(first posted 9/30/2013) This Mercury Monarch shares a platform and much of its body with the iconic Ford Granada- Iconic in a funky seventies style way, rather than in an establishing a new mark of excellence way.
Regardless of your opinion of the neoclassic automotive styling so prevalent in the seventies, you’ll probably agree there were a few platforms that wore this throw- back styling with panache. I believe this car carries that panache, and may represent the peak of the neoclassic movement (Monte Carlo and Grand Prix fans will certainly disagree, but so be it). Between the tall grill and single headlights designed to recall cars of the classic era, and sharp body line creases harking back to custom coach work, this Mercury includes all the elements of the neoclassic look.
Despite this, I find this coupe’s size, proportions, and overall look quite pleasant. While it cannot blend into the modern street scene, it feels no need to apologize for its era specific style It wears its look with pride, confident that well-tailored sheet-metal can impress even four decades later. Fortunately, today’s coupe did not over accessorize, leaving vinyl top and two tone paint options back at the factory.
A look at the rear three quarter view really emphasizes this styling. Ford advertised this platform as their “right sized” car (and made embarrassing comparisons to Mercedes in their Granada advertising), which led to a wheelbase that wore this look with comfort. While this view also emphasizes the inefficient packaging of the two door body style, in the seventies the coupe was king, and when American manufacturers hit the ball out of the park, they chose the two door as their bat.
A close look at the fender tells us this is a Monarch Ghia, one step up in the Granada/Monarch hierarchy. Checking online, the Ghia package only added a few critical features, but helped the neighbors differentiate those shopping strictly for price from those looking for a little bit more in their automobile.
My interior shots for this car did not come out, but I found this nice shot of a Monarch interior. While it suffers from the typical 1970s era hula-hoop steering wheel, the dashboard provided a considerable step up from the Falcon/Maverick roots underpinning the Monarch. I know this dash lacks sporting pretensions- It lacks a tachometer or even basic engine gauges, but that wasn’t the Monarch’s mission. Like Monarch’s exterior, this driver’s space harks back to a previous era- A simpler, but more luxurious interior.
This head on shot does remind me of one of my pet peeves- Neoclassic looks should NOT use square headlights. I understand Detroit wanted to use the latest technology as soon as possible, but dammit, if the styling hearkens back to 1930, the car should have ROUND headlights. Shouldn’t stylists have the opportunity to use all the tools in their kit, rather than single mindedly pursuing the latest fad?
At least Ford used single squares on the Granada and Monarch, rather than stacking dual headlight units. These single squares balance the grille opening, and don’t needlessly call attention to themselves, but I still prefer the look of the original Monarch.
Speaking of styling fads, along with square headlights, the Monarch styling refresh also added a separator bar to the existing opera windows to create “twindows” on the cheap. Twindows (dual opera windows) appeared on Ford’s Monte Carlo fighter, the Gran Torino Elite, so the stylists slathered this fad on the Monarch’s B-pillar as well. I’m not a huge fan, but since the windows maintain the original glass silhouette, the separator bar provides a minor distraction, rather than a major faux pas.
In my opinion, this rear view shows the only negative design flaw of the Monarch. Unlike the base Granada, which provided a simple, clean expanse of sheet metal between the tail lights, every Monarch came with this tacky, plastic fill panel. I see no purpose for this escutcheon, and it adds a busy look to an attractive tail.
This close-up shot does show a Monarch Miracle! Once these cars were three or four years old, I recall these fuel doors hanging open on most Monarchs. For this door to survive thirty five or more years of fueling and not failing is almost inconceivable.
So that’s my take on this “right sized” Mercury. As I recall, Granada/Monarch sales started out strong, but quickly dropped as consumers moved away from neoclassic styling, and embraced the build quality and reliability available on the more rational cars available in the early eighties. But as a child of the seventies, these cars are more than just a clownish interpretation of the Mercedes Benz. They are the style of my youth, a statement in sheet metal, and one of the last automotive platforms that placed style so far ahead of substance.
Nice to see one of these again… Size-wise, it was quite predictive of the future. (A little bit of luxury in a smaller package.) I think you’ll find though that they kept the round headlights for the first three years (’75 thru ’77). It’s amazing how low their survival rate seems to have been. I always thought they should have done a Granada/Monarch wagon, on the first generation, as they ultimately did on the second (Fox) gen. Would have been good competition for the Aspen/Volare wagon twins. Up until the Fairmont (’78), Ford had nothing to offer in a wagon between the Pinto/Bobcat and the Torino/LTDll/Montego/Cougar, and GM had no wagons in the “N,O,V,A” segment either. Chrysler essentially got a free ride in the “right size” wagon market for their first couple of years.
Somehow Ford caught a wave with the Granada. In 1974, buyers were looking for a luxury compact. The Granada/Monarch was it.
The Granada/Monarch was not supposed to be a typical compact car like it’s roots – the Maverick/Falcon. It was supposed to be an upscale car with a low-ball price. It was. These cars sold by the hundreds of thousands.
These were very nicely styled cars for the era. The proportions were perfect. The round headlight versions were better looking. The faux padded vinyl accent between the tailights and along the rub strip are embarrassing, but an acceptable look at that time.
It has a nice visual heft. When the Fairmont was unveiled, it’s light, airy square body seemed like it lacked the heft we all grew comfortable with with 1970 US car styling. The Granada/Monarch fulled this look together very well indeed.
If only the front overhang was less, by moving the front wheel arches forward a few inches, this car would look about perfect.
It does look better than the Monte Carlo. The Chevrolet’s fender sweeps were not at all harmonious with the rest of the car. Especially the smaller version of the Monte Carlo, which needed to have lost those ridiculous fender wings. They became the strongest visual element to that car’s styling and was seriously overwrought and tacky. The Cutlass, now that was absolute perfection at GM!
The Granada/Monarch was not a good car. They rusted badly. They sat on cheap Falcon/Maverick underpinings that struggled under all that bloated weight. What Iacocca did was take the floaty slowness of a bad car design and turn it into a style asset, but it was just another one of his hollow sales tricks to sell Americans faddish cars at high profit margins. The guy was PT Barnum.
Actually only the half size smaller AMC Hornet had a 4 Door Station Wagon to compete with the Plymouth Volare’ and Dodge Aspen twins. Only Ford did not have 4 Door Station Wagons for the Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch (unless you count the Latin American Countries Ford Maverick which did have a limited numbers of 4 Door Station Wagons built through 1979 by an outside aftermarket manufacturer and provider outside of The Ford Motor Company domain.) nor GM’s “NOVA” Group. Only in 1978 that Ford finally had Compact 4 Door Station Wagons based on the new Fox Chassis which were the Ford Fairmont and the Mercury Zephyr. GM also entered this size segment as well due to the result of their Downsizing of the Chevrolet Malibu, Pontiac Le Mans, Oldsmobile Cutlass and Buick Century.
I’m not a fan of the rear either. It looks strikingly similar to the Plymouth Volare.
I worked at a Ford parts counter in the late seventies and we always had a good supply of those Granada/Monarch fuel filler doors on hand. We sold so many we kept them right by the counter.
+1 They were the first thing to break on these cars
+1 I am amazed this car still sports its door.
I had a ’75 Monarch handed down by my parents, and the fuel filler door went at around three years. I replaced it once, then when it broke again I said “screw it”, removed it, and left the filler cap out in the open until I got rid of the damned thing. The problem was a plastic hinge that broke in cold weather when it was pushed up as the car was being filled. Ford probably saved 25 cents compared with a metal hinge and lost lots of goodwill from angry customers.
I’ve said it before, but if I hadn’t gone to work for Ford in ’78 that would have been my last Ford product ever. It was a nasty piece of work with a rear suspension that would bottom at the least provocation with two people in the back seat, had no acceleration (and hesitated such that I was nervous pulling into traffic for years after I got rid of it), got terrible gas mileage (best ever on a tank was 18 mpg doing exactly 55 mph in a flat straight Interstate in South Dakota), and had a trunk where the spare used up half of the space (no mini-spares in those days).
In other words, an Iacocca special – all show and no substance. On the other hand, the front reclining buckets were quite nice – firm and supportive – so there’s that.
Was that 18 mpg with the six or the 302?
If Ford and GM had spent an extra $100 on quality components for their cars (your missive on the plastic fuel filler hinge prompted me), they wouldn’t have been perceived as the POS that drove people into the willing arms of the Japanese. Metal hinges, attaching trim better so it doesn’t fall off, liner sleeves for the Vega engine, gas tank shields for the Pinto, better and tougher switchgear for all the controls people touch daily. Toyota, Datsun and Honda paid attention to those details. People get pissed off when parts that shouldn’t break do break or fall off while they are still making payments.
Among Ghia features was leather seats. These ones actually look rather modern for the ’70s. No button-tufted pillow seats.
Damn it came with a factory car alarm. I did not know that they offered them back then.
That is not a Ghia, that is the Grand Monarch, a step above the Ghia, with features like leather and 4-wheel disc brakes. They stopped making that when the Lincoln Versailles came about.
Sorry to be crowding the comment thread up with pictures, but every time the Monarch comes up, all I can think of is “The Handicap Spot” episode of Seinfeld, where Kramer persuades George to park his father’s Monarch in a handicap spot.
“You know, a lot of these scratches will buff right out…”
I could have been an architect…
It moved.
People not around then cannot appreciate how the Granada/Monarch absolutely nailed it. People were ready for a smaller, more sensible size, but they were reluctant to give up the luxury that had become more and more normal during the 70s. This car (particularly in sedan form, that sold much, much better) was almost perfect: size, choice of 6 or V8 power, almost perfect proportions for the period, and the look of a car more expensive than the actual price.
My father went from a Continental Mark IV to a 76 Monarch Ghia sedan. With leather, the 351 V8, power everything and the same lace alloy wheels on this car, it was a very nice car.
This car was also an example of the infamous “Ford Fake-Out”. In a showroom and on the streets, this car looked like a top quality car. The doors were heavy, the carpet was thick, the paint jobs were good, and this looked like a new kind of Ford to those of us who lived around the rusty pieces of crap that Ford had been putting out in the early 70s. Then, after a few years, it became apparent that these were no better. These coupes eventually developed fist-sized rust holes in the rear quarter panels under the twindows, a very odd place for a rust-out. I knew a guy who owned the Ford version in the 80s – called it “the Grenade.” These all went away, and it is amazing that you found one this nice.
Brendan’s picture of the Volare reminds me of how the 76 Volare sedan looked so dumpy simply because it followed the 75 Granada by a year but lacked the Granada’s great proportions. The Volare’s styling was a tremendous missed opportunity for Chrysler. The Granada/Monarch looked really good. The Volare, even the higher trim versions, always looked dowdy. Suddenly it’s 1953?
Taste is subjective, but I always found the Granada/Monarch to be overly generic and rather old hat. Just a bunch of squared-off lines punctuated by an anonymous-looking radiator grille. The back end was particularly lacking in character.
Where’s the brand DNA? Is there a single line on these cars that says “Ford” or “Mercury?” This is what K-Mart would have offered if it had gotten into the car business. An anonymous car for anonymous people living in the anonymous suburbs. Oy!
The Volare/Aspen were also fairly generic designs but they at least sported a brand-new body. Note how the cowl is lower, which allowed a cleaner — if still radiator focused — front end. The Chryslers also had lots of side tuck under. That was in contrast to the Fords, which were based on the more-squared-off 1965 Mustang platform.
Of course, Chrysler didn’t benefit from its more ambitious redesign because of quality lapses. Ironically, Ford had the better idea.
I see a lot of Ford DNA in these. In 1975 the Thunderbird, Elite and LTD also had the classical stand up radiator grille backed by a hood that followed that shape and peaked front fenders with similar turn signal/parking lights in their tips. When the LTD II replaced the Torino it got a similar front end treatment. Out back the Torino, and Elite shared the wrap around tail lights with a similar section between them.
Certainly it was a radical departure from the Maverick which it was supposed to take the place of. The Maverick only got a stay of execution due to a strong sales surge following the oil embargo. So Ford decided to soldier it on for a few more years and move the Granada up market which turned out to be a great idea as the Granada was a definite success and the Maverick still did OK.
“I see a lot of Ford DNA in these”
When has this not been true for a Mercury? Perhaps the Villager minivan but anything else?
I was referring to Ford corporate DNA as I was responding to his comment that the Granada/Monarch didn’t look like any other Ford products. Not that a Mercury didn’t look a lot like a Ford.
They all looked like mini-Lincolns back then including the Mustang.
I have to disagree on the generic styling. The instant the Granada came out, it was immediately a mini-me LTD.
And I have to agree like previous comments, it hit a sweet spot with the buying public, forcing GM and Chrysler to up their ‘luxury’ offerings in their compacts.. Too bad it was on the Falcon chassis!
I’ve said elsewhere that it was exactly in a sweet spot demographically – it was a car that baby boomers could feel like real grownups driving and that the WW2 generation could downsize to without worrying the neighbors would think they’d fallen on hard times.
Agreed. But what they did not nail is the build quality, especially with the coachwork, (powertrains were mostly old school and reliable, but NO power by this time) Had a ’75 Granada for a brief time, early ’80s it was when I had it, only 50K on the clock and what a POS. That said, I would love to find a 2 door Granada/Monarch and infuse it with today’s T, although I would still prefer a ’70-’72 Maverick!
Build quality issues indeed. I walked around a dealer lot when these came out and remember spotting a Granada sporting Monarch badges on the side. I guess that quality wasn’t exactly job one.
Agree with all of your points exactly.
Two additional thoughts:
As you point out, it was a luxury car at the time, even in the base version. There was no stripper, unlike the Maverick before it, or the Fairmont after it. Interior details were complete and color keyed, and full chrome around the door frames, wheel lip mouldings, and full wheel covers were all standard. The car always looked very good, even if the base drivetrain was a dud. Buyers saw value – like Hyundai buyers see today.
The Granada seems a 7/10th scale LTD from the period. My dad had a ’76 LTD the color of the car below, and the front details – except for the single headlights are very much a scaled back beefy full size look. Much more lux looking then the Fairmont that followed. I had older relatives that took to this car, and left full size vehicles to become Granada owners.
This picture has the side trim right off the upscale LTD Landau.
My dad had the more basic LTD like the picture below, that lacks the the covered headlights and the black bumper rub strip. It is missing the side trim of the Granada above, but the front end resemblance to the Granada is very strong, down to similar grill textures.
note the power vent windows- note offered on the monarch/granada/versailles correct?
There was a base Granada released in the spring of 1975, without side trim, due to the recession. But it had more standard features than the 1970 Maverick.
Yes, there were stripper versions, and my dad bought one. A red Monarch with 3 on the tree, anemic 6, no air conditioning (in Florida! in summer!) and a red vinyl interior, very similar to the one pictured. Now, I am sure not many were built as such, but they were the “bait and switch” cars used in newspaper, radio, and TV advertising to show a low, low price to get eager buyers to the showroom, only to have to upgrade to a higher priced one to get the amenities expected. Most dealers carried one on the lot for the year, only to get rid of it at the end of the model year to be replaced by another one. The Monarch was the last stripper that my dad, a former dealership mechanic, ever bought.
Some Ford and Chrysler vehicles looked remarkably similar in that era. That’s why the K-Cars looked like 5/8 scale box panthers! Some Ford designers went to Chrysler in those years.
The truth of the matter is: Nobody did 1977 better than GM, especially Oldsmobile with the Cutlass coupe as highlighted two weeks ago!
Still, when shopping for my very first new vehicle, I did briefly fantasize about a Ford Granada coupe!
Regarding the Merc above, already they were pretty much a dead brand, but somehow, they survived far longer than Olds, even with Olds having unique vehicles that didn’t look like Chevys at the end!
Yes – a FORD!
I bought a Chevy after all…
I agree that GM was riding high in the saddle in 1977. The domestic offerings were pretty substandard and by the time I could really remember these cars (being born in 76) they were 10+ years old and the GM cars held up better than the Ford/Mopar cars, or even the imports.
Heck, I still see more late seventies GM cars on the road than I do anything else, and I’m not talking about my own 77 Chevelle barge, which I’m correcting build quality lapses on it.
Growing up as a son of a Ford mechanic I was surrounded with Escorts, Orions, Granadas, Sierras and even Fiestas with that Ghia emblem. I thought it an important thing as if the crest alone would make the car nicer, faster, better in every way. Then I grew up and found out Ghia trims only added some ugly fake wood on the dash – what a disappointment.
Nowadays to me all heraldry seems a bit juvenile.
This car makes me think of late night detective shows.The 4 door sedan was sold in the late 70s/early 80s in the UK but there were few takers as it cost quite a bit more than the UK Ford Granada.The only one I recall seeing was a bronze 4 door sedan in Fleetwood,down the road from Blackpool.
A couple I knew in the early 80’s had a Granada ESS two-door with a manual transmission! I thought it looked pretty sporty for the times.
At first glance I thought that looked almost identical to a Mustang dash with different gauges and trimmings so I had to look it up. It’s actually a bit more different than I originally thought, although there’s no mistaking the family resemblence and I think the top pad may even be the same.
The Fairmont dash is the same as a the 79 Mustang, save for the top pad and instrument panel. The Granada is unrelated other than sharing a similar aesthetic(which was a very very common one at the time). The platforms themselves are totally different so the dashes don’t really interchange
I still maintain that starting with the 72 Mark IV, Ford simply adapted one single dash design (with choice or round or square gauges) across every car line for the rest of the 70s (and beyond with the early Fox cars). Big woodgrained rectangle in front of the driver, small woodgrained rectangle in front of the passenger with a glovebox under. I have always wondered if this was intentional or just lazy design.
I think the dash looks a bit more like the Mustang II Ghia dash than the early Fox Mustang. Actually, it kinda splits the difference between the Mustang II and the Mark IV, except it leaves off the gauges that I think were standard on the Mustang. For all the pseudo-Mercedes advertising hype, did anyone at Ford ever look inside a contemporary Mercedes and notice the presence of actual instruments in the instrument panel? Even the absolute base Valiants and Volares came with a temp gauge and an ammeter; this was one area where Chrysler had GM and Ford beat for a long time.
I agree about the headlights. The ’75-’76 with the round lights gave the best look. My sister had one in Maroon about 30 years ago.
Give me a 351W and automatic. As our author mentioned at least this one doesn’t have padded top, although the right two tone could be attractive.
My father’s Monarch with the 351 was quite fast for the times. But after 2 years, he would be back into a Lincoln. I don’t think he missed the Monarch.
Way back in jr. high a buddy of mine’s sister had a sqaure-headlight Granada 2 door in that shade, it was a 302 stick. I always thought the 2 doors looked a bit odd, the doors just seem too long and they throw the proportions off. The four doors on the other hand have a nice balanced look to them. If I didn’t already have a ’70s Ford to play with I could totally rock a Granada/Monarch 4 door.
The single square headlights were not DOT approved until the 1978 model year. This is a 78-80 Monarch, not ’77.
Unless modified.
Can’t gauge model year from the build date sticker. So many will assume this, forgetting that new cars always come out in fall,
Agree on this car, unless modified, is at the earliest, a ’78 model.
Mr. Bill
What a looker. Ford had mastered the use of chrome trim by the early to mid 70s. The amount and placement was as perfect on this Monarch is it was on a Torino GT, Mustang II Ghia or Pinto Decor. The Ghias all had a “look”, like one guy was responsible for checking all of the detailing across lines.
I usually hated when square headlamps replaced round but here it kind of worked, though the round light Monarch was the best looking in the series. The proportions are great and the sport mirrors so much nicer than the non-Ghia chrome mirrors. The blackwalls avoid the visual noise associated with whitewalls and make the lines pop even more.
The styling of the Fairmont Futura was amateurish compared to what Ford was doing before. I think Craig said once that Ford lost designers to Chrysler around this time.
This feature car is awesome for color and condition. The interior is amazing.
The interior shown is actually the base Granada/Monarch interior, and there was an upgrade packages (with separate front split-bench or bucket seats) that was a level above this one but still below the Ghia. And I think starting in ’76, there was also a Ghia Luxury Decor Option that really maxed out the interior with full-length armrests and optional leather seats; it had most of the features and shapes found in the later Lincoln Versailles.
Ironically I live right near the dealership that started the whole Monarch – Mercedes comparison. Bob Tasca’s Lincoln-Mercury dealership in Seekonk, Massachusetts was on the small side back then in the 70’s (it’s huge now and sells Fords, Volvos, and Mazdas too). Mr. Tasca was personal friends with Henry Ford II and often criticized the products coming out of the Ford plant. He actually wrote a book called “You Will Be Satisfied” that tells all about his relationship with Ford and his dealership success; it goes into detail about how he modified a Monarch to be a Mercedes-Benz look-alike at one third the price of the real thing. From what I remember he added color-keyed Mercedes-Benz like hub caps, a hood ornament, and a “250 LM” emblem on the trunk lid of a Monarch. Upon further investigation (Google) I also found that he mounted the radio antenna in the rear fender, changed the trunk lock over to a Lincoln cover, and pin-striped the bottom of the car. He sold 40 of these “Mercury-Benz” cars a month. They were all over Massachusetts and Rhode Island when I was a kid. He was a marketing genius, and if you ever get a chance his book is a fantastic read.
I remember I was three years old when our neighbor bought a new Granada. I thought it was the most beautiful car — it looked so “new” and “edgy”. I guess it was because it was just so very modern looking compared to everything else on our street.
We moved when I was four. Since then, I’ve never really cared for these. I still am amazed that the only engine-monitoring indicators these cars had was one true idiot light named “ENGINE”. Low oil pressure? “ENGINE” High temperature? “ENGINE”.
Wow.
I remember that same all-purpose idiot light on early Fairmonts also. Really dumb I thought.
How we got tachometers and temperature gauges after that is a puzzlement (but now temp gauges are reverting back to idiot lights).
Even the gauges are basically all now idiot lights in a different format – the position of the needle is controlled by computer, not from the relevant sensor/sender.
Yes and no, Yes many modern cars do have the computer control the temp and fuel gauge but the reading is based off of the associated sensor.
On the other hand some oil pressure gauges, particularly on Fords of the last 20 years or so are idiot gauges. They are controlled by a sender that works much like a the sender for an idiot light and there is a resistor somewhere in the circuit that makes the gauge read the desired amount. The plus is you can jump the resistor, often found on the back of the instrument cluster and put in a sender from an older Ford with a real gauge.
My parents had a ’76 Monarch Ghia Sedan. Tan velour gut. 302/auto. Bog slow by today’s standards, but I did walk a Turbo Trans Am. Guy from work had a new V-8 Turbo T/A, and the M-O-C-H (yeah, lost the gas filler cover) beat it in a drag race.
Mostly, the T/A was pathetic; the Monarch couldn’t even smoke a tire from a dead stop. Bad handling, drank gas, cheap interior. Don’t miss it.
I was in my early teens when the Granada / Monarch came out and can remember reading about them in Popular Science, pre-introduction. They turned out to be pretty snazzy-looking when I saw my first one in the metal, which was a Granada in light blue metallic.
Although by no means a Ford fan, I consider myself lucky to have experienced two of this breed up close and personal.
A good friend’s parents bought a new ’76 Monarch sedan with the 302 and auto. White with red interior. IIRC, buckets in front and no A/C. Logged lots of passenger time in it and always liked it. It seemed pretty peppy, and was comfortable & quiet. In my memory it offered a little more substance than JPC’s “Ford Fake-Out” but it did eventually succumb to the tin worm.
Later, in driver’s Ed, I was the lucky student to be the first pilot of a ’78 Granada sedan. Now, this one was the inline 6 (I forget how many cubes.) Although it handled and rode well, it had NO spunk. VERY loud whenever passing gear kicked in, which was A LOT in the hills of SE Ohio. Even in cruise mode, it wasn’t nearly as quiet as the Monarch.
Would I reserve a slot in my fantasy garage for one of these? Let’s just say it would have to be one HUGE fantasy and it would have to be in “V8 Vision.”
My Drivers Ed car was a ’75 Monarch 2 door with a 302. What a slug in performance compared to our family ’72 Comet LDO 4 door with the same engine. It also had an annoying tendency to cut out under part throttle in certain conditions.
We later got a ’76 Granada 2 door with a 351 as a loaner for a few weeks. That one could actually lay rubber with nobody in the back seat. It was sold and replaced by a brand new ’77 4 door Granada with a 302 that was just as sluggish as the ’75 Drivers Ed car.
Re the size of the the above mentioned six. It could have been a 200 or a 250. Curiously, in Canada, only the bigger six was offered.
JP is right about the ‘fake-out’. They had really nice showroom appeal, but they sure went downhill quickly.
IIRC, for either 1977 or 78, both the 200 I6 and the 351 V8 went away, leaving just the 250 I6 and the 302 V8 as power choices in the Granarch. Agreed on the sluggish nature of the sixes and the 302. In fact, there never seemed to be much difference between the 250 and the 302 as far as performance went.
No not much difference but in those days it was V8 or nothing for me, actual performance notwithstanding.
It’s neat to see one of these again, it’s been a long time since they were numerous here in rust country. WRT to the car’s overall look, the original owner (or dealership order person) must have missed a few boxes on the order form to not have the quarter landau vinyl roof on the car. Now, 35 years later, it looks good, but I’m sure at the time the car looked like an Army recruit, right after they get their hair all sheared off.
Also, the black sidewall tires have got to be a side effect the lack of decent whitewall tire sizes in contemporary times. I think it’s getting harder to find multiple sizes of 14 inch tires in general, if this was some sort of weird size, it may only come in black sidewall. Again, 35 years later, it looks great, but at the time this car would have shipped with thin whitewalls, like all of the other cars that were on the lot and the street in 1978. Now that whitewall tires are in the minority they really stand out, but that rarity has to do with shifting consumer tastes, not any technological barrier that prevents whitewall tires from meeting current needs.
Someone mentioned earlier about the comparison between the Volare/Aspen twins and the Granada/Monarch coupes, IMO the G/M coupes were “old men’s cars” and the V/A twins were aimed at a younger demographic. A more apt comparison would have been the original Dodge Diplomat and Chrysler LeBaron models, but I think they were priced above the G/M cars; which points to the advantage they had. A quick Google search gives average prices of the LeBaron coupe at about $5K, the near-equivalent Monarch was about $500 cheaper. That made a big difference in recession year 1978!
At any rate, nice to see one again.
14″ tires are getting hard to find period. When it came time for new tires for my mother-in-laws Ranger I put some 15″ wheels on it to have a choice other than Radial TAs, or something that was way too small.
This is so true. When I was a teen in the late 70s, the reason “unmarked” police vehicles might just as well been marked was because NOTHING bigger than a subcompact didn’t have a vinyl roof or whitewalls. Made the mid and fullsized police cars without them stand out in traffic like they were black and whites.
One has to remember in those years, square headlights were the rage while round headlights were old news. I really like this car, what an excellent find in that condition. Back in the day, I wouldn’t have looked twice but now it’s like seeing an old friend, she’s still looking great after all these years. Thanks for sharing, Dave!
The other thing that came to mind seeing this car was the old Ford Grenada commercial with the diamond cutter in the back seat, making that one critical cut while the Ford is motoring on some city street.
That commercial and the Ricardo Montalban, Chrysler Cordoba piece, with it’s “fine Corinthian Leather are standouts to this day. Nobody did cheesy car commercials like Motown, in the mid to late seventies. Lee Iaccoca himself carried on that fine tradition when he went to Chrysler and starred in his own TV ads. “if you can find a better car, buy it!” Classic Detroit Cheese! 🙂
sounds like they were a nice car for the day….essentially a Lincoln Versailles- I note how a leather steering wheel was offered- stupid how the Lincoln Mark series and the Continental series came with those stupid plastic wheels
I thought these were great little cars. My dad seriously considered a ’76 Monarch Ghia to replace their ’71 Lincoln Continental, but ultimately decided it was too small, and went for a downsized ’77 Cadillac a year later. I actually had a ’77 Granada four door as a company car back then, with the 302 V8, always enjoyed driving it, and it accommodated my 6’+ frame with ease. I would always ask for one when renting cars on my business travels, they were ubiquitous at all the car rental counters. IMHO, the four door was a much better looker than the two door, the two door seemed to have much more ungainly proportions. Funny you don’t see these anymore. I believe Ford’s tagline then was “Precision sized,” which they were, indeed, after all the ’70’s bloat had set in.
I miss my ’80 Monarch Ghia, painted in what I was told, was lipstick red. This color definitely caught your attention and with the white half vinyl top, lacy spoke wheels as per our subject car, and a Ford factory luggage rack, it was quite, as my dad would say it, “snazzy”.
Inside, my car was unusually equipped with cruise, tilt, power windows, power driver’s seat, a/c, automatic parking brake release, lighted vanity mirrors, all vinyl interior, and a most unusual, and eye catching radio – an electronic, digital display am/fm unit without knobs, just push buttons for the controls. It was labeled “Quadrophonic Sound System” and also incorporated an 8 track tape player. It is the only Monarch I have ever seen so equipped. I wish I knew its history, but it was an 8,000 mile unit sitting on the pre-owned lot of the Lumberton, NC Ford dealer. Oh, it was no powerhouse with the 200-6 cylinder engine – go figure whoever originally ordered this one.
Mr. Bill
I’ll bet your Monarch was a car ordered by a Ford/Mercury executive for their own personal use, being so loaded and having such low miles on it. Plus it ended up on a Ford lot with only 8,000 miles on it. A lot of times the executives would factory order a car just the way they wanted and many times they were loaded to the max. This is very similar to the “program cars” we hear about today, except today’s cars don’t stand out because mostly all are equipped the same and we can’t customize our cars like we could back then.
Tom, you are probably right and I had already thought about this possibly being an executive car. The six cylinder engine was surprising though – I really wish it had been a V8. I probably would have kept it longer (traded in 1984) as the 6 was thirsty, short on power, and pinged and knocked.
Mr. Bill
The Granada/Monarch two-door sedans were butt-ugly in profile – they always looked truncated somehow, like someone had cut the middle out. These cars worked better as four-door sedans.
my first girlfriend had a 2 door granada, there were semen stains all over the headliner from all the rub-n-tugz. wonder who drives it now?
Too much information!
I learned to drive in the parents’ 75 Granada sedan with the 250 CID six that put out a whopping 72HP and a more reasonable 180 LB/FT of torque. The gas cap cover had fallen off within three years and the interior seats and dash were a festival of splits, cracks and tears-vastly inferior build quality in comparison to its GM contemporaries. It was the slowest car I’ve ever driven by a long shot, 86 mph top speed, verified a number of times. It couldn’t smoke the tires under any circumstances. The front fenders were rusted through within four or five years.
Still, despite devouring much more than its fair share of oil and brake fluid it managed to live well over a decade and 165K mostly neglected miles and in its latter years took on a kind of roach-like survivor aura before finally being donated to charity (suckers!).
I had a ’75 sh!t brown Monarch (a Ghia, in fact-iirc). I liked almost everything about the styling of these cars…except those taillights! The saggy ass and the column shifter which popped off in my hand were another story, however. Oh, and my fuel filler door functioned correctly as well, it was ’98 when I had it but yeah.
car has 68thusa d miles been in storge several yersburgeny int. ext.white good shape
hav clear title
I agree that these cars looked so much better with the round headlights than the square headlights, I never liked the square headlights on these cars at all, it looks too plain compared to the models with the round headlights, I remember seeing these cars all the time back when I was a kid but nowadays I rarely see them anymore.
Last summer I found a Mercury Monarch in the village of Ensdorf, region of the river Saar, Germany, 12 miles to the french and 25 miles to the luxembourgian border. It was for sale by a company cleaning and caring cars. I think it was a ’75 to 77. I can’t remember the price for it, but it was in good condition. The Monarch was dark green with even darker vinyl roof, the color inside I don’t know anymore. After 2 weeks it wasn’t parked there.
On a German car-selling-website it was also offered.
In 1978, I bought a 76 Granada Ghia 2dr, 302 with 4-speed manual trans in the floor. It was Red, Red, Red with lacy spoke aluminum wheels. I loved the way it looked. 18 years old then, it was my first “newer” car after high school; almost showroom new with only 24K miles. It was on a “wholesale” car lot and I could afford it. I had wondered why it was there after barely two years. I soon found out. According to the shop it visited after my first jaunt to college 300 miles away – my car was built on a Friday. This was why the engine was assembled with all the ring slots lined up. You know what happens if that’s done. A total rebuild ensued a few weeks after, and she was back on the road with a bit more guts. I got 98K out of her afterwards. It only let me down one other time – the ign control module went out. No, they weren’t good cars – mostly a result of poor assembly by UAW labor, a few faults of design nature, and some crappy materials. True for most of this era of NA vehicles. But the fact these are so rare to see, and that I did have so many good memories – I bought another one recently. I’ll fix what UAW didn’t care about, and upgrade the shoddy materials where possible. As for the design faults, I’ll live with those as an example of what not to do.
Not sure if any one mentioned the Uber Monarch above the Ghia model; the Grand Monarch Ghia. This junior Grand Marquis was offered in 1975 & 1976, it had four wheel disk brakes, leather trim and many other standard items. According to a May 1976 issue of Car & Driver three out of five of Ford’s top executives, including Henry Ford II use the Grand Monarch Ghia as their personal car. The 1977 Lincoln Versailles displaced this top Monarch.
I always liked the Monarch’s Grill over the Granada. Nice write-up the Monarch! It really did a good job of carrying the neo-classical style of the 1970’s.
As a side note (and mentioned in the above ad) the MGMG was one of the few American cars to offer 4 wheel disc brakes. This system migrated into the Versailles.
IIRC, it was based on a hydraulic pump instead of the vacuum of the engine.
When my dad was shopping for his Monarch in late 1975 (to replace a 72 Mark IV) he was initially zeroed in on a Grand Monarch. The problem was that it came in limited color and trim choices and he wanted a different color combo. He went so far as to get someone at Ford on the phone to see what they could do about a special order. He was told that Grand Monarch final assembly was farmed out to ASC and that was the reason for the limited color and trim choices. He eventually chose a Ghia model optioned up to Grand Monarch levels. Dark green paint with tan leather was what he wanted.
I was a poor grad student in need of wheels back in 1991, and my brother handed me the keys to a ’78 Monarch, 4-door with many (if not all) of the trimmings this featured car has. Had only about 40k on the clock, and it was a Southern California car. In pristine shape. I sold it after about a year after I got married and we decided my wife’s newer car would suffice for our needs. Here’s a shot of it parked on the street out front of our house (Our home, a twin to the one in the photo, had only a one-car garage, and guess which car was housed there).
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that, while the Granada/Monarch didn’t outright kill Chrysler in the latter half of the seventies, it went a long way to putting the final nail in the coffin.
The one bread-and-butter success that Chrysler had throughout the sixties and the beginning of the seventies was the A-body in the compact class. Equipped with a slant-six and Torqueflite, it had garnered a bullet-proof reputation. The problem was the thin profit margins on compact versus intermediate and full-size cars (which GM and Ford owned), but Chrysler’s healthy compact sales (with hits like the Duster) was enough to keep the company afloat.
That changed with the one-two punch of, first, the introduction of the hugely successful luxury compact Granada/Monarch, followed by the A-body’s replacement, the disastrous Aspen/Volaré. Suddenly, Chrysler no longer had a winner in any category. It’s worth noting that GM’s new compact had arrived in 1975, and it was no slouch, either.
The fact that Chrysler (again) shot itself in the foot with the Aspen/Volare helped Ford a lot. The Valiant was a go-to in Canada, and the Volare ruined that reputation very quickly.
A related point was that Chrysler buyers of the 70s were not spenders. Although my evidence was purely anecdotal from observation, Chrysler sold more cars in lower trim and option levels than GM and Ford. An occasional stylish car like the Cordoba and 76-78 New Yorker were exceptions but in Plymouth and Dodge lines I saw far more basic strippers. GM and Ford seemed more able to sell on style, which brought buyers more willing to shell out for niceties.
These cars were like cicadas – they suddenly appeared, looking completely different from everything else around, there was a huge buzz and they were everywhere….and not long later they disappeared as quickly as they’d come, except for their rust-brown body shells
The *perfect* metaphor.
Excellent!
every one of these I saw way back then was a MONCH the center door had not
fell down they were gone then again maybe the owners tore them off
Dad had a 76 six cyl. I bet it could hardly get out of it’s own way
Some lucky owners didn’t have the short-lived fuel filler door. There were models that had an exposed, decorative gas cap, not unlike the one on the first generation Mustang. There were either the early cars and/or later, down-market models.
The Granada had the advantage over the Monarch in that the whole name “Granada” fit on the door, so when it broke off you simply didn’t get a car ID on the back. But Monarch driver were forced to live with the indignity of driving a MO___CH.
Granada ‘European Sports Sedan.’ Which just barely beat out Granada ‘American Sports Sedan’ as the trim level designation.
To really understand the Granada, we have to look at the auto landscape with a 1975 lens. The full-size domestics were still in aircraft carrier size class. The mid size offerings weren’t much smaller. GM introduced a new line of X-bodys in ’75, and were arguably the handling champions of the group. Unfortunately, the plusher trim levels were expensive, and they weren’t that roomy. Mopar was still selling Valiants and Darts extremely well, but they were lacking for customers that wanted something a bit fancier.
On the import side, mid-priced cars were still small (Accord, Corona), or expensive (Audi, BMW, Volvo). Some had some known reliability issues of their own. Sooo… going out in 1975, with about $5000, looking for something that actually made sense wasn’t as easy as it sounds. We’re spoiled with the choices we have today.
It now occurs to me the roofline of the coupe is a direct tracing paper copy of GM’s 73 Collonade “formal” roofs. It looks ridiculously mismatched with the stubby boxy lower body, and qualifies as another rare example where the 4 door works better aesthetically.
I really dislike the square headlight versions of the Granarch, they look like a pair of 8-track cartridges.
8-track cartridges were all the rage in the ’70s. As PolarBear noted above, you have to look at these thru a ’70s lens, not from today’s perspective. I was 11 in 1975 and old enough to pick up on the “zeitgeist” of the times. Coming on the heels a massive oil shock and recession, these cars were perfect, a more sensible size and with a bit of luxury. The large square headlights of later models fit into a fad that lasted several years.
Perhaps 40 yrs from now those ridicuously-oversized wheel/tire combos that are commonplace now will be looked at with scorn, who knows.
I’m not dissing the original 1975 design, personally I think it’s actually more attractive than it gets credit for. This facelift however was not an improvement over the original round light design.
Man, I’m going soft as I age. I used to hate the Granada/Monarch/Versailles. Honestly, now, if I found a clean coupe at a reasonable price I wouldn’t mind having it. The ingredients are there. Toss a “GT40” 5.0 up front, open up the exhaust, put a decent set of wheels/tires on and you’d have a peppy little cruiser.
There doesn’t seem to be room for a backseat in this car. That or the front door must extend halfway into the seat cushion area.
Trust me-there wasn’t much room in the back seat of the 2-door Granada/Monarch. My best friend’s mom had a silver 1975 Granada coupe. It was a penalty box back there. If you wanted to detach your legs at the knees and remove head off your shoulders, then you had a fighting chance for some room back there.
Ford must have made huge profits on the Monarch/Granada, as it was based on the Falcon of 1960.
I can’t say I have a lot of love for these cars. They looked good, and when new, had decent interiors, but man, oh man, did these cars drive bad. Just pointing the thing straight down the road was a real effort. The brakes were horrid, too.
Every single engine sucked. The only decent one of the bunch was, in my opinion, the 250 six, only because the 302 and 351 V-8’s where way too heavy, thirsty and gutless to boot. This is all relative as the 250 also really sucked.
The Chevrolet Nova was hands down a better car, but for some reason GM managed to give a pretty large unibody car a small back seat. The Chevrolet iterations, while really nice driving cars, had crappy Chevy interiors. To get something nicer, you’d spend a lot more money.
A 1975 Nova with the 350 is a real sleeper, and would have been my choice in the segment.
I daresay that a 305 Nova with a 4 speed stick and a highway geared rear-end would have gotten better mileage than a Monarch with a 250.
The internet never ceases to amaze:
There’s a Granada-Monarch registry.
http://www.gmv-registry.com/119/7437.html
BY THE NUMBERS: (As per the above mentioned web site)
Years ’75 thru ’80 (based on Falcon chassis)
Granada 1,764, 612 (73.8%)
Monarch 575,567 (24.1%)
Versailles 50,156 ( 2.1%)
Grand Total: 2,390,335 Units
At an average retail of $6,000 per unit, that’s $14 Billion in revenue.
Not bad for chassis that dates back to 1960!!==;-]
Nobody is doubting that Ford got serious mileage out of that chassis.
I have some doubts about that $6000 number though.
I couldn’t find a image of a window sticker for a Monarch or Granada for the period in question. Also, Ford used the “base” price in most of its advertising. However, the majority were sold with a block of options (i.e.: A/C, power steering, brakes, locks, stereo, 8-track, vinyl top, V8, automatic, cruise control, tilt steering wheel, etc). Also, inflation was picking up steam near the end of the period in question and base prices (and options) were rising as well.
Even at $4500 a unit, that’s still $10.8 Billion.
Lido knew how to pull multiple rabbits out of the same hat!!
When my wife and I started dating, she was driving a ’76 Nova Concours Hatchback. 305 V8 made good power, it handled well, and got decent gas mileage for the time. As with many GM products back then, it also had chronic water leaks, the rear hatch constantly squeaked and groaned, and the Silver paint was already showing signs of delamination… on a two year old car. With the long hood, short deck styling the car shared with the Camaro (along with the chassis), the back seat was really a children only place for anything more than short periods. At least the seat folded down, and the hatchback allowed for decent cargo room.
That was the Granada’s competition. Oddly enough, I see infinitely more Nova’s and Valiants still on the road today than I do Granadas or Volares.
Collectible Automobile did a recent article about the 1975-79 Novas. A very good article worth to check an eye.
Escutcheon: A useless piece of automotive trim for which no other name exists.
The first family car I can recall was my mom’s 1977 Granada (I was born in 1976). The interior pic of this Merc is nearly identical except for the color. It was purchased used probably in 78 or 79. My opinion then, as now, is that thing was a turd. We lived on a gravel road and the trunk was always full of dirt due to poor sealing. The AC never worked and the doors had to be slammed with considerable force to close. The thing I hated most was in the summer when the vinyl seats would burn the back of my legs (obviously not a Granada-specific problem). On the bright side the drivetrain held up for 20 years and 200k+ miles, and the brown metallic paint never faded despite all those years parked outdoors.
About the same time my maternal grandparents had matching 1974 Toronados. Those things were on another level entirely. Some of my happiest early car-related memories are riding shotgun with my grandmother in her sage green Toronado. I’d play with the electric seats and windows while we listened to the Oak Ridge Boys on the 8-track stereo.
If there is one thing I remember about these cars, it is the fuel door hanging by the sort of wire hinge/spring. I never looked close to see the design flaw, but there obviously was one.
Well, like Mark Twain said, “Politicians, old buildings and prostitutes become respectable with age.” Maybe cars do, too.
Anyone out there remember a ’75 or ’76 Monarch being in “Marathon Man”? Dustin Hoffman was hustled into the back seat of one by William Devane after being tortured in a dental chair by Laurence Olivier. (Is it safe?) Devane did the best he could to make the car peel out on wet Manhattan pavement.
I remembered it very well especially when William Devane and his cohort lost Dustin Huffman in the Brooklyn Bridge. IIRC in the movie both in Silver/Gray? the Ford Granada and the Mercury Monarch sedans were used in the movie.
“and may represent the peak of the neoclassic movement (Monte Carlo and Grand Prix fans will certainly disagree”
Forget about Monte Carlo and Grand Prix fans.
Fear the Ford Elite and Chrysler Cordoba fans! They exist somewhere, and when they get a hold of you …
2022, Just found and bought a ’77 Monarch. 302, 67thousand original miles. I paid 1500 for it. I had a few Grenada’s many years ago, they were junk. But this Merk must be a fluke because it’ll lay rubber, and I’m getting around 20 mpg, as good as a much newer full-size Ford pickup. Drive train parts are cheap and easy to come by, but body parts are really hard to come by.
Yes, the single square lights weren’t available until 1978.
I had a ’77 Monarch 4-door as a kid in the late ’80s, a hand-me-down from my grandfather. It had round headlights, silver with a vinyl top and that exact red interior. Was my first car and was rusted out beyond belief, and while any first car holds at least a small place in a person’s heart I legit don’t miss it.