I ran across these two ads for the ’72 and ’73 Gran Torino, and it was curious as to see what changed and what didn’t. And I don’t mean just the 5-mile bumper.
Vintage Ads: 1972 & 1973 Ford Gran Torino – How Much And How Little Changed In One Year
– Posted on May 2, 2023
All the body stampings look the same, they changed the front panel and grille to accommodate that lump of ARMCO, I quite like the 72.
All the sheetetal from the firewall forward is unique to the 1972. Even the front section of the frame was changed in 1973 to accommodate the new 5 mph bumper. Sheet metal conversions can be done from 1973 to 1972, but the frame has to be modified to do so.
My dad bought a ’72 Torino new but said had he been car shopping in 1973, he would not have bought a Torino solely due to the change in appearance.
I remember thinking the same thing when these were new, and hearing more than one person in late 1972 bemoaning how Ford had ruined the Torino.
My parents had friends that had a ’72 Gran Torino Sport SportsRoof, same color scheme as Clint Eastwood’s car in the movie, but one step better – no vinyl top.
I was friends with their kids, all boys, and they were incredibly excited about their parent’s new car – not exactly the response a new Galaxie sedan would have produced.
The ’72 front has enough personality that I believe it was a bit controversial – love it or hate it. There was enough love that it outsold the Chevelle that year.
The ’73 isn’t bad, just totally benign. If you loved the ’72, the ’73 aroused zero passion. Faced with an all new Chevelle, the Torino became a wallflower again.
they’re both ugly
I’m a Ford guy, but you’re right. Those cars look like they fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down.
the ’73 looks like a jumbo-size Mustang II, which is to say, it’s ugly.
Fat bloated pigs. I always hated Torino’s. Why they were ever considered to be remotely cool is beyond me.
I agree. I always preferred the ’70/’71 to the later Torinos.
That frame change is ridiculous. I can’t believe Ford didn’t know the legislation was coming – why didn’t they standardize on the tougher frame design, rather than having a one-year-only frame section?
Did they think they were bigger than the US government, and could beat down the coming law?
I am not sure the story behind the lack of preparation for the 1973 bumper standards, other than perhaps the design was locked in very early. It certainly wasn’t good planning on Ford’s part.
The frame didn’t see major changes, but enough that the sheetmetal and bumpers will not interchange. The 1973-76 frame ends are modified to allow for energy absorbing frame ends to mount to the remainder of the chassis. The frame ends can be cut off, and the 1972 frame sections welded on to install the 1972 sheet metal.
This is a 1973-76 Frame:
This a the same frame with the mounts removed.
And a 1972 frame. See that it is all one piece on a 1972.
Thanks for the detail pics, Vince. Not that I doubted you for a moment, it’s just the sort of silly thing that went on. Someone in purchasing probably thought the material cost of the earlier frame design was cheaper, and didn’t take into account the additional tooling cost for the later design.
Great comment about the ‘lump of Armco’ – that’s just about what it looks like!
ALL vehicles designs were RUINED after 1972, and this ONE pic SHOWS why! The GVT should stick to just THIEVING our $$$ and NOT get involved with vehicle design or our ‘safety’ issues!
Definitely prefer 72 (except for cartoon characters). Ford seemed to simplify styling for 73. Had a 72 LTD. For 73, all Fords seemed to lack some of the Flair. For midsized I really liked the later Grand Torino Elite . Styling was more dramatic and overall much more upscale. As with Thunderbird, 75 and 76 were the GRAND FINALE, before 77 redesign.
There’s definitely a version of that factory photo without the cartoon people in it – they were (literally, physically) pasted in. Notice the man’s body can’t be seen through the windshield.
There are these.
Definitely prefer 72 . Had 72 LTD. For 73 all Fords seemed less than 72s. Later Grand Torino Elite really nailed it with more sculptured styling and overall upscale qualities.
I dunno. The ’72 appears to suffer from carb face. The ’73 appears leaner, if that’s at all possible for the era.
The Elite used the Montego body.
The ’73 5 mph bumper standard for the front went into effect and required the use of park bench bumpers that were not only larger, but ungainly as they extended farther outward from the body of the car.
I was an avid car brochure geek in 1972 and 1973, and was still quite a Ford fanboy. Still, I had never noticed the similar colors and settings of these two cars.
These shots are kind of funny, really. In the top photo, even with the hub caps and trim rings, Mr. & Mrs. Inflatable Doll really love it. The second shot equips the car much more nicely (with the seldom-seen optional wheel covers) yet the humans are keeping their distance.
With this fresh look, I wonder how I might have liked the 73 with a less obtrusive front bumper, and perhaps a grille that dipped just a bit into the bumper. But as is, loving Ford’s conception of the 5 mph bumper is a hard thing to do.
I’m probably in the minority when I say this, but I’ve always liked the ’73 front end and can’t quite understand the furor over the change from ’72. Yes, the ’72 appears as designers had originally envisioned it, so it looks all of one piece. It also looks a little like a blowfish. The Mustang-esque trapezoidal grille of the ’73 was tastefully executed, and the only thing that I dislike about the ’73 is the fact that the front and rear bumpers don’t match, like a centaur, of sorts.
I’m with you on that. Never a fan of the ’72 and thought the ’73 was an improvement.
There were folks that saw that blowfish as far back as the fall of 1971. You’re not the only person that wasn’t necessarily a fan of it.
I look at the ’72, and sometimes it is a bit dorky, and also quite cool at the same time. For personality, I’d take the ’72 all day.
I do think the ’72 is distinctive and attractive in its way. I guess I just don’t see a huge decrease in attractiveness for ’73. The ’72 does have more personality up front – I agree.
+1. And definitely prefer the Chevelle over the Torino.
There’s a neat old ‘made for tv’ movie from 1977 called ‘Night Terror’ with Valerie Harper, in which her character is driving a white Torino Squire. The problem was, they kept switching the car from a ’73 to a ’72, and back again a few times…the only difference being the front clip! I remember it bugging me when I saw it as a kid! Neat suspense flick, nonetheless!
I’m so watching this. Thank you!
Okay, so I watched this after work yesterday and liked it a lot! They were switching between a ’72 and a ’74 (no ’73), which made me wonder which scenes were shot first, and what happened (if anything) to the original car.
There’s a scene where Valerie Harper’s character’s Torino is almost out of gas, and I was like, if this was reality that Torino would have lasted maybe another half mile, with a tailwind.
Thanks again for the recommendation, Balto.
I always liked the bigger bumpers.
They worked.
I parked my ’78 280Z on the mean streets of Manhattan for many years and those big park bench bumpers fore and aft did a good job protecting the far more fragile body work from the famous park-by-feel-and-bump NY (and visiting NJ) drivers.
When it comes to the 1972 “Ford Team” cartoon characters, my favorite is the Pinto ad:
The thing that most captures my attention so far as differences between the ads is the switch from 1972’s “Ford Team” characters to real humans in the 1973 ad. I credit this to a shift in advertising that was definitely getting into gear at that time to de-emphasize pop-arty things like hand-drawn type, cartoons, and weird inflatable doll people for a style that was much more centered on photos of models interacting with the product…or at least providing eye candy. 1972 was probably the end of the road for something as unsophisticated and kitschy like the Ford Team doll people.
As a mid-gen Xer born in ’74 I can vouch that sort of illustration survived well into the early ’80s in materials intended for children. Don’t worry about what happened to the “Ford Team” after ’72, they got jobs with Scholastic that probably lasted until retirement.
There were complaints about the dark, cavelike accommodations for rear passengers in the ’72 Torinos, so you can see the “tombstone” high back front seats replaced by the era’s ultra-low-profile headrests along with featuring a much lighter-colored interior. Since that was the trend, the vinyl top has been lightened to match.
Ultra-low-profile headrests have been returned, but rather than the baguette shape they now have a soggy-pizza one that extends down onto the seat backrest. They’re found in the back seat and when left down they, by design, dig into passengers’ backs so that they’ll be raised into place – but when left down they leave the view out the back window unobstructed when there are no rear passengers which in many cases is the majority of the time.
True that, re. how the cartoony doll people moved to Scholastic right around then.
Being a tail-end Boomer, I grew up with Scholastic publications (like My Weekly Reader) that tried hard to look like “grown up” adult publications, only with somewhat more juvenile content. This was during a time when adult media was going through a silly period (as witnessed by the Ford Team, jingles, cartoons, etc.).
Then, in the 70s, those two trends crossed. Kids stuff got progressively sillier (e.g., the “Mini Pages” that began to supplement adult newspapers, and the Weekly Reader became mostly games and cartoons) while adult advertising took a turn for the serious and “sophisticated” (a term that has to be applied loosely to anything related to advertising).
I tried sitting in a Cadillac CT6 last month. It has drooping headrests in the front which dug into the base of my neck even when fully extended. I which someone would cater to us non-normally-shaped people.
Prefer the 72 because of the front. I don’t know if they drive any different but I would guess no. My father had a 72 Gran Torino, for about 10 months, as a company car. It was equipped with the 429 which I can tell you wasn’t all that quick for 429 cubic inches. Second, while I am 6’1″ I could not see any of the four corners of the car while driving it. Made me nervous as hell trying to gauge them in tight spaces or down the curvy Minor Rd. in Orinda. On top of that it wallowed on dips.
The 1972 design was an overweight bloated blow-fish look and the 1973 was just bad. This was such a fat design. I was impressed how Ford was able to turn it into a broughamobile with some conviction because there was really nothing formal about that fat design. The 73 kept the high rear bumper with the tail lights, and the overall look wasn’t whole.
Ford made the Torino able to have a fastback roofline, and with it, the Torino looks like a bloated fat Mustang. What is interesting is how Ford also had a formal roofline for the two door and it fit enough to again, pull off that brougham personal luxury car look that was needed.
The sedans were unsaveable. Those rear fenders forced the window line into fighting the rest of the design. It is amazing how well those ugly sedans sold.
These cars are so unusual to modern eyes. That long hood that limited vision, the C pillar that blinded drivers for any rear visibility, the high window line, the low seating, the high dash – it just was such an odd driver’s position. Even today’s Camaro is easier to see out of. Yet Ford sold MILLIONS of these cars.
The Chevelle design was better, except for interior build materials.
I get that you don’t like these cars, and I fully respect that you have the right to have that opinion. I don’t plan to convince you otherwise. I will say the example you show in your pic is not the most attractive version, and it is taken from a very bad angle. I am not trying to argue the sedans were the best looking cars ever, but for 1972 they were well received by the buying public of that time. They were considered good looking cars in 1972 when released, and in fact the PM owner’s survey confirms most people said the looks was one of the reason they bought the car.
Further, some of what you said is outright false. Maybe you are just exaggerating to make a point, but the visibility is no where near in the same league as a modern Camaro, a car I am very familiar with. In fact, as someone who has countless miles in a fastback Torino, I can say that the visibility is actually very good compared to many modern cars. Even the “thick C-pillar” doesn’t really obstruct shoulder checks, which is good because the side view mirrors are not very effective. Rear visibility on a fastback is poor, but no worse than many high back modern cars.
The seating position isn’t overly low and the dash also isn’t high. I also have countless miles in a Colonnade GM coupe and in those respects they are very similar. It’s too bad your opinion is skewing factual information.
Funny – just yesterday I was watching the movie Night Moves, in which Gene Hackman and company drive a series of early/mid 70’s FoMoCo products.
Pictured is a variation I had forgotten existed – a ’72 without the “fish mouth”. Does anybody remember what the difference was? Torino vs. Gran Torino?
Yes
The different standard Torino front end carried on to 73 as well, actually I think it looks nicer than the Gran Torino front end most recognize
Indeed, a blacked-out version of that grille with a chrome crossbar could have easily passed for a Cobra if cheap, musclecar performance was still selling in 1973.
Agreed. There is nothing downscale about the look.
That same front end was also used for 1974 Torino base models, but with the new rear styling and bumpers. In 1975, all Torinos adopted the “Gran” Torino grille.
I though the 1972 base grille looked okay, albeit, on the plain side. The 1973-74 base grille I find rather unattractive.
The 72 base grille reminds me of the 70-71 grille with a taller center section, I don’t hate it but don’t love it. I don’t love the 73-74 base grille either but I do like it better than the Gran front end
I’m almost certain this grille was inspired by the DBS, which is kind of funny given Ford’s modern usage of imitation Aston Martin grilles
I owned a ’72 Gran Torino wagon for about a year. It was a decent deal for $175.
Something I see, besides the great similarity of the two years, is that both photos are from the same angle, at the same time of day, and possibly even the same field (different spots in the field, but the same field).
The ’72 ad says ‘Fun!’ Whether the car could deliver, I’ll leave up to you.
The ’73 ad says ‘All grown up now. Nothing to see. Go look somewhere else.’
And I agree, the base Torino front was more attractive. Having the headlights and the grille in three separate holes seemed like a step back to the 1950s. Using the base Torino front with concealed headlights would have looked better.
I’m tempted to ask ‘But why did they make these things so big?’, but I know that was the American way back then.
When I check the 1972 Gran Torino, I think of Clint Eastwood movie of the same name and when I check the 1973 model, I think of the Big Lebowski, they released a while ago, some toy cars of the Torino from the Big Lebowski. https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2016/05/17/they-really-tie-the-collection-together-cars-of-the-big-lebowski-headed-to-diecast
And when I check the 1974-75-76 models, Starsky & Hutch came to my mind. 😉
Imagine if the original plan for the Bullitt cars had been followed and the bad guys had driven a 1968 Torino instead of the much more menacing, black 1968 Dodge Charger.
I wonder what that scenario would have done to values of Gen 2 Chargers today, and Torinos which despite both being collectible, the Torino not nearly as much so.
Also fun to ponder, what if the Mustang was a Barracuda!
Starsky and Hutch was my thought too.
The designer’s intent for the ‘72s was to have hidden headlamp front ends, which as we know did not come to pass. Decide for yourself if you think it would have been an improvement:
:
Bow-wow!
Not in a good way, though.
Wow, I never knew about this, I generally like hidden headlights but I’m glad they didn’t do it based on these renderings
I guess some designers wanted to recycle the 1967-69 Thunberbird front end (before the Bunkie beak) for the Torino. Speaking of the Thunderbird, when we check the beltline of the 1967-71 4-door sedan. http://oldcarbrochures.org/United%20States/Ford_Thunderbird/1967_Ford_Thunderbird/1967_Thunderbird_Brochure/slides/1967_Ford_Thunderbird-02-03.html have some remeniscences of the 1972-76 Torino 4-door sedan.
Wow, this car seems to either be a love it or hate it proposition! Didn’t know a mid-sized family car would be so polarizing. Personally I like the 1970 – 1973 Torinos. To me they are nice cars. After that they became uglier with the change in grilles and bumpers and opera windows and fender skirts that came on many. Whims to crazy 1970s fashions.
No extra charge for the RAILROAD TIE on the front kiddies!!!
And
My first car was a brand nrw ’72 Gran Torino Sport, under $3200 out the door. Had to have the 351-4v Cleveland, Hurst shifter 4 speed. Opted for bench seat due to bucket seat cost (college student at the time). Color was gold glow, which I loved however my girlfriend, now wife of 49 years never cared for. :-)) Ford did a great job with the dual exhaust, very throaty. Loved this car, babied it, never raced, wish I still had it. :-((