(first posted 8/20/2015) Continuing with its very full-sized cars through the 1979 model year, Lincoln was the last holdout in the face of CAFE and its downsized, more fuel-efficient vehicles from every other American car brand. Despite its inefficiency (averaging in the 13 mpg range), the 1977-1979 Mark V personal luxury coupe was an immensely successful model. When it came to downsizing the Mark for the 1980 model year, Lincoln sought to effectively duplicate the Mark V’s styling with hope of continuing that success.
Moving to the Panther platform, the 1980 Mark VI lost 6 inches of wheelbase and over 14 inches in overall length. In any form, the first generation Panthers were not tastefully proportioned vehicles. But of them all, the Mark VI coupe was unquestionably the worst-looking, in your author’s opinion. As Paul has shared before, the Mark VI might just have had the greatest overhang ratio of all time. With over 100 inches of overhang, making for an astronomical 47% of the vehicle’s overall length, the Mark VI was quite disproportionate. Its upright styling and narrow track didn’t help either.
Mark VIs simply didn’t convey the sheer presence and power of the Mark V, a car I feel is one of the best-proportioned designs of all time. Buyers seemed to agree, with total Mark VI sales never topping a single year of the Mark V’s. Thankfully, Lincoln would redeem itself, performing a complete 180 with the 1984 Mark VII.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 1983 Lincoln Continental Mark VI – Missing the Mark
Design Analysis: Did The Lincoln Mark VI Have The Biggest Overhang Ratio Ever?
I’d be all over the 4 door version of this car…navy blue with blue velour or leather…
The 4-door carried the look a lot better, though it still needed some more wheelbase to actually look proportionate. If they made an LWB version of the VI, with maybe 4″ of wheelbase added between the front wheels and the cowl and 4″ added to the cabin (make both front and rear doors longer) it might have actually come off well.
The Mark VI almost had the longest overhang ratio, but a car of the same vintage narrowly beats it — the 1981 Chrysler Imperial!
Mark VI — 47.04% overhang
Imperial — 47.16% overhang
And keep in mind it’s pretty much the same ratio as the Mark V. I really think stance and overall shape can make even the worst overhang ratio work, the VI has an awkwardly tall greenhouse and is very narrow(compared to the V), those aspects are what truly do these such a disservice aesthetically
Very narrow, by the standard of ’70s. A lot of ugly cars don’t look that ugly nowadays only because more uglier cars from later on. Being wide can make cars less ugly regardless of other styling or designing, and a narrow car can hardly look alright.
Few days ago, I was driving my Volare and my passenger ( whose biggest car ever drove is Toyota Camry ) was impressed by how wide ( and long ) my car is. It was intended to be a compact car after all. Mark VI was unacceptably small three decades ago, but it is still larger than a new Mercedes S-Class Maybach nowadays.
I also immediately thought of the Imperial, but the ’90s FWD sedan iteration
The ’90 Imperial was more a cynical marketing ploy than an actual luxury automobile.
That looks like a parody of an American car. Closer to the Homer Simpson car than anything that could actually make it to market.
never thought of that…buts its true
so want one of these
You are totally wrong. It looks nothing like homers car. It does look like a 2 door version of the mark vi Fat Tony the gangster on the Simpson’s drives.
Heh, they did once render a ’76 Mark IV on the Simpsons.
Every car rendered on the Simpsons. This confirms that every single possible discussion topic in the world has been broached somewhere, sometime.
http://jalopnik.com/springfield-or-bust-all-the-real-world-cars-from-the-s-1551276827
My favorite Simpsons’ car is Homer’s high school ride, which appears to be a 1970 Roadrunner but with a Superbird rear wing. The reason I like it is because, to me, it’s a very big clue as to the secret of what state Springfield is located. It’s my theory that Homer’s Roadrunner is actually a real Superbird, but with the front end converted to a regular Roadrunner.
The story is that the state of Maryland did not recognize the Superbird’s NASCAR nosecone as a bumper (which is obviously correct). So, when Maryland Plymouth dealers got their two-per-dealer Superbird allotment, they had no choice but to switch the frontends over to legal Roadrunner doghouses, and that’s where Homer got his car.
Hence, Springfield is in Maryland.
And of course, you found one with the weird optional “driving lamps” or whatever they were called, sitting atop the hidden lamps. I never understood those, at all. Why? Why put a light on the outside of your hidden lamps? Doesn’t it defeat the purpose? Plus they give the car a perpetually surprised look. Not a common option, understandably.
Basically, Ford’s sin with this car was to take the Mark V’s styling and simply reduce it in length to fit the new platform. It’s just as tall, if not taller, but narrower and shorter. Distorted, like a photo squished horizontally. And, consequently, the styling that fit the Mark V like a well-tailored suit (perhaps a defensive lineman wearing that tailored suit, but still) looks disproportionate. Despite the broughaminess of it all, the Mark V still carried an air of power and panache, whereas the VI became upright and a bit dorky.
It’s all about proportion…
Wow. I never guessed that what those lamps were. Another from Detroit’s “What were they smoking?” file.
Nuts and gum, together at last.
Yo, dawg, I heard you like lights, so I put lights on your lights so you can light while you’re lighting.
I’m a bad person and feel ashamed already.
Agree 100%. I remember seeing those “driving lamps” as a kid and thinking someone mounted them as a joke. Then I saw a few other cars with the same lamps, it didn’t make any sense. Still doesn’t.
Wow, those are factory?? Almost 30 years since I’ve seen a Mark with those Pimptastic units, and I thought they were “Super Fly Disco era” aftermarket butchery!
heres another factory option
My neighbor had purchased a new Mark VI with that ugly squared off vinyl roof treatment with the slim, narrow, quarter windows. That roof made an ugly out of proportion car look even more ugly and out of proportion.
I never got why someone who purposely purchased a Mark VI would buy one with the trademark porthole opera windows covered up and the slanted triangle shaped rear quarter windows covered up with plastic trim to make them look narrow and vertical.
Just never got it.
I think that Mk VI is effing gorgeous. Seriously.
I think that car is beautiful. Wow, there is a lot of hate on here for these cars!
That’s what I would have thought too.
Some of us at Ford at the time called it the “Inner City Decor Group”, after Ford’s inclination to call their option packages Decor Groups.
Same reaction I had to these lights as a kid when I first saw a car that came with them – WTH?!?
The early 1980s were a continuation of the malaise era of most of the 1970s, that’s for sure.
Agree. Anyway…it’s an interesting feature.
Another problem was that while the Mark V was a genuine hardtop, the Mark VI tried to emulate the look of a hardtop by blacking out the window frames and using a thin chrome strip on the B pillar. But it was unconvincing and just didn’t work, instead just adding to the clunky appearance.
In the strictest sense, the Mark V was not a genuine hardtop as the rear quarter windows did not roll down like they did in the Mark III and IV. Seems like a chintzy cost cutting move for one of the most expensive cars at the time.
The purchasing logic behind the touring lamps on a Mark VI escapes me. You’re paying extra for the unique and supposedly upscale styling of the Mark, which includes hidden headlamps. Then on top of that, you pay more for an option which tacks on exposed headlamps, er, touring lamps, over your hidden headlamps.
All I can think is there were a lot of divorced orthodontists wives with mad money to blow in the early 80s.
Those touring lamps look just as idiotic now as they did when the Mark VI was introduced, completely contrary to the concept of hidden headlights. Brought to you by the same management that gave us the ill-conceived Lincoln Versailles.
Perhaps the target market for such frippery was based on the saying “a fool and his money are soon parted”.
Theres one born every minute thought pattern.
I had a Mark VI sedan that was loaded with nearly every option (keyless entry, digital dash, Premium Sound, CB radio, suspension leveling, LSD, auto headlights, auto high beams, etc). It only lacked two options: the moonroof (which saddened me)… and the monstrous “Touring Lamps” (an omission for which I was ever thankful). I remember the first time I saw those horrid things in the owner’s manual, I was perplexed. I just kept thinking about the beautiful Mark V design upon which the car was clearly based, and could not understand how those bulbous, J.C.Whitney-looking atrocities fit anywhere within the design language.
And then one day as I exited the grocery store, I happily realized that someone had parked their nearly identical, *fully-loaded* example next to mine… and for the first time ever, I had the opportunity to see the Touring Lamps in person. They were even worse than in all the pictures. If you looked closely at them, they even had a large gaudy crosshatch pattern etched into them. Simply horrid.
When questioned about them, the owner said he didn’t “care for the look so much” but that they “came in handy a lot”. I should have asked him to elaborate, but we excitedly moved onto other things such as the odd way the horn was activated… or how hilarious it would be to add smoke effects inside the shark fins in the front fenders…
Anyway, I absolutely loathed those Touring Lamps… that is, until I was driving along and decided to quickly flash my headlights at another driver. Literally impossible. Pulling the stalk actually activated the lights behind the closed headlamp covers!
I finally realized the use for these touring lamps (and what the other owner had been hinting at). Monstrous as they were, they allowed for instant flashing of the headlights *through* the closed headlamp covers. Of course, they also softly illuminated when the parking lights were manually activated, but that was of no concern. I like flash-to-pass, and there was simply no reliable way to do it quickly on a Mark VI not equipped with those monstrosities.
I am not sure this would have looked so bad except for comparison to the Mark V. The changes were essentially required by law, but austerity sucks. People like to sneer, but at least they were trying to do a traditional American personal luxury coupe. The 1979-85 Eldo, Toro, Riv and Imperial did it so much better . That the Eldorado was so good, gave Ford better ideas how to work at the smaller size when the Mark VII saved the franchise.
As Chris M. noted, Ford’s big mistake with this car was trying to simply shrink the Mark V’s styling to the smaller dimensions. It doesn’t work.
The photos reveal another problem – the wheels are too small in relationship to the body. The car’s proportions, small wheels and the lights on the headlight doors recall a car you’d see at an amusement park “turnpike” ride that allows children to “drive” the car on a pre-determined route.
thats it, the under 5 car ride, it does look like that. i can like it for the kitche factor, hate the rear windows not openable. no air flow.
The original Homer, they must have been smoking some goood shit to let this out the gate expecting sighted people not to laugh.
It looks like a large scale Palmer scale model.Any scale model car enthusiast will tell you that the Palmer plastic company always got the proportions wrong on their model cars and were regarded as something of a joke, but they did have nice box art. Adding to the ugliness are those “pie tins” on the headlight cover doors.It would be a hoot to see this in a car crusher, like the one Oddjob crushes the `64 Continental in “Goldfinger”.
Yeah, I was always impressed with how effortlessly that Falcon-based Ranchero carried around that block of crushed Continental. The rear springs on those cars must have been something!
I don’t think the Mark VI’s proportions are that awful…a little slab-sided, maybe, but still massive by modern standards and much better than the ’80 Thunderbird or ’86 Eldorado. I have a hard time telling the V and VI apart unless they’re parked end to end.
The four-door version was a real curiosity, however. Why did they offer it, especially considering that it was basically the same as the Town Car? I don’t know the rationale for the decision, but I’ll bet it was made by the same person who decided to push Mercury Cougar sedans and station wagons onto the showroom floors…
The ’81 and later Cougar sedans and wagons (and the non-XR7 2-door) make more sense when you remember that they were nicer versions of the Granada (104″ WB), while the XR7 was a nicer T-Bird (108″ WB).
Almost any car looks better compared to an ’80 T-bird or ’86 Eldo. Remember, the same design philosophy used for the VI was applied to the ’80 T-Bird, with the same unfortunate results. Rather than try to open the 80s a fresh design language, Ford doubled down on the 70s broughmalicious theme that had served them so well.
At the time, it probably seemed like a safe bet. Ford really cashed in with the barge brigrade when GM caught downsizing fever in ’77. For the traditional American car buyer still in love with size and style over substance, Ford was the only game in town, as it looked like Chrysler might not weather the next recession.
So the C-levels at Ford figured, we’ll just just try to sell people the same look they apparently loved for the last 10 years, but in a new, tidier size. What they didn’t realize (or admit) is that the long, low, peaked-fendered, stand-up grill, covered headlamp, continental spare tired look that caused millions to swoon and open up their checkbooks since 1949 was woefully out of step with the new lean, mean 80s. They must have exhausted the pent up demand for big barges from ’77-’79 when they moved all those Mark Vs, Cougars, T-Birds, LTDs etc. Yes, the LTD /Marquis appeared in shrunken form in ’79, but they were half-hearted efforts compared to GMs B/C bodies. Funny how the small Panther platform ended up outlasting the biggies from GM and staying far more relevant across the Autoscape.
Remember Iacocca wasn’t canned until late in 1978, so the 79s were already on the road and the 80s were locked in. Lee really adored this look., and the guys in Design didn’t dare try to challenge his taste.
Eeeeewww.
I don’t like the blob like styling we see sometimes see, but this as way, way worse.
Had the stylists misplaced their french curves & only had T squares to work with?
Calling it the “Homer” is too kind. Even “Homely” is over charitable.
We used to joke at work that the Ford designers in the early 80s forgot how to draw curves and pulled out their rulers to compensate.
This whole car reeks of late-70s Detroit’s cynical contempt for its customers, the fact that they thought it acceptable to vomit onto the market something so tacky and cheap, so thoughtless and lacking in any sense of design.
Tell us how you really feel…
And they were still more reliable than anything from Japan or Europe
Looking at the ’80 Lincolns, it always looked to me that the Mark VI coupe was designed first with the expectation that it would be a big seller like its predecessor, and that that drove the styling direction. The Mark VI coupe seems to have been designed first, closely emulating every Mark V surface, and that the Mark VI sedan was derived from that, and the Continental/Town Car in turn from the Mark VI sedan. The Town Car/Town Coupe, while also closely clinging to their predecessor’s styling themes, didn’t quite so closely cleave to the ’79 model’s shape. The Town Car of course far outlived the other three, and it was stuck with a shape I don’t think it would have had had it been designed first without having to share some of its flanks with the Mark VI.
The Mark VI was used in “Bad Grandpa”, and it was perfectly suited for that role.
My guess as to the reason that there were Driving Lights on the headlight covers, is that the designers wanted to give the car even more of a vintage classic look – as from the 1930s, while still retaining modern headlights. With the headlight covers extended, the front of the car had more of a classic car era look. With the headlight covers retracted, the car had a more modern look and of course had the modern quarts headlights. A transformer of sorts!
the interior choices were interesting as well
crazy velour in the 1980-81 signature series is also a highlight- cant find a good pic
When I junked my 88 town car I saved the seats to make furniture for the garage. They are so comfortable that if my wife would allow it I would have them in the living room.
This one is the Bill Blass edition for the year. Light Fawn and Dark Blue Metallic, with treatment done the same colors inside. This is the cloth edition, the leather edition has blue leather seats with fawn colored backs. It is quite striking to say the least. Bill Blass also covered up the opera window with a dark blue vinyl roofing.
Looks like a mark v that shrunk. Always thought those coach lamps were ugly.
Personally, I never had a problem with the Mark VI. Yes, it was a shadow of the Mark IV and V, but I think it held its own.
And those lights on the headlight covers were called “Touring Lamps”.
Here they are illuminated:
And I do believe the sedan wore it better:
The sedan wore it a lot better. Basically a Town Car with hidden lamps, opera window, and continental “hump”. With no crazy touring lamps and turbine alloys, in that color, it actually looks good. Seeing that drives home how the disproportionality was much more a problem with the coupe.
It could also be that my eye is accustomed to the Town Car, so the sedan version looks “right”, whereas it’s also accustomed to the Mark V, so the couple version looks “wrong”.
Were the wheelbases different? That would help explain some of it.
+1 …it just looks better as a Town Car :p
Yes, Mark VI coupe shorter wheelbase and length than either the sedans or the Continental Town Coupe (just Town Coupe for the next year or two until it was discontinued), both which had the longer wheelbase and length of the Town Car/Mark VI sedans
I agree with you, MichaelH. I LOVE the sedan version of the Mark VI!
The nicest example of Mark VI trim came from the 1983 (final year) Emilio Pucci Edition:
Gorgeous car!!
I agree! But I do miss the opera window,
Let’s not forget that the Mark VI introduced Lincoln’s electronic dashboard:
The 4-door looked especially fussy. How many gorp-laden vertical lines can we cram into that pinched greenhouse? This is a design era I look upon with a hint of mild nostalgia, if only because it was so prevalent while I nurtured my automotive obsessions as a boy. But I’m glad that it shows no sign of making a comeback anytime soon.
Unless it is…
Oh, wow. I thought those were now considered tacky even by the people that used to buy them.
Some bad ideas never die. I’ll see a vinyl roof on something oddball every now and then (Altima, Camry, XTS, Maxima are ones I can think of recenltly). But I’ve never seen one on a CTS coupe before–that’s especially bad!
If you see a fake cabrio roof these days, it’s part of a dealer-installed package. The demand is still there, just not at the scale that Detroit used to crank out right off the assembly line.
It looks particularly awkward on the CTS coupe roofline.
Cadillac should yank his franchise for that abomination!
I think perhaps it was the very rounded wheel openings in contrast to the rest of the car’s lines, which were exceedingly square, that caused a lot of the problems. The two design themes just didn’t look right together. Someone needs to photoshop that car with more squarish openings, similar to the Fairmont perhaps, to see how that looks.
I think later versions of Town Car with it’s more rounded flanks, looks much better with the round wheel openings.
Well, the Mark V had identical looking wheel openings, and the same razor edged theme. The problem was in the proportions. The design mission was to make a 7/8ths scale Mark V, but they just ignored the fact that in order to make those grandiose styling themes work, you needed grandiose length and width with a relatively low roof.
The Mark V customer had been trained that bigger was better, and loved that longer, lower, and wider design ethos. Suddenly, Lincoln offered them something shorter, taller, and narrower, and it cost more to boot. No more 460, (gone since ’79), no more 400, just a lilliputian 351 V8 and even that only lasted for one year. The new tech was nice, and the Mark VI was indisputably a “better” car. More efficient, better driving, better riding, better handling, quieter, and easier to maneuver. But being a superior car didn’t mean it was a superior Mark.
Ford was the master of excessively long front overhangs in rear-wheel drive cars (which is about all they made) in the Malaise Era.
Somehow that car packages all of the worst of the Brougham era into one oddly proportioned package.
Wheels tucked too far inboard of the sheet metal? Check.
Wheelbase for a car one class smaller? Checkaroo.
Faux Luxe goo gaws tacked on like an afterthought? Ding!
Thankfully the Fox based Lincolns weren’t too far off.
The inspiration for this perhaps?
RR imitating Lincoln imitating RR
I am so tired of Mark vi hate on this site. These are attractive cars. This is not the homer car but the ride of choice of fat Tony. This was better car mechanically than imperial or Eldorado too. No injection issues or crap engines. The sedan looked better the coupe due to the longer wheelbase. Only styling issue is the roof should have been 2-3 inches lower or the windshield more steeply raked. Then it’s perfect just like a small wee mark v. How so many hate this car yet love town car is beyond me. In my opinion this is the last real mark. Mark vii was like a fancy t bird.. yes Mark v has more presense and is beautiful but vi is a better riding handling car with better gas mileage by a factor of double. Also vi had better interior and didn’t rust as easily and was faster than a v with a 400, People love town car. This car is a pimped out town car and the sedan is close to a 79 continental in styling. I have a sedan and it’s a great car and I prefer it to the barge continental I used to drive. It looks like a Lincoln and is recognized as one even with out one name plate saying Lincoln. I also like the driving lights. This was the finest, biggest most reliable personal luxury car of its day. And another thing overhangs are good.
I think the main issue the VI suffers from is that it is immediately compared to the V, which was a runaway success for Lincoln. That car was insanely popular, even though it was one of the most expensive models for sale in the 70s. It outsold many cheaper, lower profit economy cars. And this during an era of pricey gasoline and stagflation.
The Mark V struck a chord with well-heeled luxury car buyers that is hard to fathom today, with our endless choices in the marketplace.
The Bill Blass Mark V was one of the best looking large coupes ever made, epic for what it was. Even people who hate that type of car have to admit that the Mark V has a presence.
The Mark VI couldn’t help but suffer in comparison even if it was a home run, which it most assuredly wasn’t.
Your opinion about the Mark VI’s controversial aesthetics would likely be a minority opinion, even on such online forums such as The Brougham Society, which naturally have a fan base much more receptive to the design language of this forlorn Lincoln.
Paul has already made a compelling and well thought-out argument as to why the design language of the Mark V simply doesn’t work on the Mark VI from a proportional perspective.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/design-analysis-did-the-lincoln-mark-vi-have-the-biggest-overhang-ratio-ever/
Of course, if you would like to write a similar treatise rationally defending the design precepts of the Mark VI coupe, I don’t think Paul or any of the other contributors on CC would have any objections. I for one would look forward to reading it….
I’ll second that. I love reading a well-reasoned argument that supports an unpopular car. Talk about a challenging writing assignment. Anyone can blather on about the ’70 GTO – what a fine looking, important, successful car it was in the American automotive landscape. But man, if you can concisely state why the ’83 AMC Concord was the most underappreciated American car since the Pontiac Aztek, well, that’s automotive journalism at its finest.
If the Aztek had the ride and comfort of an S Class, and the reliability of a Toyota at a Pontiac price I would roll it in a heartbeat.
I drove a 1982 AMC Concorde in driver’s ed in the same year. At 16 years old I was hoping for something cool. This was better. Before driver’s ed I thought of a Concord as a warmed over Hornet. I couldn’t have been more wrong. This car was like a “right” sized Lincoln. It had air conditioning, leather seats, plush carpeting, and all of the other luxury options that you’d expect in ’82. The 258 put out respectable power and it rode very nicely. It was navy blue on navy blue so it even looked rich. It was so nice that I still talk about it 33 years later. It is a shame that these cars went so unnoticed.
From Popular Mechanics The 1980 Mark VI Owners Report: https://books.google.ca/books?id=V9QDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=pm+owners+report+lincoln+mk+vi&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAmoVChMIjdnTvrO6xwIVljWICh1flAIB#v=onepage&q=pm%20owners%20report%20lincoln%20mk%20vi&f=false
Yep, AODs hunt for gears in the city. Have to put it in D
You should always lock out overdrive on an 80s Ford unless on a highway.
The Ford Beige paint job isn’t doing this particular Mark VI any favors, by the way. If you must Mark VI, keep it dark. Go for midnight blue or dark grey or possibly burgundy.
Also just noticed this one has a moonroof, so it should get some points for that rareish option.
Not sure – might be Champagne, the color of my Dad’s 78 Cartier Mark V. Grainy pics attached.
ITA with others that a new look for the Mark VI would have been better as the inevitable comparison with the Mark V was not going to come out well. I remember dealers having them side-by-side – thinking, what a mistake! The bigger Mark V looked so graceful and sleek and the VI was such a box.
It’s funny seeing the VW Beetle behind the Mark. Two cars that couldn’t be more different.
114″ wheelbase! That’s right, I had forgotten that as the Town Car/Town Coupe was 117″. The 114″ wheelbase was the same as the Panther platform LTD/Crown Victoria/Marquis…..does that mean this Mark was a Ford in Lincoln costume? A precursor of the present?
All of the Panther platform bodies are basically the same. A longer wheelbase does not make the Town Car different. However, one would expect the Lincoln’s to get some refinements not found on the Ford or Mercury models to make them marginally better.
I have a feeling the ZIL 41041 has more overhang ratio.
I always thought that the mistake with the VI was trying to cram all the styling details of the V onto the smaller body (just not enough real estate to separate the “details”). Also, the obsession with maintaining the same interior/trunk capacity dictated the strange proportions. Honestly, if you took the contemporary Eldorado and “Marked” the details, it would make a better Mark VI than the Mark VI!
The hidden headlights on 70’s Lincoln’s were quite cool. It was like they were so cool that they didn’t need to open their eyes to drive. Those butt ugly “touring lamps” on the headlights doors ruined the whole look. With those ugly turds in place these cars looked like they lost their eye glasses and were trying to see. They didn’t make any sense. It’s like carrying a conceiled firearm and also carrying one that’s exposed.
While we’ve bashed the poor Mark VI up and down the block here, we should pause to reflect that the Panther platform did live on for over 2 decades spawning millions of Town Cars, Crown Vics, and Grand Marquis. After a rough start, (particularly compared to GMs downsized B/C bodies), the Panther lived to prowl the streets of America in all its body-on-frame glory. It’s a little sad we can’t just walk into a showroom in the year 2015 and buy a new one anymore.
+1 on the main criticism voiced in the comment section: the car’s proportions in the 2-door iteration are just off. It simply doesn’t look sleek. Add the rear doors and everything works, and looks well.
Mechanically, a great car. It is a Panther, so it is bulletproof and all.
I have a soft spot for these, although when they were new I remember feeling quite disappointed. It felt to me like the designs of cars in the then-new 1980s was awful. Worse were the 1980 Thunderbird and Mercury Cougar – those I have no soft spot for. But for the Mark VI – I feel for it like I feel for the 1958 Edsel. But I would rather have all the aspects of a modern car so the Mark VI may well be my next purchase. And I will confess to having a soft spot for the Lincoln Versailles, but only the 1979 and 1980 that had the more formal roof. I might though feel somewhat embarrassed to be seen driving a Versailles, where I won’t feel embarrassed driving the Mark VI.
I don’t usually like fender skirts, but this car could use them–and a gillectomy.
We’ve gotten used to high beltline sedans, so many cars of this era look odd, but this one did at the time.
I think what this car needs are retractable covers to hide the front “touring lamps” when not in use. However, those touring lamp covers should have fake headlamps in them that can illuminate when the covers are closed…
Has the proportions (and look)of a scale model from the company every scale model car builder loves to hate-Palmer Plastics, Brooklyn, NY.
1971 Mercury Grand Marquis, anyone?
A 2 door coupé that was nineteen and a half feet long. Detailed stats:
Length: 229.0 inches.
Wheelbase: 121.0 inches.
These are pretty outlandish numbers for any car. This was possibly THE archetypal land yacht, or, at this size, a land cruise liner.
Overhang for this road going aircraft carrier is 47.1%.
That puts things into perspective nicely methinks 🙂
My 1980 Mark vi