This is a car that has been featured here at CC numerous times, in one variation or another. And one that I’m know not to be a fan of. So why did I stop and shoot it and post it? Because the march of time cannot be stopped, and genuine daily-driver beater box Panthers are becoming genuinely scarce. Even here in Curbsidelandia, the number is dwindling drastically. So let’s celebrate this one before they’re all gone. Or should we celebrate that they’re almost all gone?
Those of you that have been around for a while will know me as a non-fan of these cars. Well, yes; I thought they were a rather feeble imitation of the very well-designed ’77 GM B-Body, and I even did a whole comparison of their respective design strengths and weaknesses here. That didn’t make a few folks happy, as my arguments were pretty convincing, apparently. But that was then, and today, as these start to slip on to the endangered species list, let’s celebrate this survivor. Yes; I’m in a very good mood…but not good enough to wrack my brain as to just what exact year this one is. The grilles on them differed slightly, but having never been able to look at that tacky thing (oops; there I go) closely, I can’t tell the difference.
Ah yes, that ugly steering wheel that graced so many of the fine family of Ford cars. Don’t ask, but I found it to be particularly unpleasant to look at, and I was forced to for the two years that I owned a 1983 T-Bird Turbo Coupe. It doesn’t look so bad in a boxy car like this, but it was sooo wrong in the sleek T-Bird. In its defense, the seat fabric that Ford used in these was undoubtedly better than what Chevy used in its Caprice, which was rather thinner. A win for the Ford! But let’s just not talk about the herky-jerky AOD transmission. Or the weak-chested 302 that was inevitably under the hood. The less said, the better.
No; let’s keep it positive.
More:
CC Design Shoot-Out: 1977 Chevrolet B-Body vs 1979 Ford LTD – The Boxing Match
CC: 1989 Ford LTD Crown Victoria – If It’s Good Enough For Ben Matlock
The center mount stop light in the back window would peg this as an 86 at oldest.
I run hot and cold on these. These 2 doors are awkwardly shaped, and like you, I am no fan of the AOD. All in all, I think the subsequent series is much better to drive and to live with, and this from someone who got to experience both at the same time recently.
But there is still something about these things that I find appealing, whether really pristine or as a beater.
It’s a factory CHMSL so it’s either an ’86 or ’87. I say that because it wasn’t unusual in the mid to late ’80s for Panthers, GM A (FWD) and B-bodies, Cadillacs, Chrysler M-bodies and other cars popular with seniors to have an aftermarket CHMSL installed.
I suspect at least some of those folks were under the impression that the 3rd brake light was becoming mandatory on all cars, not just ’86 and up.
The aftermarket CHMSL market was helped by the fact that adding one got you a reduction in insurance premium both before the mandated start date (Sept 1st 1986(aka the start of MY1986) ) and for a few years afterwards. The law to add CHMSL to the back of cars was created and passed in 1983 so from 1983 to 1990(or so) the insurance companies gave you a discount on your insurance if a CHMSL was present. Now there is no discount offered on a retrofited older car.
No doubt some were also installed by those who wanted a cheap and visible update!
Back in 1986 and 1987 we sold hundreds of aftermarket CHMSL’s and they were all junk. The lens’ would fade or melt through and a lot of them were not wired up correctly-they would blink with the signal lights–another one of those fads that you had to be in quick because by 1988 the market was gone–any one that wanted one had bought one.
I don’t think the Panther really came into it’s own until the aero generation. The golden age of which was the 6-window ’92-’97, before decontenting set in.
Agree! My ’95 Grand Marquis was SO great of a car (for me) that I purchased a last generation Town Car.
And I absolutly hate the aero redesign with a passion! I even hate the 88 up with the flush mount bumpers. Same reason I dont like the Mark V. That seemingly little design detail just irritates the crap out of me.
Worthy of noting simply because it survives. That should be a whole category of posts here at CC.
Jim’s right. Regardless of what era this car (or many of the others featured thus far) may have been designed in, built in, driven in, whatever; it’s still around. Attribute that as a testament to what ever floats your boat, I’m just happy they’re here.
My aforementioned approach to curbside classics (the cars, not the website) may be a little tougher to follow once the GM N body Malibu becomes a classic. I’m really not looking forward to giving it any respect.
I saw an old rancher in a straw hat driving a beat up old N body yesterday. It kind of seems like the automotive equivalent of the old worn out, sagging mare the Three Stooges rode.
Just googled n body, and all I got was a lot of astronomical photos. then I put GM in front of it – oh, one of those!
So forgettable I couldn’t even remember the body code.
In its old age, it sure looks fun for someone to hoon around in. Paul, a while back you did a early 70s Galaxie that was delivering pizzas in it’s old age that had a similar vive. These cars may have been designed for different eras but the resemblance is there.
On these I wonder why they never did a standard six like the GM and Chrysler equivilants. Ford did the work on high swirl combustion for the Tempo 4 version. A circa 150hp 4.1 HSC six would have made Ford get a little more out of the 302 to keep it faster and make better CAFE and more fun to hoon when old. Everybody wins.
Good point; Ford’s neglect of 6-cyl engine development Stateside left them few alternatives for larger cars compared to Buick & Chevy. While the light Fox bodies could handle the Lima & Köln engines, the desmogged 250 was lame even for the Granada, while the Chevy 250 & V6s were good enough for the base Impala. Ford took too long to join the midsized V6 game.
I do wonder why Ford never offered a 6 cyl in the Panther, the 3.8 shared the same bell housing pattern as the 5.0 and it would have fit in very easy since they had a RWD version for the Foxes it wouldn’t have taken much more than chassis specific engine mounts. Later on the 4.2 Essex as used in the F150 and the 3.7 Duratec from the Mustang would have also been good choices. I would think that would have improved MPG and the 3.7 made a touch more HP than even the Marauder Spec 32v 4.6. The 5 or 6 speed automatics that went behind the Explorer’s 4.6 would have been nice too, though they lack the legendary durability of the AOD family of transmissions.
I think there was some talk around 1990 of putting the 4.0 German V-6 in the panther. This was a 60 degree engine, but perhaps expensive and in short supply due to strong Explorer sales.
I was talking about a fuel injected, high swirl combustion version of the earlier inline Ford 6. By then GM was using 90 degree V6s without balance shafts, so a well balanced inline 6 could have been a competitive advantage. The Tempo 140 four had 84 hp with TBI and HSC. From this, I am guessing that 150hp was possible out of a 250 cubic inch motor. More was possible with the port injection from the t-bird turbo coupe, although that system was probably expensive.
If this engine had been produced, and Iaccoca had lasted a little longer, maybe we would even have seen another generation of Falcon based Granadas. What a shame to let a great platform die so young. Just kidding. Or maybe not. Hmm….
I’m beginning to suspect Ford & GM moved away from more easily-balanced inline sixes because of
1) packaging;
2) it was harder to regulate mixture on all cylinders w/o expensive port fuel injection or multiple carbs (like Jaguar), compared to Vs or fours. Any engine wonks have an answer?
Yes good cylinder to cylinder A/F mixture balance is hard with a centrally mounted carb on a log style inline 6. So yeah they probably saw it needing port EFI sooner than they could get away with on other engine configurations. It also is not as friendly packaging wise being so long.
While Ford continued to call it he HSC 2.3 the high swirl head design went away with the introduction of CFI. They tried High swirl chamber design on the 5.0 and it only lasted one year.
Eric, that 3.8 V-6 was a piece of crap with it’s blowing head gaskets and other problems. It wouldn’t have helped the CV’s reputation in any way. Bad in T-birds and Cougars. Bad in the Taurus and Sable.
Why oh why didn’t they adopt our Aussie crossflow head? The engineering was already done, the tooling paid for – was it just the Not Invented Here syndrome raising its ugly head?
Could Aussie sixes survive adaptation to US emissions? Note that Ford & Chevy 250s developed about the same power during the ’60s, but Ford’s fell off badly during the ’70s, more than Chevy’s did.
But to answer your question, I suspect they thought a souped-up six made no market sense, not worth even minor investment. Chrysler found that out with the Hyperpak Slant-6.
The six had to stay below the power of the 302 in a family car state of tune. I agree that an inline 6 250 would only work in a panther or falcon platform. I think it would be a tight fit in a fox although the smaller 200 ci fit. I think a falcon based Granada would have sold better than what we got which was a formal trim group on the Fairmont. A new falcon Granada would have secured the future of the inline 6, it also would have made a good fleet/police/taxi perhaps called maverick. Say 50% of Granadas/Mavericks and 25% of Panthers. Developing the 250 would have been way cheaper the designing and tooling an Essex from scratch, only to have a lesser engine. The Tbird could have had the German v6 standard, it would have appealed more to the young buyers the aero bird was after.
I would buy one of these dirt cheap just to have something to hoon, but I would not buy a similar vintage Caprice to do that with because I like those too much.
My grandmother had two of these in a row. They were good cars. The 302 may have been weak compared to V8s before and later, but she had a lead foot that wrung out all it had to give.
My fondest memory is of rounding up cattle in her ’86, including a wild, Dukes of Hazzard style chase across a dry stock tank.
On another note, this Frankentoria in our town is a common sight.
The 302 itself wasn’t horrible on these, but the problem was the awful AOD that locked the torque converter the moment it made it’s (too soon) upshift into 3rd gear. And the horribly tall axle ratio. Through first and second gears, these cars were fairly quick for what they were, moreso than the GM B bodies with the 307. But once that AOD locked up, it was over as far as driving enjoyment was concerned.
I recall my grandfather telling her to leave it in “D” instead of the overdrive D incircled by the O. This must be why. Most of my times driving it were around town, when overdrive would have been largely irrelevant.
Under 45 mph there was no difference between D and OD. That converter stayed locked in both 3 and 4, but in the 40-50 mph range, it was more responsive in plain D.
I pretty much agree with your sentiments about these boxy Panther’s. I will say though that if you can get past there styling and interiors, they are decent cars to own. As far as the 302 being weak chested, I would agree on the early models, especially the VV carb versions. The CFI units weren’t much better. However, after 1986 with the MPFI 302, they were actually pretty solid runners for their era and class (I recall 0-60 times around the high 9 second range). They were quicker than a 305-4bbl, and probably a bit quicker than even the L03 Chevy 305 TBI too. In fact, the 302 MPFI in police testing ran pretty close in some tests to the big police 351W.
This particular car appears to be a 1986 or 1987 due to the CMHSL (1988 was restyled and no more two-doors).
Although I’ve owned nothing but GM biggies since, my box Panther had a pretty nice interior. In fact, the cloth held up a heckuva lot better than the cloth in my Electra, and there were no cracks or tears anywhere in the vinyl or the dash.
For me it was getting past the AOD and also the extreme difficulty of learning how to do anything on that engine that made ownership as a young kid in high school annoying. I just wanted to learn some basics, like changing plugs, and it was so cramped on the EFI 302 V8 that it was hard to do.
If I buy another big Ford sedan it will be the prior generation Continental. Or an Excursion.
I should have clarified, I meant the interior styling. There was nothing wrong with quality of the interior by 1980’s standards. As for comparison to the GM sedans I have own, I would say the seat design is much better on the Ford, at least the later years. The upholstery and plastics didn’t seem overly different (both weren’t great), although it seemed the Fords did use a bit thicker material. That said of the 80’s fullsize cars I have owned, by far the most durable upholstery was in my Custom Cruiser wagon. It had a very thick almost dimpled course cloth material trimmed with a thick vinyl along the sides. Even when the car was 20 years old, the seating still looked like new. The pillow top velour type upholstery never seemed to hold up very well, and was pretty gross IMO.
I didn’t have an issue with the AOD upshifting early. I found the low end torque was strong enough from the 302 MPFI it could easily pull in a high gear without having to kick down once you got the throttle modulation down pat. Olds 307’s were like this too, lock up the torque convertor and just the right amount of throttle got it using the low end power to move it along alright. At least with the 302 if you kicked it down it had some high RPM power, unlike the slug 307. A 305 Chevy on the other hand needed some RPM and didn’t really have a strong bottom end.
If I were to ever own a fullsize car from this era again, it’s be B-body hands down, and probably a 1977-79 Chevrolet 2-door or maybe a 89-90 9C1 sedan (if I could find one).
I was specifically referring to the early ones, and should have clarified it. The MPFI 302 was a sweet engine; better than any comparable GM engines of the time.
Yes, the full sized Ford and Mercury sedans with the MPFI 302 V8 did accelerate pretty well. My dad’s 1989 Grand Marquis seemed to be better than my 1989 Chevy Caprice with the TBI 305 V8. Just a smoother, stronger feel. I can’t back that up with numbers, but it was my subjective opinion at the time.
Stay nice? Well, she sure doesn’t use much gas for a fat girl….
Seriously though, these cars demonstrate the fundament, ahem fundamental, essence of the prototypical ‘American Car’ design. Front engined, utilizing a slow-turning V-8, automatic transmission, solid rear axle, and primitive suspension in a generously sized vehicle. Technology refined over decades to the point where it can be built with the cheapest materials, stunningly indifferent attention to quality, equally indifferent attention to build, and yet still be able to function adequately despite years of annual component cost reductions.
Especially worthy of note in this generation of Ford products is management’s recognition that flat-tin-sheet body panels are cheaper to stamp and easier to align adequately during assembly than curving ‘coke bottle’ shaped ones. It was genius to recognize if one can invoke the iconic beauty of the 61 Continental in the least possible, customers won’t openly object to the design, and that railroad-tie shaped bumpers will appear to be just another boxy design element rather than mere bolted-on-cause-the-government-made-us
Corollacow-catchers.One can only stand in admiration of the corporate giants who, despite every attempt to build these cars as cheaply and shoddily as possible, created a vehicle of which examples still survive in the wild after 30 years.
I owned for five or six years a 1979 wagon – 351M. I found the car at a local estate auction (which also had a mid-’70s Bonneville four door sedan).
It was a nice, clean, dry western car and was never any trouble. It is not really missed but it was really a fine car.
I had an ’87 Grand Marquis and then ’90 Crown Victoria. Both four-door sedans. The first was a plush land yacht with crushed velour pillow-top seats and sloppy (but fun) handling. The latter was a bit less baroque and handled tighter, but had a voracious appetite for transmissions and power window motors.
Panthers were reputed to be among the more reliable offerings during the Dark Age of the American automobile. Well, at least they were cheap and easy to fix.
The two-door Panthers had dreadful proportions – Lincoln, Mercury and Ford alike. It’s amazing how much better the four-door versions looked.
I like the two-door versions, odd proportions be damned. Rare to see anymore though!
I guess the owner must plan on keeping it a while, since he upgraded the stereo to one with an AUX jack. And covered the seats with a handy, crumb-catching napkin.
They could just put that radio into each vehicle they get so the drive is more tolerable.
In the mid 1980’s I had a part time job (ALL 39 hours per week workers there were “part time employees”) at an on site inventory control shop.
They had several newer Caprice Classic Chevys on various long term lease, 4 doors and station wagons; and one ancient, higher mileage LTD Crown Victoria 2 door that the company owned outright. The, low height, often bottoming out front seats, the lackluster TBI 305 and up-and-down-shifting AOD trannys in the Chevies were often made rude fun of. The Ford was praised as “The Driver’s Car” or “The Road Trip Runner”.
The competition for that lone Crown Vic was astounding and sometimes fierce & ugly. People would go to surprising lengths to ensure that THEY had the Ford! Verbal intimidation, seniority claims, hidden keys, letting the air out of one tire, fake immobilizing work orders, “No Brakes” signs on the windshield, promises of various, vague monetary and sexual bribes to the dispatcher were not unthinkable.
“Don’t give me a Shufflin’ Chevvvvy; gimmne the @#%*Crown VIc!” and other works and phrases that I cannot repeat in polite company were heard every morning.
Good to hear since around here you constantly hear the B body prejudice that is not based in fact. Road tests of the day when putting the base suspension models against each other usually preferred the Panther’s ride and handling.
The only comparison tests I have are from 1980 and 1989. In the 1980 test the Chevrolet pretty much beats the Ford in every aspect. MT does say that the Ford had better control layout (other than the horn).
The conclusion stated:
“If all else were equal the Caprice would be our logical choice on the basis of fuel mileage and total range alone. But all else is not equal and the Caprice is our hands-down winner.”
In the 1989 test the Crown Vic has a performance edge over the Caprice in power and handling (although it’s not an F41 car). MT still picks the Chevrolet as their choice, even though the Ford is better on paper and concludes as follows:
“We liked the slight performance edge Ford enjoys over Chevrolet but this is only a small consolation for the awkward interior and quirky exterior styling, neither modern or traditional. In terms of overall suitability for the task, the Chevrolet fit our profile of need better than the Ford Crown Victoria. When the nuclear family starts fissioning,we’ll take the Caprice.”
Further, I know the Caprice also made the C/D ten best list, which is a pretty amazing feat for a big old American land yacht. This was in 1983 too, when the design was already 6years old.
Thanks for that. Eric has repeated that same comment many times, and I’ve wanted him to show some evidence of “they usually preferred the Panther’s ride and handling”. It’s certainly not how I remember it either, but then Eric’s blood runs true blue.
I’ve posted the links before but don’t have time to dig them up right now but the jist of it was that yes on the skid pad and around the track the B body did a little better but in every day driving the Panther was preferred as it handled better on a real road with bumps and such rather than a perfectly smooth track and the ride was better too.
I think the results were mixed and varied by what the mags tested.
I know CR preferred the Panther in the 1985 review that tested the MGM, new FWD Electra, and Chrysler Fifth Avenue, stating it was “the best riding car we’ve tested in years”. They said their second choice would be “none of the other cars tested in this article” but instead GM’s remaining rear drivers: the Caprice, Delta 88, and LeSabre.
In the 1982 comparo CR tested the Sedan DeVille, Caprice, Crown Vic, and Chrysler E Class. I can’t remember how they came out on those except they thought the Caprice was quieter than the DeVille and they recommended an Electra or 98 because the 4.1 was fishy.
My experience with the two was that the Fords were quieter, floatier, drove a bit lighter, and a little looser, the GMs handled better, drove heavier. Of the 4 downsized big cars I’ve driven, the Caddies had the best ride, and I’m sure it’s because they had the longest wheelbase. The Ford, however, was the quietest.
Ooh it’s got the tripminder clock in the dash! That feature right there is one of my favorite gadgets Fords had in the early to mid 80s. I always pull them from these box Panthers in the rare moment I come across one equipped with it at the wreckers. It doesn’t look much different than the regular digital clock option most often seen in these but those 4 extra buttons give you Mpg, average MPG, gallons used, average speed and even the clock function is more unique since it gives the date as well.
This really is the only positive attribute the box Panthers have to me.
Barnaby Jones drove a panther coupe in the final season.
In addition to being an ’86+, this should also be an LX model as it has the Grand Marquis style door pulls and split armrest.
I had an ’87 CV sedan with crank windows, AM/FM, and full bench in front with single armrest as my first car in the very early 2000s. The cloth was like this but the door pulls were built into the armrest and were less baroque.
I liked it well enough. It wasn’t a fireball but it definitely had more get up and go than the Olds 307 powered Brougham that succeeded it.
I don’t think the downsized big cars from either GM or FoMoCo can be said to the most brilliant examples of build quality, but except for certain models with uniquely bad engines, they’ve demonstrated a longevity that, while it doesn’t mitigate the complaints about them, does in my mind vindicate the original owners’ purchases of them at the time. Yup, the Honda Accord was better put together…but this sucker’s still out there cruising around…and many others, too. And in that context, you have to give them their due even if you don’t like land yachts. These types of cars are still what Americans build the best. That’s why they last.
I liked these based on looks alone. Thought they looked better than the GM B-bodies, but after all, we kinda had one – or, should I say, a 5/8 scale one – our 1981 Plymouth Reliant!
Same design by the same people who were at Chrysler in those years – at least that’s what I read.
These were about the right size for a modern full-sizer. The low beltline and higher seating position gave better visibility than their predecesors. Seats were very comfy and the instrument panel layout wasn’t too bad either.
Sadly, that’s about all the positive things I can think of to say about these Panthers.
I’m always on the fence with these. Some days I find them attractive, and some days they seem awkward.
There is a guy on Jalopnik that swapped the body of one of these onto a 1998+ Frame and chassis with a Supercharged 4.6 under the hood.
That one I don’t mind seeing any day.
Some guy on a Panther forum swapped a 5 speed out of a Mustang GT into one of these. Then, you could swap heads from an Explorer and make some other mods to get a H.O. 5.0 instead of the stock LoPo version. Add some sway bars, and that’s the one I want.
I’d love to find a nice 2dr Mark and put it on a 03+ chassis though I think if I was going to do anything with the engine I’d go with a Mark VIII “Intech” 32v 4.6 if for no other reason for the nun’s hat with the Lincoln Logo.
I see that it has the optional vent windows. Wasn’t this the last American car to have that feature?
Jeep Cherokee or 1994 Dodge Ram Van possibly. Actually, a friend of mine owns a 1997 F-250 with vent windows.
I’m not sure about that, but I’m pretty confident that it wasn’t an available option for ’87 Crown Victorias.
My family and I had way more than our share of large Fords back in the day. And I have to say, I agree with most of the criticisms. But there’s one criticism I have of many Fords of that era, that I haven’t noticed a comment about. For a maddening number of years, Ford insisted on putting the car’s horn on the turn signal stalk. This was back when the American car makers were beginning to copy “foreign” practices in an effort to stem the tide of imports. I believe that the stalk/horn was copied from French cars (a red flag if there ever was one), but I remember that the Fox chassis/Fairmonts had it almost until they morphed into the mid-size LTD/Marquis. But I know the full size Fords used that design as well. It doesn’t sound like much to get upset about, I suppose, but when I remember how annoying I thought it was at the time, it almost gives me PTSD…..
That was gone from these by ’84 after CR ripped them for it (I’m sure not the only reason). By ’85 the horn was back on the button, as it was on my ’87 and on this one here.
Yes that horn location was annoying for anyone used to the proper location of the horn in the middle of the steering wheel.
The real reason for the switch was the threat of air bags. The govt had been threatening to make them mandatory for some time and after GM offered them in some of their cars in the mid 70’s there was a genuine scare among automakers that they would soon be required. So Ford built that steering column and wheel with the ability to accept an air bag to hedge their bet. Of course the air bag mandate didn’t happen until much later and by that time that steering column and wheel had run its course. For Ford’s first mainstream air bag wheel them moved the switch to the spokes of the wheel, still being leery of incorporating the horn switch into the air bag itself.
I heard that too. My guess is, Ford either feared a center switch would be unsafe when the bag deployed, or else a safer switch cost too much. So how did industry ultimately solve this problem?
NHTSA recommends sitting no closer than 10″ to airbag-equipped steering wheels. Another authority said 8″.
Speaking of air bags I came across this article in Popular Mechanics about air bags and the threat of air bags being required starting July 1st 1973 for the front seats. The really interesting thing is the date of July 1st 1974 for the rear seats. Presumably they are talking about an airbag in the back of the front seat, and not the ones intended for side impacts nor the side curtain style. Overall a very interesting read of where air bags were at 40+ years ago.
Ford UK used the turn signal horn location on the Mark III Cortina (1970-76). I don’t recall anyone making a fuss about it being new then. So it goes back a long way at Ford, just not in the US. But I can’t say I ever liked it myself.
Love it! Another great example of a car which, when new, I never looked twice at it. But now that it’s a ~30 year survivor, I revel in its mediocrity! It started its life with essentially no outstanding characteristics, but now the mere fact that it remains a DD for somebody is an outstanding characteristic in and of itself. Great find, Mr. N!
I revel in its mediocrity!
Me too! 🙂
Box Panthers in general are still far from endangered around here, they are the single most common 80’s car seen on the roads still in daily driver status. Now the 2drs they are very rare but they were very rare even when new. By the begining of the 80’s if you wanted a 2dr car you went with a midsize personal luxury car like the Cutlass or T-bird if you weren’t the pony car type.
I do still see a 2dr CV around my area from time to time. It is wearing a set of 5 spoke aftermarket wheels and big tires. The best I can tell since I’ve only seen it on the road is that it has 255/60-15s up front and 275/60-15s out back for a little bit of a rake. The owner is definitely of retirement age so I’m guessing he has had it since it was new or a “late model” used car.
The interior of this rather abused example shows the higher quality materials that Ford used than other mfgs of this era. Almost any other car still in daily drive status from the 80’s and certainly any GM product from this era would have cracked vinyl on the door panels, likely a cracked dash and shredded seats. Even the leather wrapped steering wheel, which was quite a rarity on a non luxury model, and even many luxury cars, from the era still looks fresh.
In my area, both late 80’s Panthers and B-bodies are rare, but there is no abundance of one over the other. When it came to the early 80’s though, there seemed to be far more B-body survivors. However, I still see more of these cars on the road than almost any other car from that era. I do think a big part of why many people kept Panthers running, or at least the 86+ ones, around for so long was the bullet proof MPFI system on the 302. That and they were very much favoured by the retired crowd around here. GM stuck with the E4MC carb until 1988, and these carbs were finicky to get right even if you knew your carbs. I think a lot of people gave up on the cars probably because of driveability issues that the FI Fords never saw.
That said, I have owned GM and Ford from this era. The Ford may have a slight edge in interior quality, but not as dramatic as you make it out. I have never had one B-body have a cracked dash. The only cars I have had this happened to were from the 1970’s. I have had lots of headliner failures in the GM’s. And the vinyl on the door panels holds up very well, better than cloth panels. My old Grand Marquis leather wrapped wheel was peeling apart at about 12 years old.
The MPFI cars do seem to make up the bulk of the surviors, no doubt many of the B’s were sent to the scrap yard when the carb was too expensive to replace/rebuild or they couldn’t find anyone who was willing to mess with the carb.
The only thing I can think of that would be worse than my grandfather’s dreadful baby blue 1979 LTD would be a 2-door version of that car. This one comes mighty close–just missing the vinyl bench and the extra-desirable dual headlight front end. Ugh. Still fun to see a survivor, though, if only to remind us of how far automotive standards have evolved.
As you probably already know if you have read my posts, I learned to drive on one of these – Dad’s 1982 Country Squire. When compared to other American cars at the time, the Ford had a lot going for it. The fit and finish was excellent, and his car with the interior luxury group was very luxurious – Dad always called it his Lincoln wagon! Whenever we brought people in that car, they always remarked at how smooth and quiet it was. And that it rode great too, which it truly did. It handled great, too. My father always said it was the best handling car he ever had. And it was great on gas, too. I know Paul hates the steering wheel, but in Dad’s car with the interior luxury group and cruise control, it was rather attractive. It was a smaller diameter steering wheel than what most cars had back then. But I never found it to be ugly. And it made the interior feel modern in comparison to some of the other American cars I had driven back then. The horn on the turn signal stalk was awful, however. Overall that car was put together quite well. In comparison to our horrific ’77 Caprice wagon, the Ford felt like it was put together with pride. It never once went back to the dealer for a warranty repair! I think the slogan back then was, “Have you driven a Ford….lately?” It was Dad’s first – he was skeptical when he bought it and he ended up truly loving it.
We owned a printing business and made many large, heavy deliveries in that car. It always handled them with relative ease, although the anemic 302 V-8 sometimes struggled if the load was TOO big. That was the only downfall of that wagon, the small V-8. If it had a 351 then I’m sure it would have been the perfect vehicle. As the car hit the 100k mark, we experienced a lot of trouble with the variable-venturi carburetor and the overdrive transmission. But then again, Dad’s wagons were always traded at the 100k mile mark so it didn’t make too much difference that it started giving us trouble then. It was a car that surprised my father, being such a GM loyalist. It was super reliable right up to the 100k mile mark, comfortable, luxurious and handled great. I think in many ways it may have been steps ahead of its GM competition.
As much as I’m a bit prejudiced against the early box Panthers, I will readily acknowledge that Ford was making a better effort at quality control at the time, and used somewhat better interior materials. GM’s B-Body cars were better in design and concept, but sloppy GM execution was always an issue with their cars. It’s what made me turn towards Ford in the 80s. My ’83 T-Bird was well put together; better than any GM car of the time.
So true, Paul. The Ford always felt like it was well put together, especially for the early 80’s, it was far better than the competition. And like I said it never gave us an issue, it never even rattled, pieces stayed attached where they were supposed to and overall it was truly a quality automobile.
While I will agree with you that there are many stories of the Panther’s like yours, even in the horrible VV carb years, there are just as many with the GM B-bodies. The fact is that both GM and Ford made great fullsize cars, it’s what they did best. Both cars had proven technology and could be fixed easily and for low cost. I think the point is regardless of the fact that the early Panther’s were good cars, the execution was just not as good as GM’s. That didn’t mean that a Panther couldn’t be a reliable or good vehicle. For this reason I can’t see these Panther cars ever having any interest in the car collector world, while the GM B-bodies probably will to some degree.
FWIW, we also had a fullsize wagon around the same time, a 1984 Pontiac Parisienne with a 305 4bbl and TH700-R4. The car purchased almost new and was kept until it was about 15 years old and had just shy of 200K miles. It too proved to be one of our most reliable vehicles, having no issues short of maintenance, while also getting excellent MPG’s (for a V8 fullsize wagon) and being a top notch hauler. Even the early TH700-R4 stayed with us until the end, which was a remarkable feat. Our Oshawa built car was well constructed, and even after 15 Ontario winters had virtually zero rust.
His car looked almost identical, even the color is the same. He had 14 inch vs 15 inch tires with the wire wheels and whitewalls, cornering lamps and illuminated entry too.
IMO, the “Panther” bodied Fords and Mercury got better and better as they matured and were restyled. Their engine and transmissions improved also.
The Chevy got more compromised, more busy, more numb and more ugly as time went on. The small block Chevy engine became weaker and slower as time progressed.
Again, Just MY opinion.
The styling is clearly your opinion, but the fact is the small block Chevy improved with time. In 1985, the engine received it’s first compression boost since the 1970’s due to ESC. This resulted in a 15 hp boost in power. In 1989, the engine received throttle body fuel injection for another 5 hp boost. Sure the late 1970’s 350’s were probably the best performers (for civilian models), but they also used more gas then the 305. The 305 went through constant improvement throughout the 80’s. Furthermore, by 1989 the 350 (police only) was a stormer, and easily out performed the Panther 351W in acceleration, top speed, and handling.
The restyled 1992 Crown Victoria’s 4.6 V8 engine had 190 horsepower with single exhaust, 220 with dual exhaust.
The 1992 Caprice 305 V8 engine was rated at 170 horsepower.
170 (Chevy) vs. 220 horsepower (Ford) is a noticeable difference!
The downsized 1977 Caprice was an awesome car that went downhill every time it was restyled.
The Panther chassis Ford & Mercurys got better with each restyle, engine and chassis upgrade.
GM rested on their laurels; Ford moved ahead.
The very last Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis/Town Car were much, much better than the last generation Caprice Classic; thanks to the regular and reoccurring body, engine & chassis upgrades.
Well we were talking about the box years, but if you want to bring up the 1990’s, I will straighten out the facts for you there too.
First off, both the 305 and the 302 were making about 130 hp each in 1979. Each improved throughout the 1980s to where the 1990 305 TBI made 170 hp and 255 ft lbs and the 302 MPFI made 150 hp and 270 ft-lbs. Comparing these two engines, the 302 had the slight performance edge even though it had lower peak horsepower. The 302 may have had less peak power, but it had a much stronger torque curve.
Chevrolet kept the 305 TBI virtually unchanged until 1993. In 1991, Ford still was using the 150 hp 302. In 1992, Ford released the redesigned Crown Victoria, which had the 4.6L in two power levels, base 190 hp or optional 210 hp (not 220 as you misquote). However, in 1992, Chevrolet Caprice wagons and LTZ (basically the modern F41) models received the 350 TBI engine option. Although lower peak horsepower than the 210 hp HO 4.6L, the much stronger lower end made them very comparable in performance (but the 4.6L had the edge in Fuel Economy). In fact, in the police versions, where the 5.7L had more hp than the civilian, the 350 TBI beat the 4.6L hands down every year without issue. Furthermore, the 305 TBI wasn’t that far off a base 4.6L for performance.
In 1994 Chevrolet introduced the 200 hp 4.3L V8, and the 260 hp 5.7L V8, which still competed with the Ford 190 hp 4.6L and the 210 hp 4.6L until 1996.
Well I will agree with you that GM did let certain aspects of the Caprice go unchanged for too long, these were good cars until the end. The problem with Chevys versions was the base suspensions were too soft in these years, and many people didn’t upgrade to a suspension option. I do think the public took to the Crown Vic over these years due to it’s less quirky styling. Perhaps the typical Crown Vic was a better driving car during these years as Chevrolet kept there soft 1970’s suspensions a little too long, but equipped properly, a late model Caprice was an excellent road machine and would rival a similarly equipped Crown Vic. Of course the ultimate evolution of the original 1977 F41 350 equipped Caprice was the 1994-96 Impala SS, which I think is hands down the ultimate traditional fullsize car from the 1990’s. And I believe the collector market agrees on that too. For me the Crown Vics didn’t get really good until the 2003 frame redesign. It was only then that in my opinion that Ford really nailed the driving dynamics, but even the last 250 hp 4.6L’s never did match the LT1’s performance.
Yup, you’re right, 210 hp, not 220 on the 4.6 engine’s output. (Small I-phone icons, Fat fingers here….) The 4.6 engine increased power over the years, up to 255 hp in 2005.
You keep mentioning the “Police” 350 Chevy engine; which was indeed a powerhouse. However, us “civilians” could not order this engine when new, could only get it in worn out police auctions. Fat lotta good this engine did us!
I drove the 4.3 V8 Chevy Caprice several times in rental car guise; it was a gutless pig. (In My Opinion) It may have made 200 hp on paper, but in the “Real World” if felt considerably weaker.
Also, it wasn’t just about engine horsepower. The dashboard, seat cushion quality, transmission shifting smoothness, A/C output and overall quality of exterior paint, interior materials & trim pieces put the Ford/Mercury/Town Car several notches ahead of the Chevy. The last whale Chevy had a most ugly and unsatisfactory dashboard; an insult to look at.
I find my 2005 Town Car a quite competent driver; prolly the best of the V8 powered, rear wheel drive, full frame automobiles.
Once the TBI 350 was replaced by the LT1, civilians could certainly get it–not only on the Impala SS, but I’m pretty sure it was an available (if rare) option on the Caprice. I’ve seen a ’96 Caprice with one, and I’m pretty sure it was not a former cop car and had not been swapped.
If you say so, Chris M.
Perhaps the Chevy dealers here in New Orleans just didn’t order that engine for their “in stock” cars?
Car dealers are closed on Sundays here; I did/still do a lot of “walk bys” on Sunday; checking out what is in stock.
Unless it was sitting in the area reserved for Police Purchases; I ever noticed the “hot” engine on the option list of the Caprice Classic Cars on the dealer’s lot.
The most a Crown Vic 4.6L ever made was 250 hp, not 255. This was in the 2004-2013 CVPI only. The max power for a civilian model was 239, for the dual exhaust version.
I mentioned the Police 350 only twice, once to compare to the Police 351W, and once to compare it to the 210 hp CV, it’s direct competitor. I used the police numbers because the figures are readily available from old MSP tests, where all cars are compared under the same conditions and by the same methods.
In 1992, the LO5 350 TBI was available in civilian models, specifically the LTZ which is the modern successor to the 1977 F41. This engine was rated lower than the police version, however, this was mostly due to exhaust differences. The engines were essentially the same. I did find an old MT test of a 1993 Caprice LTZ that an the 1/4 mile in 16.6 secs, which I would guess is pretty close to the 210 hp 4.6L. I don’t have time to source a 210 hp CV numbers (not in my archives), but I did find a 2004 Vic with the 239 hp engine running the 1/4 where it ran 16.2 secs. Not a huge difference considering this was the “fastest” civilian CV.
As for the 4.3L, it wasn’t very fast due to low end torque but it’s direct competitor was the 190 hp 4.6L which it compared to very closely. There were lots of civilian Caprices with the LT1, just do a search on the internet.
You obviously have a strong Ford bias, but please don’t let you love for Ford skew the facts.
Actually the quickest civilian CV would probably be one of the LX Sports which got the 3.55 gears (2000 and part of 2001) in the rear rather than the 3.27 found in the other HPP equipped cars. In the P71 version they kept both gear ratios available until the end or very close to it.
Bill, thanks for your detailed corrections to my quoted numbers.
As to the rest of your “arguments”….well, let’s just say that your Chevy bias is at least the equal of my Ford bias.
🙂
And, ONCE AGAIN, it’s not just about the horsepower rating when comparing the Chevy and the Ford/Mercury/Lincoln Panthers.
Superior exterior paint quality on the Fords, trim pieces falling off in the Chevvies, quieter interiors in the Fords, Chevvies automatic tranny’s “hunting” between 3rd and 4th gears, collapsing driver’s seat cushion foam in the Chevy, overly soft, bottoming out suspensions in the civillian Chevvies, jerky gear shifting in the Chevvies, superior A/C capacity in the Fords, Ford getting fuel injection before the Chevvies….and all the other Ford advantages that I have listed (and relisted) that you have TRIED to minimize.
Jeeeez, you guys! We need to talk to Paul about moving this thread to a Vegas Pay per View. 🙂
My most sincere apologies to all readers on this thread for my inaccuracies with my number quotes. Perhaps one day I will remember to google something instead of quoting numbers from the cobwebs of my mind!
But for one LAST (I promise!) time: “It’s not just about horsepower numbers on these cars”.
I just have one thing to say about later B Bodies… Optispark. Typical idiotic GM engineering.
Mark, just to clear the air, I actually like both the Fords and the GM’s which is why I have owned both. I probably have more miles on the Panther platform than any other vehicle. In fact, as of right now my fleet has a Ford but no GM products whatsoever. Each makes has their strengths and weaknesses. When it comes to the facts, I have a bit of a photographic memory for facts and figures, along with a detailed automotive historical archive.
I realize the B-bodies were far from perfect, and as a former owner I am more than aware of the many faults they have. However, I also call a spade a spade. I think your were overly harsh and unfair on the Chevrolet products which is why I presented facts to refute your claims. If you had done the opposite, I would have one the same for the Ford product.
In the end, like I said, both the Panther’s and B-bodys are excellent vehicles, in my opinion some of the best Detriot made.
Eric,
I forgot about the 3.55 Civi cars, they may have been a touch quicker. I do recall reading a CVPI test of the 3.27 vs 3.55 gears made a slight improvement in 1/4 mile times (although at the cost of a lower limited top speed).
I purchased a 1989 Crown Victoria in October 1989 with 12,000 miles. I kept it 12 years until it had 146,000 miles. Except for replacing an air conditioning compressor and a power window, nothing ever went wrong with it during those years.
UNLIKE the same year Chevy!
Two aspects of this design just scream out “WRONG!!!” to me.
First, the coarse-textured grille with the offset blue oval just does not work with all the other Brougham styling cues. If anything, it says “Sport”. And the “Sport” message doesn’t really gel with the straight-edge boxy styling either. I just don’t get what they were thinking of.
Secondly, that massively-sunken rear licence plate. That just looks – weird. Like some gigantic three-year-old poked their finger into the trunk.
Okay, we’re not talking about warts on the Mona Lisa here. But still…..
I look at that beautifully executed 77 Impala and Caprice and still mourn what GM did to that platform with that beached whale version of the early 90s. Did anyone even bother to ask why that design was so successful when planning that vehicle? It looked like a lowered 1950 Hudson on roller skates. Someone lost the plot big time.
If these things handled anything like my younger brothers 92 Grand Marquis I am content to leave them to dissolve, but for a few nice examples of course. No car that modern should have had such vague steering or such an infuriating transmission. I will give some credit to Ford, however. My younger brother now has a 2005 Crown Victoria and I am quite content to drive it.(and have driven it many times back and forth from Toronto to Western New York) It actually drives much like a modern car. It steers accurately, tracks well and accelerates smartly. It just feels a little more disconnected from the road than I am used to.
As I commented above: The Panther chassis Ford/Mercury/Town Cars evolved and improved their engines, transmission, chassis, brakes and steering with each body restyle.
The Chevy either rested on it’s past laurels or got progressively softer and beached whale wallow-ish. Between the downsized, crisply styed 1977 F-41 suspension equipped models and the last hippo Caprice of the early 1990’s all hell broke loose.
Ford moved ahead, Chevy atrophied.
While the license plates may have the the most zips this Crown Vic was able to make it at least 123 miles down the road. The patina does have me wondering if this Crown Vic is a Northwest Native and how do you dent the door like that!?
I think those marking telling you where to park are silly unless there are parking meters and hope their parking job does not get them a ticket.
I think Ford really screwed up when they discontinued this car.
But then, I think they screwed up when they discontinued the Taurus in 07 and also when they discontinued the Thunderbird in 97, and also when they changed to independent rear suspension on the Explorer, and also when they discontinued the Ranger, and also when they stopped offering a manual transmission on a F-150…
Whoever is making these decisions at Ford needs to retire. Seriously.
He did.
As much as I hate to admit it many of those moves were the right thing to do.
The IRS in the Explorer a huge leap forward, much better ride and handling and that is what mattered to buyers, not off road abilitiy though the ground clearance did go up in 2002. Top tow ratings went up too.
The T bird was playing in a dead segment and it didn’t make sense to continue it.
The Ranger also was playing in a dying segment and was only purchased as a stripper model near the end with no profit. It did not make sense to spend the money on the stability control required to sell it as a 2012 let alone do any other significant up grades.
The take rate on the MT for the F150 was so low that it cost more to produce than an AT version and someone buying a MT version expected it to cost less not more than the AT version. The MT lost money and needed to go.
The Taurus name plate was seriously tarnished by the Ovoid models so that name had to go.
My beloved Panther also didn’t make sense to keep around as much as I hate to admit it. Just not worth doing the stability control to keep selling it. Now if they would have spent their money a little wiser and thrown just a little at the body with the all new chassis in 2003 it might have sold better and be worth keeping around. The spend a lot of money on the all new chassis but wrapped it in the old body so people thought it was the same old car. The also should have reached into the parts bin for the 3v 4.6 a 5 or 6sp trans somewhere along the line. Then it might have been worth keeping around.
So while I miss the T-bird, and Panthers it was time to let them go.
Yet they brought back the Taurus name.
They are bringing back the Ranger
They brought back the Thunderbird but they were too stupid to do it right and effed it up.
Looks like your theories all around are proven crap all around.
Done right there would not have been any lapse in name credibility and the Ford mystique would have been magnified.
Yes the brought back the Taurus name and it didn’t help the 500 at all. The only reason they brought it back was it was a favorite of Mullaly and he demanded it. Not a great move and it is currently scheduled to die again.
They are not bringing back the Ranger in the US. What they sell as the Ranger in the rest of the world is nothing like the Ranger we had in the US.
The brought back the Thunderbird and it failed to make an impact or any real profits so it was put out to pasture again. However that was a car aimed at an entirely different market. The market that the Thunderbird played in for most of its life, the attainable personal luxury coupe is dead, show me another mainstream brand with a mid sized personal luxury coupe that still exists. Heck there aren’t even many coupes left in the reasonable price range other than a handful of performance oriented cars.
I have seats like that in my 72 F100. Waaaaaaaay better than the 1972 bench seat that was in it.
I took my driver license test in my Mom’s 1982 Crow Vic. We had that car from 84 – 97. The Louisiana roads beat it into looking like a low rider. That car had a good ride up until the end though. My Dad HATED the variable venturi carb.
Paul – thanks for such a great website – always so much to enjoy.
The “Ford vs. Chevy” debate will still be argued back and forth when I am lowered into the ground.
🙂
By the mid-1980s, full-size cars in coupe form were becoming very rare birds, so this car is quite a find. I don’t remember seeing many Ford Crown Victoria or Chevrolet Caprice coupes when they were new.
It’s interesting how the full-size cars reflected their manufacturers’ respective fortunes in the 1980s. The 1977 GM full-size cars were a bold, confident execution of the “new age” full-size car (even if some of the details, such as workmanship, were a little slipshod). GM may have been under the gun when it designed and engineered these cars, but the results showed that companies, like people, often do their best work under pressure.
The first Ford Panther cars, however, came across as more than a little half-hearted. You could somehow tell that Ford’s heart simply wasn’t into making big cars smaller and more efficient. I saw my first 1979 Ford LTD in a summer 1978 issue of Car and Driver, and my initial reaction was that Ford had simply produced its version of a 1977 Oldsmobile Delta 88. The copy, however, didn’t look as good as the original.
As the 1980s progressed, however, it was GM that wavered in its commitment to the traditional rear-wheel-drive, full-size car. It replaced the full-size Buicks, Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs with front-wheel-drive versions. The Cadillac Brougham remained in production, but it was almost as though GM didn’t want to admit that it still existed. Chevrolet stuck with the Caprice, even though, as the “mass market” division, it should have been in the forefront of the swing to front-wheel-drive. Ford, meanwhile, kept improving the Panther-based cars. The Crown Victoria and its platform mates were pretty well sorted out by 1986.
As for the debate over the how well the Chevrolet and Ford performed – by the mid-1980s, most retail customers of this car were not that interested in car equipped with police engines or handling packages. The overwhelming majority of these cars went to “old school” customers who were primarily interested in a plush interior, smooth ride, effective air conditioning and traditional styling.
The Chevrolet Caprice and Ford Crown Victoria were the cars your parents looked at, while you begged them to consider a Ford Taurus or Pontiac 6000 STE.
A most correct, insightful and deftly done reply, Geeber.
Good epilogue!
I also recall being disappointed with the ’79 LTD. My thought was, “They had all this time to improve on Chevy, and this was the best they could do?” But Ford was persistent.
Despite being spoiled for Hondas myself, I had to admit Dad’s last-gen Panther Town Car wasn’t bad when I got to drive it on CA freeways, it tracked better than I expected. That’s what these tanks are good at: quiet, comfortable highway cruising.
I agree. I got to park one of the new 79 LTDs and was tremendously disappointed by the experience. The car felt light and cheap compared to the 78 LTD, and also compared to the 77-up Caprice. They improved a lot of things on the box Panther, but the feel of the body always left me a little cold. This improved a lot with the 92.
I must admit that I never did own or drive a very early Panther. I do recall my “go to” car magazine at the time, “Car & Driver”, being rather non-committal/vague on the newly downsized ’79 Ford.
My first one was a ’81 Town Car. Then a ’95 Grand Marquis. Then an ’87 Town Car. Then my current ’05 Town Car. In each car I could tell differences.
Every progressively newer Chevy (’77 to ’93) I drove got slower and sloppier.
Panthers progressed & improved over their lifespan, Chevies did not.
Between GM’s corporate chaos, exemplified by the Roger Smith-led reorganization of 1984, and the corporate desire to switch completely to front-wheel-drive, the Chevrolets and Cadillacs got lost in the shuffle.
GM did make improvements and revisions to the cars, but they were largely half-hearted efforts made in response to the rebounding sales of the Crown Victoria, Grand Marquis and Town Car in the mid-1980s. This time it was GM’s turn to be prodded into action.
IF…IF…I could find a NOS, zero mileage, bent-back-window ’77 Caprice 2 door, 350 4-BBL engine, F41 suspension, gage package equipped in dark blue metallic; I’d add another mortgage to my house to buy it.
Contrary to what …SOME responders here… may believe; I’m not a total Ford Freak.
I buy what I like and what I want.
The lady next door to the house I lived in the last couple years of college (2001 to 2003), had a ’79 Caprice 2-door with the wire-bent window. Silver over red interior. She hardly ever drove it, having a ’90-’91 Accord coupe for her daily transportation, but I saw it in motion every now and then. I should have made her an offer on it, or at least given her my contact info in case she ever decided to sell down the road. Looked totally original and quite solid.
I am currently driving a 1986 crown victoria. It’s the four door version of this boat. I love it to freaking death. Is it a super car? No.. Is it sporty? No… But does it handle well for a car of its size and weight? God yes.
I average over 22mpg on my car. It’s v8 is probably one of the weakest out there HP wise, but it is torquey enough to have gotten me out of the cross hairs of silver minivan drivers. I had to do a 1970’s action movie U-turn in a parking lot as one saw me going across an intersection and SPED UP trying to make it before me. Floored it and threw the wheel. His front fender was where my passenger door would have been if I was going straight. If I was in my other car a saturn sc2 I would have been hit.
My example is a tank with a comfy rear seat. Mine only has a drivers side mirror. For being in Mn for all of its life there are only two spots of cancer in the trunk. It only has 189,504 miles on it 1300 of those I put on it. The only issues I have had is the TFI module failing, a worn out fuel pump, and distributor pickup. I had to clean out the IAC, but honestly not bad for a car that remembers the regan administration!
I work with modern cars daily and one day an old lady came in with one of these in MINT condition.. All of the options ticked. the car was easy to work on.. and like a knife straight to the point. I can see every corner of that car.. The seat was comfortable and I drove that sucker in and out. I wanted one.
I got mine for 600 and I do not regret it one bit. It is not the car I dreamed of owning, but damn the thing has grown on me. Say what you will about these box panthers. But when push comes to shove they are still great cars. I plan on keeping mine until the bitter end, even if the body rusts around the frame itself I’d be slapping on a 1950s’ body hotrod style.