Photo by Paul Niedermeyer
One of the many themes seen in the comments for the CCOTY nominees is whether or not the platform of the car led to other developments. For instance, one concern about the Corvair for 1960 was that nothing succeeded it. Although we’re just concluding with the 1961 nominee at this writing, I have been pondering possibilities for 1972.
What criteria should or could be used? Is the definitive nominating factor unique engineering? Or is it something involving the facilitation of further products? I was even tempted to nominate a ’72 model I really like. The possibilities were endless.
The comments were rolling around in my head, and then a great candidate hit me: What arrived in 1972 that led to the further development of other future products? After all, if it so led then the engineering must have had a solid foundation.
I hereby nominate the humble 1972 Ford Torino.
The Torino, a car as traditional as babies being born naked, was itself rather forgettable–or perhaps it was unforgettable for all the wrong reasons. As Consumer Guide would write about the ’76 model Torino, “The more buyers learn about the Torino, the more reasons they will have to opt for a Granada.” The ’72 Torino was nearly as heavy as a Galaxie of a decade earlier, and only porked up further as the 1970s continued.
Just for the record: I’m not a fan of the Torino, despite some of my earliest memories involving my parents’ base model ’73. I have never owned one, never driven one, and do not have one on my bucket list of cars to eventually own. However, from a purely analytic standpoint, the Torino stands out.
The Torino was redesigned for 1972. Sales were brisk at over 496,000 for both model years ’72 and ’73 (total production fell by only 63 units–one good fleet order shy of a tie). From 1972 through 1976, sales of all Torinos would total 1,916,271, including the 1974-75 Elite.
Of course, there was the Torino’s Mercury Montego clone. It had the same lifespan as the Torino nameplate, during which it would grace the lives of 506,191 buyers.
However, the reason for my nomination is that the 1972 Torino proved itself to be a quite versatile– or moldable–platform. As the 1970s progressed, the Torino platform would blow through Ford like the intestinal flu. Think about it:
There was the Elite. While not as successful or glamorous as the Monte Carlo, Ford still sold 146,475 of them in 1976 alone.
Mercury kept a Cougar of various flavors throughout the ’70s, including this 1974-76 body style. Ultimately, 238,422 of them graced the highways and byways of North America.
Later came this 1977-79 version of the Cougar, still based on the Torino and seen here as an XR-7 model.
Also available as a base model coupe, sedan, and wagon, the ’77 to ’79 Cougars sold, all told, an amazing 580,245 units.
The 1977 model year is when the Cougar and Thunderbird became joined at the hip. We all likely remember the ’77 to ’79 Thunderbird. As mentioned in other posts (here and here), this generation of Thunderbird was a record breaker, with sales of a whopping 955,032 units. Once again, this ‘Bird was based on the ’72 Torino.
Lastly in the automotive spectrum, let us not forget the forgettable 1977 to 1979 Ford LTD II. While the tin worm has rendered many of these dust in the wind, Ford still found 451,342 people ready, willing and able to call one their own.
The oh-so-humble ’72 Torino would also spawn in yet another direction:
The Ranchero for 1972 to 1979. Chalk up another 222,852 sales for a platform that started life as a ’72 Torino.
If you are keeping tabs, the grand total of Torino-platform sales, in all guises, is 5,016,830.
How many platforms can you name that sired as many derivatives as the ’72 Torino? The Ford Fox platform, introduced later in the ’70s, is a strong challenger. Chrysler’s K-car platform, introduced in 1981, also is a worthy rival. Still, considering its 1972 introduction date, the varied uses of the Torino platform are truly remarkable.
To give credit where credit is due, I hereby nominate the Ford Torino as the 1972 Curbside Classic of the Year. Did anything else in 1972 even come close to being so prolific?
Photo by Paul Niedermeyer
To answer your final question: unfortunately not. It should have had its tubes tied early on 🙂
I’m with you, Paul. These things were wretched. My parents had a ’73 Squire, which was simply the worst of several very bad cars they had in the ’70’s.
I was less than a year old when my parent’s bought their new ’73 in Light Chocolate Metallic (read: fecal brown). Even as a toddler I never liked this car and I suspect my parents didn’t either as they always drove it like they hated it. In looking at some old family pictures this past weekend, I saw the wretched thing; rarely have I seen pictures of a nearly new car that looked just as bad then as it did eight years later when they sold it.
It got 12.5 mpg regardless of how they drove it. And that was with a 302.
Pop moved to Chrysler next, purchasing a ’78 Volare – in nearly the exact same color. I think that was a lateral move on the automotive spectrum.
Nominating this one really jumped out at me one night…followed by a few cold chills and a glass of bourbon.
LOL!
It’s an unfortunate reality…that the most prolific breeders are not necessarily the best examples of the species.
Wasn’t the new Lincoln Mark IV and the Thunderbird of 1972 also a stretched version of this same platform. Working at a gas station washing cars I seem to remember things that where common on the lowly Torino and the mighty Mark. Good call for a nomination, though trying to think of something new or radically different from one of the others that year. Nothing comes to mind right now.
Yes, you are right. 1972-79 Mark and 1972-76 Bird are a stretched version of this.
The front and rear suspensions were basically identical. It was just a longer platform. Many of the chassis parts will interchange.
If you added those production numbers into the platfrom, that would bring it even higher.
Wonderful. To jump forward to 1972, we have to consider one of the lousiest driving, lousiest handling, porkiest and ugliest cars Detroit put out that decade. And take it right up to the point that the Thunderbird killed everything that a Thunderbird had been, just to get the sales numbers.
All of a sudden, a Vega doesn’t look so bad. At least it didn’t reproduce so disgustingly.
Have you actually driven one of these cars? I have a lot of miles under my belt on this platform. Yes, it wasn’t the best handler, but with HD suspension or better yet the competition suspension they were just as competent as any other vehicle in that era. Sure the stock soft suspension was wallowy, but the GM A-bodies weren’t much better (with stock springs). The isolation and smoothness of the ride with the stock suspension was great though, by far best in class. They really didn’t drive much different than an LTD, which makes senses because the platforms actually share numerous suspension parts and are very similar in design.
Over the years, I’ve driven a number of the variants, usually in decently cared for condition. And my comments stand. Actually, given this is a public print arena, read by any number of individuals of varying social and moral standards, I was being extremely quite, polite and circumspect regarding those misbegotten pieces of absolute ******* ****.
The Vega may have had an engine that would self destruct in a bit over three years, but at least you got three years of decently enjoyable driving out of one (or at least I did). Which is more than you can say for these.
Well then your tastes are quite a bit different than mine. I detest the Vega and how it drives. I never liked stock soft suspension on these cars, or any other big detriot car from this era. I know they were overly soft, but they were really not much different than anything else in there class. That said, when equipped with HD suspension or competition suspension, they were competent cars on the road, and contemporary reviews state such. They are excellent for long distance driving, especially on the rough highways. And it really doesn’t take much in the ways of upgrades to make these cars handle on par with a modern conterpart.
My first car (in ’82) was a used 74 Gran Torino. 68,000 miles – paid about $800 for it. Solid it 4 years later with 110,000 miles on it for $200.
Not a great car, and being my first I probably glossed over its problems.
But, I still have fond memories of that car.
I own my father’s old 1972 Gran Torino Sport which he ordered in 1972. It has been a fantastic car in the 40+ years of ownership, gone coast to coast, performed many family vacations, and was always the coolest car amoungst my friends growing up. I have always been a fan of large RWD American cars, typically GM and Ford stuff. If you like that type of car, you’ll like these Torinos. I am surprised after 40+ years and over 150K miles how tight this car still drives, how free of vibration that chassis is and how it is more comofortable than most modern cars on long trips.
Sure it was horrible in the space efficiency dept (all cars domestics were though), and they were a little on the large side for an intermediate, but in 1972, they were Ford’s BEST ever intermediate, and they were the FIRST ever that beat Chevrolet. It was the right car for 1972, I think Ford nailed it. However, by 1974 the market and Torino had changed enough, that it began its slide down. Who knew by 1977 it the platform would explode again with the new T-bird.
Here are some of the facts and quotes for the 1972 Torino:
– The first Ford vehicle and first intermediate to have standard front disc brakes
– Consumer Guide “Best Buy”
– Tom McCahill “The Torino is a neat little package and make no mistake about it….Summing up the suming up, as a rig of this particular size and for most running around chorse, the Torino is a winner”
– Car and Driver, Sept 1971 regarding the competition suspension “simply put a comptent over the road suspession that transforms the car from a puffy turnpike cruiser to into a car vastly more sercure in a variety of situtations. Buy it”
– Car and Driver, Sept 1971, “Inside the new Torino turns out to be more roomy and comfortable than it’s predecessor”
Road Test, Sept 1971 “Handling, particularly while cornering seems to be improved and ride is noticibly better” (test of base model, stock suspension)
The car was well recieved by the public, well recieved by the press overall and was a great success for Ford that spawned many variations. In fact, the chassis design was very similar to the 1979+ Panther chassis. Some parts will infact interchange.
As for my car, in the past 40 years it has been very reliable, and is still in an unrestored state (it has been repainted, and some minor mechanical parts replaced, but drivetrain, interior, and all trim untouched). As of late I have been replacing most of the suspension parts, as after 40 years the original bushings are shot. I have also upgraded the suspension with larger sway bars and CVPI spec springs which makes the car an excellent handler by even modern standards while looking bone stock. As for fuel economy, my father kept very detailed records of his car, and I still have his old fuel economy book where this 400 CID car got as high as 20 MPG US highway, buy typically got in the high teens.
Those who follow these cars love them for a reason, they were and are good cars.
Here is a pic of my car.
Ohhhh – not only do you have a Gran Torino Sport, it is the fastback Sportsroof, which made one of my favorite car names ever – the Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof. You have a very nicely preserved car. Congratulations!
That is truly awesome. As much as part of me isn’t too wild about this generation of Torino, you have the perfect specimen to counter-act those feelings.
Thanks, for the compliments. Obviously I am biased towards these cars, but they really do get a worse reputation than they deserve. This car has a lot of sentimental value to me, as I grew up with it. It was also the first brand new car my father ever bought, and he even special ordered it. He was VERY fussy about his first new car, and that’s why it’s in the condition it is today.
It is fairly well equipped with options, including bucket seats, console and floor shift, HD suspension, traction-lok differential, instrumentation package, auxillary lighting, a factory AM/FM radio stereo radio with 4-speakers (which was actually very expensive in 1972).
I woujld image in 400 Cleveland 2-bbl was the best engine choice in this car to somewhat efficiently move all of that heft. A 302 would struggle and work harder, hence the poor fuel economy. I remember reading at the time that although the 250 six was standard, one could NOT order it with air conditioning – and it certainly wasn’t available on a wagon. Way too underpowered, strangled to death by the primitive “add on” emission control devices of the day. One wonders why Ford bothered, but Ford even admitted so – price point.
It’s not bad, not the most powerful engine, but it’ll still move out pretty good. Very strong low end power, and strong passing power when you kick down the C6. The 351-4V was the way to go for all out performance in 1972, they’d out run the big 429-4V. Most 351-4V’s were mid to low 15 sec cars, which for 1972 wasn’t bad. There weren’t really too many emission controls in 1972. All my car has is the evaporative emission system. Ford did lower the compression ratios in 1972 to run on low-lead gas.
I don’t know how many six cylinders were sold, but a plain Torino with no options wasn’t too heavy. It couldn’t have been worse than my dad’s old 1965 Impala with a 230 six and a Powerglide! Things only got worse from here. I remember a mint 1978 LTD for sale in town with a 302-2V a few years ago. Now that would be one slow old tank.
When I was maybe ten years old, I would get on my bike & ride a couple miles away to some sort of industrial complex, throw the bike in the weeds, hop the fence, & sneak around whatever old cars and trucks were there…just peeking & poking around. Most of the stuff looked to have been abandoned but there was still plenty of activity in the main buildings so I had to be careful.
One of the cars there was a rusty ’72 Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof in brown with brown interior. Ignoring the color and condition, this vehicle was one of the sharpest and sinister looking cars I had ever seen. All I remember was that upon opening the door it had brown console-shift interior and under the hood sat the once mighty 429. The car sat “on the front row” so I shut the hood quickly before I got spotted. I thought about that thing for weeks on end & still I think about it from time to time. I’ve never seen a 429-equipped one since.
I have much love for the ’72 Sportsroof Torino and would love to see more pictures of it. The Euro-humping hate for this car is just something you’ll have to overlook.
There were less than 2000 1972 Gran Torino Sport SportsRoof with the “N” Code 429. They are very rare. My car is an “S” code, with the 400, about 5000 were made. There were just over 60000 sportsroofs made.
I know, those who like Euro cars don’t like these cars and I am okay with it. I don’t really like Euro cars, but I can appreciate any nice old car even ones I don’t like. I am used to this car not getting a lot of respect, typically old American car guys stop the love at 1971, due to the new “net” 1972 hp ratings. Even though most don’t understand that the actual output really varied little in many cases. Only in the last 5-10 years I have really noticed a lot more interest in these cars from enthusiasts and I get more appreciation at shows.
Here are some more pics if your are interested:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gid24292681
The album was locked, but should be okay now.
http://www.picturetrail.com/gid24292681
Thanks for the link. Your car is immaculate and the white interior is incredible. (White interior has always been my favorite)
Thanks!
FWIW, the white ’72 sedan in the top and bottom picture has the six.
I am not surprised, the only 250 powered Torino’s I have seen have been base models. I’d be surprised if that car weights more than 4000 lbs. Even my heavier V8 powered Gran Torino scales at about 4000 even on a truck scale, which really was about the same as a 1971 V8 SportsRoof.
My dad bought a 1972 Montego MX Brougham with a six. It wasn’t exactly a powerhouse, but it did fine tooling around town.
Here’s my theory on why these Torinos get drubbed so hard. They were the ultimate low-rent-mobile in the 80s when smaller, lighter, tighter cars were becoming more the norm. Lots of these survived into the 80s, and most of those were rusted and wheezy by then. I think the 80s image of these cars is what we all really remember, not the 1972 image of them where we were comparing them to what had come before.
When I started driving in the mid-1980s, these cars were already practically extinct. Perhaps it was the road salt, but GM cars of similar vintage still were everywhere.
We did have a neighbor with a big green Gran Torino who could have been the inspiration for Clint Eastwood in the movie. Mean SOB. He liked to drink and drive and occasionally run into our picket fence.
I was born in 1973 and you’re spot on about how these cars were seen in the ’80s. In those days, the second generation GM F bodies were often in poor condition and to this day I have a certain aversion to them (although they’ve come around somewhat and I do like the ’70-’73 Camaro with the one piece bumper quite a bit) and to this day, I call them “Trailer Park Camaros”.
The Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof was great in this movie:
Fear Is the Key (1972)
They beat the pulp out of that poor car. I was amazed it even drove after its severe frame damage resulting from that huge jump. Evidently these do not self-heal like the orange ’69 Chargers did..
Keep that one Bill we didnt get these Torino Fords new and judging by the comments they werent universally liked but you have an original and in good order.
Man that’s a great looking car! While I’m not a big bumper hater there is no question that the 72 Torino fastback was the best looking kid in that family. The 72 Ranchero was pretty nice too.
The front end was gorgeous, right up there with the 71 Camaro. The profile without the weighty bumpers was also splendid and do I see a little Mustang II in the C-pillar area of your car?
I agree with the others that the GM products were better engineered around this time, and a bit more space efficient.
Thanks again for the compliments. I agree the fastback was the nicest looking, but I did like Rancheros too. I didn’t like when Ford Broughamed these cars up, opera windows, vinyl tops, and worse yet fender skirts…yuk. At least a Starsky Torino looked decent for a car from 1976, if a bit over the top.
Fear is the key has a good chase scene with this car, although it takes a bad beating. You can see the frame bend on a couple of jumps.
Bill, I think I’ve photographed your car before.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobilene/5826520586/
Unless your car has a doppelganger prowling US 40 near Jacksontown, Ohio.
Close, but not quite. That car is the closest I have ever seen to mine, most don’t have the buckets, or have a vinyl top or some other difference. That car has 15″ aftermarket Magnums, that are much wider than stock. I have the original 14 x7 ” in my photos, which are OEM Ford. I also have a set of 15 x 8″ repros that I used for driving.
Yes, now that you point it out, the tires on the car I photographed do fill the wheel wells more than the ones in your photo. But dahum, is it ever close. Even the same kind of tires.
Oh boy, I came so close to buying one of those in late 1979/early 1980. There was one in on an “iron” lot near where I was living in suburban Cleveland at the time. Brown mustard yellow with that full body chromatic stripe, (IIRC) 351, autobox, buckets. A sweet car. They wanted far too much for the car and it had a fair amount of rust. A friend, whose father worked at the Cleveland Dodge plant (Twinsburg), was selling his mint 1975 Dodge Dart Sport (with big white Starsky and Hutch copycat stripe and 360 & Torqueflite powertrain) for about the same money. Guess which way I went?
I grew up in a Ford family, we had a number of these cars. My father had a 1972 Montego (similar to the one in the first pix of the Montego in the post), but it was the plain jane model with the 250 six. To put it politely, it was a POS. After all of the trouble with that car, he went and replaced it with a 1974 Mercury Montego with a 302. It was a better car, but it didn’t have to go very far to be better than the 1972 model.
I noted in my comment about the contemporary GM Colonnades of the time, they did everything better than this Ford did. Better handling, better fuel mileage, better ride, more rust resistant… Granted, my experiences with these cars are colored by the ones we had, for whatever reason my father was buying the cheap-o versions (i.e., no A/C, no handling package, cloth interior), compared to his earlier cars which had those things. In comparison, the GM cars I was riding around in at that time, DID have those things, and they were a lot more comfortable and capable. To be fair, had I been riding around in a 250 six Chevelle more frequently, maybe I’d have a lesser opinion of the Colonnades. But, even for the times, the fuselage Mopars seemed more competent, too…
Congrats on being able to keep and maintain your father’s car, that’s a particularly nice example of the breed, and I’m a little bit envious of you. I liked that size of car and would really liked to have been able to own and drive a full spec hi-po version of one.
Those Gran Torino Sports and Montego GTs were beautiful cars. Too bad they hadn’t come out a couple of years earlier so they could have been available with the pre-emissions high performance engines. A 429 CJ Gran Torino Sport would have been awesome.
My folks had a new white/saddle brown ’77 Mercury Cougar Villager wagon. As a high-schooler at the time it was a great car to play late night “back seat baseball” in. Heck, for that matter front seat and way-back “baseball” too. Otherwise it was pretty awful.
Always Ford wagon people up to that point, it was the last FoMoCo product my parents would own. Within a year they would trade in the wretched thing on a newly downsized ’78 Chrysler Lebaron T&C. Fortunately for me, that car was an equally good venue for playing date night “sports”, and a much better driving vehicle too.
I have very mixed emotions about these cars. I remember how well-received they were in 1972. All of the adults I knew considered the 72 Gran Torino to be an absolutely beautiful car. Unfortunately, its styling fell off a cliff in 1973 with the 5 mph bumper standard, and never really recovered. Also, the early versions of these rusted like there was no tomorrow (along with about everything else made by Ford in the early 70s).
There is no denying how important this car would become to FoMoCo. When you consider how it was the starting point for the 1979-91 (and even beyond) Panther cars, it becomes even more influential.
It is interesting to compare the 76 Cutlass and the 70s Torino-derived cars. The GM cars were usually considered better looking, but the Fords were nicer inside. The GMs handled better, but the Fords were smoother and quieter riding cars. Both turned out to be quite durable, although the Fords had some quality issues early on that improved as the 70s went on. Like it or not, these two platforms were the only serious choices for much of America in the 70s. Most people ignored the Matador, and the Mopars were hopelessly outclassed (other than in sheer toughness).
I think I have to agree with this car as CCOTY 1972. Will the GM Colonnade make it for 73? I guess we shall have to stay tuned.
I agree with you on the 1973 restyle, but at least you could still get a sportsroof. 1974, was even worse. Back in the day, I remember asking my dad if he would have bought the Torino in 1973, and he said “no.” He thought the restyle ruined the looks of the car. In 1972 he tested a Cutlass, Monte Carlo, Satellite Sebring Plus, and but he was won over by the Torino based on the styling and road manners.
Everybody I can remember who talked about new cars in 1973 said the same thing: “They ruined the Torino.” It is funny – 1973 was a record-breaking sales year for new cars in the U.S. But it seems that everyone I knew who bought a new car around that time bought in 1972. Mom Cutlass, Dad Mark IV, multiple neighbors, friends, teachers, etc. Even my Studebaker-loving neighbor finally ditched his wife’s 60 Lark VIII on a bright red 72 Javelin AMX. 1972 may have been the most significant new-car year of my entire life based on all of the new cars I saw up close and personal that year.
I also have mixed emotions about these cars. I would generally concur with your observations about these and the contemporary Colonnades, but I would say that the equivalent late fuselage Mopars were as good a car as the Colonnades, but cheaper spec.
You’re right about the AMC’s, I think at that time they were truly seen as the car for the credit-challenged or oddballs. The four door Mat was an old car dressed up for the 70’s, and as much as I love the Mat coupe, it was definitely from another time and space.
FWIW, I would love to own this generation of Cougar XR-7. The 1975 version is favorite, but any of them would do.
I have the advantage to having both my Torino and a Colonnade Malibu at my immediate disposal. At one time both were my father’s cars, now I own one and my brother owns the other. I learned to drive on both and put a ton of miles on each.
Mind you, the Torino has HD suspension, but it always was far less “boaty” than the Malibu (which didn’t have a HD option in 1976). The Chevy was a little wallowy on rough roads and not as well composed as the Torino. The Torino had far superior dampening compared to the Chevy (and this was even after we upgraded to gas shocks on the Chevy). That said, the Torino was far worse for understeer (weren’t all old Fords) while the Chevy was closer to neutral. Further, the Saginaw steering in the Chevy was much better than the slow Ford steering box.
Both cars have seen suspension improvements by way of stiffer springs, improved shocks, larger sway bars and I upgraded the steering box to be much quicker on the Torino. All in all, they still appear bone stock, still use all the stock major suspension parts, but handling is on par with a modern large RWD car. I really do love big old RWD cars, but I never was a fan of the stock soft suspensions. Even the newer cars I like, such as the GM b-bodies, drove so much better with the F41 suspension (a mandatory option for me).
Father Janovich: Why didn’t you call the police?
Walt Kowalski: Well you know, I prayed for them to come but nobody answered.
This body style will forever be associated with that movie (Gran Torino) for an entire generation of people.
Walt Kowalski: What the hell does everybody want with my Gran Torino?
I was about to ask if Bill Mitchell is a really cranky old guy who looks like Clint Eastwood and lives alone in Detroit, spending his days telling people to get the hell off his lawn. 🙂
That might fit the profile of my father if he still owned the car!
Nice Torino Bill.
I too, still own & drive a derivative of the 72 Torino, the much hated 1978 LTD II.
I think it drives and rides okay for a car of it’s age. Get rid of the crappy, late 70’s emission stuff and the 351 Windsor does nicely.
I’ve never been a huge fan of 1970s Ford styling, but that is one pretty LTD II. In my somewhat humble opinion, opera windows look better on a car WITHOUT a vinyl top. It reminds me of an newspaper article that I read back when these cars were new, about a guy who won the state lottery. He rewarded himself by buying an LTD II. That’s pretty sensible behavior for a lottery winner! I bet he still has a good chunk of the money, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he still has the car, too.
That’s a sharp LTD II. Yours is nice because it’s clean, no vinyl top, tasteful wheels and the colour isn’t bad either! At least with a Windsor, you have tons of aftermarket parts for the car if you really want to wake it up. You can make these cars handle well too with a decent set of springs, larger sway bars and some decent shocks. I believe Global West suspension modded a 1978 T-bird to pull 1.2G’s on the skidpad.
I had a 72 plain jane Torino, it did not even have a radio in it. Bought it used as a two year old and was a real cream puff. Looked showroom. Had it Ziebarted as it had been in Florida for both of it’s winters and two years later the rear quarters and rockers were eaten away. The steel used was like cardboard and it just seemed to melt in our Canadian winters. Think I paid two grand for it at the time and it went to the boneyard in two years. What a POS. In todays dollars a grand a year for a car isn’t a bad deal but be assured this was a bad deal.
I was later told that the Ziebart process could have trapped moisture on the inside areas but still the steel was not good quality.
Zeibart was ineffective unless applied IMMEDIATELY when new…all cars trap moisture, and Fords of that era just POURED water in the cracks. So…Zeibarting a used car was worse than doing nothing.
Add to that the poor-quality sheet steel Ford was using in that era…there’s no way such a car is going to see road salt and live for any length of time. My family had two Fords of that era; I KNOW.
I’m from the prairies, where cars DID rust, but much more slowly than salt belt areas. Even there, these things rotted like crazy. I remember going to Toronto for a family reunion in the summer of ’79, and was aghast at how destroyed these things were. I remember seeing them going down the 401 with the remnants of the fenders and quarters flapping in the breeze. Also, none of them had side mirrors because the doors would rust right up to the sill and they’d fall off.
Dad had a new 74 Grand Torino Elite, for a decade in Minnesota…don’t remember any rust issues. My brother had a used LTD II some years after, don’t remember it being rusty.
I had a 72 Montego here in San Diego that DID have some rust issues, mainly around the rear window. I couldn’t find a match for the dark blue vinyl top and went with black instead. A shame because the top was actually in very nice condition. There was another isolated hole in the front fender d side under rocker panel.
Nice car — my favorite front of this generation and +1 on the color combo.
These beasts bring back bad memories of driver’s education class, especially that white one at the top of the post. Cars from the county motor pool got sent to the high schools for driver’s ed when they were near death. And in 1981, it was ’72ish Torinos that were relegated to this duty. I can almost smell the mold in the carpet and feel the hard, sticky vinyl of the front bench seat.
I had a girlfriend, circa 1977 who’s Dad had a ’73 Montego Brougham coupe. I was driving it when some clod in his Dad’s Volvo made a sharp turn in front of me (I had the right of way). I busted a parking light and a slight push in of the left front fender; the Volvo 144 was undriveable. The kid’s old man had the nerve to try to sue me in small claims court (of course, they lost). I remember that car (and the girl) because of the front seat Olympics (thank goodness for vinyl seats) and that it drove like a much bigger car (wallowing over dips and the like).
If we’re talking nominations, 1972 was the first year for the Australian XA Falcon, which was the first Falcon designed entirely by an Australian team (albeit in Dearborn, in ’68) and the first without a U.S. counterpart. (The XW and XY were still variations of the 1966-vintage Falcon shell.)
Another nomination would be the 1972 Dodge D series pickups. This was the first new Dodge pickup since 1961, the first with IFS, and would be the last new one until 1993. I realize that I will not have much company here, but if there is to be a Dodge truck considered, this would be the year.
I’ll buy that. These were a good honest truck, and if you wanted to splurge you could get one that was every bit as nice as GM or Ford could sell you at the time. They were also tough, as well as cheap and easy to fix. Not many vehicles have a 20 year run like these did either.
I loved those, a bit of Mach1 and 70 Torino in a smaller package.
Would you believe I agree with you Aaron! A mash-up of Torino and Maverick sedan styling, they actually looked at doing a cut-down version of the Torino Sports as the hardtop but everybody involved agreed it didn’t work. No wonder when the Falcon hardtop wheelbase was just 3″ shorter than the Torino’s, but the overall length of the Falcon was 14″ shorter. The Falcon sedan was even more dramatically different, 21.2″ shorter than a Torino sedan!
No wonder I have a hard time seeing the Torino as an “intermediate”!
The Falcons still weren’t spectacular handling-wise but an improvement on previous models thanks to improved tuning and a wider track. Later on there was a revision to make better use of radial tires. GT’s were obviously better than the normal cars, with a higher-geared 16:1 steering ratio for one thing.
One final admission here: My parents had a 1973 Gran Torino. They bought it because it was marked down 30 percent, from $4200 to $3200…a fire sale in a gas crisis.
And the thing was a gas crisis. Eight to ten miles a gallon. BUT…it DID provide quiet, smooth, heated, air-conditioned AND VERY RELIABLE transportation…98,000 miles of it, with the 351 Cleveland and Cruise-O-Matic And, amazingly, it didn’t rust out in the four years those miles were racked up.
Even allowed the poor mileage…given the heavy discount, it was probably a wise buy. It was a boring car to drive; but my mother – who got her license as an adult and didn’t understand motorsports or auto enthusiasts – got just what she wanted; less the gas consumption.
A later period owing an American-built Rabbit was wasted on her. It was not as reliable and the better handling was lost to her appreciation.
My parents had a ’73 Torino wagon, which they bought in ’75 (I think). It had been a company car for a bank (I think). Terrible car, and the ’73 bumpers didn’t help. But my mom was generally happy with it because she liked the 351C–never a stripper six for her, no way, although this was as close to a stripper car as you could come and still have a V8. Stiff vinyl seats (good for cleaning up after kids, though), and not so much carpet as the type of rubberized flooring you might find in a base pickup. And AM radio, woo-hoo!
I can’t believe no body posted anything about this!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://starskytorino.com/moviemike2/1moviemiketorino2b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://starskytorino.com/moviemike2/moviemike2.html&h=289&w=500&sz=58&tbnid=8q2SBA8etm_Y2M:&tbnh=68&tbnw=118&zoom=1&usg=__Y_cVRTBnIYj-N_TWyttFBNnl6rA=&docid=X-RmR15HPuVYAM&sa=X&ei=uV4DUc-_Js7w0QHVuYDgCg&ved=0CEoQ9QEwBA&dur=6219
and then there’s THIS!!!
Oh wow. I used to watch S&H back then… What was strange (and I had forgotten over the years) is that the earlier shows were much more gritty, more like Serpico or the Seven-Ups in feel.
I started watching several of the You Tube clips that spanned several years of the shows, and it was funny how Hutch was a lot ‘tougher’ or ‘cooler’ in the earlier shows. In the later ones, he became less tough, and the characters became caricatures of the earlier versions of themselves.
What really sticks out watching those clips is how badly the cars handled. Lurid slides, incredible amounts of understeer. Of course, the way the Torino was raked, it could hardly do anything else. But the other cars in the scenes (particularly the 70’s models) were equally bad.
The other thing that sticks out are the background cars. Growing up in the midwest in the 1970’s and these shows being filmed on the West Coast, there were all kinds of old Toyota and Datsun cars that I have never seen in metal. It was weird to see them once again…
Just the other day they played an episode of Dream Car Garage with the S&H Torino – the car had 600hp but standard suspension and it was hilarious to see such a pitching, wallowing, lurching barge being thrown around a track. With some careful driving it almost looked composed at times!
I don’t think Aunt Felicy ever forgave Uncle Marcel for trading their beautiful black ’68 Mercury Monterey for that green ’72 2 door Gran Torino. It looked very sleek from the outside, rode silently and smoothly as noted here, but had very little back seat leg room and was an absolute cave back there. First car I ever worried about getting out of if we should crash. I don’t recall what they had next, but I can guarantee you it had four doors! Love your Gran Torino Sport, just let me sit in the front with you.
Wayne – that’s a beautiful ’78 LTD II!
I’m a big fan of the Ford Elites. Very classy looking….
This strikes a nerve…My first new car, the 1972 Grand Torino.
I was young, newly married and my 67 Chevelle had major engine problems. Ford Motor Credit was kind enough(?) to sign me up for a 4 year loan. I treated my new Torino with the utmost care. Almost exactly as the 48th payment rolled around the car was starting to rust thru in multible places , the Vinal roof was coming up and then the drivers seat back broke. I fought a rattle for years that turned out to be the front disc brake pads. It soured me on Ford so bad I wouldn’t even consider a Ford product for the next 20 years.
The ’72 and ’73 Gran Torino Sport (and Montego GT) fastbacks were beautiful.
When I was a budding car enthusiast in the early ’80s these Torinos were everywhere, and I thought the sedans and wagons were some of the ugliest cars on the road. Now that I’m older and the cars aren’t so common I don’t think they look that bad. Funny how time changes perceptions.