Since we’re reliving the Malaise Era, let’s explore the other side of its…side effects: low specific power (hp per cubic inch). My memory tells me that the 1979 400 cubic inch V8 used on 1979 Lincolns is the prime candidate. It was rated at 159 net hp, or 0.3975 hp per cubic inch. But then I was wrong on the ’76 LeSabre V6, so I might well be on this one too.
We’re talking gasoline engines here, as the unboosted diesels of yore were intrinsically less powerful. Happy hunting, but it’s hard to beat Ford V8s of this era for being weak-chested. All that racing experience in the 60s came to naught.
Those are beautiful!!
Yes. Malaise-mashing aside, this was one regal looking car, and long as a city block too!
Off-topic to be sure, but the Mark V looks so much better without the oval window in the roof panel.
Caddy 500. 190 hp /500 cu . 0.38 hp
According to the site listed below, the 360 available in the final 1978 AMC Matador made 140 hp. That works out to 0.38888 hp/cid.
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/amc/matador_2gen/matador_2gen_coupe/1978.html
Even with the nose job, that’s a beautiful car!
That Matador has the Barcelona pkg, which included fancy interiors, two-tone paint and special colour-keyed wheels, available on sedans only for the ’78 model year. Despite the awkward lines around the sail panel, I’ve still always liked these cars.
The Dodge Mirada was worse with the base Slant 6. The Federal horsepower rating was a dismal 85HP. That’s 0.377778 HP per cubic inch.
http://www.allpar.com/model/mirada.html
I am sure that Ford did not purposely build low output cars because they wanted to. Nor did the public specifically demand low output cars. It was a combination of meeting EPA and CAFE requirements plus the 400 had at least enough torque to adequate propel these barges and maintain Lincoln-like smoothness, driveability, and cruising specifications. The 400 became standard in 1977 before the CAFE requirements really bit so Ford knew what was on the horizon plus by 1979, they were already readying the new Panther cars and 400s and 460s soon disappeared from passenger cars.
The 1973 Chevrolet 307 V8 made all of 115 HP, for a specific output of .37459 hp/ci.
I’d say this one of the worst. I don’t know why the rating dropped so much from 1972-1973 when there wasn’t any major changes other than EGR. I am thinking Chevrolet must have had a hard time getting this engine to meet emission specs, which is probably why it was dropped in 1974. The 305 that eventually replaced it in 1976 had a more emissions friendly smaller bore. A friend had a 1973 Pontac Ventura with a 307. Flooring it on the highway only resulted in more noise, little extra forward thrust.
I bought a 1973 Chevelle with a 307 in California. It couldn’t get out of its own way. Later, gave it to my brother in Texas. He took off all the California emissions stuff, and that “enemic” 307 would actually smoke the tires.
The big Lincolns are not the worst cars of the malaise era, in fact, I thought they were beautiful then, and still do today. Gorgeous lines with real presence. So who cares if they didn’t have a ton of horsepower, they had gobs of torque and were meant to be boulevard cruisers anyway.
The Ford 250 straight six was rated at 88 hp in the 1973 Maverick for 0.352 hp/ci. It was rated at 90 hp in 1976 and again in 1980 for 0.36. My “Encyclopedia of American Cars” also lists the 250 at 72 hp in 1975 (0.288!!), although I think this may be a typo.
Yep! I had a 74 Maverick with the 250 I-6 rated at all of 91 hp.
That’s .364
I think the 73’s output may be a winner.
This is turning into Malaise week, keep em coming! I can’t help but think of this Simpsons episode every time I hear the work malaise.
You can find the man in Belgium.
That’s an unfortunate name for a body man. His name would be far more fitting to a French Canadian hockey goon.
I thought for sure that my first car, a 73 Ford LTD 2-Door Hardtop with its 351 Windsor would make this list, because it barely got out of its own way. However, from what I could find on the web, that engine was rated at 156hp for a ratio of .444. That’s a bit better than the subject car, of just under point four.
Even though that car was terrible off the line, once you got its just over 2 ton bulk up to highway speeds it was smooth and quiet. Bloat-mobile from the malaise era? Yes ( CC Here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/curbside-classic-1973-ford-ltd-bring-on-the-bloat/ ), but I still loved that car. It looked almost exactly like the one in the brochure 3 images down that page.
Rick
My ’71 Galaxie had a 351-W with the “FMX” Cruise-O-Matic and was also a slug off of the line. From what I’ve read, that transmission started off in 2nd gear when the shifter was in the drive position. The only way to get first gear starts was to put the lever in “1” and then upshift manually. (Which my teenage self was known to do “occasionally.”
Your 1971 still had the high-compression motor. Ford didn’t drop compression ratios (and power) until 1972. GM dropped them for 1971.
I’m just curious: are y’all using SAE net hp ratings, manufacturer’s gross hp ratings, or actual dyno-tested hp?
SAE net hp ratings replaced the former gross ratings during 1971-1972. If a car here is later than 1972, you can pretty much assume that the power is expressed as net.
Yup. I can only think of one example post-1972 of a U.S. manufacturer quoting gross ratings, although bizarrely some Japanese automakers continued to advertise SAE gross ratings for cars sold in Europe (!) in the mid-70s. (The Japanese domestic market stayed with gross ratings — JIS, not SAE — until the mid-80s.)
It was 1972 that SAE net power became widely used. That said, some manufacturers, GM and Chrysler in particular, published “net hp” numbers in 1971 along with gross numbers. It seems that these numbers were likely produced using SAE’s guidelines, as many GM engines had the same net ratings for 1971 and 1972. That said, earlier trucks did sometimes publish “net hp” figures. I would argue that even those these would be closer to being more comparable to SAE net numbers, they were produced using the SAE guidelines so they aren’t directly comparable.
If I start a retro (’70s) band, I’m calling it: “Crushed Velour & The Malaise”.
+10!
Love those Lincolns – very majestic looking and they ride like a dream!
Allow me to help settle this debate. There truly is a simple answer. IT WAS 1979! Are all of you forgetting how strangled by early emissions equipment all the engines of the 70’s were? At least all of them from 73 and up. Most 80’s engines were not much better! Look at the mighty Delorean “sports car”! Great time machine (once you added a “flux capacitor”, that is), lousy, sports car! Remember, this was a large 70’s V8! It had a small carburetor, no electronics, overhead valves for breathing, and no forced induction! So, when you think about it, it was right on the mark (no pun intended) for its time! Even today’s might electronically controlled, direct fuel injected, DOHC, Twin turbo, twin vane turbo’s, with variable valve timing, and high revving, high compression, engines, will produce as much specific HP, the large you go. Case in point. While many of today’s 2.0 liter engines with turbos and direct injection, etc., etc., will produce well over 100 HP per litre, even in a plain, run of the mill, family sedan (let alone a high power sports vehicle), the mighty German engineered, 6 liter, bi-turbo, V-12, laden with all the electronic trickery that modern technology has to offer, produces “only”, 523 HP! That works out to just over 0.88 hp/litre! Now obviously, it’s a fantastic, powerful engine, but my point is, even today, the larger the engine, the less specific output per liter, and as many of you have pointed out with the figures you provided, for the day, it was right in the ball park! Of course the ball park of the day, was filled with some real slow runners. What a pity that those magnificent, luxury coaches, couldn’t be treated to the magnificent, high tech, engines of today! Well, at least we have the Maybach, Mulsane, Phantom, Ghost, and even the trio of German long wheelbase vehicles, the A8, 7 Series (specifically 750 Li) and of course The Mercedes S Class! So, for those who have the buck, there are still some very, large (and very powerful0 cars around to buy today! For the rest of us, well, we have the full size, 305 hp, V6 Chevy Impala> Hey, nobody ever said it’s a perfect world!
The comparison with big modern engines is misleading. It’s not that big-displacement engines can’t produce high specific outputs — witness the Dodge Challenger SRT Hellcat, which has 707 net hp from about 6.2 liters (114 hp/liter). The limiting factor for many of the uber-Germans you mention has been not the potential of the engines, but the torque capacity of the available transmissions. For the hottest version of the current SL-Class, for instance, Mercedes-Benz had to come up with a stouter transmission to handle the extra torque.
“…Mercedes-Benz had to come up with a stouter transmission to handle the extra torque.”
Yes, to a certain extent. Mercedes-Benz can easily develop the gearboxes to handle 1000-plus newton-metres of torque. Not a problem. However, the gearbox is not only component here.
The chassis, drivetrain (drive shaft, half shafts, differential gear), mounting points, and suspension system have to be extensively strengthened or modified to handle the prodigious amount of torque without shearing the components off or flipping the car over.
In the 1980s, for example, Brabus did lot of extensive modifications to the W126 S-Class chassis and suspension before powerful motors could be fitted.
This requires considerable amount of engineering and higher cost for a very low volume production. So the manufacturers have to find the compromise between the performance and cost.
Ford sells some nice crate engines capable of putting out 450hp. Pop one these engines into those nice Lincolns and problem solved. There’s nothing wrong with these large cars from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. It was a time in America when freedom actually meant something.
single-plane intake? not sure many people would want a Lincoln which barely idles.
Dear Lincoln Motor Company,
You have lost your way. Enclosed is a picture of what you did best.
Best Wishes,
PBR.
P.S. Chrysler is building proper Lincolns for us since you won’t.
You’re dreaming. Those cars back then were pigs. Handled lousy, accelerated poorly, fuel mileage in the low double digits at best, built poorly, and the styling tastes at the time were questionable at best. Completely inferior to anything passing for entry level or above of ten years ago, much less the current models.
So they had the look – basically a prime example of the daily transportation for the brash, obnoxious Ugly American. Better to pull the engine and transmission out of one, fix up the body and use it for a lawn ornament. They were certainly better suited to that use than driving.
I do not get the repeated complaints that this is what the American luxury car needs to go back to. I can only assume that most of those crying that line haven’t driven one of them in years (assuming they ever drove one at all) and are possessors of some of the most rose colored glasses in the universe.
And to even try to compare them to a 5-8 year old MKZ is to live in delusion.
Indeed, but nowadays there is also an aftermarket industry which offers many options on making them run, stop and go around corners reasonably well, as well as return same MPG.
At which point you won’t have an antique car anymore.
A modified old car? If done sensibly, it would still keep the character of the car but be eminently more fun – well to me at least. For the avoidance of confusion, if I were in a financial and/or physical condition to do something like this, I’d try and stay true to the original as much as possible – no 20″ “rims”, lowering only done to help handling, no LS3 in everything, etc. You would not know at first glance anything was done to it but it could take you from NY to Florida or Vienna to London (well, in the later case it’d have to run on LPG, our fuel costs being what they are) in comfort and style, perfectly legitimate IMHO and preferable to something that gets out 3 times a year to go to old car meetings, but which you don’t want to drive on even a weekly basis when the weather is nice.
Not sure what 70s big cars you mean, I’ve greatly enjoyed driving mine…currently own two, I think they handle fine for what they are made for (cruising and the interstate), have better style and upholstery than anything today. I would much rather have one than a new 300 or MKZ. A panel gap or two yes but I will take them any day and I don’t care the MKZ can beat me in a race since I will not be racing. What you seem to term as ignorance and hagiography is instead just a difference of opinion in what kind of car you like. Not everyone thinks a German sport sedan is “better”.
American Luxury cars of this era = real Luxury cars.
As much as I admire Benzes of the time for their bank vault construction and quality, and BMWs for their handling and packaging, they’re only true luxury is their price. Take off the rose tinted glasses of german engineering superiority and their actual appointments, materials and styling are barely any better than a 70s Buick Apollo.
their actual appointments, materials and styling are barely better than a 70s Buick Apollo
That’s almost funny. Hung over this morning?
Guess I’d have to be to say such heresy, although I don’t drink 😉
I’ll never take away the true qualities of BMW or Mercedes, but for as much as Lincoln lacked in quality and engineering in this period, the Germans lacked in distinctive style, plushness and ambiance. That doesn’t make them bad cars, I wouldn’t want them any other way, I just don’t consider them Luxury cars. I group them into a category all their own, engineered and appointed more like sports cars of the time(minimalist functionality) but in a regular car package.
Really the decline of Lincoln and Cadillac happened because they mimicked the not-so-luxurious elements of the German brands, and not the quality or engineering goodness of them, while ironically MB and BMW became more and more in the vein of the Americans, making ever more frequent unnecessary styling changes, and ditching the hard rubbery vinyls and plastics in favor of plastiwood, fake stitching and ever wider and softer seats, laden with gadgetry of course.
Matt: “Luxury” is not defined by “plushness”, and its related ambiance and materials. A luxury good is defined as something that is clearly more prestigious (hence more valuable) than a commodity good.
The specific design language of the American Brougham Era reflects certain classical periods combined with a new wave of plushness in interior design (think shag carpeting, plush velour furniture and lots of dark wood). That was a design phase that followed on the heels of the true “Modern” design period (think Eames chairs; Scandinavian style furniture, etc.). In the leate 50s and early 60s, “luxury cars” like the ’61 Continental reflected that design ethos. The ’61 – 66 Conti did not have “plush” interiors in the vein of the the ’75 + Lincolns, and all the other cars of the Brougham Epoch.
The problem with that “plush/broughamy” design ethos is that it was always considered tacky by the those with good taste/the true rich. That’s one of the reasons they started buying Mercedes and BMWs in ever greater numbers right as the Brougham Epoch just got rolling.
I know taste is a subjective thing, but for many, the plush/shaggy/broughamy style was truly ugly and tasteless. And when cheap cars started having Brougham editions (think Valiant Brougham), that design ethos was truly exposed for what it was: something sold to the less educated/lower class buyers who thought it looked “luxurious”. Meanwhile, the rich wouldn’t be caught in them, in ever greater numbers.
It doesn’t matter if a ’75 Lincoln had certain features that weren’t yet on a mercedes at the time. It’s all about telling the world that you have a certain taste, or at least have decided that you want to be part of that social group that reflects that taste.
And as history has clearly shown, the “plush/shaggy/broughamy” design language of the ’79 Lincoln soon became totally passe. Now it’s a historical oddity’ nobody would build interiors like that anymore.
Look at an interior design magazine; that look went away decades ago too. The sparse, modern, look is back, and has been for quite a while. And FWIW, it may look sparse, but an Eames chair or a good bucket seat from a European car really is more comfortable than an overly-soft couch or seat, but then some will debate that.
The point is, the market and taste and design have moved on. And just like in the Brougham Epoch, even cheap cars have the same basic look as expensive cars. It’s hard to really stand out, but there are still differences. Take a look at a really expensive car interior (Maserati, etc.) and you’ll get the point.
I said it all here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1965-lincoln-continental-the-last-great-american-luxury-car/
A lot of the “real” rich considered buying expensive German cars to be equally flashy and in bad taste…because if you elevate a car, a mere (and fairly modern) machine as a monument to your good taste….
“Now it’s a historical oddity’ nobody would build interiors like that anymore.”
Hmmmm
Double hmmmmm
Triple hmmmmm….
Quad hmmmmm???
All of these almost make this look subtle
Design and taste are always changing. Sometimes for the better; other times for the worse.
FWIW, luxury good design and sales are increasingly being driven by the super wealthy in Asia, Russia, and other locales. And the tastes of the nouveau riche is almost inevitably flashy.
I was speaking more of the changes that happened during the 60s, 70s and 80s. Frankly, I really don’t give a hoot what’s being made for Chinese billionaires, but I do know that they inevitably don’t have good taste.
Ambience and materials… and in the 70s that meant MB tex(vinyl) and plastic for most of the Mercs and Bimmers. When I talk about “real” Luxury, I don’t define it by the brief period of the 70s with pillow top velour and padded opera windowed tops, I’m talking about large imposing cars focused on driving/being driven comfort in style, which literally spanned decades prior to the brougham epoch, going back to the beginning unbroken. Think Rolls Royce, or even the big Grossers, Packards, et al. That brand of luxury is still made today and appeal to the true rich.
And it’s funny you mention the poor taste of the nouveau riche. What were all those yuppies driving again?
I’m happy to see more Chinese influence on modern luxury cars. It means roomy, comfortable back seats like we haven’t seen since in ’70s land yachts. Better, even.
those may be less “subtle” but in 10 years they won’t be warped, cracked and /or faded like ’70s-’80s american cars. Vinyl eventually dries out and hardens as the plasticizers gas out.
Reading your response to Matt below leads me to believe that you think MB more luxurious simply because it’s more expensive.
I suppose, though, vinyl (erm, MBTex) and heavily-varnished plywood that looks like plastic unless you see it broken in the junkyard (which is how I figured out it was heavily-varnished plywood) are a huge step up from actual supple leather or super-soft velour and plastic that looks like plastic. Oh, and black dials with yellow font are a huge step up from brushed aluminum with black font that glows blue at night…
Wait a minute! None of that MB stuff sounds particularly luxurious at all! So aside from yuppies buying German cars because they had the money to burn and the American cars were “so provincial,” why again was Mercedes Benz considered luxurious? I don’t mean to suggest they’re bad cars in any way, but I’ve never understood why they’re regarded as being so luxurious. As I once heard it asked, “Why should I spend that much money on a German taxi?”
I fall in the middle. I don’t think the MB appointments are bad and the minimalist elegance can work (though I prefer Jaguars) and I’m sure they’re put together better, but I do think they’re often kind of “blah”. I remember one rag referring to the Brougham as “heroically overdecorated”. I see it, especially in the paisley stuff or red velour, but other than that, I appreciate the additional details/easter eggs. I don’t know that it makes the car classier, but it does make it more visually engaging.
These may not have been perfectly screwed together but they aren’t tin cans. Maybe you have to slam the door twice, but what a door!
To your point, yes, I’ve driven one recently. I own a 1978 Lincoln Continental Town Coupe and a 1977 Ford Thunderbird Town Landau. My partner and I drove the Continental from Detroit to Chicago and back for Halloween, and last weekend we took our friends out to dinner with it before putting it to bed for the winter.
And I am amongst the cohort that believes this is what American luxury is meant to be. With the 460, the Continental is effortless to drive. It handled Chicago traffic with ease, and I’m sure I surprised a few people on Lakeshore Drive. It rides like driving a couch floating on a cloud, and we arrived at our destination feeling as good as when we left home. Contrast that with a modern car that beats the shit out of you in the name of “road feel.” The steering is effortless, and one pinky is enough to swing around seven feet of hood and keep 19.5 feet and 4,750 pounds of car under control, even when parking.
Here’s the thing: If I’m driving in a luxury car, I don’t want to feel the road and all its potholes and undulations. I don’t want to feel the steering and throw my friends around like they’re less valuable than cargo. Road feel and steering feel have no place or business in a luxury car. If I’m driving a luxury car, I want smooth, quiet, effortless comfort. I like being able to converse with my friends at a normal voice while cruising 75 miles per hour down the freeway without feeling like I’m splitting my time between keeping the car in a line and the conversation.
So, speaking as a subject matter expert on the topic of old luxury cars, I will say without hesitation or equivocation that these sorts of cars remain the best examples of American luxury. Until Lincoln et al figure that out, they will remain lost in the wilderness trying to forever catch up to something they’re not. Seriously, if someone opens a new pizza joint on a street with five other pizza joints already, are you going to bother with the new one, or are you going to hit the number for MB Pizza that’s already in your phone? Trying to out-German the Germans is why Cadillac is still struggling despite making fantastic cars. It’s why Lincoln is in the shit now (looking right at you, Lincoln LS!).
No, Lincoln should not open another pizza joint on the street with five other pizza joints. Lincoln should not try to out-German the Germans. If people want a “luxury” car with an interior no nicer than any Titanium trimmed Ford (looking at you, BMW and Audi!) that beats the shit out of you, they’ll just buy another German car. Trouble is, people that want a smooth, effortless, quiet, comfortable luxury car don’t really have an option in today’s market.
Yes, syke, they were absolutely terrible cars, but they were all we knew. At the time, we laughed at our friends with their Celicas and 510s. Who got the last laugh? In 1982 I bought my first new GM car, an all-new Trans Am. It is the reason I traded it in on a 1985 Corolla GT-S and never looked back. By the way, the engine in that car had 70 hp per litre, 112 out of 1.6. It would blow the doors of the Trans Am, 5 litre with145 hp. Yes, I learned my lesson.
These were not “proper Lincolns” by comparison to the earlier Lincoln Continentals of the same generation: the 1970-74 sedans and coupes. Those earlier cars were much more elegant on the outside – no filigree on the vertical part of the trunk lid; no opera windows or pillar lamps either. They had the more distinctive dashboard design that lasted until (I think) ’77. Their upholstery was nicer (none of that “pillow” style, except perhaps with the Town Car option) and their rear setbacks were taller. And of course they were all equipped with the 460-4V, which used regular gas starting with the ’72.
give me a 1975+ interior anyday!…1970-1974 interiors are not that noteworthy
best year would be 1975-1976 – aluminum metal cigarette lighters coverings with the Lincoln symbol + metal trimmed pedals + interior coloured carpeted trunk
Although it perhaps wasn’t “noteworthy,” the tuck-and-roll standard upholstery in the 1970-74 Lincoln (cloth or optional leather) had no buttons, protruding edges, or other undesirable aspects of the later pillow style; moreover, the rear seatback was a good two inches taller than that of the 1975-79 cars, as was the shelf behind the seat.
To me (as a passenger in my parents’ 1972 4-door with black leather) this made for greater comfort as well as a cozier, more private environment. I would love one of those rear seats as a sofa in my home today, if it were possible – and if anyone has similar feelings about the 1975-79 rear seat, I’ve never heard about it.
I have only owned a 78 so I am biased…one thing I do love from the earlier editions is that nice looking steering wheels…..which put the 1975+ versions and especially contemporary caddy equivalents to shame
How did these go for torque? In a cruiser like these low down torque can be more useful.
They were definitely tuned that way: 315 lb-ft, I believe.
Related question: did HP-sucking smog controls affect torque ratings much?
To some extent, but in different ways. Torque and horsepower are not independent quantities — horsepower is a function of torque and engine speed. Emissions controls that sap power do so in several different ways; some consume power (for instance, to run an air injection pump) while others restrict breathing, limiting the engine’s ability to rev. The first type will reduce torque output. The second type doesn’t necessarily — the engine may still have comparable torque output at lower speeds, but get winded readily at higher rpm, limiting power output.
An added complication is that emissions-controlled engines of the ’70s sometimes had different camshaft profiles and valve timing, emphasizing low-end torque rather than peak power. So, the fact that a particular engine might have the same torque output in emissions-controlled form as its less-restricted predecessor doesn’t mean that the emissions controls didn’t affect torque — the re-profiled cam may have just compensated for it.
Most amazing thing to me is how the “Total Performance” company, could build an engine family like the 351C/351M/400, which have good, large valve cylinder heads, yet could not pull the cap off a Bic pen. I will admit, some of the earliest 351C’s did run like a scalded cat, I have driven a few. Hank the Duce and his booze and hookers…Sigh…But at least this family of engines are easy to wake up, just like 289/302’s.
351C equipped Aussie Fords were quite the rocketship in stock showroom trim the GTHO would do 141mph when the limiter kicked in the Police pursuit specials would hit 162 mph, nothin wrong with the engines it just how they were tuned that makes the difference.
You have to keep in mind that the 335 series engine was designed in the late 1960’s. It was primarily designed as a high RPM high performance engine, with massive canted valves, ports and high compression. Unfortunately it couldn’t have been released at a worse time with impending emission standards and the push for low lead fuels. As a result only the 1970-71 351C 4V and Boss 351 engines were all out no holds bar performance engines. Just look at how quick a 1971 Boss 351 Mustang will run. The 1971(late)-1974 low compression 351-CJ was a great performance “smog” engine, producing great power for the time (more than a comparable 350 LT1), but suffered from poor drivability due to rudimentary emissions controls and tuning.
That said, the 400 Ford was never produced in a high performance application. It still used large valves and ports of the 351C (although the smaller 2V size), and was only ever produced with a 2bbl carburetor. Only the 1971 engine had 9:1 compression, 1972 8.4:1 and then it was a measly 8:1. Actual measurements show it was even lower than what Ford rated it at. Ford also used retarded camshaft timing from 1973 onwards and as emissions standards grew tighter, the horsepower ratings dropped. It didn’t help that an engine with large ports and valves was tuned for low speed power. On top of that Ford used a poor piston design on the 400, limiting the quench and in 1975 introduced a restrictive exhaust port to aid the Thermactor air injection system.
The 351M on the other hand had an even more compromised design, mainly being created to increase the parts sharing between the 400 and 351C it replaced. The best thing you can do with a 351C is stroke it to 400.
That said, that doesn’t mean the 335 series engines were a bad design. In fact they are one of Fords great engines in my opinion. The 400 Ford won the engine masters challenge several years in a row. The fact is the design fundamentals are very good on these engines, but Ford could not take advantage of this in these lo-po smogger engines. Today 335 series engine have a very tight following and both 351Cs and 400’s are built to be very strong engines with little work.
“I say, Smithers, do something about that ruffian beating that dead horse…”
Wow, that background in the opening photo is very familiar — it’s the front plaza of the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC, and yes, you can really drive on it! I started work at the building next door — one of the Watergate buildings — and in 1979 to boot!
If you want to delve into the extreme, in Israel we had 7-seater cabs by Checker and Dodge with 80 hp, 4 diesel Perkins engines. I’m sure they’ll top anything discussed so far…
https://www.flickr.com/photos/60047396@N04/22200505434/in/pool-1648121@N23/
The horsepower didn`t matter in the malaise era. Luxury didn`t have to smoke the tires. It just had to look good and offer the buyer all the catnip he -or she could shake a stick at. If that was the case,the Lincolns succeeded big time.
My 25-year-old millennial really admires the Mark V from the late 1970’s for its looks (!) and comfort. Being the ‘practical’ soul he is though, his daily driver (and only car, I think) is a modern Camaro SS RS. That’s 1.125 HP/Cu. In.
I have a ’79 MK V Collectors, stock. It is painfully slow and even at speed doesn’t appreciate hills. It will barely maintain 75 with A/C on West Texas I-10. It gets the same 11-12.5 mpg as my rebuilt (400+ gross) ’70 MK III with the 460. Analog smog equipment was a real challenge for Ford!
Nevertheless, it is a wonderful car, reflective of the era and makes even a trip for groceries an event. I think that was the whole idea of these cars, the “feel” rather than any practical increase in performance or usability. The euros were more practical but less fun.
It is all about the feel. For some reason, some people seem unable to grasp this and why that would be a reason to enjoy one. “Oh it doesn’t handle well”. What exactly would you do with a car like this where it handling “well”/Teutonically would ever be the slightest bit necessary? “What a lovely day, if only this Continental handled better, I’d spend the day attempting to replicate the chase scene from ‘Bullitt'” Said no one, ever.
+1. I’ve always suspected the whole “handling ” push was a social engineering scam…the heavy handed govt regs that slammed down in the 70s made it impossible to sell what had always been sold..cushier ride, size, and power. What DO little light cars do better? Corner! Never mind that tight cornering is only really a major advantage in racing and being in city police chases…it’s all we got…so suddenly “handling ” is the sign of a great car.
Depends where you live. Places around here have some very tight hilly roads,so a narrower car with good handling response can be a real plus.
Trying to shepard a big cruiser like these can be exhausting, particularly in the wet.
In all honestly though, the big handling push was more driven by marketing- people wanted the performance image still, but couldn’t get the power outputs anymore, so cornering was it.
+1 was going to mention the regional demands as well. Around here, in the Chicago area, handling prowess is a pretty useless trait, the only curved roads are on manufactured suburban subdivisions with 20-25mph speed limits, so you’re going to have a lot more opportunity to do straight line bursts on the relatively grid like layout the entire region is laid out as.
If I lived in a more hilly/mountainous region I probably would care far more about all out handling than I do, but for me and the majority of the USA that just isn’t the reality. I think the decline in enthusiast interest in cars in general is a bit of a consequence of that – my generation was raised to admire BMWs and the like as these uber handling machines, and snobbishly dismiss anything fast primarily in a straight line, but when so many actually drive them, there’s just little opportunity to utilize those merits, and without acknowledging the other approach to street performance, there’s nowhere to go but just accept cars as appliances
I partially agree with you, but there are a lot of improvements that can be made to make the car more responsive and brake better without outright downsizing the thing – which I do agree that handling is/was used as a feeble substitute by marketers to ease the ugly pain that resulted. It’s amazing how much better a rack and pinion conversion and 4 wheel disc alone can improve a classic car, change up the geometry and layouts and the improvements can be drastic. All without necessitating the mythical 50/50 weight distribution(the truly most overrated trait IMO) or weight/size loss.
These cars are just not that hard to drive. Unless you want to take hilly, winding roads at speeds well in excess of the posted limits (yes, I understand some people like having a car that can do that) You just one-hand them around. One-finger even. They’re formal. How to say it…I think the idea was that if you can afford a car like this why are you in a hurry.
well, for one I’d like steering which isn’t 300 turns lock to lock, with a half of a turn of free play on-center.
My son bought a 1979 Lincoln Mark V Signature series back in 1999. It had 107K
on it and it was a one owner. He got it for $750. The paint was a faded silver blue and interior was dark blue leather. It had a special highway option that included duel exhaust and a limited slip rear end with a 3.08 ratio.
We lost the cat converters, installed a couple Walker 2 1/2 inch mufflers and exhaust pipes. We installed a four barrel carburetor and aluminum manifold.
We finished it off with some Monroe air shocks, new paint and minor repair to the driver’s seat. It was a rolling piece of art.
My son drove it everyday and put 20,000 miles on it in three years and never had a moments trouble with it. He took it on a trip to New Orleans 1500 miles roundtrip and averaged 18.5 mpg with four adults and baggage for a week stay.
They averaged 80 MPH plus on the interstate. All passengers swore they never experienced a smoother more comfortable trip. My son reluctantly sold the car to a friend from Norway for $2200 in 2002. He never owned a more enjoyable car or more economical vehicle.
And…CC Effect.
I was standing on 75th and Park this afternoon when a light green ’77-’79 model came gliding down Park. Absolutely stunning and outclassed everything on the avenue.
Nice!
Just to be different, I’d take a ’78 Mercury Grand Marquis Brougham. My favorite high school teacher had one of those. One of those with a 460 could be livened up quite nicely.
Just bumping up the tire pressure will make a huge difference. Add slightly wider wheels slightly lower profile performance, speed rated tires, Change to gas charged shocks, polyurethane bushings for the stock sway bars and you will find a great improvement. Add better brake pads to top it off.
Or, get a Japanese car. They do all that for you from the factory. lol
I’ve posted this before, but I tweaked the suspension on our family’s 1971 LTD – bigger springs, shocks, 15×7 Mopar police car rims with 65-series tires (diameter was too small so it scrubbed during sharp turns), and a front sway bar and steering box from a 1979 T-bird. I never even got around to installing the rear sway bar – it had a bad enough problem with oversteer after the modifications as it was (which was one of the reasons I sold it – I got into an accident because of this).
It completely transformed the car from one that was scary at 90mph to stable at 120mph.
I didn’t do anything with the brakes other than to put beefier station-wagon drums on the back, but that wasn’t enough. I really wanted to put a rear disc 9″ setup in (which was optional in T-Birds and Continental Marks, but they were usually already pulled when I found a car so equipped in a junkyard).
The brakes were woefully undersized for the power and handling that the car had, making it unbalanced and scary to drive (because a few times, going 90+ mph over rolling farm-road hills (the roller coaster, woo hoo), I encountered potato trucks puttering along at 15mph. That’s when you figure out that the stock brakes are far too weak (and then thank God that there was nobody coming up the other side of the hill as you blindly passed the truck at 60mph).
My dad also had an absolutely cream-puff 1977 Lincoln Town Car sedan – I was home for Christmas from college in 1984, and we were at the local Lincoln-Mercury dealer when the original owner drove it in (40K miles, garage-kept) as a trade-in for his new one. That car just floated down the road. It wasn’t a lot of fun to drive – much better to be a passenger as it was like quietly floating across the country on your favorite leather couch. It would have benefited from beefier sway bars, which wouldn’t have affected the ride that much.
Both cars have moved on now. I could have had the Lincoln, but my 20-foot-deep garage just wouldn’t handle the 20’6″ long (IIRC) Town Car, plus I wouldn’t have been able to keep any other stuff in the garage.
If you get a change to drive or ride in one of these cars, do it. There is no modern car that has as plush of a ride as a 1970s Lincoln IMO. I never felt more disconnected from the road than I did in that 1977 Town Car. It had zero sense of speed – 85 mph felt just like 55mph, with the telephone poles passing by quicker.
That’s exactly my what I was thinking on an earlier post and I’m glad you could confirm it. These cars can be made to handle and go round corners.
My view only and I am somewhat biased as I own a 78 Town Coupe with the 400 motor. It has 166 strangled horsepower but 320 ft lbs of torque at very low RPM – it isn’t quick but it isn’t dog slow either. The torque allows it to step out from start fairly briskly.
I used my ’79 Mark V as an everyday driver for two years and it was fine. It kept up and the handling on a normal traffic basis was OK, just leave more room for braking. It actually cornered better than one would think, it just leeeeeaned more! It made a huge impression on my clients, who still ask “Where’s the Mark?”. It sure turned me into a more genteel driver.
The late 70’s 400’s were pretty weak for peak power, but what people forget is it’s not peak power that’s important, rather power under the curve. The 1979 400 was rated at 159 SAE net hp @ 3800 RPM and 315 ft-lbs @ 1800 RPM with a 2-barrell carburetor. Looking at the RPM for the peak power and torque, Ford used a cam profile clearly tuned for low RPM power and it had a decent amount of power under the curve. Although this engine would perform poorly in high performance type driving, for everyday driving it would motivate a heavy car just fine with minimal throttle input due to the strong low end horsepower/torque. Most cars from this era were tuned this way, very low peak RPM with strong bottom end power, but nothing up top. That’s why this big V8’s only making around 150 hp motivated the 1970’s land yatchs fine by the standards of the day.
The 400 wasn’t even the worst offender for Ford, in 1979 the 351 Windsor was rated at 135 hp or 0.38461 hp per cubic inch. Cadillac also had it’s 368 only rated at 140 hp @ 3800 RPM and 265 ft-lbs @ 1400 RPM for 1981-1982. That translates to 0.38043478 hp / CI. Chrysler had it’s 1980 318-2bbl rated at 120 hp which is only 0.377358 hp/CI.
I forgot about truck engines. Ford’s old 390 2-bbl was still being produced in 1976 and the California version made 147 hp @3200 RPM and 288 ft-lbs @ 2000 RPM, translating to 0.376923 hp/CI. The non-CA version made 156 hp which was 0.4 hp/ CI not far off the 1979 400. Bottom line is, most of the engine from this era produced pretty poor hp/CI.