posted at the Cohort by SoCalMetro
Cohort Outtake: A Granarch Lover Lives Here – Or A Monada Lover Lives Here
– Posted on July 15, 2019
posted at the Cohort by SoCalMetro
-
-
-
American Brands: GM 
American Brands: Ford 
American Brands: Chrysler 
American Brands: AMC, Jeep and All Others 
Automotive Histories and Misc. 
Asian Brands 
UK Brands 
Australian Brands 
European Brands 
Cars Of A Lifetime & Auto-Biography 
Buses 
Trucks, Pickups and Vans 
Design 
Trains, Planes & Ships 
Motorcycles, Trikes, Bicycles 
Engines, Transmissions and other Tech 
Tractors, Lawn Mowers, Off-Road Equipment 
RVs, Motorhomes, Trailers, Campers
Or…..could just be a cat lover.
They could have kept up the theme by buying a Cougar.
Interesting how a filler panel and solid color taillights can make a car look more substantial than the other even if it’s the same car
I always found it interesting how Ford always managed to make the Mercury versions of the same Ford products look slightly more “expensive”.
A ruse that many people were suckered into in the 1960s through 1980s.
“Maybe, if we buy the Grand Marquis Brougham instead of the LTD Landau, someday we’ll be buying that Lincoln Town Car over on the other side of the showroom!”
Wow. My old neighbour who worked at the Ford plant in Oakville had a Granada in the putrid gold colour of that Monarch. Not often you will find double 70s survivors like this. Great photo!
Interesting perspective on this photo; it plays tricks with the eyes. The Granada looks much smaller.
It is actually smaller in the picture. The lens must be distorting one or both of them.
Yeah, I think something’s a tad askew. For starters, check out the difference in the width of the license plates.
And didn’t the Grimace from McDonaldland drive a Granarch?
That seems more like a conservative, upright Mayor McCheese sort of vehicle choice. I picture Grimace as more of a free-wheeling Mustang convertible guy…blob…thing.
I would have pictured Grimace in a Pacer myself
I think the reason the one on the left looks smaller is because it’s a second gen Granada based off the Fox body, while the right is a first gen based off the Maverick/Falcon platform.
Nope, they’re both 1st gen Falcon-based cars
And a trunk-mounted luggage rack lover.
Those luggage racks have always puzzled me, especially on a relatively large car. But just this weekend, my father happened to share with me an amusing luggage rack experience of his, so I figured I’d share here.
We were talking about a trip that my folks took in 1965, driving their Triumph TR-4 from Philadelphia to Nova Scotia. Dad’s Triumph had a trunk-mounted luggage rack (necessary because the trunk itself was probably full of tools), and he got a small old chest and secured it to the Triumph with an intricate set of chains and padlocks. Somehow he looped the chains to the car’s interior and locked them to the seat belt anchors.
Everything went fine until he got to the Canadian customs station. Apparently customs folks don’t like to see stuff with lots of chains and locks, so they had my folks disassemble the whole thing and open the chest… which, of course was filled with clothes.
As well as a CHMSL lover.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything being carried on an OEM luggage rack. I don’t know the weight capacity but I don’t think it’s very much. Even worse is I don’t know how anyone could secure something to it with the only possible way to the raised bar on the rear. It doesn’t seem like it would be very long before wind buffeting would quickly grab the front of whatever was on the rack and flip it backwards, likely ripping off the bar in the process.
Frankly, these OEM luggage racks just appear to be ornamental. A ‘real’ rear luggage rack (the kind usually affixed to a sports car) is much less attractive but much more functional. It’s worth noting that the one on the Granada looks aftermarket so it might actually be of some use.
I am not sure he/she was a CHMSL lover just because of the look of the light as much as the big discount they got from the insurance company for them. Prior to the mandate that required them on all cars built for 1986. cars that had them added by owners would get an insurance discount. My grandfather had one installed in his 1980 Malibu.
Well, aftermarket CHMSLs were billed as giving your car 1986 styling. Dang, I nearly mistook this for a Sable!
The one on the Ford is not a factory unit.
The factory Ford units from this ear are set up to tie things down properly. The black piece at the end of each strip actually incorporates a loop. Large enough for the traditional metal hook bungee cords or some ~1/4″ rope.
I want that Monarch wide-body. Seats 10 people and you can fit a canoe sideways in the trunk. Sweet!
From left to right, Fox platform, Panther platform, Fox platform.
meowwwww.
I’ve noticed that cats love sleeping on top of cars when they get the chance; it’s telling that this cat’s studiously ignoring these two options.
LOL – I just got this.
Something something “sign of the cat”…
It’s like how I answered my friend’s question, “if you had all the money in the world, what car would you buy?”, and I answered, “Jaguar”.
They responded that the Jaguar wasn’t a dependable car, but then I reminded them that if I had all the money in the world, I’d have enough Jaguars to have one available when the others needed repairs.
In this case, you got your Granada and Monarch. I bet one of them is usually road-worthy when the other isn’t!
2 brown lumps of crap in that driveway.
MOAR ROAD HUGGiNG WEIGHT.
FORD: BETTER IDEAS
HFII
My best friend from high school’s parents bought a new ‘76 Monarch 4-door in white with red vinyl base trim. The 302 automatic moved it along pretty well and it was pretty dependable. It held out OK against the tin worm for maybe 6+ years, so it must’ve been one of the good ones.
During my time in driver’s ed, I was the lucky first student to pilot the new ‘78 Granada. I particularly enjoyed the tight steering & handling compared to my brother’s ‘70 Plymouth Fury III with bias ply tires. One thing the Granada didn’t do well was move along. Going up southeast Ohio hills would almost always kick in passing gear, which consisted of great commotion from the engine bay without much additional forward locomotion!
(‘78 Granada with the mighty 250 6 cylinder, that is. 😉 )
And expensive!
One of my friend’s parents busted a taillight on their Granada. It came as a complete assembly instead of jus the lens. His dad went on for several days about the $100+ (in 1976-ish money) taillight!
Perspective lost in time now, but when these cars were new I remember thinking how exotic the Granada looked with its yellow rear turn signals while the Monarch looked more mainstream American with traditional red.
Yes, now I recall having the same reaction upon starting to see amber rear turn lights during this era and how it made GM look like real cheapskates when the updated Chevette/Acadian cars lost their first generation amber lights for big red blobs.
I too was really taken by the amber turn lights. I didn’t know that they were required by European rules, but I did like how they really looked better than the American all red units. The Monarch didn’t have them, and of course, my Dad bought a cheap stripper Monarch, much to my chagrin. The amber turn signals may have been one of the reasons I wanted the Escort when it came out, and I was thrilled to get mine in 82. Funny how such a minor thing makes such a big difference.
From my perspective growing up in the 90s-00s it’s totally flipped. The cars that had amber lenses looked cheap and shoddy compared to cars with red/clear lenses. I’m actually shocked by how much more I like the Monarch than the Granada in this picture.
That’s not to knock amber rear indicators, but it looks better to me that the light is amber and the lens is clear
Count me as one who thinks the amber lenses look cheap compared to an all red or with a clear portion and amber bulb.
Only a cat lover would be the proud owner of these useless relics of American inefficiency. PASS
Biggest shocker is that the N A R flip-down cover hasn’t fallen off yet
I like these.
In fact, I’ve stumbled upon a 72 Granada two-door with 1/4 vinyl roof, air, 302 V8 and automatic and all its wheel covers. Much like the car on the left. In amazing shape inside and out as it was garaged for many years in a small village outside Edmonton.
Granada or Monarch hard to come by now and would fit in my garage no problem. Just doing the math and wondering where I might park it during the winter.
GarryM: If you’ve stumbled on a ’72 Granada, you should buy it right away. It’s very rare—they didn’t make them until 1975.
In the film All the President’s Men, set in the early days of Watergate in 1972, a Granada drives by as Bob Woodward (Robert Redford) places a call to Deep Throat from a phone booth. There are also some big GM sedans with rectangular headlights.
There is a chain of restaurants in New England, with a handful of locations also extending into eastern Upstate New York, called The 99 Restaurant & Pub. Their original location was in the Charlestown section of Boston, and was called The 99 because it was either located on Route 99 or was number 99 on whatever street it was on (I forget which; there is a Route 99 in Massachusetts, and it does run through Charlestown). In multiple The 99 locations, I have seen a photo hanging on the wall with a caption indicating that it depicts the original Charlestown location as it looked circa 1971. Two cars are visible in the photo. One is a first-generation Ford Granada. The other is a Ford Pinto which, from its bumpers, appears to be a 1974 or later model. Based on the cars in the photo, I don’t think the picture could have been taken any earlier than the fall of 1974.
The Dairy Queen in Spencer, MA has a photo hanging on the wall with a caption indicating that it depicts the restaurant as it looked in the early ‘60s. Several vehicles are visible in the photo. While I cannot identify the specific model year of each vehicle, I do not believe that there is a single vehicle in the photo that could have been in existence any earlier than the spring of 1964 (a first-generation Ford Mustang). Most appear to be from the late ‘60s. The newest vehicle, at least in terms of when its basic design/styling package appeared, is a full-size Chevrolet or GMC van from the generation that debuted for the 1971 model year. Based on the van being in the photo, I don’t think the picture could have been taken any earlier than the spring of 1970, when those vans went on sale as early 1971 models.
MOAR ROAD HUGGiNG WEIGHT.
FORD: BETTER IDEAS
HFII
The Monarch looks distorted in the pic; it’s as if it’s LTD-sized while the Granada looks like it’s normal, average-sized self. It also looks like the driveway is not level so the Monarch is ‘lording’ over the Granada. I’m guessing this snap is from the Southern California area? (I noted the pictures were posted at the Cohort by ‘SoCalMetro’ and am assuming it’s someone who lives in that area).
RE using factory trunk racks. I had a TR-6, and used the trunk rack to carry coolers fairly regularly. It was a good way to keep moisture out of the trunk/interior.
This picture is distorted as the Monarch is considerably wider than the Granada. In real life they are both the same size.
I salute this guy, whomever he may be. (It is surely not a she, as she would have better taste.) A pair of Monardas, both coupes, both with luggage racks, and both in colors that Ford put together as a two tone combo around that time.
All that is missing is a Versailles. This makes me think about what might have happened if Lincoln had offered a 2 door Versailles. Maybe this guy could make the first one.
That would be kinda cool, like someone taking a 1st gen Cavalier convertible with the V-6 and adding all the Cadillac Cimmaron trim and pieces to it.
The Versailles would need a modified 351 of course, or a more hot rodded 302 if the 351 won’t fit between those Falcon shock towers.
The 351 was on the options list of the Granada/Monarch in 1975-76. My father’s 351-powered 76 Monarch Ghia was one of the more gratifying cars I drove during the malaise era.
A Versailles coupe? It’s been done (pic below) unsurprisingly, much as there are several Cimarron coupes and convertibles out there. But I was surprised to find this pic online – i.pinimg.com/originals/01/73/05/017305ebdf43edc8c46b43a91f879542.jpg – on Pinterest, where it’s labelled “Lincoln Versailles Coupe Proposal”. Was a coupe actually considered, and did Ford really build this themselves?
I’m also rather astonished to learn there’s a 145-page “The Lincoln Versailles Book”, available on Amazon with part of it previewable on Google Books. I’m disappointed though that there doesn’t seem to be a full-length book dedicated to the Cimarron….
Wow, this is even more underwhelming than the Versailles sedan. I was expecting something more, but perhaps I shouldn’t have.