(first posted 9/24/2015) From 1961 through the late-1970s, it was difficult to think of Lincoln without immediately thinking of the Continental. After all, for many of those years, all Lincolns were also Continentals. Despite other model names making their way into the mix, with the exception of the Versailles, all full-size Lincolns were still “Lincoln Continental… (Town Car, Town Coupe, or Mark Series)”. By the early-1980s Lincoln saw it time to address this proliferation of the Continental nameplate, renaming all non-Mark Continentals simply “Town Car” or “Town Coupe” in 1981. Though a second, “plain” Continental, would bustle back in 1982, literally with a bustle-back.
Attempting to avoid the pitfalls of the preceding Versailles, Lincoln stylists were careful to give this new Continental a distinctive look from its Ford and Mercury platform mates. Unfortunately, Lincoln decided that hopping on the bustle-back bandwagon was the appropriate design language to make its Continental stand out. First introduced on the 1980 Cadillac Seville, the bustle-back was primarily characterized by a short, sloping rear end that echoed designs of post-war European luxury cars. Chrysler’s unique interpretation of the bustle-back came the following year with the 1981 Imperial, leaving Lincoln to follow suit in 1982.
Unfortunately, buyers did not embrace the bustle-back. Annual Seville sales of the bustle-back generation never reached the same figures of the preceding generation, and Imperial sales were simply abysmal. Granted, sales figures were not exclusively reflective of styling (self-destructing engines and a lack of brand equity played parts, respectively), but the bustle-back was a bold styling trend that lost interest as quickly as it appeared.
Bustle-back Continental sales were nothing stunning either, selling in the 15,000-30,000 throughout its run. Lincoln’s somewhat belated introduction of its bustle-back only meant that the Continental would have to endure this styling for longer than Cadillac and Imperial. With the Imperial bowing out after 1983 and the Seville gaining yet another controversial redesign for 1986, the Continental soldiered on with its droopy tail through 1987, amidst steadily weakening sales. Its 1984 facelift only seemed to worsen the Continental’s appearance, as its upright front was now replaced with a walrus-like droopy front to match its rear.
Lincoln designers would play it safer with the 1988-1994 Continental. Moving to the front-wheel drive Taurus and Sable’s platform, the Continental still indeed shared many components with these less-prestigious cars. However, unlike the indistinctive-looking 1977-1980 Versailles and subjectively-styled 1982-1987 Continental, this Lincoln not only looked different enough from Ford and Mercury, but had broad appeal. With the exception of 1993, this Continental topped its bustle-back predecessor’s best annual sales record by more than 25 percent. Third time’s a charm?
Related Reading:
Instead of going crappy engine Taurus. It might have been nice to see another generation of fox based Continentals with an Audi like body, IRS and a line of BMW gas and diesel inline 6s optional above the Windsor, at raised prices.
On these I bet Bill Mitchel like these tributes to him not only from Caddy but from Chrysler and Ford.
I assume you mean ‘BMW-like’ inline 6’s since there wouldn’t be any way that Ford would end up with actual BMW engines in its cars then or now. They could have used the Aussie inline 6’s. One has to ask, though, what would be the point of Lincoln building a true BMW-fighter if they weren’t going to really stay with it and ‘rebrand’ Lincoln as a true sports/luxury brand ala BMW? The Lincoln LS was a good start, but then it flopped mainly due to no real desire from Ford to really re-brand Lincoln in the way that GM did with Cadillac.
The LS was more of a Mitsubishi diamante copy with troublesome mechanical. I think Lincoln has rebranded itself as oldsmobile. The only car They knew how to build the town car was cancelled instead of improved. Lincoln is like Oldsmobile of the late 80s lots of unattractive little cars resembling cheaper cars. Now they plan a continental that like the aurora will be to little to late. Its too small and too foreign and v6 and fwd. It won’t save them. When people went to old’s and wanted a cutlass or a delta 88 all they had was compacts that looked like Saturn’s and little boxes. Lincoln’s are just uglified Ford’s now.
Supposedly Alan Mulally wanted to give Lincoln the ax, but Mark Fields convinced him to give the brand a reprieve. Now that Fields has moved up in the Ford corporate food chain, perhaps Lincoln will receive more attention.
The new Lincoln MKC and MKX are attractive, and are hitting at just the right time, as crossovers are hot. Cadillac hasn’t had much success peddling American versions of BMWs, so perhaps Lincoln is wise not to go there.
While I don’t know specifics on sales volume, my overall perception is that Cadillac is selling quite a few cars and crossovers that are plausible alternatives to Audi, Lexus, MB and BMW. Most of it’s lineup compares in features with the euro makes in terms of performance targets, size, price etc, so where are you basing your comment that Cadillac hasn’t had success? Are you suggesting that Lincoln’s current path of exclusively lightly/moderately revised Fords is a winning long term strategy? Certainly they need vehicles like MKC and MKX to sell against luxury front drivers from Lexus and Infinity but they also need to have some truly remarkable cars as the Ford halo brand. They need a CTS-type effort with rear drive and potential for high horsepower.
The ATS and CTS are good cars, but they have not been sales successes. They haven’t sold well at all; the Escalade and SRX have been propping up sales of the brand. If it weren’t for the Escalade and SRX, Cadillac would be looking an awfully lot like Oldsmobile in the late 1990s.
January through August sales for ATS is 16500 and CTS is 12900. Last year both were over 20,000. The SRX is the big seller at more than 40,000. The new CTS is priced higher and customers don’t like a $500 per month lease. For that dealers say customers go for BMWs. The old CTS was a $400 lease.
From a foreigner’s perspective it looks like Lincoln’s going where Mercury used to be!
Cadillac was dumb for killing off the Deville and the Seville( they were wise to kill off the Eldorado since personal coupes have not sold in high numbers since the Rat Pack last played the Sands)
The Deville sold well until the end. Then GM decided Cadillac must follow other luxury brands and call the cars by letters.
I don’t think that the letters are the problem. Perhaps we should go back to the scheme used between the first and second world war.
The upcoming Continental is anything but small, it has a wheelbase 1.6 inches longer than a Crown Vic, and there’s nothing foreign about it as it’s based on an enlarged Fusion/MKZ platform.
Ford used the BMW 2.4 in line six Diesel engine in the ’84 and ’85 Lincoln Mark VII. But only around 400 were built.
wow, did not know that!
You are aware that Ford used BMW diesel engines in the LSC and I think (but not sure) other Ford cars? Oddly, Ford had a BMW diesel on sale in the U.S. years before BMW itself did….if my memory serves me correctly.
It was used in the Mark VII and Continental, the LSC used the 5.0
According to my Ford specs book, you could order a LSC with the BMW sourced Diesel engine. I would imagine there were not many takers. This engine was also in the 84-85 Continental
The brochures are worded poorly but they tout the LSC as getting the upgraded 5.0 as standard, I can’t imagine a Luxury Sport Coupe would ever have a Diesel option, and I certainly haven’t ever encountered one.
The upgraded, 180hp 5.0 was not offered until 1985.
I stand corrected, according to this page in the 1984 brochure it was apparently available on the LSC(far right under Turbo Deisel Model header)
http://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/lincoln/84_13.html
Alongside the standard 140 hp 5.0L V8 shared with the Ford Mustang is a 114 hp 2.4L turbocharged diesel inline-6 sourced from BMW to offer a more fuel efficient engine offering; all Mark VIIs came with a 4-speed automatic transmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Continental_Mark_VII
Ford did use a BMW I6 diesel on the Mark VII I believe. It was rare and not great (I assume) but still interesting and shows that somehow Ford did get BMW engines at some point.
They used a lot of German parts then, all of the ABS brakes units on the Fox Contis and the Mark VIIs are German built, and so are the factory moonroof motors.
The Contiential and Mark DID use actual BMW inline 6 diesels in 84-85 and they were atrocious. The many problems combined with the low take rate led to the short run.
The fox Continental above had a 2.4 inline 6 BMW TD engine optional so a deal had obviously been struck and the engineering done. All I am suggesting is it being continued and expanded to include the gas versions. I assume it was done by Lincoln as insurance in case of another gas crisis. If that’s the way the market is going why not make more out of the alliance. I assume Ford was paying BMW more than what it cost to punch out a Windsor so it would have been an expensive option.
“An Audi-like body…”
So, a stretched and slightly upmarketed version of the very 5000-inspired 1986 Taurus?
;-D
nice write up
one comment I have as a Lincoln fan on your view of the 1988-1993 Continental
“However, unlike the 1977-1981 Versailles and 1982-1987 Continental, this Lincoln not only looked different enough from Ford and Mercury, but had broad appeal.”
I find the 1982-1987 continental more distinctive from in comparison with its corporate counterparts then the 1988-1994 version (which reminds me of a large version of a Tempo/Topaz…which of course is not true but that is my impression of them)
I was not around during the introduction of both of these cars – perhaps I am mistaken about 1982-1987 Continental being similar to another Ford/Mercury product but I cant think of anything
pic for comparison
Unfortunately, this iteration of the Mercury Topaz did look WAY too much like the first FWD Continental. Why the product planners did this is a bit of a mystery.
Yeah, they look alike to me too. I don’t necessarily find the 88 Continental bad looking(more bland if anything) but once you see the resemblance to a bottom rung car like the topaz, which was restyled with that look in 1988 also, you can’t disassociate the two. It’s one thing for a low rung design to ape styling of an upper echelon model after a model year or two, but vice versa, or concurrently in this case, it doesn’t work so well. Must have been weird to walk into a Lincoln Mercury showroom at the time.
I apologize for that part being unclear. What I meant was that the Versailles looked way too much like its Ford/Mercury counterparts, and the 1982-1987 Continental’s subjective styling gave it limited appeal. The 1988-1994 Continental addressed both of these issues.
sorry Brendan, I misread that – and yes the Continental indeed succeeded on both counts
I notice that the brochure picture of the Continental shows vent windows, while the subject car does not – were vent windows optional? – I know they were nominally optional in previous generations but you rarely see ones without vent windows
were they removed in later years to lack of popularity or cost cutting?
cheers
I also believe that it looked like a stretched Tempo.
I liked the 1979 and 1980 Versailles with the hunched-back roofline – what Versailles should have had from the beginning, as it did look quite distinctive from Granada/Monarch with the new roofline. There was no Versailles model for 1981, and a one-year gap before the fox-based Continental debuted.
The ’82-87 Continental was ok; never liked the ’88-94 model, looked too much like a Taurus to me. I was glad when all the bustleback cars ended production; it was a dead-end design direction that I never much liked.
Right you are about 1981. Fixed 🙂
When it came to the bustlebacks, I always felt the Seville got the details right, and seemed at face value the most premium of the three, never mind the details in the engine compartment.
Ford and Chrysler blatantly aping a style that was not likely to have long legs was not exactly a high point in their product planning.
I liked parts of the Lincoln effort at the bustle back, but the exposed roof seam at the sail panel, the exposed wipers, awkward tail light integration, etc. left too many style details looking unfinished on a car that was clearly meant to sell on style first, and any other attributes second.
The third time did seem to be a charm. I recall the first FWD Continental seemed to get decent reviews, seemed to sell okay in my Midwestern market, and seemed to grab a slightly younger demographic. My wife’s boss, typically a BMW guy, had the ’88-’94 Continental, and was in his early 40’s at the time.
Totally agree. This was another example of the hubris of Detroit management–just give them a phoned-in rip off of a good design and lets base it on a thinly disguised, run of the mill sedan from our economy line. Worked with some examples like the Mark series, but at least those had enough unique sheet metal to hide their pedestrian roots. The Versailles and others like this Continental were
I actually like the taillight integration the most about this take on the bustleback, the low mounted strips the Caddy and imperial used looked like afterthoughts to me.
I agree about the exposed roof seam though, always looked cheap and unfinished. One current car that has received so much praise in the last few years has it as well, drives me nuts every time I hear it’s styling praised…
The Seville tail lights worked for me. Agree that the Imperial tail lights are among the car’s bad features, along with the rear license plate and bumper integration. The front end was sort of handsome and cartoonish at the same time.
Amen, Matt. Add in the seams and the cut lines for the trunk that you can see in the profiles of so many cars [including BMWs Cadillac and Chevrolet] and they clutter what should be clean designs. The cut lines look crude and unfinished.
Spot on about the cribbed from a 60s Buick tail lights on the Imperial and Seville. No imagination there. Though the Lincoln’s were an obvious rip of Cadillac they suit the design well.
Here you have an exposed roof seam on a current Rolls-Royce Ghost. Or rather, A-pillar panel gap. I don’t care what kind of technical production problem they couldn’t solve with the front wing/hood/A-pillar panel gap, it’s simply inexcusable on something in that price range. Never mind this is supposed to be the creme de la creme, cream of the crop, top of the line in the world. Look at that panel gap! And look at that window trim. I don’t care how much it cost to make those seamless, just make it done! It’s a fuckin’ Rolls-Royce!
Forgot to post the pic:
I remember reading something to the effect that the Imperial was in development a lot longer than the Seville, the notification being that the Chrysler designers were both stunned and dismayed when the Seville came out, realizing that the Imperial would be taken as nothing more than a copy of the Seville.
Your point is certainly possible. Given normal product cycles at the time, all three had some crossover on the planning table before hitting showrooms. But, I don’t know how long it would take to whip up an alternative rear portion for the body shell if most of the rest of the vehicle is planned.
At least the Imperial was truly unique as a coupe, but poor Chrysler again was victim of bad timing as the coupe era started its official death watch practically the day the bustleback Imperial was introduced. Chrysler desperately needed this kind of entry into the personal luxury coupe market a decade earlier.
I think there is an actual benefit to the roof seam at the top of the sail panel.
The sail panel would look quite awkward without that line at the top. Take a copy of the photo of the car at the top of the article and wipe away the roof seam at the back to get an idea. Without the line, the sail panel seems twice as tall [and droopy].
In an odd quirk of reality, I read that Chrysler actually had their bustleback under development before GM had theirs; Ford was the johnny come lately to the party. Chrysler did not ape GM. And I usually don’t defend Chrysler for anything.
“Third time’s a charm?”
Nope, while Ford addressed the looks of the Continental, they knee capped it with the craptastic head gasket eating 3.8l V6.
I have not seen an 88-94 Lincoln Continental in years(probably since 2008 or 2009). The engines crapped out on them and they were not worth fixing. I can’t understand why Ford did not offer a V8 for it in the first place.
+1 on the 3.8, wretched design. Seems likely FOMOCO didn’t have a FWD transmission that would handle a 5.0 at the time besides weight and mpg considerations.
It could be argued that FOMOCO didn’t have a transmission that could hold up to a 3.8 (AXOD).
Owners of the front-wheel-drive Continentals were hit with a double whammy – the 3.8 V-6 had an appetite for head gaskets, and the transmission was just as troublesome.
As Leon noted, the 1988-94 Continentals are virtually nonexistent today, and the drivetrain is the big reason why. I still see an occasional 1982-87 Continental on the road, but its successor has virtually vanished.
I’ve never seen an 82-87 Continental on the road, but I’ve seen at least three of the 88-94 ones. I gawk every time I see them, though, because I am genuinely surprised that they aren’t in the junkyard.
Plus, I think the 88-94 Continentals are gawdawful fugly. Yeech…who thought that thing looked like a luxury car?
Actually it was a quadruple whammy when you add the air springs & dodgy electrics…
And the air suspension. I have seen many of this era Continentals flopping down the road on deflated “springs”.
“Third time’s a charm” from a styling point and a sales point.
In regards to reliability I 100% agree with you. Even in the early-2000s the 1988-1994 Continentals were nowhere to be found in my parts. A V8 and a better transmission capable of handling its torque also should have been standard for the Continental in a perfect word. During the time of its development though, everyone was moving away from RWD and V8s.
You’re right, I still see the ’82-’87 version once in a while,but I truly can’t remember the last time I saw the Taurus based Conti!
The transaxle was garbage too!
I think considering the Caddy and the Chrysler you would have been far better off with the Lincoln, at least it would run. It is strange thinking about it now that the Caddy and the Chrysler had similar engine control problems. Hmmmmmmm……
Lincoln realizing that not everything should be called Continental was correct. Their solutions amounted to mismanagement of the Lincoln and Continental brands.
Lincoln should have avoided two stunts GM managed to pull off with the Seville. First, was making the smallest offering in the line-up one of the highest priced cars in the line. The smallest cars should have been priced to get some younger buyers in the doors. The second stunt was the bustleback, which was a styling dead end for a company doing a copycat version.
Continental should have been left on the largest flagship cars. It was too good a brand, and was associated with limos, movie stars, heads of states, etc. Mercedes really picked up where the Continental left off with its S Series.
The Mark series coupes should have dropped the Continental name much earlier then it finally did with the Mark VII. Unfortunately, the Mark name was later also corrupted with a truck and the roots of the current goofy letter naming scheme.
Versailles may have been too Broughamy a name for the long term, but if the first version had been a reasonably priced entry level luxury car, and the Fox bustleback Continental has been the second generation Versailles, things may have worked out better. At least the Continental name would not have been dragged through the mud.
Imperial and Seville were far more attractive. The first generation was ok mechanically unlike the piece of junk 88 fwd v6. However it was far inferior to the town car or Mark vi continental. They should have just called it Versailles. The last real continental was the mark vi. None that came after sold as well as a town car or held up like a town car or looked as good or had the comfort. The bustle back looked best on imperial and Seville. The Lincoln would have been more attractive with crisper lines like Seville. A vertical grill with concealed lights would have helped as would concealed wipers and a more vertical hump trunk and some small fins on the rear quarter panned. They should have not had the crappy air ride and should have had a hotter version of the 302. Really looks a little off the way they did it like a melted Seville. They should have done better. Every continental since Mark vi has been a less attractive smaller and inferior car to the town car. For what it cost, any one buying one over a town car got a raw deal especially the super Taurus 88-93 with its saggy suspension and horrible v6 and electrical issues. At least the Fox body cars can be easily modified with mustang parts to have a fun and fast and unusual car.
no love for the Mark VII 🙁 ? its an awesome car and worthy of being a Mark/Continental
plenty of love here, i’ve owned a red ’90 SE for 6 years now, still in love with it 😀
The Imperial by far is the best rendition of the bustle back. However, I am fond of the face lifted Continental. The early ones look like the front clip was smashed into someone’s upscale garage and fixed very poorly (at least to me).
I think the “classic bustle back” is this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/4425278787/in/photolist-7K3Hd8-dX2f8s-bLcBag-mtmVuB-ksc7TU-8t6Ppm-eCLKD8-dVnHgq-anTBUX-5cznVG-dZc2uX-ddYJKF-9S6J27-dZhN1h-8CQmZW-gMEURv-oEn5a8-mto74w-anWpqs-dWVnSZ-dVnJPu-dVgQ66-mfhLo7-gMFSfV-dZc1Jz-pwftvJ-dVnJPf-dVha9c-ddYGwW-dVnJPo-akXx7i-7JEMqS-dW937r-qXjS5A-89nfxJ-dVnJQo-dX2hpy-dZCnWD-dVnJNC-kvc344-mtn9iT-dZbXuP-dVdmvB-dVhaaK-dVha8X-dZhJCL-dUmK87-dZhJCQ-dZhJD5-dZhJDm
I don’t think the Continental is really a bustle back. The Seville needs front fenders to go with the rear and doesn’t quite look right.
Interesting how each bustleback got longer than the one before it. The Cadillac’s is quite short, and the Continental’s is quite long.
My father bought a used 84 Continental in 2 tone gray/silver. The car did possess a high-quality feel, especially in comparison with the Panther Lincoln, which never felt quite like it was as solid as it should have been in that class of car.
Dad’s car had air suspension, and I found its handling almost scary.
If nothing else, these cars show the versatility of Ford’s Fox platform. Of the three “bustle back” offerings during this period, this is the one I’d actually buy, although the Imperial is tops strictly for looks. The Cadillac’s hood is simply too long, and makes the car look like a giant, four-door AMC Gremlin from some angles.
I do prefer the face-lifted 1984-87 versions, with their sloping front end. The revised front gives these cars a more balanced appearance, particularly from the side.
There are photos of second-generation Versailles that Ford had planned to offer in the early 1980s. It has a much more rectilinear appearance than this car, but it looks better, in my opinion.
It is also obviously based on the 1981 Ford Granada and Mercury Cougar body shell. Given the intense criticism the Versailles generated for its resemblance to the much cheaper Ford Granada and Mercury Monarch, Ford probably felt that the next Lincoln entry had to be more differentiated from Ford and Mercury offerings on the same platform.
Carmine had added some photos of the potential Gen II Versailles to an excellent piece on the Versailles by Tom Klockau.
Here is one of the front…….
And the rear.
In some ways this design was too safe, a mish-mash of every ’70s Lincoln styling cue drawn with a straight edge. This approach to the ’80 T-Bird and the Cougar XR-7 failed miserably.
The bustleback Continental could have been called a better effort than this if it hadn’t been such a rip-off of the Seville.
Get rid of the Continental spare bump and the wire wheel covers and it looks almost Soviet era Russian……..
This looks better-balanced to me than the 1980-82 Ford Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar XR-7. It also looks like it has larger tires than those two cars, which helps give it a more confident “stance.”
It’s no beauty queen, but for the times, it’s not bad.
Is the 82 Lincoln continental for sale
As polarizing and relatively slow selling as the production Continental was, I think it was the right choice if that was the alternative. If nothing else the Continental ended up looking right in place in the Lincoln lineup between the Town car and Mark VII
’61 to ’69, are the one’s that look real fine.
I like both.
The Fox body Continentals were odd, but very dependable and the front drive Continentals were undependable but very nice. I’d love to find a decent front drive Continental, but they are almost completely gone, due to head gasket issues.
I really like these Continentals, I too prefer them the most out of the bustleback trio. I do however dislike the “aero” facelift, droopy is a good word to describe it, and they look way way WAY better two toned(see below). Same with the SeVille for that matter, like the one featured.
The name Continental is a poor choice in hindsight, but you have to remember Ford had ongoing intentions to drop the Panther platform all together by 85 or so, that’s also why the LTD and Marquis nameplates also moved to the Fox chassis. The collapse in fuel prices by the time these came out pardoned the Panther and gave it an unforeseen 30 year lease on life of course, but the jumbled naming scheme remained with Lincoln until the Continental’s unceremonious end.
Good point about the 2 tone, it really works on this car and sets it apart. Count me as a vote for the 84-87 front end. I always thought the 82-83 front was a little cheesy looking, while the facelift looked more substantial. Personal preference.
So I’ve read I don’t recall where, the two-tone treatment was actually Lincoln’s attempt to fix the bustleback styling. Apparently during focus group testing, they discovered that the bustleback styling was not at all liked by consumers. But, by the time they had discovered this, it was too late to significantly change the design. So, they did the two-tone paint to minimize the visual impact of the bustleback.
I recall reading that somewhere as well, maybe wikipedia, but I’m not totally sure I buy it. These were clear knockoffs of the Seville afterall, and the Seville featured in the article wears the exact same two tone scheme the Continental does. It was also used on the 1930s Rolls Royces that inspired the Bustleback in the first place.
The Continental name is coming back next year!
“After all, for many of those years, all Lincolns were also Continentals.” Yes, but not all Continentals were Lincolns; the statement “all full-size Lincolns were still ‘Lincoln Continental… (Town Car, Town Coupe, or Mark Series)’ ” isn’t precisely true.
The Mark cars were always Continental only, not Lincoln Continental, from the late 1950s until the mid-’80s, when the Continental Mark VII became the Lincoln Mark VII partway through its production run. “Lincoln” was absent from the cars themselves as well as dealer literature and advertising. Ford still wanted to pretend that Continental was separate and special, as was the case for the Mark II (produced by the short-lived Continental Division). At first (1958-60) the Continental was just a Lincoln with a retracting rear window and a few other accoutrements; later it was used for the better-known Continental Mark III/IV/V/VI/VII cars.
I always like to post links to road tests of CC cars for those who might be interested in what testers said back in the day. Here’s a Popular Science comparison of the 82 Continental, Seville, and New Yorker: https://books.google.ca/books?id=IcZ8Jm3K5XQC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=cadillac+seville+lincoln+continental+test&source=bl&ots=Ak72IK6m2T&sig=doISFCV-H98dd8ld–9LKtez8WM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBWoVChMIpviZwZeQyAIViH6SCh2V6QJf#v=onepage&q=cadillac%20seville%20lincoln%20continental%20test&f=false
A great piece you cite to – it brings me back to how depressing the automotive scene was in 1982, at least for those of us who liked bigger cars. It also reminds me of how much better the New Yorker/Fifth Avenue could have been had Chrysler given the car the same level of attention that the Continental got in improvements to the basic Fox platform. The Connie and Fairmont felt worlds different. The M body Chrysler and Volare, not so much.
While some of the criticism leveled at the Continental is valid (such as the roof seam), I disagree with the idea that the Seville did the bustleback better. IMHO, the Seville looks too wide and stubby. And yet, when you compare the Americans to their European “inspirations”, the Cadillac does come closer than the Lincoln. In fact, the Lincoln looks uncomfortably similar to the little Triumph Mayflower.
I remember a bunch of these in the late 90’s / Early 2000s in the throes of old luxury car hooptie status… ALWAYS practically dragging the rear bumper from a faulty rear air suspension.
There was a faded gray/brown on always parked in the employee area of the Menards I lived behind, complete with rear end damage, holes rusted through the quarters, rear axle on the bumpstops from deflated rear airbags, and a ratchet strap holding the trunk down. It remarkably still had all the original hubcaps on grimey whitewalls.
That car was there well into the later part of the decade, but I doubt it made it into the current one.
I owned a slant-front, bustle-back Conti and really liked it…smaller than a Town Car, 5.0L v8 and AOD auto that worked OK but made whooshing sounds that no GM automatic ever made. My air ride worked just fine except on REALLY cold mornings, when it would deflate after start-up, then not reinflate for a mile or two. I would own another if I could find a decent one.
I gave a set of Snap On wrenches, and a set of Snap On screwdrivers for the car, so it’s not like I had a huge investment in it. Drove it for about 6 months and sold it when the driver’s door wouldn’t stay latched…apparently some collision repair had been done and the hinges were damaged, and it damaged the latch. A proper repair would have cost more than the car was worth, so off to pick-n-pull it went. I took my $250 I got from the salvage yard and put money down on something newer.
I hope this won’t depress you but I once had a car where the door wouldn’t latch when you shut it. It was my only car and I couldn’t afford to replace the door…..or the car, so I “hit” the latching mechanism on the door with a few shots of WD40. After opening and closing the door a few times, door fixed.
Though now that I think of it, that car DIDN’T have power locks. So maybe it wouldn’t have fixed your problem.
The latch was worn out…more of a symptom of the bad hinges…the door drooped and didnt want to engage the striker.
I’ve been seeing one like this around here recently driven by an old lady.
I can’t imagine where, because this generation of Continental is even rare in Michigan, and usually some oddballs Detroit cars pop up here even if they disappear everywhere else.
“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” must have been the Lincoln styling department mantra. Unoriginal, poorly proportioned with too short a wheelbase and a long, droopy rear overhang, cramped interiors; not Lincoln styling’s finest hour. Small wonder sales were lousy.
The fwd ’88-’94 generation were just as bad: styling derived from the Olds Cutlass Ciera and Tempo/Topaz themes Functionally, were the head-gasket-consuming 3.8 V6 not bad enough, the air suspensions failing once they reach a few years into the used car cycle. Dealers dealt with constant, costly problems from cars that should have otherwise been fully serviceable, hated to see the damned things come in the driveway, one end or the other down…..with a fuming driver at the wheel!
I’ve always found it interesting that although the Japanese picked up on every American brougham-type styling trend back in those days, they never adopted the bustle-back.
Discernment? Or am I forgetting something?
Ah, yes… the ’88-’94 Continental. Probably the worst car Ford ever built. Absolute rubbish, there wasn’t one damn thing on those sh*tboxes that wasn’t prone to failure. 3.8L head gaskets, AXOD forward clutch pistons, EATC control heads, power trunk pulldown motors, etc, etc, etc., and then there was that bloody air suspension… the only component that didn’t fail on the air ride was, well… nothing. Nothing held up worth a crap on those turds. There is a bright side, however… I made a LOT of money selling as a parts guy at a Lincoln dealer back then. Oh, the warranty claims on those… *smh*. IMHO the only car more unreliable is the Vega…
Was never a fan of these even if they had an engine advantage over the Seville which I wasn’t fond of either. The Lincoln looked old fashioned in it’s first year compared to the Cadillac. No FWD. Two carbureted engines. No IRS or 4 wheel disk brakes. A smaller, snugger interior. It was yet another variation of the Fairmont fox chassis and it showed. And worse Ford stuck the crap 3.8 v6 as the std engine for the 1982 model year, thankfully corrected for 1983 with the std 130 blazing HP TBI 302 V8. The 1988 replacement proved to be a far bigger mess.
Ho-hum, more bustleback bashing. It was a sharp design that tends to look best on bigger cars, and for some reason on coupes especially. The Imperial and the Mark VII wear it best.
I hope you don’t mean the article itself, because Brendan didn’t appear to “bash” the design at all.
I wouldn’t say the Mark VII was a bustleback but the Imperial definitely was and it is definitely my favorite of the 3 bustleback designs.
I think that the Seville is a bustle back comparing with a classic bustle back (Rolls Royce) from the 1930’s, but the Imperial is at best influenced, but is not really a bustle back. That leaves us with the Continental, which has no real bustle back theme at all. The Continental tire is good.
The bustle back has the roof and fender lines coming to a point at the bumper, with the trunk in-between the rear fenders, and mostly vertical with a short deck behind the rear window. Neither the Continental nor the Imperial conform to this style.
One thing I had completely forgotten about was that this car had hydroboost brakes and the world’s smallest car battery…I guess there wasn’t much room left once a v8 went in there, so there was no room for a “normal” brake booster or a standard battery. The guy at the parts store looked at me like I was from Mars when I took the battery in, and told him what it belonged to.
On the subject of the BMW M21 turbodiesel engine, it was also fitted to some 524td sedans, automatic only in the US. It had a bad habit of cracking the cylinder head if it ran even the least little bit hot, but otherwise performed very similarly to the standard 2.7l eta M20 inline six gas engine…low HP, high torque. Very few were sold, and I have only seen one in the flesh.
I do like this Lincoln version. I’ve seen some for sale that are in excellent condition and they are very nice and trim in size. As someone who once owned a 1985 Town Car that I wish I still had, I am partial to some Lincolns while I also like some Cadillacs prior to their wholesale front drive disaster and I like nothing Cadillac makes now – too cramped, too ugly, too expensive and not one ounce of luxury.
I do recall riding in my bosses 1980 Cadillac and remember the smell of the leather and how quiet the car was. It was an experience like none I have felt before until I got my Town Car. There is something to be said for full-sized American luxury cars.
I would like a 1987 Continental. The bustle rear is very unique, but the car itself is a very good one. The 5.0 was simple and dependable, the Fox body was an excellent size, and it wouldn’t be difficult to maintain. I am leery of the digital dash, due to part availability and would expect the air suspension to fail and be replaced with leaf springs. The two-tone paint treatment is also unique enough to stand out, as well as present a stronger horizontal line, lifting the bustle and hiding it a bit.
Nice copies of these cars can be had for under $10 grand. I would enjoy it.
Regarding this 1st sentence:
“From 1961 through the late-1970s, it was difficult to think of Lincoln without immediately thinking of the Continental.”
I can’t believe it’s been *58* years … yét every ’61
-’63 Continental says JFK, to me.
It’s a shame Ford didn’t have the guts to make this car a four-door Mark VII.
It would’ve appealed to a customer who admired the aero Mark’s progressive view of “What A Luxury Car Should Be” and solid, cheaper-to-maintain than German or Caddy (air suspension aside), engineering but couldn’t do with a coupe for personal, business, or (increasingly as the ’80s went on) fashion reasons.
The presumed imminent end of the Panther might’ve had to do with that, but the bigger car’s continued existence left Lincoln with a three-model lineup two of which were aimed at exactly the same segment.