Since we’re on the topic of seldom seen curbside classics, this find seems especially relevant. The CC Effect might not count in reference to a photo taken four years ago, but dave_7’s shot of this 1972 Montego GT, one of the earliest uploads to the cohort, is among the first pictures I came across today (it can be fun to scan the pages starting from the beginning). A perfect complement to the Cougar wagons, only 5,820 were made its first year, with 4,464 rolling off the line for 1973. With its first-year bumpers, fastback roof and hood scoops, it’s an uncommon look among second-generation Mercury intermediates.
Meant as the sporty offering in the brand’s midsize line-up, the GT’s true nature is revealed by those hips (which don’t lie). This full-framed cruiser was no Cyclone, but you may expect that ol’ pig nose here, with those nostrils on its hood, may have been ordered with the Cyclone Performance Package, an option package for two-door hardtops and fastbacks with both the 351 Cobra Jet and 429.
Equipped with a limited slip differential, functional hood scoops and special trim (and a four-speed for the smaller engine), it allowed for the production of 249 horsepower and 299 lb-ft of torque from the smaller engine with 205 and 322, respectively, from the 429. Still, it’s most likely this car has the 302 2V; according to Hemmings, only 29 Montego GTs were ordered with the performance package. That’s still more than the single MX Cyclone made–if it still exists, it would be the ultimate find.
I am not a Ford guy, but this is nice.
Buddy of mine had one of these, very used, in about 1987. My impression: a huge amount of body around very cramped accommodations.
Uhh… I’m not sure you’re thinking of the right car, Jim. lol Unless you daily a Greyhound bus, these things are about the same size as an A-body GM inside. Actually, about identical. If you find a Montego cramped, don’t try and sit in a Nova, Camaro, Mustang, Dart, Maverick, Demon, Duster, Firebird, etc… you probably won’t fit!
Very nice find. Too bad the front clip is ‘broughamed’, and ‘LTD’ like. I do prefer the ’72 Gran Torino’s more distinct exterior.
I believe ‘dave_7’ is CC contributor David Saunders?
Yes indeed that is my Flickr handle.
Nice pics David. The Alberta plates confirmed for me, this was your work. 🙂
There was one just like this, in red rotting away in a small weedy parking lot on Empire Blvd,in Brooklyn about a year ago. Looked like a rare bird. I wonder if someone bought it to restore.Nice looking car except for the bizzare front clip.
There’s such a struggle between wild late 60s muscle car and mid 70s brougham era baroque in these cars, the 71 Cougars too for that matter. I have to say though, while I wouldn’t call them great looking I do find that split personality appealing, I mean if you ever saw that front end in your rear view you’d never think this swoopy fastback body was attached to it.
Well put, Matt. I tend to like the 72 Torino, but this car just doesn’t work for me at all. I love the 68-71 Montegos and Cyclones, and also like the 77-79 broughamified Cougars. None of them would I call beautiful, but they work in their own way.
This car brings all of the worst features of all of those listed above. Fat without being muscular, curvy without being graceful, big without being, well, big. This car is the battle between 1968 and 1975 being fought before our eyes. Oh, the carnage.
Nice find,count me as a fan.
With some tweak here and there, we could imagine a “phantom” 1972 Cyclone.
Walt Kowalski might like this Montego. 😉
Mad Max would approve of this car.
There is a lot of the Ford Falcon XB GT in this car (save the silly brougham like grill)
I was reading down before posting. I agree with you. My very first impression after seeing the pic is that puts me in mind of Mad Max. The color green seems unusual as I’ve never seen another one like it, yet I’ll say it looks good in green.
That green one does have a Mad Max look. It’s a beefy broad shouldered car that looks like it means business. More for go than show. Other than it being a 2 door, there isn’t much I like about the orange one. That front bumper is awful looking, and while I am a big fan of vinyl tops, it just looks wrong on this car. I assume that is a ’73. Many ’73 models came with mismatched bumpers.
The red (not orange, that is Ford 2B bright red) is a 1973 car. The main change was the front bumper as you stated. I believe this particular car is an ultra-low mile survivor, with less than 10K on the clock.
I think it looks best with the heavier bumper. The vinyl roof I don’t care for at all.
But now my question is…what did they change about the rear bumper in 73?
The rear bumper was essentially unchanged. Ford just used different bumper brackets that increased the space between the body and bumper to minimize body damage, vs the 1972 design. The same thing was done on the Torinos. The change is so small most people don’t notice the difference.
Many years ago I spotted one of these in a separate, fenced-off section of Ecology auto Wrecking in Wilmington, Ca. with a bunch of other semi-collectible vehicles. Its blue paint was horribly dull and faded, and it had a huge dent in the left front fender. It had a brown interior with bucket seats, center console, woodgrain dash, and it may have had full gauges. It even had a sunroof ( ! ) .
I sure hope that one got saved.
“Ol’ Pig Nose” – brilliant. That image is going to stay with me the next time (if ever) I see another ’73 Montego of any iteration.
From when “mid-size” meant a subcompact interior wrapped in sheetmetal that cast a full-size shadow. At least the first model year or two looked good.
I have always liked cars that were designed that way. It was done that way purely for style. To me style is one of the most important things about a car. Today style has, for the most part, been completely sacrificed for efficiency and convenience. The egg shape sedan seems to yield the best combination of interior room, easy entry and exit, and aerodynamics. That’s all well and good, but there should still be at least a few affordable cars made where style is given more importance. My ’87 Fiero was a very inconvenient car, but it looked great, and I had no issues with it. I sold it only because I had the opportunity to buy another inconvenient car, a 1977 Corvette. Cars like these are not purchased for practical reasons. The Corvette, Camaro, Challenger, and part of the Mustang are still here, but they are all out of my price range. I was able to buy the Fiero brand new.
There are two conflicting design strategies at play here.
a) Design a car for greatest interior volume with given exterior dimensions/curb weight
b) Design a car for best weight distribution, handling, and performance
What you are interpreting as “style” is actually function, from a race car point of view. But your interpretation is not completely incorrect.
When racing really had the general public’s interest(probably late 40s through 1980s) car manufacturers would offer cars to the general public that emulated a race car but with more practical tires, suspension and interiors. In theory you could take the ordinary consumer version and turn it into a race car that would match the abilities of the winning track cars of the time.
A race car is not designed for the human occupant. It is designed for the race track and to get around a track the fastest possible. This means the car becomes a vehicle FOR ITS ENGINE/TRANSMISSION and the engine takes priority over the human occupants. The engine resides in the center of the vehicle, or closer to the center of the vehicle, in order to improve performance (except for drag racers which worked well with front end weight and rear drive). Cars were like cheetahs and thoroughbreds and were sculpted for maximum performance and the human occupants were a secondary consideration. They even gave the cars names like cougar, impala, mustang, etc.
Eventually, insurance rates and fuel prices started to force the general public to be a little more practical, and cars started to be designed as vehicles for the human occupants rather than vehicles for the engine. Also, engine and tire technology advanced to the point where the weight of the engine had less effect on vehicle performance.
So how does that account for the complete affront to space efficiency, the ever growing in size mandatory center console? Or the skyrocketing curb weight of cars in the past 15 years for that matter?
A lot of the weight gain is due to crashworthyness. Seems like it takes a lot of metal to make modern vehicles crush the way the engineers want them too. Or maybe not, at least that sounds good 😀 !
my Mom had the regular Montego that year….it was not well remembered.
I really liked the fastback Montego’s a lot and always felt they should have been a major sales success, is it true that the 1972 Montego’s have outsold the 1971 Montego’s by a great margin, I always liked the 1972-73 Ford Torino/Mercury Montego coupes and sportsroof cars (especially the ’72’s) a lot, my guess is this car might have the 351 2 barrel engine if not the 302.
I’d agree that this Montego GT would most likely have a 351-2V engine (H-code). You’d have to check with Marti reports to get the stats on the Mercs. I have all the stats for the engines for 1972 Gran Torino Sports except for the 302-2V. The 351-2V was the most popular followed by the 351-4V, 400-2V and the 429-4V. I doubt many 302 Montego GT’s were produced, they are pretty rare in Torinos. By far the most common that show up today are H-code cars.
FWIW, the 1972 Montego won the Road Test Magazine car of the year award.
As for the Cyclone package, according to someone I spoke to who runs a Montego Registry, there are two known survivors. I will post pictures of one car.
The green montego pictured above was originally a 400 ci. 2 barrel
The MX Cyclone would have looked something like this. Yes I fantasize about finding it.
Of the 30 Cyclones produced in 1972, 29 were GTs and only one was an MX. As far as I know the only surviving cars were GT’s. Two thirds of the cars were equipped with the N-Code 429, the rest were the Q-code 351-4V Cobra Jet.
I’d love to see the Marti on that MX!
I have a 1972 montego mx has 4 speed 351C CJ . PUT UP IN 1986. GOT RUNNING AND DRIVING. HOW MUCH IS IT WORTH.
Oscar, post some pictures and information about your car here if you want to get a value on the car:
http://forum.grantorinosport.org/
I HAVE A 1972 MX MONTEGO. HAS Q CODE 4SPEED 351 4V . ONE OWNER. 100100 MILES. WHAT IS IT WORTH. THANK OSCAR
I had no idea these Cyclones existed, even if they barely do. Not often seen would be an understatement with those, especially the notchback.
I’ll call the CC effect, just last week I saw a Montego of this era. I can’t say exactly what year since it was on a flat bed tow truck on its way home from the paint shop in fresh metallic root beer brown. It was a proper through job, all the glass was removed along with every bit of trim, ect. I certainly though wow, haven’t seen one of those in I don’t know how long.
I’d certainly take one of these, yeah I prefer the 72 Torino but those are far more common and I am “Crazy ’bout a Mercury”.
I really wanted one of these cars when I was a kid. My dad had a 1972 Mercury Montego, just the plain jane one with the 250 ci straight six and auto box. In fact, there wasn’t a whole lot more to the car, but it did have a beautiful shade of metallic medium blue paint on it.
Something about these huge fastback cars really appeal to me, even though I know they’re much larger and heavier than they need to be. When I was in college in 1980, I ran across one (a 1973 model) at an iron lot in Ravenna, Ohio. For a seven year old car, it was pretty damned rusty already. A bright lemon yellow with a brown vinyl roof and interior and the factory dog dishes with trim rings. If it hadn’t been such a rust bucket I would have bought it, but…
Instead, I ended up purchasing a 1975 Dodge Dart Sport (with 360!) from a friend’s father who worked at the Twinsburg, OH Chrysler assembly plant. His father had taken good care of the car, but I did the normal 18 year old guy thing and put on wide tires and raised the rear end. Little did I know I would demolish the car six weeks later in a single car accident on a bridge with black ice… Ah well…
Perry,
where did you source that photo of the red 1973 Montego? I’d like to see if there are any other pictures of this car.
In the early 70s I owned a 68 Montego MX / Cyclone GT. Badges inside the car said Montego MX while badges outside the car said Cyclone with a GT stripe and smallish/discreet GT badge. Like this car: compact inside (and a truly tiny trunk), while too narrow to be full-sized.
I don’t care for the 70-71 Montegos but I do like the 72….the 73?
I saw a 72 on the road near my apartment complex a few times in the 90s. I can’t say if it was someone’s DD or a car for special days, but it did look good.
I had forgotten there were Montego GTs that like in the late 60s were available with a “formal” roof. I have seen them but like their Torino “cousins” they were rare. I doubt I’ve ever seen a Montego MX 2 door without a vinyl roof.
While not perhaps as successful stylistically as its sibling ’72 Torino (which I think looks fantastic in fastback form, worlds away from the blunt-nosed porky notchbacks of just one year later) this car still hits the right notes. The green one, especially, with just enough wear to look serious and without the silly vinyl roof of the orange car. Yes, some of the more brougham-y touches are misplaced–and I can’t make sense of those three chrome hashes on the rear quarter, unless only to break up a large flank that goes without the scalloped cove of its Torino sibling. And it doesn’t have the sleek sinister look of, say, a hidden-lamp ’71 Cyclone. But it’s still a stylish car that reminds us that the muscle car era wasn’t quite dead yet in ’72, even if it was on life support.
Chris M.
Those 3 “hash marks” are there in “tribute” to the 67 Pontiac Le Mans 2 doors that also had these non-essential decorations. Or maybe someone thought these fastbacks looked like sharks but without fins?
Much prefer the Montego over the Torino, altho I like them both. Guess it’s the fond memories of a certain Montego in red-over-white with a ’21’ on the door…
Ahh, NASCAR’s David Pearson
I wonder why the 429 has so much less power? They both have 4-barrel carbs and almost the same compression ratio. Can it really be down to just a smaller camshaft?
The N-code 429 was a lo-performance engine, with very low compression, non-high performance heads, single exhaust and a mild camshaft. Don’t forget in 1972 SAE net numbers took into account power lost through exhaust systems. Ford just built this as a high torque low speed engine. It was essentially an emissions friendly version of the 429 Thunderjet.
The 351-4V was Fords last real attempt at a performance engine. It had low compression heads, but it still used large valves, and large free flowing ports. It also had a aggressive camshaft, 4-bolt mains, a hi-po carb, and dual exhaust. Other than compression, the 351-CJ was probably a better overall setup than the high compression 351-4V “M-code” of 1970-71. In fact the 1972 Torino with the 351-CJ was quicker in the quarter mile than a 1970 M-code Torino.
A neighbor (a Ford racing fan) bought a new ’72 Montego GT, 351, in the period brownish yellow color. Quite the looker, but very, very small inside for the size of the car, and a bit difficult to see out of, with the low roof and small windows. The hood just went forever, and the trunk was hardly there. They traded in their ’67 Fairlane 390 GT/A for it.
I just got done doing a 1500 hour frame-off restomod on a 72 Montego GT 429 (true “N” code – 1 of 202. Marti Report shows it as 1 of 1 considering all options it came with ).
It’s now a 521 using the original 429 block.
It’s a FUN car to drive.
Frame is Torino, but body is Mercury
Interior utilizes aftermarket seat covers that had the imitation comfortweave material cut out and replaced with the original comfortweave material (VERY scarce material to fin).
I’d love to find a set of louvers like on the green Montego GT.
I have “monthly updates” that show pics and info of the 16 month restoration on my website if interested. Probably 300+ pics (click on my name in this post).
Unfortunately those louvers were custom made by a guy from Taber Alberta back in the 1970’s.
My grandmother bought one of the new in 72. Coolest grandma in town :-). Baby blue with white rag top aND hood scoops. I inherited it as my first car in the early 80 out of high school. Very difficult to drive in snowy condition being so front heavy 🙂
Oh, my goodness.
I remember these as a kid – brand new and they made me tingle then.
Being the old fart who loves cars from this era, I still love the looks of this. And while Honduh would bring out hideous A-cure-ruhs with that nasty nose, this was a wonderful execution of a front end that was more than something flat with a tasteless piece of fake metal that was supposed to look like a shield. Or was that a french execution device’s blade?
Because I grew up in the era when Detroit built battleships with passenger areas the size of a rubber duck, I have no angst here.
Who knew that in 2016 you can get a car with the same worthless interior space but with an equally worthless exterior – the new Shamaro by Chevrolet.
Hello, my name is Dean. I owned that green car that is pictured above from 1987 until 1994. I grew up in Taber Alberta and remembered the car from when I was a kid. Finally at 17 years old i was able to buy this car from a gentleman named Steve. He had owned the car since 1975 I believe. It was originally a lighter pea green color. I believe the color was called Bright Green Gold Metallic. The owner before me had sprayed clearcoat with lots of metalflake over the original paint. It was very sparkly like boat paint. Cool 70’s look.
This car came from the factory with a 400 cid. engine, 2 barrel carburetor. It had 2.75 to 1 rear end gear ratio and C6 trans.
The car was a fairly high mileage car. I drove it until it had 150 000 miles on it then pulled the motor and transmission out and replaced it with a 351 Cleveland and a beefed up C6. ( I worked at a Ford dealership at the time.) The engine was dyno’ed at 465 horsepower. I also swapped the rear end gears to Richmond 4.11’s.
I went to the Medicine Hat Dragstrip where the car ran 13.54 seconds at 104 mph, in the quarter mile.
The louvers in the back window were custom built by a retired plumber from Taber,Alberta back in the 1970’s. They are made of galvanized steel so the required special primer so paint would stick. My uncle did this for me as he is a bodyman.
This car was beautiful to drive, every single thing on the car worked.
About 10 years after I sold the car I met the, then, current owners and gave them all the original parts off of that car.
An interesting side note, My father ordered a brand new 1972 Montego GT fastback with a 351 CJ in a brown metallic color, back in 1971/1972. It was the car I was brought home from the hospital with when I was born. It was a Taber Alberta car too.
I will have to see if i can scrounge up some old photo’s of the car.
Thanks for sharing your story of the car! It’s great when an owner appears in the comments to give some backstory on a CC. Looks like your mechanical handiwork was appreciated and it’s still going strong!
I owned a ’72 in 1979, dark green w/the white vinyl top and leather interior. I’m a 6′ tall female w/long legs and I don’t see how anyone could say the interior was small!
Damn, I loved that car with the high bucket seats! Never saw other ones around and this thing was really “sexy”. I was hit in the right side rear quarter panel, but needed the insurance money for other things, so never got it fixed.
As a single mother, money was tight, so I had to improvise when repairs were needed. The only real problem was the spark plugs needed to be dried w/a hair dryer in wet weather.
I lost some of the motor mount screws, so fixed that by jamming a small piece of 2″x4″ in one corner. The carbeutor stuck, so I held it open w/a bent spoon. A lot of the hoses were held together w/duct tape ( a poor girls’ best friend for a lot of things).
When I met my future husband, he rode in my car once and drove it once. When he looked under the hood and saw my “quick fixes”, he bought a ’74 pink T-Bird for me a few weeks later! LOL
I’m in my mid-60’s now and am considering finding another one that’s been restored. After owning station wagons & vans for the last 35 years, I’m ready to relive my 20’s in a really cool car AND have a great investment, too.
I just bought a 1972 Montego gt fastback off the original from 72 he still had the factory key with it. it has the 351 Cleveland cj 2 barrel carb I am about to start the restore it only has 90 miles on body and engine all matching vins its a tan color with all black inside and has very little rust. super good barn find
I just bought a 1972 mercury montego mx. vin #2HO7Q577318 ONLY ONE OWNER, HAS ALL GOODS , 4 SPEED 351C 4V BEEN STORED FOR 31 YEARS.NEEDS TO BE RESTORED. WHAT IS THIS CAR WORTH.
Someone please help me find a 1972 Mercury Montego GT with or without a motor and transmission I have whatever you may have I had one when I was like 16 and I’m 51 now it does have to be a good vibe but I will buy the body by itself or with something I can rebuild but I don’t have a lot of time to get it all together to make a long story short I would really appreciate it if you could help me but please if there’s any actor for sale would you please help me get it together or at least send some pictures or call or whatever and again God bless you all and enjoy what you do have cuz it might not be there one day and again God bless amen Burn Rubber for me till I get mine done LOL
FREDDIE I HAVE A 1972 MERCURY MONTEGO MX. RUNS , DRIVES ,HAS Q CODE,351 C CJ 4 SPEED COLOR WHITE. IF YOU THINK ITS SOME THING YOU MAY WANT. LET ME KNOW. .
okay what kind of reply do you want me to leave! Please please Scotty pina colada that’s what I go by home Facebook if you need to get ahold of me about my Mercury 72 Mercury Montego GT Body On Me
The 72 Montego GT will really move when equipped with the 351 Q code Cobra Jet….make a tweak here and there and that engine shows it’s true nature.. It’s more suited for higher RPM’s, Especially above 3000 rpm these motors start getting the large quantities of air that Cleveland craves and the fun begins. It also will do just fine between the stop lights. Lots of attention from those that know what these are when I’m out driving….cramped? Hardly! No trunk? Please….Not muscular? Ha….
I bought a 73 Montego GT 429/C6, 3.00 Traction Loc Ivy Glow Metallic new in 73. Really horrible mileage (9-10mpg in town) but after I installed electronic ignition, dual exhaust and opened up the hood scoops, it ran better and sounded great. Didn’t handle worth a damn but went pretty well pointed straight. Loved it. It was T-boned by a kid in an old Galaxy and totalled. Bought a BMW 3.0 Bavaria, but that’s another story.
i had a 73 Montego GT with the 429 in it i got it used in 1977 at a Mercury dealer in plymouth ma all i did was to put dual exhaust and good michelands on it and that car went very fast one night from the start of ma. pike at ny.to boston just over one hour it is about 130 miles back in the day of CBs and rader was lucky no state police around LOL
While stationed in Germany in 1973, I ordered a 73 Montego GT through the PX. I specified Ivy Glow Metallic w/Cinnamon interior, bucket seats, 351 4v, limited slip rear end and probably a few other minor options. Due to late production changes, I had to change the interior color to green and the engine to the 429. It was very imposing on the autobahn. When coming up behind other cars, they would pull over immediately. Gas mileage was lousy, about 10mpg in town and 11-12 hwy. it handled like a boat, but brakes were great. It would smoke the tires on command. When we returned to the US, we drove from the East Coast to S. Central KS during the gas shortage. It died in May of 77 When T-boned by an LTD that ran a red light at an intersection. No one was hurt, but my 5 year ol daughter chastised the kid that hit the car, saying “he broke my mommy’s car”. It was replaced by a BMW Bavaria, but that’s another story.
Back in the 1990s when I worked/drove for Bill Stroppe Motorsports we researched and looked for that ultra rare 1 of 1 Cyclone MX. Even with the resources available to us from Ford, we could not track the car down. I ended up making a recreation concept 1972 Cyclone MX. Wish I had not sold that car.