(first posted 5/4/2016) Hurt by the high gas prices of the ’70s and early ’80s, a generally “uncool” image, and the introduction and rise of more hip alternatives such as minivans and SUVs, it was apparent by the mid-1980s that popularity of the full-size station wagon in America was waning.
Few probably imagined that the full-size American station wagon would become obsolete so soon, but only a decade before this event, Ford and GM were still building and selling these dinosaurs through all of their non-luxury car divisions, with six different wagons between them.
Over at Mercury, things were much the same as they’d been for decades. Mercury’s entry in the full-size wagon field was still the Colony Park, entering its thirtieth season when our featured Di-Noc cladded 1986 car rolled off the assembly line. Full-size Mercury wagons once boasted their own platforms and unique styling, but by 1961 their low production volume didn’t warrant this added expense.
Beginning with the 1961 model year, and through the end of their lifespans, full-size Mercury wagons shared the same platforms and basic body as the full-size Ford wagons. Mercury’s top trim wagon, the Colony Park, was thus twinned with Ford’s top trim Country Squire, and the two would continue this way, with only minor differences in styling elements, interior, and trim for the next three decades.
Starting in 1969, the Colony Park became integrated into the Marquis lineup, as opposed to a separate series. It would remain part of the Marquis series, officially as the “Marquis Colony Park”, through 1982. With the introduction of the midsize Fox-body Marquis, all of Mercury’s full-size Panther-platform cars carried the previously top trim Grand Marquis moniker, resulting in the wagon’s now 4-word name of “Grand Marquis Colony Park”.
Regardless of name change, the Colony Park was largely the same as it was when the downsized sixth generation debuted on the new Panther platform back in 1979. Some 11 inches shorter and over 1,000 pounds lighter than the 1978 model, the 1979 Colony Park was still a very large car by today’s standards. For comparison, Ford Motor Company’s largest car-based “wagon”, the three-row Explorer is still nearly two feet shorter and one inch narrower, although it can be up to 1,000 pounds heavier.
In any event, the sixth generation Colony Park actually boasted two more cubic feet of cargo volume than its predecessor. It could also could still legally carry eight passengers, courtesy of Ford’s unique dual sideway-facing third row seats. V8 power was still standard, though now in the form of the smaller 4.9L (rounded to 5.0L for marketing purposes) Windsor V8, with a 5.8L version optional.
The three-way tailgate, a full-size Ford/Mercury wagon feature since 1966, was also still standard on all Colony Park and base Marquis wagons. Typical of most full-size wagons, regardless of side windows, the tailgate window was power-operated via a switch from the front.
Initially, the Colony Park name was only applied to the higher of two Marquis wagon trim levels (with the base just referred to as “Marquis wagon”), but just as all full-size Mercurys became Grand Marquises in 1983, all full-size wagons became Colony Parks, with the deluxe trim now known as the Colony Park LS.
1983 Grand Marquises and Colony Parks continued without their attractive front fender louvers (which disappeared the previous year), but gained a new 14-section waterfall grille. Comfort and convenience features such as power windows, 16-ounce cut-pile carpeting, full-length door armrests, dual front courtesy lamps, an analogue quartz clock, and Twin Comfort Lounge seats (50/50 split front bench) were standard on all models.
All Colony Parks still featured their hallmark Di-Noc woodgrain exterior paneling, in simulated “Rosewood-tone”, as well as the Grand Marquis’ electroluminescent coach lamps mounted on the B-pillars. Inside, Colony Parks featured a familiar instrument panel, with generous woodgrain trim on the dash and door panels, and additional metal-look trim on the dash. Regular Colony Parks featured their seats upholstered in “easy to clean” Duraweave vinyl, whereas the Colony Park LS added velour upholstery, with leather optional.
After 1981, availability of the larger 351 (5.8L) Windsor was limited to Grand Marquises with the available police package. This engine disappeared for good after 1984. In the meantime, the 5.0L version gained throttle body fuel injection for 1983, which was later upgraded to multi-port fuel injection in 1986. Regardless of engine, a 4-speed automatic transmission with overdrive was the only transmission after 1981.
For the most part, changes to the Colony Park and the rest of the Grand Marquis lineup were minimal over the car’s lengthy design cycle (1979-1991). Buyers didn’t seem to mind, however, as the average Grand Marquis/Colony Park demographic was typically a seasoned full-size American car buyer who preferred more of an “old school” approach and a greater sense of familiarity.
1988 brought the most significant visual changes since 1979. All full-size Mercurys were treated to revised forward sheetmetal that was more aerodynamic both in form and function. Although a facelift was welcomed after nearly a decade on the market, the 1988-1991 models didn’t exude the same kind of distinctiveness of the 1979-1987s. Regardless, the mild facelift looked attractive and helped the Grand Marquis remain fresh against its dwindling competition, which now was largely limited to the higher trimmed Chevrolet Caprice Brougham and Brougham LS models for the sedans, as well the Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser and Buick Estate wagons.
Sedans also gained revised rear sheetmetal and styling elements, but Colony Park wagons continued the same as they’d been since ’79 from the windshield back. While that was fine, it’s a shame the Colony Park didn’t at least receive some new, more inspiring taillights. Additionally, the rounder front end didn’t blend so seamless with rest of the car as it did with the sedan. Whereas before, the woodgrain neatly covered the entire front quarter panels all the way around the headlights, it now abruptly ended at the start of the front clip, looking nonaligned with curved turn signals.
Much like the rest of the Panther offerings, Colony Park sales actually peaked mid-decade in 1984 at 17,421 units, a result of subsiding gas prices and a resurgence in demand for the now narrow offerings in full-size vehicles. Sales fell to around 14,000 in 1985, and then remained in the 8,000-11,000 range through 1989, upon which they fell to under 5,000 for the Colony Park’s final two years.
By this point, those seeking family transportation under the Ford umbrella with a bit more modern panache were likely buying Sable wagons or Aerostar minivans. Grand Marquis Colony Parks were reserved for the traditionalists, but unfortunately there just weren’t enough of them to justify a seventh-generation Colony Park coinciding with the Grand Marquis’ “aero” redesign for 1992.
By the end of its run, the Mercury Colony Park was somewhat an antiquity, and a token of simpler days gone by. It’s no secret that cars are a huge trigger of nostalgia, taking us back to fond memories, often of carefree childhood times. Even if they did not specifically play a major role in our lives, for many Americans at least, there is no vehicle more symbolic of a somewhat glorified past than the full-size Di-Noc cladded station wagon. In that respect, this 1986 Mercury Grand Marquis Colony Park still holds some relevancy.
Related Reading:
These are real cars when viewed from the inside but from the outside they kind of look like they were knocked up in someone’s shed.
Well said 🙂
Whoa, that is seriously over bodied! Was that rear axel borrowed from a Pinto?
The wagon body on these was always a little incongruous with the chassis. Ford was on a tight budget getting these cars out, and used as much of the sedan as possible – including the rear doors and the rear track.
The wagon rear quarters do not taper in like the sedan quarters did, making a slightly odd transition from the rear doors to the quarters. The wagon quarters also sit a bit wider at the wheel wells than the wagon, leaving the track looking rather narrow.
Odd-looking indeed!
When it comes to cars and trucks, I’m rather old-school. While I liked the modern styling of the Ford Taurus and Mercury Sable wagons, I also like the old-school drivetrain. Front engine, rear-wheel drive has always been my favourite.
I spent a lot of time in both the Grand Marquis and the Colony Park when I was growing up. My grandfather drove large Mercurys from the early 1970s until he switched to the aero 1994 Crown Vic. He never liked that car as much as the Mercurys, but he always went on about what a good deal he got on it.
My father also had a 1986 Colony Park for 3 years or so as a company car. I really enjoyed that car and it was the first one I had experienced with automatic A/C. The side facing rear seats were fun too.
I have sort of continued the family tradition, as I have a newer Taurus as my DD. I couldn’t convince the wife that a Crown Vic was a good fit for us.
Matter of taste, but I think that the woodgrain on the post-facelift model has a better front section than the ’79-87 version. Sure it doesn’t match the profile of the side light, but at least it starts off cleanly where the earlier version loses its’ trim around the side light, picks it up just behind, and jogs downward an inch behind the light for no apparent reason.
As an ’80s kid it seems like the FWD GM A-body wagons, Chevy Celebrity above all, were by far the most common three-row vehicles of any type. They were mostly owned by the last of the old-style big Catholic families and people in the north mostly didn’t buy A/C so the extra opening windows and the fact that deals were more likely to be had than on a Chrysler minivan were non-trivial considerations. And they were almost always sans woodgrain!
Good point on the trim–I never noticed it, but the original does have a somewhat messy interaction with the wraparound indicators, plus that additional “zig”.
The fender vents also confused me. Seemed an almost “sporty” touch on a very severe and squared-off design. A little incongruous, a lot incongruous when popping up in the middle of the dinoc swath on the wagons.
Those fender vents were one of the greater absurdities of their time. Seriously? On a Marquis wagon?
Those fender vents became for a few years a Lincoln-Mercury defining feature.
I may have some points off just a bit here, but this is close.
The Mark V had three vents per fender beginning in ’77. Mercurys got two per fender. The Mercury Zephyr was introduced with them and had them for the entire run. The full-size Mecurys got them in ’79. The Mark VI got them again in 1980. After 1980, they started fading away.
My wife had an ’80 Zephyr with vents, and I was always amazed that for a little as the Zephyr was differentiated from the Ford Fairmont, that they bothered with a Mercury specific fender with holes cut in it and the vents mounted in the holes.
My father bought a new 1982 Grand Marquis LS sedan very early in the model year. When it arrived I thought the factory had forgotten to put on the fender vents. Was kinda disappointed to learn that they had been discontinued for this year. Always thought it was a nice feature that instantly differentiated it from the LTD.
Recall this car was a major upgrade over the ’75 LTD Landau it replaced. Just seemed better built with more luxury touches. Decontenting would take care of that in about 3 more years.
I suppose they wanted a distinctive styling element like Buick, no matter how silly or trivial. It exposes Mercury’s identity crisis when they went to an identical platform with Ford.
I was going to post the same thing. Looking back at the ad pics, it seems to me that the ’79’s zig-zag trim looks a lot more uniform around the side marker lamp, whereas on today’s CC the lamp trim is much thinner than the trim around the Di-Noc. I wonder if they made the chrome ring around the lights thinner at some point through that run along with grill changes, etc.
I drove one of these that I made an offer on. I was very nice but had high miles. I was surprised how much the structure quivered on bad roads. He and I could not agree on a price and I passed. There was a part of me that wanted to buy a leftover 91 model after the aero 92s came out, but I had no kids at the time and really had no need for it.
There was always something about these wagons that was a little “off” to me in their looks. Maybe it was the too-short 114 inch wheelbase, or the excessive angularity, or the narrow rear track in proportion to the body.
And Brennnndaaaannnn, why are we looking at this ratty old station wagon when that totally cool 68 Chrysler 300 is across the street? 🙂
Glad someone spotted the 300! I was almost even going to include a “can you spot the other CC” in the title. Unfortunately, that car was in someone’s private driveway 🙁
Sort of “Where’s Waldo” finding it. Through the windshield in picture 9. Looks like it might be pretty clean.
Wonderful paean to the American station wagon, and specifically to this Mercury, Brendan.
With the big Mercury, the seventies style was so much better differentiated from the basic Ford than was the case with the Panthers. I like that a lot of the traditions of Ford wagons, like the two way tailgate and the side facing seats in the way back were still present.
I have often wondered what it would have been like if the old style had just been lightly updated with FI and the four speed automatic mated to the 460. As the style became more and more classic, prices could have been increased and justify more luxury being imbued into them. Sort of like what happened to the Grand Wagoneer and Series 3 XJ6. With low but very profitable volumes. The advertising at Ford from 77-78 made the point that Ford was staying big on principle. Imagine the world of consumer choice of they were serious.
Ford and GM were still building and selling these dinosaurs through all of their non-luxury car divisions, with six different wagons between them.
“The sign in the window said “For Sale or Trade – Last Remaining Dinosaur Detroit Made.”
Their spiritual successors are still out there, you mentioned the current Explorer as one – there are dozens when you take three row CUVs into account.
For some reason this CC made me recall the turbo 4-cyl Edsel that Paul found. Imagine this Colony Park with an Ecobost V6 out of the current Ford truck lineup.
I had an ’85 Colony Park as a winter beater when I was in college. It could plow through quite a bit of snow and was a comfortable cruiser. And although they are derided here as tacky brougham excess, I rather liked the B-Pillar and keyhole lights that would come on when you lifted the door handle.
It was a solid car that I got as much out of as I had into it when I sold it a few years later.
I had an 87 Grand Marquis sedan that was retired with well over 200,000 miles on it. The thing that no SUV, or cuv can beat these cars on is the velvet smooth ride and that long hood with the bladed fenders. It always felt like you were aiming down a rifle barrel. You have to drive them to appreciate them.
I also had an ’87 MGM sedan for several years. The pointed hood, ornament and the fender blades were quite prominent in your view as you drove it. Having driven several long hood cars before it, the MGM hood and fenders gently bobbing in the view ahead of you was definitely an old school feel by the late 1980’s, and I loved it!
Sure beat the crashing and banging of your typical short wheelbase front driver in that era.
I thought the 302 was called “5.0“ to distinguish it from the 300 (4.9L) six. I think this sort of mislabeling also has been done with artillery ammunition to distinguish between incompatible types of the same calibre.
I always preferred the early Panther Marquis styling to its Ford counterpart.
Learned to drive on Dad’s ’82 Country Squire. Nothing like that car at all. It could eat up the miles with ease and total comfort. That wagon was often referred to as the “Lincoln wagon”. I know these are not very well-liked on this site, but I have to say I truly feel they were a step ahead of the competition when introduced in 1979. The small steering wheel was something new to a full-sized car. It handled great for such a large car. And it got good gas mileage considering everything else back then were such gas hogs. And it was reliable. I remember Dad saying it was the first car he ever had that didn’t have to go back to the dealership for warranty work.
Did it have its flaws? Sure. Somewhat underpowered 5.0. And the carburetor gave us trouble after 100k miles. Thieves loved the wire wheel covers. And that ridiculous horn control on the turn signal stalk – really?
I have great memories in our Ford wagon. I wasn’t always the kindest to that poor car, either. As a new driver I had my fun in that car. I’ll leave it at that.
And I will always remember it as one of my Dad’s favorite cars.
I wouldn’t have given one of these a second look when they were new, but now a later Colony Park is on my “Dream Garage” list. It truly was the end of an era (or maybe a bit beyond the end, actually) when the last of these rolled off the line. Seeing one in decent shape today makes me smile every time.
Whether it was George Barris choosing one of these for the horrible Family Truckster, or the ungainly appearance Ford brought about by widening the wagons at the rear so they could hold 4 x 8 sheets of plywood, these cars just don’t get any respect and seem to have no constituency as classics. In fact the one I picture here sold on eBay a couple of weeks ago for about $5,800, seemingly mint in almost every respect and with just 32,000 miles on it.
When I jam mine into the garage or a parking spot, it’s hard to believe that it was “downsized” in any way, but when you’re tooling along the freeway and looking down the long hood, the car does a nice shrinking act. I’m sure I’ll never own another car that has both a V8 and a hood ornament, so I think I’ll just hold onto it.
Ford brought about by widening the wagons at the rear so they could hold 4 x 8 sheets of plywood,
The ability to carry 4×8 sheets is solely determined by the rear axle tread and the corresponding rear wheel housing width. It’s all-too (painfully) obvious that Ford didn’t widen the rear tread of the axle; and that it was wide enough as is for 4x8s.
They must have chosen to widen the rear of the body in order to fit the side-facing rear seats, and still have room for the spare, which I assume resides on the side too, behind one of the flip-up seats?
GM apparently didn’t need the same exaggerated width back there with its single rear-facing third seat. The result is that its wagons have much better proportions and integration with the front 2/3 of the car.
I assume Ford felt committed to its trademark side-facing rear seats, for better or for worse.
Thanks for the clarification, Paul. Yes, you are of course correct: the spare resides on the side behind one of the seats.
That exaggerated width is so hard to un-see when you have noticed it. And I think Ford made the rear of the wagons look even worse by choosing what I am the first to admit was a particularly ugly taillight design. (The Mercury version is more attractive, in my opinion.)
I guess an advantage of the side-facing rear seats is that they could actually hold four passengers, assuming they were small enough. Here’s a view of them from that same eBay auction.
For being the Wagon Master, I never quite did understand the Ford side facing seats and their success in the marketplace. Anybody with a leg that reached beyond the lower seat cushion had some pretty serious legroom deficiencies to deal with. It’s really a two passenger design (and compromised at that) in all but a dire emergency needing to haul very small kids.
Our neighbor’s ’72 Country Squire had those seats and they looked cramped to me as an 8 year old.
Chrysler’s big rear facing seat looked like the most fun to me as an 8 year old, and GM really got it right with the ’71-’76 forward facing rear seat as far as safety and useful luggage space.
The DFRS look about the same as in our ’70 Squire, except it had more industrial-strength material lining the floor instead of that decadent, stain-magnet carpeting. And no cloth upholstery; since when have kids become tidier passengers?
This is why I don’t understand minivans & SUVs with cloth & carpet everywhere. These vehicles get messy from vomit, spills, & pets.
Vinyl is now an extra cost item because they market it as leather.
+1!
Correct on both points. There were really three hard constraints that prevented the wagon from having a more cohesive style in the rear. As noted there was an insistence that the wagon be able to carry 4 x 8 sheets as always. That was simply an ability that a Ford full size wagon needed to have. Second, with the fuel tank located above the rear axle there was nowhere else to place a spare tire other than in the quarter panel. With the need to have the space accommodate a full size spare (part of the trailer towing package) a space saver could not be used. Accommodation of the spare dictated the depth required within the rear quarter, thus dictating the outer width when taking the 4 foot space requirement into consideration. The final design limitation is that the rear passenger doors for the wagon were required (somewhere within Ford cost constraints) to be the exact same door as used on the sedan. As a result, where the rear door on the sedan begins to taper away into the trunk area of the sedan, that same taper becomes an obvious “what were they thinking” design element on the wagon, given that the door tapers away at its trailing edge followed by the rear quarter panel tapering back out to accommodate the noted space requirements for the rear.
I have attached a pic that shows how tight the spare tire space is.
Even our XV10 Camry Wagon had its spare in that location, except it was the compact variety. The rear floor is the only alternative, providing there’s no 3rd seat.
I actually didn’t care much for its overly streamlined styling; wagons & vans are best when they’re boxy. So I don’t fault Ford too much here.
Actually, the doors on the sedans and wagons are different. The rear edge of window on the sedan door angles toward the front of the car, to match the slope of the sedan’s rear window, whereas the doors on the wagon angle more upward and match the square shape of the cargo section window. Look at the shape of the fixed portion windows.
That, and the quarters didn’t curve in at the bottom because Ford wanted to leave space inside them for the full-sized spare tire on one side and an exclosed stash on the other. If you look at a B Body wagon they have the same issue with the quarter panels but since GM used a wider rear axle assembly it’s less obvious.
The GM and Ford wagons were actually the same width, the Ford and GM wagons being 79.3″. The GM sedans were narrower though than the Ford sedans. Ford’s were 77.5″ wide while a Chevy was 75.4″ wide. The big difference was that GM used different doors on their wagons. These doors tapered wider to match the wider rear wagon body. It’s a very subtle alteration as it’s done over the door length, but looking at the door top down you can see the taper. Then GM also added a much wider rear axle. A standard Caprice had a 60.7″ rear track, while a wagon was 64.3″. Ford used the same 62.0″ track on both cars.
Also like the Ford wagons, GM wagons had the spare tire stored in the right rear quarter panel and this was designed to hold the slightly larger 225/75R-15 tire (Fords used 215/70R-15 or 205/70R15s).
There was a big difference in the fuel tank location. GM, used a traditional flat fuel tank that was located under the third seat cushion, just in front the of the third seat footwell. The tank had to be smaller than the sedan tank to work with the wagon. The Ford wagons used the same vertical style tank it had used since 1965 in it’s fullsize cars which meant no room for a rear facing seat since the cushion would be located where the fuel tank was. So Ford’s solution was to use the side facing seats, which personally I always though were less functional than a rear facing seat.
The B-wagons rear tread is about 1-2″ wider than the sedans. A friend of mine swapped a Caprice wagon rear axle assembly onto his 78 Impala sedan and the rear wheels are way further out than the sedan axle was.
I know I am in the minority but I’m glad cars like this are gone and replaced by CUVs. I think overall CUVs look better and are more comfortable for everyone inside. All I can think about with these wagons is being cramped in the back seat with those dumb windows that roll half way down.
CUVs & midsize SUVs, so far as I can tell, haven’t really solved the space problem for aft occupants any more than station wagons, because of their layout. For example, we found the XC90, Highlander, and Pilot 3rd seats too tight when we cross-shopped.
Something has to give when you have that long hood & RWD.
The Ford Expedition / Lincoln Navigator have quite livable third rows – the product of brutal size and good suspension design.
When we shopped three row vehicles in 2005, in something below Nimitz class, we found the Ford Freestyle to have a really quite good third row. I’m 6’1 and can spend a little time back there and survive it. It’s been fantastic for kids from grade school to teens.
I’m surprised you didn’t find the XC90 to be more accommodating considering its similar platform roots with the Ford Freestyle.
I’m quite in agreement about the Highlander from that era. Access to the third row was awful, and there wasn’t much reward when you finally got back there.
Flex is good.
Right. Access to the 3rd row in most CUVs is terrible. It can be essentially impossible if you have car seats in a 2nd row bench.
Now that it’s generally illegal to transport children without their safety pods, rather than just cramming in as many kids as will fit in the back seat, the rationale for big wagons has gotten harder to see. CUVs and SUVs have the benefit of being taller and more upright, so you don’t have to stoop so much to secure the child-pods. Truck-based SUVs have all the big wagon’s towing capacity and more, and as thirsty as truck-based SUVs are, they’re not that much worse than the big, blocky wagons. (I suppose in theory an ’80s wagon with an overdrive top gear might do better on the highway, but with the big Ford wagons my late grandparents used to favor, breaking into double-digit mpg was a red-letter day.)
The kind of car-based wagons that make the most rational sense barely sell in the States because the people for whom they would be most desirable can’t afford to buy them new anyway. (Much like compact pickup trucks.)
A family friend owned a carbon copy of this car (same color and woodgrain), though it might have been a Country Squire instead.
We borrowed it to attend an event transporting a bunch of people. When it was over, we found it had a flat tire. No one could get the wheel off (aluminum wheel stuck to cast iron brake drum).
The roving security guard had a length of landscape timber with him. I’ll NEVER forget him whacking the center of the wheel as hard as he could! The wheel came RIGHT off.
You mean it could seat ten, not eight, right? 3 up front, 3 in the second row, four in the back – 2 facing the other 2.
The “wayback” seats were sized for little kids, actually.
really like the 70s version of these with the pop ups- apparently a pop up chessboard was an option?
“After 1981, availability of the larger 351 (5.8L) Windsor was limited to Grand Marquises with the available police package. This engine disappeared for good after 1984.”
Was the police package dropped at that point?
In Crown Victorias, the 351 was likewise limited to police package models after 1981, but continued to be available through the end of this styling generation in 1991.
Two additional notes on the 351, from previous discussions on CC:
1) It continued to be available in civilian cars in Canada for several years after 1981.
2) There is conflicting information as to whether it was available in 1981 as an across the board option, or only on a more limited basis (e.g., only with the trailer towing package).
My 1981 Edmunds guide does list the 351 as being an option on these cars but I’ll be damned if I have ever seen one. Ditto the 255 V8 in the 1980-81 Fairmont series cars.
Yeah, Dad had an ’85 G. Marquis sedan with the 351. He remembers especially because it needed a water pump one time and it wasn’t the same one as in the 302.
We’re in Canada.
These have grown on me some over the years but there is no getting around the fact that they are stodgier than the GM “Box” (1977-90 B body) wagons, especially the Buicks. Prices of the Fords and Mercurys today lag noticeably behind comparable GM box and whale (1991-96) wagons.
There’s also no question that a well designed wagon on the 1992-2011 aero body would have been much better looking than the GM whales, and a wagon with the 4.6 modular engine would have been an unkillable workhorse (albeit lacking in the towing grunt of a GM 5.7). Sadly, Ford made the financially smart decision to concentrate on the Explorer.
I’ll admit that I have never felt the love for Di-Noc. Cant help but contrast this late-Broughham period dinosaur with the sleek and practical space-age ’71 Satellite wagon from a couple of days ago. Wheel housings on the Mopar were also over 48″ wide, but the “fuselage” body allowed the wheels to stick out a bit. I also dont understand why FoMoCo went with a relatively short 114″ WB on the Panthers. The intermediate Satellite was 117″.
Exterior wood, real or simulated, has always seemed to me a triumph of showroom appeal over practical sense. The plastic wood and DI-NOC may not need to be sanded and varnished, but it still tends to age badly. If it fades or is otherwise damaged, I assume there’s nothing much to do except replace the whole lot of it, which seems to be an expense owners of what are still ultimately workhorse vehicles don’t usually want to take on.
This is the real deal. The REAL”Family Truckster” and the ultimate family road trip vehicle. I`ll take one of these over some faceless minivan anyday.
We owned a number of big RWD Buick wagons from the 1980s. All were disappointing in noticeable ways. Afterwards, the experience of owning a couple of big RWD FoMoCos.. demonstrated their superiority over the GM ones.
1. FoMoCos went to fuel injection before GM, and are clearly superior-performing over the Buick Estate wagons.. with 1980s “electronic carburetors”. That is what we used to call, “a kluge”, in engineering design & application.
2. GM seats are LOUSY compared with big RWD FoMoCo seats. The Ford/Mercury ones are higher quality by far. The GM ones are merely two aluminum shells with a one-piece foam rubber under the upholstery. The Ford ones have a genuine seat frame: clearly superior.
Yes, the Mercury GM wagons and the big Ford RWD wagons.. should have had a big longer wheelbase. Yet, I’m quite surprised at the fixation of many commenters on this blog.. only talking about styling, and little else.
If I could find one of these “last of the dinosaur” wagons, I probably wouldn’t consider a GM one. I would, however, definitely have interest in a Country Squire or a Grand Marquis Colony Park!
Ford’s move to fuel injection really improved the performance of the big Panthers and created an even larger performance gap with Chevy, Olds and Buick wagons that were saddled with the unresponsive carbureted Olds 307 until the end in 1990. If you test drove a 1990 Ford against a 1990 GM, the drivability of the Ford alone would have won you over. And if you were looking for more luxurious appointments over vinyl seats and sensible surfaces, the Fords and Mercurys were ahead, too. Of the GMs, only the Buick offered leather, and they were extremely rare. Everything else got “meh” upholstery. Many, many Country Squires and Colony Parks had leather and cornering lamps. They just seemed to be more luxurious and rode better.
That “61 Model” is a handsome devil!!
Notice that a few of the wagons shown have a front-door vent window–including one but not both cars in a print ad. The foreman of a cabinet shop in Massachusetts where I worked in the ‘seventies had a Mercury wagon whose vent windows were powered–as I remember it. First time I’d seen that. Or did they slide down ? Even odder . . .
I always thought of these cars as gargantuan, oversized, overweight tanks, but to me the one redeeming feature, which seems almost a joke to some here, is the ability to carry a full 4X8 sheet of plywood. Granted I’m absurdly hands on, but to me that’s a big deal. Being the anti truck person I am, I’ve got a small utility trailer I keep to use when I need to haul plywood, which while not regular, is more than rarely.
Now if you go back 10 or 20 years, the big wagons were the vehicle of choice to tow a boat or a big, and I do mean big, travel trailer. And for all their faults, I’d much rather see one of those next to me on the road than another pickup with a hood higher than my roof.
I had a 1975 Marquis Colony Park, 9 passenger with the 2 side facing seats. It had the 460 4 barrel Motorcraft 4300 series carburetor it was white with tan tuck and roll vinyl interior, including tuck and treatments on the interior door panels. Power windows, seats remote exterior mirrors and ATC, that was powered by vacuum motors under the dash powered by engine vacuum, very interesting design, very complex but when it worked it worked great. It had 7 different fan settings that would route a strong flow of air to the dash floor and windshield that always kept even the side windows clear. It was loaded with every option available including front cornering lamps that would fade on and off, just as classy refined as could be. That car was beautiful inside and out. It had a presence about it that made it seem like it was growing out of the road. I put gas shocks at all four corners and the best and biggest Michelin tires it would fit. It handled great, and the 460 could effortlessly power it up the steepest grades fully loaded. That was a great American car, so it only got 10 mpg no matter what. I didn’t care, it did what it was designed to without missing a beat, ever. Go find a picture of one and study it from all sides( there’s a picture of a yellow one in this post) After you look at it for a while you’ll see how every line flows from front to back and side to side then you will see what I mean. From the beach in summer to the snow in the mountains, to a night out on the town, it looked like it was meant to be. Did I say loved that car? I did and still do.