorly the first two years, but enjoyed a small burst of popularity early in the 1979 model year (totaling 21k) then dropped to virtually nothing.
Cadillac’s have been promoted in Europe regularly since the 1960s. They even created an entirely unique European-only model, the BLS, for that market. It was built at the Saab plant in Sweden and even included a turbo diesel. During my trips to Europe in the 1990s, the 92+ generation Seville was heavily promoted and seen regularly about the streets usually in the northern European countries.
Finally, on a personal note, one of the most well-known Cadillac historians, who also happen to be a personal friend of mine, spent most of his adult life in Switzerland and gained an appreciation for the marque there.
The Versailles’ small upsurge in popularity for the 1979 model year was probably related to the new “Seville-like” roofline. I believe that the 1979 model was also the first to feature halogen headlights and clearcoat paint as standard equipment – both firsts for American cars. Sales then collapsed for 1980, and the car was not back for 1981.
Neil, you are correct that there were quite a few Sevilles around on Swiss roads back in the day but this has more to do with the general conservativeness of the country than with a sales success in Europe in general.
Switzerland used to be a sort of European bridgehead for the US auto industry. GM even had an assembly plant in Biel (closed in 1975) and Chryslers were assembled by AMAG in Schinznach-Bad (until 1973).
If memory serves (I was born in 1974), American cars of all stripes were still a fairly common occurrence up the mid-eighties. This then gradually petered out with only Chrysler minivans and Jeeps retaining a significant market presence to this day. That being said, there is still a “whale” Caprice and a contemporary Caddy doing taxi duty in Geneva…
According to this article in TTAC yesterday the Swiss still love old American cars.
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/04/switzerland-loves-old-american-cars/
csi.ch, thanks for the background; I had no idea GM had factories there, let alone ones building (I assume) N. American models. It certainly was a shock to me after seeing other countries (Austria, Italy, Greece) almost devoid of American models.
Now I did see a COE Freightliner in a customs traffic-jam, possibly near Switzerland, but I’m not sure now.
Trivia: Louis Chevrolet was of Swiss descent, as also was Eddie Rickenbacker, the flying ace, race driver, & airline executive.
The greatest contribution made by these cars was the donation of their rear axles (featuring factory LSD and rear disk brakes) to Mustang/Maverick/Cougar resto mods.
1+
These cars were wonderful for their parts contributions to the Mustang scene of all generations. Finding a Granada in a u-pull-it junk yard was good, as it was a cheap source of front disk brake spindles for your 60’s Mustang. Finding a Versailles, was like finding gold with that limited slip diff and rear disk brakes in one handy package!
It appears the builders are also platform sharing, or you are off your home turf because that apartment house looks just like several buildings in Beaverton. As for the Versailles, it was immediately obvious to my 12 year old self what they did and the only good Granada is a European Granada, preferably a MKII Estate with the 2.8i Cologne V6.
Good noticing; this was shot in Portland, but on the east side.
Is Portland that rough of a town that a car needs “The Club” (or whatever it is)?
How would you feel if someone stole your precious Versailles?
There is an area of SE Portland that is know as “Felony Flats”, draw your own conclusion.
Probably a lot like Louis XVI!
Slow Joe, small-town naivety on my part imagining all of Oregon crime-free. 🙂
If that thing ever got stolen, sure as $h!t it would turn up intact, minus it’s rear end.
Hey, Portland’s a big city, with just as much crummy struggling-class housing and car theft as any other town. A perfect venue for this “Versailles”.
Reminds me of the infamous Car and Driver Opel Kadett review shot in a junkyard.
Apartment….? Yikes. Looks like Bates/Roach/Motel 6.
Kinda fascinating that the habit of pimping out lesser cars follows almost exactly the blueprint that Ford used in turning Granadas into Versaillles(es). Well, fascinating to me, that is.
That one seems in pretty good shape. If it were for sale for around three grand I’d maybe have it, but then I’m sick that way,
I have no problem with the granada or monarch. Problem is that Iacocca was not appropriately dressed for a Lincoln. For that he needed a mask and a gun.
Motor Trend did a comparison test of both Seville and Vers’ for 1977, and wimp-ily they said “well both are nice cars”.
That was about when I cancelled my MT subscription, they’d gotten so boring, and car tests read like sales brochures. And, I was only 16.Switched to C&D, but got rid of them 10 years ago.
That’s been MT’s MO, to greater and lesser degrees, for coming up on 60 years. They’ve had some good patches, though, memorably in the mid-2000s, around the same time C&D went downhill.
Some Newsstand-Side Classic posts wouldn’t go amiss here, to cover the great publications that have come and gone in that general period. Car Life, Road Test, AutoWeek, and–by the looks of things–Road & Track and Automobile before too long.
Now, on the other side of things:
‘The 1977 Versailles is a 1977 Ford Granada… along with a borrowed Continental grille and fake spare-tire hump on its ass, and some leather thrown around inside as well as a few other goodies.’
‘Versailles: A Notable Engineering Achievement.’
I laughed out loud at that one. If CC were a print mag I’d gladly shell out $25/mo for it.
The problem is, the buff-books are dependent on automotive advertising.
It costs money to put out a magazine. Even in bare-bones format, it costs huge dollars. And it doesn’t cost that much more to fatten up the pay and expense accounts; basically give the editorial staff the high living to which they think they should be accustomed.
So, to keep their rag on the rack, and their high-flying lifestyles intact…they have to pander. Else they lose advertising; and thus it’s all for naught. Have to go out and get a REAL job.
So…even in the twilight of the AMC era, for example, CD (which was seedy, at least in ethics) wrote puff or neutral pieces for the Concord and Spirit and Eagle. Only Don Sherman had the stones to call a spade a spade; and now in his twilight years he’s paying for it.
But AMC, with Jeep and Renault hanging over it like a helicopter parent, represented important advertising revenue. Although the Studebaker Lark-types in the mid-sixties were as good or better than AMC’s later obsolete trash…the Studes got NO notice in the buff books.
Because no advertising revenue was forthcoming.
Today, with sites like this…any team with a few hours a day to compose copy (good copy, too!) can put out a good buff E-mag. So…the Internet has liberated the auto enthusiast community. The truth shall set us free.
I have the Car and Driver issue featuring the test of the 1978 AMC Concord. They weren’t too enamored with it, and the sidebars featuring comments from the other writers were very harsh. I don’t have the issue featuring the test of the 1979 AMC Concord, but the final verdict wasn’t too flattering, if I recall correctly. The review of the AMC Eagle was positive, but the car was a big deal at the time. The drivetrain was quite good – the problem was with the dated body and interior, but the magazine didn’t hesitate to note these drawbacks.
In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, Car and Driver tended not to hold back its criticisms of a vehicle. I remember reading a test of a 1979 Cadillac – either a DeVille or a Seville – and the tester was pretty blunt in saying that it was good for a Cadillac, but didn’t measure up to a contemporary Mercedes.
I missed the Concord review. By one issue…lapse in subscription. I do remember readers’ comments on it.
But I remember the fawning the Spirit got. AND the Eagles…short, long and wagon. The Eagles were interesting…but not especially good cars. Certainly not for the C/D readership.
Another factor that I have always felt influenced many of these magazines held that may influence reviews is the editors and testers relative expectations about cars. Most of them historically were men, often single, and their personal preferences in ownership often tended to lean towards sports cars, sports sedans, and quite often imports even 35-40 years ago. Their priorities in a car were weighted heavily towards performance and empirical figures. That may be well and good for people like that who wish to connect with a car in such a fashion and be damned what others think. That sort of higher order thinking is only going to attract a certain segment of the buying public. Perhaps that is the group that the magazine is trying to attract and in that regard I suppose it can cater successfully to them. The fact remains, though, that the vast majority of the buying public doesn’t not read those mags, some may not have even heard of them, and more importantly to my point, do not share those priorities.
So I always take with a grain of salt subjective reviews. I will read them occasionally for the objective data they sometimes provide but often my wants and needs in a car clash and the usefulness can only go so far. The danger is applying the critique to everyone’s buying situation.
I have a copy of the C&D article done in 1981 that tested the Eldorado, Imperial and Mark VI. Aside from the raw test data, the article read more like it was questioning the entire logic of potential buyers of these cars and in a bankhanded way made fun of them who seemed to value nonsensical priorities. Well cars are more than just functional objects and not everyone wants to drive like the General Lee.
Obviously practical factors will play a large role in car buying, most definitely price but also the intangible things that may appeal to some people but may not be as easily understood by others.
To segue this comment into relevance to this article above you have to look at it this way. We are looking at a picture of a Versailles and a Corolla. People have made comments as to their opinion of the Versailles and its somewhat dubious formation of a model as well as how much better the Corolla was as a car for various reasons. One thing that must be remembered is that no matter how good or bad the Versailles may be it offers an intention that the Corolla does not. The Versailles may have been a poor example of the concept and the Seville much better but people liked the concept. And that is not a bad thing.
An excellent summary JPT, all very true.
I’d argue there’s another, separate space for publications on vehicles that are out of production. Base the ad space model on dealer, parts, spares, and restoration suppliers rather than the automakers themselves. It’s kept Hemmings and a great many UK classic auto mags in business for decades now, though admittedly I have no idea for how much longer.
But the print game does seem to be a losing battle at this stage. I’m just enough of a traditionalist to wish I could look forward to a hard copy of CC in my mailbox once a month.
Very true, all of the above. For 12 bucks or so a year, I still get all the print mags, but I certainly don’t read them cover to cover like I used to. The internet has made news they report old by the time the magazines arrive, and the road tests all read the same (maybe this has always been true?). I do buy British CAR each month on the newsstand, but even this doesn’t seem to be as good as it was years ago. I think there’s too much competition from the internet for the new car print mags to ever be what they were, and I think we all know there will be further contraction.
The mags that are devoted to old cars seem to be doing well, and I devour these. Hemmings (especially Sports & Exotics, which is a bit slim actually) and the British classic ones, are loaded with ads and have lots of great content. The British mags are expensive (per issue) in the States, but if there’s something that really interests me, I buy them, and get a lot of pleasure for the $10 bucks or so. I can’t see how anyone would buy a single issue of C&D for $5.
A classic case of the Emperor’s New Clothes! Car makers have been getting away with this for years
The only defense for this from a strictly styling point-of-view(exclusive of engineering) is that once Ford had a winner with the Lincoln Continental formula (bladed fenders, long hood, short deck, hop-up at the rear axle) they watered it down and designed just about every FoMoCo product “In the Lincoln Continental tradition”which is what the full size mid-60’s Mercuries called it. So the Granada has alot of Lincoln DNA to start with, but that is no defense, more like a rationalization.
What on earth were they thinking? The Granada was a nice car, for what and when it was, at least until it started to age. These were just embarrassing. At least they did a little work on the C pillars on the later ones so that it was not exactly like a Granada, but it was still not enough.
When these were first out, I was parking cars for a business. A clueless kid I worked with walked up to the owner of a new Versailles and said (in all seriousness) “That is one really nice Granada!” The owner snapped back “Its not a Granada, it’s a Lincoln Versailles that I paid $12,000 for.” I was an 18 year old kid, but I saw 2 idiots in that conversation.
What was Ford thinking?
The Versailles is obviously a product introduced by Ford because Lincoln’s closest rival had forced its hand. Ford did not believe in the idea of smaller luxury cars (ironic, considering that the stunning 1961 Continental was the result of a downsizing effort!) and did not particularly want to enter this market. But the Seville demanded some sort of response, so this was it.
Just looking at this car, one can tell that Ford had to be literally dragged, kicking and screaming, to field even this half-….hearted effort.
In 1973 or 1974, Motor Trend interviewed the general managers of Cadillac and Lincoln-Mercury, and questioned both about the growing sales of Mercedes. The head of Cadillac admitted that Mercedes WAS a threat, and that Cadillac may have to offer something new to appeal to customers who were bypassing Cadillac for a foreign luxury car. The head of Lincoln-Mercury, meanwhile, basically dismissed the idea of a small Lincoln, and went so far as to say that current customers would think that the division was crazy to offer such a car.
The Seville, in many ways, was a test bed for the downsized full-size cars coming from GM in less than two years. How would the public react to smaller vehicles that would not necessarily be cheaper than their immediate predecessors, but did offer customers a new look? In the case of the Seville and the new 1977 full-size cars, very favorably. But GM put a fair amount of effort into the Seville – not enough to make it a true Mercedes alternative, but enough to impress the general public and the target audience. GM put even more effort into its downsized 1977 cars.
The effort put into the Versailles, meanwhile, foreshadowed how Ford would downsize its full-size cars – reluctantly and grudgingly. The 1979 Panther cars certainly weren’t as lackluster as the Versailles, but they were a disappointment compared to the GM cars, particularly considering that Ford had a two-year window to improve upon GM’s offerings. Henry Ford II simply did not like small cars, and was suspicious of smaller big cars.
Also interesting is that Chrysler Corporation rolled out upgraded versions of ITS compacts at about the same time that the Versailles debuted. (Car and Driver compared all three – the LeBaron, Diplomat and Versailles – to the Seville in a spring 1977 issue. I remember a classmate bringing the issue to study hall in 9th grade.)
The LeBaron and Diplomat were much cheaper than the Versailles, but there was more exterior sheetmetal differentiation. Our next-door neighbors were Mopar loyalists, and they bought the first LeBaron in town – a dark blue sedan with a dove grey vinyl top. No one every mistook that car for a Volare or an Aspen.
I suppose in Ford’s defense, the Granada was thought to be a semi-luxury small car to start with. Nobody I knew considered the Granada as a replacement for the Falcon or the Maverick, but it was instead a trimmer, more intelligent replacement for the Gran Torino class of car. I knew several people who bought Granadas, and nearly all of them were quite loaded up with options and were very nice cars. So, perhaps with the car being slotted a bit upmarket to start with, Ford could be forgiven thinking that just a little more lipstick was needed to make it a Lincoln. I will say that the upholstery in the pictured Versailles is quite nice.
The $12K price point is something else entirely, though. I recall finding the sticker price of my 77 New Yorker, that was quite well equipped. It came in a bit under $10K as equipped, so it was probably not far under a standard Lincoln. $12K would buy a lot of car in 1977. The car may have done better 2 or 3 years earlier or later, but in 1977, big was back in a big way. There was no added value in being small as there had been in a recession year like 1975 when the Seville came out.
It looks a lot like an LX car, which would have been on the boards about the same time as this concept came out.
I would agree that the car sits too low and the wheels too large but it is not a bad looking go. To go along with the `65 Continental article, I do like the reemergence of the clean three box design. I do like the looks of the LX Chrysler 300 and if I was not so committed to the hand that feeds me, I would consider buying one.
As for Lincoln now, Ford is the least involved of the Big 3 for me beyond customer’s cars. Lincoln went too far into truck based models that were not distinctive enough from the regular Ford products. With Ford, Mercury, and Lincoln having 3 almost identical products going the waters were muddied quite a bit. The Lincoln LS was a far too complicated and expensive car to work on. Up until 2011, I had at least one customer that we serviced his LS with the 3.9 V8 and it was a PITA along with parts being high. Not withstanding the nomenclature, Cadillac has identified now with the Arts & Science concept but I fail to see a distinguishing theme with current Lincoln.
I would hesitate to call the ’61 part of any deliberate downsizing effort. It was smaller than the ’58-’60 Lincoln and I don’t think anyone at Ford was too unhappy about that — the ’58-’60 cars were enormous, even for the time — but I think making it smaller was pretty incidental to the design goals. The more immediate issue was to scale up what had been intended as a close-coupled two-door personal car into a usable four-door sedan without making hash of the look McNamara had liked or raising the tooling costs to the point where he decided it was no longer worth it and pulled the plug on the whole thing (and possibly Lincoln with it). In that sense, of course, you could draw a parallel to the Versailles, but it comes down to expediency.
Well we all had a good laugh at Ford AUs efforts with their LTD it seems the same shell game is played in Merica, I treally hope they imported the OZ Falcons suspension for this coz the US version is only a joke. How much crap could Lido pile on a falcon? I guess this answers that question, thankfully none have escaped and landed here though there was a guy who imported a Fox Police Mustang and tried to use it as a pace car except it cornered so badly it couldnt keep up any speed on a track. Yeah sorry Lido yore cars are crap.
A couple of interesting points you made: first, that the Cavamarron was priced at roughly $30k (in today’s dollars), which is roughly in the same league as Buck’s Verano-which is doing quite well as I understand it. Again, lends credence to the idea that the Cimarron concept wasn’t bad, it was flawed execution that did it in. Buick has successfully differentiated its offering (with very strange chrome eyebrows over the taillights).
The other is that the Versailles was positioned at the top of the food chain. Had Ford marketed it as an entry-level Lincoln (with an entry level price), it could have fared much better. That follows the same line of thinking for all brands wishing to broaden their market share, and is currently happening with Mercedes. Decades of brand equity do allow you to cheat a little. And if, overall, your products are generally decent, then offering up one semi-goofball car can work.
Obviously though, you can’t get greedy about it.
Back then, people thought of Cadillac as huge, ultra comfortable, distinctively styled, well appointed cars. While European cars were gaining market share at the time, they were generally not thought of as appealing to the same type of buyer or buyer’s priorities. While the Cimarron was a marketing disaster, the bigger problem was that it simply did not fit the stereotype and image of Cadillac at that time. Ironically, as poorly as the Cimarron sold, the buyer data did show that most of Cimarron sales were in fact conquests so there was truth to the concept. The problem was is that Cadillac and GM were not going to fund an effort to produce a vehicle that was a more direct incarnation of what BMW 3 was offering at the time.
The bigger situation was that 35 years ago, most American make cars were over here, and European cars over there, and Japanese cars there. Three very different executions of car design concepts. CAFE (mostly early on), emissions, safety, time, and changing tastes in the market place as generations moved on brought the makers together and why today’s cars are all much more similar. 35 years ago I would never have believed I would be driving a Cadillac like my 2008 CTS, nor would I have believed that Toyota would produce something other than purely basic cars like a Lexus. I think we reached a low point about 10-15 years ago when the styling and design of most cars (domestic and import) became very blurred although today each make seems to be flexing their design muscle and beginning earnest differentiation again.
Cadillac was much more ambitious with the Cimarron than Buick is being with the Verano.
The Cimarron was initially pitched as a BMW 3-Series alternative, which was quite a stretch, given that Cadillac was well-known as the purveyor of large, soft, comfortable land yachts. Cadillac needed a MUCH better vehicle if it wanted to reach the target audience, most of whom were avoiding Cadillac dealers completely.
The Verano is being pitched as a very comfortable, well-trimmed smaller car, and, in this regard, fits in with the rest of Buick’s line-up. If you want a Buick, but want the qualities associated with the brand in a smaller, easier-to-handle package with better gas mileage, you buy a Verano.
The problem with the Verano is that it’s not stretching the brand image *enough*, I’d like to see at least the 5-door hatchback version offered in the US while it’s still relatively fresh.
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery – I suppose that pertains to the car business as well.
Not to beat a dead horse, Ford probably made money on every single Versailles sold how few of them there were. The one upside to badge engineering is that your break even point is much lower. The bigger question is if the Versailles had the same negative impact on Lincoln’s image as it is portrayed that the Cimarron did for Cadillac. Looking back and thinking now, it seems as most look at the Versailles more as an aberration than a chronic problem.
One thing that I did notice in the picture of the 1975 Granada with Iacocca was the presence of small vent windows on the front door. However many hundreds of times I have seen this picture I never noticed it until now. I can only assume that was a preproduction car and that feature was subsequently dropped.
I do feel for the apartment dweller a choice between the discomfort of riding in a stripper Corolla being laughed from the inside or riding in the Versailles being laughed at from the outside.
The sales of the Versailles were so low that it had virtually no impact on the market. Most people forgot it even existed. I can remember a grand total of one Versailles from my teenage years – the owner of a local garage was a Lincoln loyalist, and he bought one for his wife.
Meanwhile, it seemed as though Sevilles were fairly common.
Good eye, Craig – I have never seen those vent windows either.
I thought they were optional power vent windows, but I can’t find a mention of any vent window option – power or manual – in the 1975 Granada brochure.
This “car” is actually a fiberglass and DiNoc mock-up.
The depreciation on this notable badge engineering achievement.must have been horrendous. The first guy buys it new, and pays a Lincoln price for it. Then, he ends up selling it for a second-hand Granada price to someone who just wants it for rear axle, I bet there are a lot of sad Lincoln Versailles stories with that basic plot line.
I would add as a former TE71 owner that that’s no “stripper Corolla”; with the bodyside moldings and pop-out quarter windows it’s a fancypants Deluxe, also blessed with a fifth gear (unless it’s an auto), FM radio, soft-feel steering wheel and wrapped-look shift knob, and stripe-accented knit vinyl or optional full-face cloth upholstery.
Mine was a Standard, with none of those fripperies. But at least it wasn’t a Versailles!
Even WITH all that stuff, that Corolla is a stripper. Back then, they ALL were.
I like to think Ford learned a bit with the Versailles and hid the lowly Fox body underpinning better on the 82-87 Lincoln Continental which did not look like the 81-82 Granada or the 83-86 Fox based LTD and sold a goodly amount in its day
The Versailles is like the very first Escalades that were nothing more than Tahoes with Caddy leather seats and Chattanooga Customs body kits. In both cases, a product was needed in stores NOW and there was no time for new body tools, regardless of budget.
I must be the only person in the universe that actually likes the Versailles. Yes, it was overpriced. Yes, it should have been an entry-level offering for Lincoln and not priced nearly as high as it was. Yes, it has a dashboard that looks like it came straight out of a Grand Monarch. Yes, the shape of the body was not really altered from the Granada. But I still love it. Even today the manufacturers are using disguised platforms to sell more expensive cars – Honda’s Civic being sold as the Acura ILX and the Toyota Camry as the Lexus ES350 come to mind. What about the Suburban/Escalade? Ford Fusion/Lincoln MKZ? The list goes on and on. I think that our technology has come such a a long way today that we are more forgiving and willing to accept these more expensive versions of their cheaper counterparts. Yet there are huge premiums they charge for the luxurious versions of the cheaper cars. Lincoln was doing the same thing back then, only they didn’t disguise it as well as they do today. Still I love the way it looks and I’d buy a nice used example if it ever was available.
This is no defense of the Versailles, but I do believe that there is somewhat of a double standard applied to badge engineering by many. Both Infiniti and Lexus did that in 1990 when they introduced their flagship sedans and then tarted up a couple of existing models to give the dealer franchises something more to sell.
As far as you liking the Versailles, more power to you. I respect anyone that finds something they like and can give a rational reason for them liking it, even if the car itself is irrational. Its when I have to listen to AM-radio like BS answers from some people that is a turnoff.
Back to the Versailles, it is a nice car by itself, just like the Cimarron (in later years) was not a bad car to drive. With that said, unlike the Seville being built up from the Nova it was an original project, the Versailles and Cimarron were clearly last minute very basic rehashes of existing designs and it was painfully obvious. Ford did not have the time or money to do much of anything but bolt a new trunk and front clip on the Granada and load it up with options. Although from a manufacturing standpoint, the Versailles was a much better built car than the Granada they did go to pains to eliminate NVH and assembly quality was pretty first rate. My 81 Imperial is occasionally accused of being a glorified Cordoba, and it was based off the Cordoba platform and many basic mechanicals were shared but just about all Chryslers of the day, it had a very unique body, interior, and of course the electronic doodads.
That Vernada…is so kitschy, that today it looks good.
The way kids in Paul’s neighborhoods are drawn to Volares and M-Bodies? That’s what I now think of the Grasailles. Kewl with a kapital K.
Part of it is, that I missed out on one. Two years ago. Out of work and in a low-grade panic; I was making a trip to Marquette, Michigan – fifty miles away but I couldn’t afford Internet and needed library resources in my job-hunt. Plus, it was an excuse for a ride on my R1200GS – which of course was on the market and soon to be my former bike.
There, on a secondary state road, was a dusty and faded but rust-free Granada Mark VI. $1800 – money talks, bullspit walks. Owner died of old age and the kids wanted their pound of dollars outta that POS.
I didn’t see it as a POS. A good wash, some buffing…it would still have “patina” but it would be just the thing for a CC Cruise-in, say, in Iowa City.
But I didn’t. I didn’t know if I’d be living in whatever foolish car-purchase I made. Maybe I saved $2000…but I’ll never know.
Oh boy, I see people saying the Granada wasn’t a bad car for the times. No. Just no. The Granada was a horrid car, even for the Broughamtastic 70s. I know, I lived with a Monarch from ’76 to ’79.
Let’s see. Room for four? Check. Room for four to bring stuff on a road trip? No way, unless you left the spare at home. And this trip was four college students going to Florida over Christmas break, so we’re talking a tent, four sleeping bags, a change of jeans, swim trunks, some spare underwear, and t-shirts, not four actual suitcases.
One person in the back seat? The rear suspension bottoms over railroad tracks taken slowly. Two people in back plus stuff in the trunk? The suspension bottoms on an undulating freeway (I-95 through Jacksonville).
Slower than slow, even with the 302 V-8, with gas mileage of 8-10 around town and maybe 16 on the highway (once hit 18 with a friend driving exactly 55 on a flat Interstate through South Dakota). Hesitation on acceleration that had me paranoid for years after about shooting gaps at intersections without stoplights.
Repairs? Air conditioner died after less than 1 1/2 years, front u-joint disconnected itself from the transmission at about 2 years, alternator died after less than 2 1/2 years, and transmission died at about 3 years. Car was replaced by a Fox Mustang in the summer of ’79, and I was much happier. By the way, I’m doubtful Versailles build quality was better than Granada/Monarch, because all were built in the same assembly plant using the same parts.
So I’ll say it, the Granada/Monarch/Versailles was a Ford Deadly Sin. Had I not gone to work for Ford in ’78, the Monarch would have been my last Ford product ever, it was so bad.
Mirrors my feelings, although I was spared the actual experience of having them formed first hand like you.
As a former owner of a 1979 Lincoln Versailles, I have to say that I liked my Lincoln. Nice freeway cruiser Tightly assembled. I would refer to it as a meticulously assembled Mercury Monarch. It was a car from the 70’s and was underpowered if you were wanting to drive it hard. I did not have that expectation and drove it like the luxo-cruiser it was designed to be. And for that duty, it did that job very well. Others referred to my car as a “Ghetto Granada” and the crushed red velour interior as something from “Pimp My Ride”. I looked at the car as a nice cruiser car and enjoyed all the luxury touches. My favorite feature was that Lincoln grill matched with the revolutionary halogen headlights – the first car ever equipped stock with this feature – and the excellent hydroboost four wheel disc brake system. If not for difficulty passing California smog, I probably would still own that Versailles. I really enjoyed the feel of driving that car.
Okay, I gotta jump in here on that. While Detroit was just “discovering” halogen headlights – the same sealed beams with an H2 bulb inserted where the filament structure would normally be – I was using Cibie Z-Beams in my Chevette. No matter the high cost – $120 a set if I remember – I outfitted every car I owned up until the faired-in housing era took over and Cibie went private and disappeared from the States.
THOSE were revolutionary – after using those, the wonderful new Halogen Plus lights that GE was touting, seemed like lighting the way with a burning straw-pile.
+1 on the old Z-beam, I had a set that went on numerous vehicles over the years. The Hella E-code LHD version is what I run nowadays, very similar and just as illegal in most states.
Where do you get them?
What are they sold as?
I’ve seen some Hellas…they’re better than GE sealed-beams, but not as good as Cibie was. The last NOS Cibies were sold years ago on Ebay – I was watching but never got a bid in. Haven’t popped up in a long time.
Do those Hellas come in ways to fit on faired-in-headlamp American models?
Cibié headlamps are still in production.
The 1979 Lincoln Versailles was definitely not the first car ever equipped with halogen headlamps. By the time your ’79 Versailles came down the line, halogen headlamps had been in mass production and general use outside the United States for 17 years. The ’79 Versailles did come with sealed-beam halogen high beam headlamps, which were a modest improvement over the non-halogen sealed beams, but were not revolutionary; halogen sealed beams, too, were old news to everyone but the Americans in 1979.
And even if we disregard the entire rest of the world and look only at the US market, the ’79 Versailles still wasn’t the first car with halogen sealed beams. It was just the first car with that equipment trumpeted in the marketing. Earlier in the 1970s, GE quietly made a large quantity of halogen sealed-beam high/low beam headlamps in the large round and large rectangular sizes, and marketed them (to automakers and through normal parts distribution channels) as nothing but a production variant of the ordinary sealed beam. The word “HALOGEN” moulded into the lens was the only giveaway on those unless you knew exactly what you were looking for in the lens faceting and construction details.
Back to your Versailles: are you sure that’s the car you’re thinking of? It had plain old quad rectangular sealed beams; the only difference was the inboard high beam units contained internal halogen capsules. The 1984 Mark VII was the first car in the US market since 1939 to be equipped with composite replaceable-bulb headlamps, and they did share the vertical curvature of the grill.
If there was ever a car about finesse, it was the original Seville. Not one character line or trim piece out of place. Nothing in excess. It is like a piece of fine sushi.
The Versailles in comparison is saddled with amateurish, heavy handed touches. Like the side moldings that end so awkwardly (I remember being bothered by those as a kid). The exposed windshield wipers. The tacked on taillamps. The opera lamp held in place by a Phillip’s head screw, rusting so nicely on the feature car.
I too remember the Motor Trend article and they did not call it a draw they went for the Seville, even though it was older, had less power and was more expensive. They said you get what you pay for.
The yellow Seville in the article is simply glorious, it’s like the sun came out just for that shot… and respect for the car. I find the gray skies above the Versailles fitting in so many ways.
I didn’t think these were so bad. Until you mentioned the price. Wow.
How this escapes Deadly Sin status and cars like the Seville or Bonneville or 1978 Grand Prix get the label is totally beyond me. If ever there was a car that contributed to Lincoln’s decline into what they are today this would be the start followed by the Taurus 3.8 head gasket chomping FWD Continental.
Only because Ford never died. I started the GM DS series to document the mistakes that led to their Death.
But the Versailles ranks up there as one of the most egregious sins ever.
Of course this is the first iteration of the Versailles, the later ones had longer roofs and different back doors.
Needermeyer is slipping
Only the rear disc’s were standard on the Versailles. The LSD was not. It was only a rarely ordered option. And I want either a Granada Ghia or a Versailles for my personnel collection. I like ’em. Shows what they could do with a 4dr Maverick.
BL did a similar thing with the Vanden Plas Allegro.Proof again you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but never all the people all of the time.I saw a nicely kept Versaille at a show a few years ago and heard another Lincoln owner telling his friend it wasn’t a real Lincoln.
I must have had the only “stripper” Granada anywhere. Its lone option was an AM radio–it had power nothing, no trim upgrades, the base 200 CID six, three on the tree (!)–and the infamous “Firestone 500” radials. The original owner of the ’75 had even disconnected/plugged all the vacuum hoses under the hood, and installed a manual choke. Mileage was startlingly good, and it never let me down, but the salt-belt rust ate up the wheel wells and door bottoms.
Oh, but that six would have run forever. A wistful FoMoCo engineer (Engine Div.) once said to me, “the 200–an engine so good Ford stopped making it!”
Good lord I can’t imagine how slow a Granada would be with the 200 six. My much lighter Fairmont with that engine was barely acceptable.
I was digging though my parents old books in the basement and came across their copy of Phil Edmonston’s Lemon Aid from 1978, which they presumably used when they purchased their Toyota Corolla Wagon. I used to love reading that book as a kid, as it was basically a more satirical version of the very dry Consumer Reports, and also had write ups of the more exotic cars available in Canada at the time.
The review for the Versailles leaped out at me for summing up the car in an oh-so-70s way: “The Lincoln Versailles is the car for the owner who drinks Chivas Regal with Diet Tab as a mixer.” Perfect.
As an aside, looking through the ‘old car brochures’ website online, I noticed that the Versailles interior was available in the top spec Monarch and Granada in 1976, but which were decontented in1977 so that the Versailles owner wouldn’t be able to compare directly with the Monarch in the showroom.
My fathers brother had one-a later model with the redesigned roof. Car had all the catnip, but, in essence Uncle Frank bought a Ford Granada at three times its price. Like Billy Joel sings in “I`m Moving Out” “Is that all you get for your money”.However, this car DID do something very well. It epitomized the Brougham/Malaise era.Definately didn`t live up to its name.
You mentioned the soft springing of the Versailles. A friend bought a used one – dirt cheap – in the late ’90s. A real cream puff of a car. And let me tell you, the suspension was so soft it was hard to believe. Don’t attempt a turn without bringing the car to a near halt first, as it would heel over like a drunk. Bumps of any description were thoroughly ironed out, but the subsequent see sawing of the body as the car attempted to recover the shock was like a carnival ride. Sea sickness was a constant risk.
The car was like a caricature of the floaty American lux-mobile, its softness amped up to cover for its shorter wheelbase. It was best driven very slowly, in a straight line and with barf bags located at each seating position.
Always thought one of Lincoln’s biggest missed opportunities was in not doing its first Versailles much earlier, such as in 1972 using the new Montego as basis. That car was one of the last truly beautiful FoMoCo designs. With a carefully crafted interior of high quality materials, bucket seats, full instrumentation, floor shifter, fuel injected V8, four wheel disc brakes, independent rear suspension and 15 inch wheels, might have struck a great balance between German functionality and American sizzle. It was the right time to begin investing in technology that enhanced a smaller vehicle footprint, and Lincoln’s leadership should have known this and leveraged Ford’s huge R&D department to maximum extent. Sales need not have been high like Wixom’s large cars – the real race was in pricing, and the Europeans were winning. It was time for America to suit up and take to the field, but play the game their way.
Here’s a version that keeps the Merc’s door outers and front fenders, washes away the unwanted vinyl roof and adds (unwanted?) skirts, which would have required new rear quarters. Triple taillights could have replaced the doubles, still in same bumper. Up front, carryover hood and bumper with new grill, fascia and hidden lamps. Most of the investment would have gone into the independent rear, fuel injection and a new I/P and instrumentation that worked in style elements of Mark IV and Continental but otherwise took appearance to a whole new level similar in impact, if not in details, to the ’61-63 Continental. With the design set, next task would have been build quality, durability and reliability, with all known issues from mainstream Ford and Mercs being remedied. And lastly, the marketing folks and dealers would have needed to get in the heads of the Mercedes, Jaguar and even Rolls-Royce and Bentley buyer to figure out how to sell to them.
Because the ’72 Mark IV had dual taillights and the Continental a set of triples, decided to give the Versailles quads.
In 1973, Ford showed a “Mark I” which was a European Ford Granada with Lincoln styling cues. It would be interesting to find out why Ford didn’t bother to pursue this idea in creating the Versailles. At least it had the advantage of not looking like something out of a US Ford showroom that had a collision with a JC Whitney catalog.
I think this was covered before, but I would bet that the Euro Granada based Lincoln didn’t go forward because it would have been a Lincoln without a V8. Yet, it would have “scooped” Cadillac and it’s non V8 Cimarron, so more likely a case of not thinking outside the box.
Honestly, the styling of the Euro Granada isn’t really outside the realm of aesthetics Ford had in their 4 doors domestically in the early 70s, save for size. The direction Ford went in the 70s, and especially the themes used on Lincoln, were closer to the US Granada, whereas this “Mark I” looks akin to the Mercury Bobcat in execution. A formal grille on a body like that just doesn’t work.
I’m not sure the foreign intrigue is enough to make it more palatable than the Versailles, if anything this reminds me more of the Cadillac Catara – a dowdy Opel with a crest – and I don’t feel it would have been better recleved, people just aren’t that gullible.
The euro Granada should have been the original Ford fairmont state side.
It was a great car and really style wise not much different. I wouldn’t have pushed it as a Lincoln. Maybe it should have been Mercury’s zephyr? But in the USA at the time I really don’t know if it was brougham enough to make a difference
It wouldn’t have worked – the European Granada was a semi-luxury car and priced accordingly. It couldn’t be cheapened down to Fairmont level.
My darn ADD screws with my mind so maybe I’ve got some of this backwards?
When I look at the base price for a 4 door Cavalier and for a Cimarron, the Chevy isn’t quite 1/2 the price of the Cadillac. The Chevy is just over $7K, the Cadillac just over $12K. The really ironic thing though is that the V8 Seville in 1976 started just a few dollars more than the 4 cylinder Cimarron would in 1982.
In 1976, the Seville was over 3 times as expensive as the V8 Nova 4 door sedan.
The Versailles had a 351 V8 for it’s first 2 years of production, an engine that was phased out of the Granada just about the time the Versailles would debut.
In the backwards world of automobile marketing, Ford probably sold as many Versailles as it did BECAUSE they priced it with the Seville. Had it been cheaper, it would not have sold any better as it would have been perceived as even less worthy of being considered as a Lincoln.
BTW, I like the Versailles in spite of it’s close resemblance to the Granada (though I think the Monarch is even better looking), but I concede that the Seville is also a very good looking car and is the better car to drive, too.
I don’t know, DanEKay. Are luxury car buyers logical? I’d like to think they are. but you may be right.
When I look at the Versailles, much as I would like to like the car, I see corporate rip-off. Three times the price of the donor car, yet visually so similar? I can see massive profits heading Ford’s way, but little benefit for the buyer over an equivalent (and equivalent-looking) Ford or Mercury. And yet people bought it…! The Caddy may have been a stretched and rebodied Nova, but you’d never have guessed to look at it. Your money bought real distinctiveness, something the little Lincoln didn’t offer.
I wonder if the Versailles had been priced as an entry-level Lincoln, even at say twice the price of the donor car, it might have sold the pants off the Seville? Less profit per unit, but a higher volume. Who knows.
I think that in 1977 Ford tried two different marketing strategies. One was the way overpriced Lincoln Versailles, which was much smaller than usual for a Lincoln. The other was the much discounted Thunderbird, which was much smaller than it had been in recent years. Buyers flocked to the discounted Thunderbird. The overpriced Versailles, not so much, which proves that every one loves a bargain even if it is only perceived.
I worked at a Lincoln Mercury dealer (as a college student/ vehicle relocation engineer) when this car came out and the difference between the Versailles and the Monarch were so minimal it was obvious. The big sellers were the Marks, though, so I don’t recall many Versailles being prepped/sold….
I was really interested in one of these in high school. It was for sale when my first car died. Low miles. Great shape. Gray with everything and gray leather and matching top. Low miles. My mom was ready to say yes….. then I told her what it was…. a very loud no followed. My grandparents said the same…. loudly. 20 years after it came out. They still thought it was an over priced Granada. And after the Granada my grandmother bought… they were all considered garbage
BMC had been doing this sort of thing for years, and look where it got them…..
Versailles wasn’t a “pig in a poke” IMO. It was a proven chassis with many worthwhile mechanical and structural changes plus the 4-wheel disc brakes from the 1976 Mercury Grand Monarch. It had halogen headlights (perhaps not the first in the industry but better than most other cars in the late ’70s) and clearcoat paint that became an industry standard in the 1980s.
Ford’s pricing was this car’s Deadly Sin. It just wasn’t different enough from its lesser siblings to justify the huge price. Ford tried to match GM and failed. Had this car been priced more like the Chrysler LeBaron it would have been in keeping with the package that was being offered. Hiking the price year after year produced a wildly overpriced 1980 model that competed in a recessionary year with the new “downsized” full-size Lincolns resulting in disastrous sales. Had Ford priced this car under 10k and kept it there sales would have been considerably better and with the new ’79 roof line, it would have been remembered as something more than a failure.
The rear disk brakes and axle are highly sought after parts to add to a first gen Mustang. So they did something right.
Two or three years ago there was a pristine example at one of the various used car lots along Michigan Ave in Wayne, Michigan (one of the Detroit suburbs). It was there for several months before disappearing. I can only hope that it found a happy and caring home.