Bloated, overweight, slow, wallowing. These are the words often used to describe Ford’s full-size cars of the 1970s. They have been described as being the poster child for the malaise era. If one reads about these big Fords, the general commentary is that these dinosaurs have few redeeming qualities. People today must think that no one in their right mind would have willingly bought a full-size Ford from this era. Yet, these cars actually sold pretty well, right up until they were replaced by the new Panther cars in 1979. So what gives? Are these cars really that bad?
We’ve beaten the dead horse of disparaging these big Fords, and we here at CC like to look at cars from all different viewpoints. Thanks to Jason Shafer’s excellent post last week, we know some people have fond memories of these big 70s Fords. Reading his post instantly reminded me of an article on a road test of a 1976 Ford LTD that Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver wrote. His article was an interesting take on things and definitely not taken from the standard viewpoint of most Car and Driver articles. Instead of lambasting the car for its lack of driving dynamics and monstrous size, he focussed on the positives of these big Fords and the big American car in general.
Car and Driver was noted to be an enthusiast magazine generally preferring well balanced driver’s cars. However, the buff magazines have viewpoints that only align with a small percentage of the population, the car enthusiasts that love cars and love to drive. The buff magazine’s values often differ from the vast majority of the driving public both then and now. Most of the general public buy cars to use as a transportation appliance. How fast it can go from 0-60 and how many G’s it can pull on the skid pad isn’t all that important to parents just trying to shuttle kids around, or Grandpa and Grandma who just want something comfortable to get them to Florida for the winter.
I think that’s why this particular article stood out for me. Patrick Bedard took off his driving enthusiast hat for a moment, and took a look at the 1976 Ford LTD from the perspective of the people who actually purchased these cars. He focuses on what Ford did right on these cars. He describes that these Fords are the ultimate isolation chambers, loaded with (pseudo?) luxury features and comforts. Like many other things in America, these cars were taken to the extreme; these Fords were the big American car taken to the extreme. They had maximum size, maximum luxury, and maximum comfort. Ford quite frankly didn’t give a damn about metrics that weren’t part of the big American car model because they sold lots of them as is with healthy margins.
To really examine these 1970s Fords, we need to go back to its 1965 ancestor. The 1965 Ford was truly an all-new car, and it was a significant shift in Ford’s full size car design direction. The 1965 Ford had an all new stiff body structure was affixed to a light weight somewhat flexible perimeter chassis. Really the new body and chassis were essentially a unitized body sitting on two subframes connected by side rails. This was a cheap and easy solution to maximize road isolation. Road isolation had become one of Ford’s top priorities and this new body and chassis design allowed the frame to flex at the torque boxes to absorb road shock before it hit the body structure. Chevrolet had a very similar body and frame design for its 1965 cars, but most agree that 1965 Ford was the leader in its class when it came to a smooth, isolated and quiet ride. Ford continued on this trajectory as the full-size Fords evolved into these big mid-1970s versions and Ford generally remained the most smooth riding and quiet cars in its class. In fact the chassis for the 1971-78 Fords was really just an evolution of the 1965 design.
This is a 1965 Ford chassis and with minor changes. It remained the foundation of full-size Fords until 1978.
1965 also marked the year that Ford introduced the LTD. The LTD brought a big blow to the formerly well-established brand hierarchy. These Ford LTDs brought “brougham” luxury to the low price bracket and was a great way to boost profit margins on the high volume Fords. Through the introduction of the Ford LTD, no longer did one have to move up to a more expensive brand to get a luxurious car.
With the success of the LTD, Ford continued to evolve the model into the 1970s with more luxury and isolation. Of course things didn’t execute perfectly according to plan. Bean counters and safety regulations cut back the quality of materials. Plastics would replace formerly steel parts, and plastic wood was lathered on thick. The body structures weren’t as stiff as in the past, but soft springs and shocks helped with that. Ford’s Band-Aid solutions to meeting emission standards resulted in poor driveability, lesser performance and increased fuel consumption. Nevertheless, Ford wasn’t the only American car cutting these corners or facing these regulatory rules. Have you ever compared a 1965 to 1975 Cadillac? If anything, by 1975 these Fords were much closer to being a Cadillac competitor than ever before.
With all of these changes, how well did these 70s Fords hold up to its founding father? Surprisingly, there isn’t as big of a difference, at least on paper, as one would think. In the chart above you can see the test results comparing this 1976 LTD C/D road tested to Car Life’s road test of a 1965 LTD (I also included a 1970 and 79 LTD). The 1965 LTD was equipped with the 390-4V engine pumping out 300 gross horsepower compared to the 180 SAE net hp 400-2V in the 1976 car. Yet the acceleration times don’t differ by as much as one would think, especially considering the 1976 car was carrying 500 lbs of extra weight and had steeper differential gears. Fuel economy was somewhat better for the 1965 car, but the 1965 car was noted to have terrible brakes (only the deceleration rate was measured by Car Life). The 1976 LTD had a respectable stopping distance in comparison. Of course, the exterior dimensions had grown considerably by 1976 with little change to interior space and this paper comparison doesn’t show the loss in driveability.
The mid to late 1970’s was a time in automotive history of great change. The Ford LTD was part of the school of the past. The American market was finally starting to accept that luxury didn’t mean bigger is better. More and more people were willing to sacrifice that ultra-smooth isolated ride for some road feel and driving dynamics. GM was the first of the Big Three to make a big move forward with their downsized 1977 B-Bodies. Ford executives eventually realized that the market was moving in that new direction, they were just a little slower and more reluctant to make a big move like GM. So until it could release the more sensibly sized Panther platform 1979 LTD, Ford did its best to appeal to the traditional buyers of these big American cars.
There were still plenty of these traditional buyers unwilling to move to those new-fangled small boxy GM cars. Many people of the Greatest Generation were at the point in their lives where they could treat themselves to that big comfortable luxurious American car. After all, bigger is better had been long ingrained in many of that generation; have you ever seen a Duesenberg or Pierce Arrow? Growing up in harsh conditions with rough riding basic cars sure makes a big floaty car with velour seats, an AM/FM stereo radio, and automatic climate control sound appealing. Rolling down the interstate in what amounted to a rolling living room didn’t sound so bad. For many, these Fords were an affordable way to treat themselves. After years of hard work and sacrifice, they finally had a car that would allow for effortless consumption of those 55 mph speed limit interstate miles with minimal disturbance within the passenger cabin.
These Fords were the greatest and most exaggerated example of the American dream of owning a big car. Sure the competitors at GM and Chrysler followed suit with their big cars, but Ford was the ticket if this kind of car was your bag.
The Fords had higher quality interiors and a more solid feel than GM’s floppy plastic laden 1971-76 cars, while Chrysler’s cars weren’t even in the game. Yes, the Lincolns of this time had even more brougham luxury, but dollar for dollar it was hard to beat one of these Fords. If one was car shopping and did so by dollar per pound and bang for the buck, Ford delivered better than anyone else.
No longer did you have to pay Cadillac prices to get the buttery smooth ride, luxurious interior and modern luxury options. Hell, even Bedard admits that most people riding in a Rolls Royce, Mercedes and an LTD blindfolded would probably pick the LTD. And the LTD will outperform that fancy Rolls and is not far behind the Mercedes in a straight line. Finally, one could fulfill that dream of the big American luxury car and only pay Ford money!
So for a moment, maybe we can do as Bedard describes in the article. Picture yourself back in 1976 cruising in an LTD across the big open skies of the Midwest. Feel those big soft velour seats, tap the steering wheel cruise control buttons to set it at 55 mph, set the automatic climate control to 72 degrees, and point that hood westward. Now we’re living the dream! Ok, maybe I am getting a little carried away. I know these big Fords will never be on an all-time greatest car list of any sort, and despite the perspective I have taken in this article, they aren’t really my cup of tea either. Nonetheless, for many they served as durable and comfortable transportation that they were proud to own, and for that they will always be a good car in my eyes.
A special thanks to Roger628 for providing a digital copy of the Car and Driver article.
An enjoyable article, about a wonderful magazine article, about an absolutely horrible car. The Fords of that era (and, equally so, the Chevrolets) were everything about an automobile that I loathed back then, and still loathe today.
Loathe is a strong word, but I empathize. Ersatz luxury, wretched excess, wallowing, land yacht, gas guzzler, come to mind.
Yet it was a big, comfy car. It was roomier and softer riding than the GM cars.
So, if Ford took today’s base F-150 powertrain, a 2.7 Ecoboost V6 with a six-speed automatic, and replaced the 400-2V 3-speed auto, would a modern-engined 76 LTD used less fuel than a new F-150?
Probably.
And with just ABS and modern tires, it would have higher handling limits, and still have only a slightly harsher ride.
And when I was behind one in my car, I’d be able to see up ahead, rather than have my view blocked.
This is the car that CAFE killed. Are we really better off now?
I was the second owner of a 1976 LTD coupe, and the article tells it like it was. These were not cars for enthusiasts, they were for the masses who wanted a big car, fancy but not too fancy, that rode nicely (not drove nicely, that being the difference), and at a price they could afford. I remember that the car, at $5200 sticker and 5200 lbs was the $1 per pound price that would appeal to that group. In the case of the original owners, it was a nice retired couple from Pennsylvania who drove it down to Florida. I picked it up from the wife (hubby had passed on) as she was no longer driving and no family member wanted it.
Every sin one can name about it is true. But it was one of my favorite cars.
I thought they weighed in about ~4400 lbs, not 5200.
I was going off memory, and you are correct. It was around 4500 lbs, not 5200, so the list must have been around $4500 as well. I do recall finding the monroney sticker and the weight per registration was the same as the price. I guess that the 35 or so years has clouded my memory a bit.
The test weight of this 1976 LTD was 5000 lbs, as claimed to be measured by C/D.
In the late ’70s, I would have given anything to have a big ‘n sexy Country Squire instead of the awful orange ’74 Volvo 145 wagon we were stuck with
I’ll second that motion…
Now where’s my friend, Mercury6768, with his big black 73, I believe, Mercury Marguis. That car is something to behold.
I own this car’s cousin, a ’79 Lincoln Continental Town Car. I agree with the conclusions reached. Despite their flaws buyers back then were absolutely spoiled for what they could buy for the money. A rough inflation adjustment indicates a base price of $23,500 adjusted for the test car, a fraction of the aforementioned Benz and Rolls cars with many of the same attributes.
Heck, does anything today offer these attributes for $23.5k?
Chrysler 300 after incentives of course.
I still doubt that it would be that much of a great cruiser.
A good one by modern standards, sure, but by 1976 LTD standards?
Impala?
That would be my guess
I just rechecked the post-inflation price of this, and it would actually be closer to $34k.
Still hard to find anything modern and ultra-comfortable for the money.
This would be my choice at that price point.
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/778297685/overview/
2019 Toyota Avalon Limited
MSRP $43,237
5,013 miles
Dealer Price $35,991
There is also the ancestral choice to the subject car…
https://www.cars.com/vehicledetail/detail/748658892/overview/
2018 Ford Taurus Limited
MSRP $42,375
12 miles
Dealer Price $29,986
TBH at that price point the “turn the key and it goes” crowd would be looking at a crossover nowadays. Something like that RAV4 Prime one article up would be just the thing.
I have long been mystified as to how the 1965-70 versions were so structurally rigid while the 1971+ versions were not. I think these 73+ cars were somewhere in the middle, certainly better than the 71-72s of my experience.
I agree with all you say. I loved the “mechanical” feel of the Mopars, but they were – as you say – not even playing the game when it came to offering a smooth, quiet big car.
And Ford really did interiors well then, outclassing both GM and Chrysler. I loved the look of the 71, hated the 73, but by 1975 these had turned into a kind of vanilla, boring, inoffensive looking car that was neither attractive nor unattractive.
I read in a Hemmings article once that Ford dialed in some extra flex into the frame for 1971-1972, which provided an even softer ride, but caused the handling to suffer significantly. It also did no favors for the car’s structural integrity against corrosion, as you may recall most of these LTDs rusted away to oblivion by their 5th birthday if they lived in a climate where roads were salted.
The 1973-1974 and up cars were a lot better because of the stiffening of the frame required to carry the big 5 mph bumpers fore and aft. This was one instance where those big girders ended up being a good thing. It forced the engineers to fix some of the frame’s flaccid qualities.
The same complaints were voiced about the 1971-72 GM B, C and E-bodies. They were TOO flexible. For 1973, GM beefed up the bodies and frames to better handle the 5-mph bumpers.
You confirm an ancient memory of the 71 LTD frame being designed for flex as a way to soak up additional road shocks before they got to the body. In practice all it did was make the cars shudder and quake. You would have thought that Studebaker’s implementation of the idea in 1953 would have been in the minds of at least a few of the chassis engineers of the late 60s.
And one more thing: They would haul a lot of people-six, if you wanted-with relatively little loss of ride comfort. Three couples in an LTD for a night out to the restaurant would elicit positive comments; try to put the same three couples in the equivalent Torino and you would have wallowing and suspension-bottoming and unapproving glances. If you wanted to haul the goods, and the goods were human, this was the way to go.
Interesting article and commentary. Someday maybe Paul will see the light. 🙂
If this era was peak luxury barge, I’d say today is peak luxury go-cart. Perhaps I’m a product of the time I grew up in, but when I think luxury, I think spacious, smooth, and comfortable. Though this LTD is too nautical even for me, I’m just not a fan of today’s “luxury” cars that focus on performance.
As I said elsewhere, for driving down a straight Midwestern highway at 55, it’s hard to beat. I get it, and got it then.
But that was anathema to me.
Yeah, just giving you a hard time. And the reality is that is what most all of my driving is here in the Midwest which certainly influences my opinion. And yet, even here, most people now equate luxury with performance that just isn’t very well suited for our wide open frost-heaved roads. Hard seats, harsh suspension, and snug cockpits haven’t been my thing since college.
I’ve never liked these cars, and still don’t, but thanks for the counterpoint—you make very sound arguments in defence.
Great find, Vincec, I enjoyed it. Patrick Bedard’s defense of the LTD was also a fully enjoyable read. It is a strong argument for judging a car on its intent and operating environment. The contrasting perspective on what makes the interior of both the Rolls and the Ford great, and the driving experience of the Benz vs. the Ford unique, is excellent. Nice work defending a car that was designed to provide the owner with a particular experience.
That said, the description of how this car drives makes me eternally grateful that I don’t have to pilot one. A basic LE Camry from 10 years ago–the paragon of disparaging float and slop comments from the press–would feel like a BMW in comparison but still be a relaxed interstate cruiser. I suppose it is fitting that it became the best selling sedan here. It’s a modern interpretation of the “standard-size” car.
I can appreciate all cars and in how they went after their market. I like to drive all cars because each one is fun in it’s own way. Now I have ten cars but my two favorites don’t include my first and most precious car.
The Focus is quick, nimble and a terror in corners. Every road makes me feel as though I am on a SCCA track. The 67 Park Lane is not quick, nimble or a terror in corners. However, it is fast with great torque and a absolutely great freeway cruiser. With the rebuilt suspension 100 mph seems like nothing in the car. I always have a big smile on when driving this polar opposite of my Focus. Right after that my father’s 2004 Le Sabre is similar to the big Merc. You have to drive them and appreciate what they were designed for and in that field they do excel.
I would imagine the Park Lane would be a terror in corners in quite a different sense! 😉
Bedard is persuasive and most of his points are valid. However, by 1976, these cars were pretty much grocery-store jelly-doughnuts:
Big and puffy and generously sprinkled with sugar, but mostly air, and pretty skimpy on the jelly. Oh, and they were eaten very quickly and disappeared fast…eaten by rust that is.
I remember this review well.
Although many of the C&D writers may have started out being “progressive” in terms of favoring imports and other enthusiast cars in the early days, many of them went on to become rather reactionary. I seem to remember Bedard’s rantings about the many changes being pushed on cars by the government, such as improved emission, safety and fuel economy. There were lots of stereotyped rants back then about ending up in emasculated EVs. Little did they know that Teslas would be the fastest production cars.
And I’d like to dispel the commonly-held notion that C&D only liked small sporty cars and hated on big American car. They generally had a very high appreciation for big cars, and there were numerous reviews that extolled their virtues. I specifically remember Charles Fox’ review of the Conti MkII, and some others.
C&D did lobby for American manufacturers to do what they ended up doing: putting better brakes, decent sized tires and improved suspension tuning, which does not have to be at the expense of a good ride.
If my idea of a good time was driving down straight Midwest highways at 55 mph, I would have had a much higher regard for these cars.
I would like to second that Paul.
C&D (in its heyday) struck me as the enthusiast mag that was most in love with cars PERIOD. Yes they wanted manufacturers to improve them, make them better but they saw the purpose of everything from a canyon carving roaster to a muscle car to a land yacht.
Heck even when they reviewed the 2000 Buick Century they commented that (paraphrasing) that GM should stop pretending and just build “cloud” cars. Cars that would float and be isolated to the point where you would believe that you weren’t even connected to the road.
That doesn’t sound like a bunch of “haters” to me. I think they would have prefered that each brand try to forge its own identity and stop copycatting.
The funny thing is that the Oldsmobile Omega Salon used for comparison in the data tables was GM’s reaction to C&D’s prodding for improved dynamic behavior. It had worse braking performance than the two giant luxury sedans and the creampuff compact.
In 1974 we had a 66 Buick LeSabre and a friend’s family had a 74 Ford LTD. Even as teenager I was impressed by how much smoother riding and quieter the LTD was compared to our Buick. I’m surprised that the 400-2V could get this car to 60mph in 10.3 seconds, that was a pretty good acceleration for 1976 and makes me wonder if the test car had some special prep work done by Ford.
1976 was actually peak HP in net terms for the 400. 180 HP and 336 Ft-Pnds
wasn’t terribly far from the 460 at 202 and 352, respectively.
In high school I hung around with a guy who’s dad was the local Ford used car manager, and he was the car jockey. As such, he had access to a wide plethora
of vehicles to use and abuse. One night he showed up to a house party with a new ’76 LTD 400. Standing out in the street in our beer-fueled haze, people were taunting him to “lay a patch”. I stood there laughing at that foolish notion, based on the performance of another ’75 LTD 400 my friends parents had.
Then, to my astonishment, he did did indeed “lay a patch”, about a good 15 feet.
Like Roger said, ’76 was a good year for the 400 Ford. The performance out of this Ford was pretty typical of other road tests I have for full-size Fords powered by 400 engines. The C/D tested LTD did have a better than average 0-60 time, but the quarter mile was about average for a 400 Ford in a full-size Ford. FWIW, most of the road tests I have for the 460 powered LTD’s were still only in the mid 17 second quarter mile range, although the extra torque surely made them feel much stronger.
It should also be noted that Ford’s horsepower ratings were somewhat questionable during this time, despite them being SAE net numbers. So I wouldn’t put too much value into raw numbers.
As a 20 yr. old in 1975, I never understood the appeal of this type of car. Ok, the ride was supposedly smooth, but they were wallowing pigs on the road. I was young and flexible, the difference between the ride comfort of a LTD and a Pinto didn’t matter to me at all. I really didn’t notice the difference, I wanted to feel connected to the road instead.
Now, 44 yrs. later, I do notice the difference in the ride comfort of a car (or truck). A nice smooth ride is appreciated, it is like being pampered. There is more understanding of what some people really wanted in a car.
That being said, I still wouldn’t own a car like this. But I’d be happy to drive one!
Interesting observation, and definitely true. In the mid 1970s, it was getting hard to justify the price premium of a Cadillac or Lincoln, when the semi-premium models offered largely the same driving (or riding-in) experience.
Incidentally, I had the hardship of growing up in a family who preferred small, mostly imported cars, and for me in the 1970s, these big Fords were just about the antithesis of my parents’ automotive choices. As a result, I loved them.
Those squiggly little designs on the headlight doors, and on the rear panel, the wide, comfy bench seat, the dashboard with acres of fake wood, the delicate-looking steering wheel… it was all so wonderful-looking. I never drove one of these cars — which of course might have changed my impressions.
I enjoyed this review, and the appreciative viewpoint.
I had the same experience. My parents would never have bought a car like this!
What’s amusing to me — pertaining to this article — is my father’s complete detest for Car & Driver. He subscribed to Road & Track for many years… sometimes subscribed to Motor Trend, but refused to let any C&D issue anywhere near the house. Like it was some kind of illicit publication, I was forbidden from ever wasting my money on buying an issue.
Years later, I came to realize the reason was what Paul mentioned above, that C&D was generally more sympathetic to big domestic cars than were the other publications.
Just a few years ago I bought a collection of C&D magazines from the ’70s and ’80s… and I often laugh at Dad’s contempt for the magazine whenever I look through one.
R&T was very anti big cars; founder/publisher John Bond absolutely hated them and railed against them for decades. R&T just simply refused to test them, with possibly rare exception. To them, mid-size cars were as big as they should get. Which of course is how things turned out after the downsizing that started in 1977.
R&T’s mission/brand originated in the sports car boom of the immediate post-war era, so it was understandable.
C&D started out as a general-interest automotive magazine, and spiced up its editorials and contents to capture more eyeballs. Which it did.
One of the things I remember about C&D, is a long running exchange of letters on American vs. Import, by a 72 yr old American car owner & a 20 something import car owner. C&D actually brought them together, and had each of them drive their antithesis, with the result being that they came some agreement with each other. (IIRC) Edwin Schample was the 72 year old, but I can’t remember the younger man. A very interesting article. 🙂
The Edwin Schample thing was Motor Trend.
Great CC article! I could swear I’ve seen this LTD test before, I just can’t think where. I think maybe it was linked in comments somewhere. Anyway, you are right it is interesting in that CD very fairly tested it from a buyer’s point of view rather than an enthusiasts.
As a broughamaholic, I dig that LTD a lot. The interior looks so inviting!
Hovering over this for me in the national 55mph speed limit–internet says 1974-1987–following the late 1973 “Arab oil embargo.” It did make interstate driving boringly dull for those of us weaned on 70mph. Anyone here just a bit younger than me, who “learned” at 55mph and then adjusted to 70mph after the repeal?
All that said, you won’t hear me saying a word against the big Fords, even if they got “too big” at their peak. Fond memories of rolling up a lot of smooth highway miles in these.
I really enjoyed Mr. Bedard’s article. The biggest surprise is that the Mercedes was only getting about the same 13mpg highway mileage—really?
Really. The big 450SE/SEL was a gas hog. They’re not comparing it to a 240D. 🙂
Aha–I do know the difference, but was obviously not reading closely. Thanks, Paul (And very nice to have you back in these conversations)!
When I got my license it was still 55, not that I always went the speed limit.
The title of the review was probably pretty controversial at the time. Gas lines and rationing were fresh in the memories of car buyers. Cars like this that had ranges between 200 and 300 miles were one more OPEC supply game away from being suitable only for demolition derbies in the eyes of many car buyers. These were big, comfortable cars that buyers knew couldn’t always be refueled in the middle of a road trip due to scarcities and long lines; the Tesla Model S of their day.
The oil supply interruptions of the ’70s were real behavior changers. Why did a decidedly non-luxurious 240D Mercedes-Benz successfully command a higher price than a powerful, quiet, and gadget-laden Cadillac? Because it could be driven 500 miles after fuel supply became an issue. When people say that the UAW pickup and CUV makers are at risk of losing their market overnight for having abandoned efficient small cars to conform with the foot-print CAFE’s design if there should be a fuel price spike, they are wrong. The small percentage of Americans who buy new cars and trucks aren’t going to be crushed by a gas price spike. Most of them also know that the cost of dumping a fresh gas guzzler would outstrip any savings on gas. The reason all the traditional full sized cars vanished so quickly was because nobody wanted to be vulnerable to rationing and gas lines again. I wonder if the PG&E wildfire reaction will have the same impact on people who took EV subsidies at their neighbors’ expense?
These were big, comfortable cars that buyers knew couldn’t always be refueled in the middle of a road trip due to scarcities and long lines
Not true. Americans forgot about gas lines very quickly, which explains why big cars had a surge in sales starting in 1975. And trucks and big SUVs had a huge run up in sales in the 1976-1978 years. By 1977, the OPEC crisis was a very distant memory.
The first energy crisis’ impact was short lived. Gas prices didn’t really rise all that much and the actual shortages were quite short-lived.
It was the second energy crisis of ’79-’80 that really changed things for a much longer time. It wasn’t the actual shortages, which were fairly limited. It was the much larger run up in prices, and predictions that the prices would keep going up; that’s what scared folks into abandoning their gas guzzlers in droves. And impacted the car makers so significantly. It was a sea change, but of course it too eventually petered out, as SUVs and pickups started selling better and better by the mid-late 90s.
the small percentage of Americans who buy new cars and trucks aren’t going to be crushed by a gas price spike. Most of them also know that the cost of dumping a fresh gas guzzler would outstrip any savings on gas.
Tell that to all the folks who dumped their big pickups and SUVs at huge losses during the quite brief gas price run up in 2006. Old Geo metros were selling for absurd amounts.
Your take on history is very skewed, undoubtedly by your well-know extreme politics, as in your final line, which is of course only laughable:
I wonder if the PG&E wildfire reaction will have the same impact on people who took EV subsidies at their neighbors’ expense?
I’ll just add that gas prices don’t have to go up enough to cause people to dump their gas-guzzlers, to skew the replacement market back towards efficiency. Again referring to the following article on Toyota hybrid sales being up to the point where they’re supply- rather than demand-limited.
“It was the second energy crisis of ’79-’80 that really changed things for a much longer time.”
I am not so sure about this line, it was the first energy crisis that spawned CAFE, which did not take effect until 1979, IIRC. Also there was a lag in product plans which changed after 1973. Buyer behavior wasn’t changed much after 1975 because it was the same old traditional mix of vehicles (for the most part) that buyers had available to them. Only after the 1-2-3 punch of CAFE, Energy Crisis II and the new breed of auto design came together did we see changes in behavior.
But then again, by 1987 GM was selling a lot of Suburbans.
I was referring to the actual buying decisions buyers made, not the long term planning decisions the Big 3 made. His comment was about just that, that buyers weren’t going to be buying these big cars after the first energy crisis because they were afraid of not being able to buy gas for them.
The sales bump of big cars and especially trucks, SUVs and full-size vans (vans had their boom days during the ’76-’79 years) clearly disputes that assertion.
His comment was not directed at the industry but at the behavior of the buyers.
And my comment that you quoted was also primarily targeted at that, the behavior of buyers. Big cars never really came back after 1980, and smaller cars of all stripes soared. At least for some time.
You really are convinced that CAFE dictated the market behavior more than anything else?
CAFE absolutely dictated what sold. The automakers were in a position that they had to charge big premiums for cars that were powerful and heavy to offset the costs of selling fuel efficient cars nobody wanted at a loss in the ’80s. Meanwhile the market shifted to trucks for private use, since they weren’t effected by CAFE during the period.
The Mercedes-Benz diesels sold like gang-busters during the mid and late ’70s, because invulnerability to fuel availability was a luxury. Mercedes-Benz was still offering 2.8 liter gas engines in their smallest sedan in the US, but nobody bought them because they were as range-limited as Cadillacs and Lincolns.
Oldsmobile Diesels arrived for the 1978 model year and were immediate huge sellers. Was that because people missed noxious exhaust fumes? Liked paying extra for slower cars? Or was it because they remembered gas lines?
I knew a few people who paid silly money for Hondas in the seventies, having sat on waiting lists only to have to take whatever color and transmission showed up when their order came up. That’s a bigger reflection of what new car buyers did following fuel-crunch #1 than the sales of old Geo Metros to the working poor during the price spikes a decade ago.
I don’t understand CAFE defenders who say it didn’t dictate choices and cause people to buy vehicles that were inferior to meeting their needs relative to what they bought when they had free will. You don’t have to force people to make the right decisions for themselves. Command economy types are always people who think they know what is best for others to distract from their own shortcomings.
I agree with you. The first gas crunch occurred about a year and a half after I started driving (I remember cursing my bad luck as I sat in gas lines) but was quickly forgotten. The second one (which included odd-even license plate numbers for fill-ups on alternate days here in CT) brought home the idea that these events could recur. It was the second one that changed buying behavior for real.
As with economics, there are several factors that interacted with each other that affected consumer behavior.
The main ones have been mentioned above.
The one that can’t be ‘quantified’ is consumer sentiment.
Paul correctly states that starting in 1975 (I would have said 1976) sales of cars began to rebound. For one thing, the unemployment was dropping.
Large cars rebounded too. But not to 1973 levels, as the sales chart shows.
Also, I remember, pick-ups and full-size vans were “hot” in the late 1970s. Not as “hot” as personal luxury, but still, they were the ‘new thing’.
Going into summer 1979, on Long Island, gas was sixty-something cents a gallon. By the end of year, it had pretty much doubled, and it would stay in the $1.10 – $1.35 range until 1986.
At the same time, the second oil shock cause, or coincided with, another recession. Vehicle sales dropped big time starting in Sept 1979. And in 1980, we had double-digit inflation. Paul Volcker slayed inflation with record interest rates, which further fueled unemployment. THose car loans also got more expensive.
In this somber environment, people didn’t buy as mamy cars. At the same time, the big three no longer offered land yachts, as the LTD’s last model year was 1978, and the Lincoln was 1979.
Then in 1983, Chrysler’s minivan came out. It was a hit, and it became the new “Country Squire”.
In 1976, 2 years after the oil embargo and gas lines, America was relatively optimistic. The books on Vietnam and Watergate were closed, we had a new ‘people’s President’, people felt good, and bought cars again, and a lot of big ones (though not as many). 1977 and 1978 were not far behind 1973’s record 15.5 million units sold.
In 1982, 2 years after the summer of 1979, Pres Reagan conveyed optimism. But (as Billy Joel and Bruce Springsteen would point out in Allentown and My Hometown), middle America took a big hit, as a lot of UAW and Big Steel jobs that paid well vanished, never to return. These people would not be buying as many cars.
Also, in 1982, the cost of new cars compared to 1979 was MUCH higher. After 1982, price increases level off, but that $5000 car in 1979 was now about $7-8k. So that also hurt larger, domestic cars.
The Japanese, especially Toyota and Honda, were in an excellent position to capitalize on this, and they did.
People’s tastes change and are fickle. 1960s thru early 1970s, muscle cars. Mid-late 70s, personal luxury. Early mid-80s–yuppie–BMW/Saab/Audi and Mercedes. Another hit to big US cars.
In 1979 GM still had nearly half the market. In 1980, I think GM still made money! Chrysler was at death’s door. Ford was 2 steps away. Both those companies were forced to close plants permanently, and make painful changes. GM did not…but as a result of these trends, exacerbated by GM’s relatively uncompetitive line-up, GM began it’s slow death in the late 80s and twenty years later…..kaput.
CAFE certainly affected what was available for purchase. Had one manufacturer played the role FCA plays today by saying “screw the fines we are going to offer what we think customers want” we would know. But none of the American manufacturers did that, and none of the Euro or Asian manufacturers made anything remotely like the “traditional” American car in terms of size, power and price.
European and Asian offerings had long been geared to expensive fuel and environments that favored smaller sizes. All of the American cars that were being snapped up in 1980 and beyond were the result of plans being dialed in during the 1976-78 time period that was the run-up to the law’s going into effect.
The economy of 1985-89 was strong and fuel price and availability issues had resolved. Would buyers have bought cars that were decently executed updates to the 76 LTD (or the 76 Sedan DeVille) in that era? We cannot say because there were none offered. Would the SUV have developed as it did were it not for a loophole where you could build a big 9 passenger wagon with a big engine as a truck but not as a car? Again, this is unknowable
Final answer: we cannot definitively say that big cars would have come back absent CAFE. After all, styles and tastes change. We also cannot definitively say that they would not have – You cannot buy what is not being built.
Jim, a ’86 – ’89 Impala/Caprice 305 TBI did 0-60 in about 12-13 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in some 18-19 seconds. That’s extremely close to what this particularly brisk 400 LTD did.
The downsized ’77-up GM big cars were fully competitive with their predecessors in terms of space utilization. They were right-sized, and GM had already decided to downsize their big cars before the energy crisis, because the prior generation was pretty universally considered to be too large, with mediocre space utilization. And as you know, sales of the downsized GM cars had a hefty surge, until the second energy crisis.
I’m not saying that CAFE had zero impact, and I’ve never said that. But I firmly believe its impact on big cars was negligible, if any. It’s impossible to determine objectively. But the trend away from large sedans and wagons to alternate body styles (minivans and SUVs) was long and well under way, years before the first energy crisis hit. It was a secular decline, and the energy crises and CAFE played a role in hastening it. I’m utterly convinced that higher gas prices in the 80s was vastly more influential than CAFE.
By the early ’90s, the LT-1 powered big GM cars (Chevy, Roadmaster, Fleetwood) were pulling 0-60s of 7-8 seconds, and 15 second 1/4 miles. Were were all the buyers? There’s no doubt that the very few buyers who went for the last of the GM RWD cars were decidedly old (with the exception of a few Impala SS buyers). These cars sold in very small quantities.
Please note that the early minivans that sold much better than station wagons ever at their peak, and were pathetically underpowered. As were the early SUVs. You think a 350 Suburban or a four cylinder caravan were really materially faster than a 305 TBI Caprice? But that’s what folks wanted, despite their obvious limitations.
One can make good arguments that the last of the RWD big wagons were objectively better choices than those other two, but tell that to the buyers.
Paul, I agree with you on your points about CAFE and cars becoming too large. As you know, large car sales never came back, even after the fuel prices dropped. There were still lots of big cars around in 1985 if buyers wanted them.
However, your acceleration times are off. The 305 TBI engine was only used in the 1989-90 cars. I only have one road test on a TBI box Caprice, and it was a 1989 Brougham LS, so a heavier than average model. MT got a 0-60 in a slow 11.32 secs. However, this same engine, with the same horsepower was well documented to just break into the high 9 second range in the 1991 Caprice, for which there were ample road tests. The 1991 Caprice was a heavier car than the previous generation, and MT got a 1991 Caprice to run 0-60 in 9.9 secs with the L03 170 hp 305.
FWIW, the slowest 305 Caprices were the 1980-84 models, with the low compression 305s. These would run in the 12-13 second 0-60s with quarter mile times in the 18 second range that you quoted. In 1985 the higher compression 305 was introduced and the 0-60 times were typically in the 10 second range with mid to high 17 second 1/4 mile times. Even the 4.3L TBI cars could break into the 10 second 0-60 range.
I owned a 305 Caprice and a 350 TBI Suburabn. The Suburban was not faster than the Caprice, like you predicted. The 350’s torque did make it feel more powerful and it pulled up hills better though. The Suburban was substantially faster than my 307 powered Olds wagon though.
Also, as I mentioned below, this LTD has a fast 0-60 time compared to other 400 powered LTDs. However, I have about half a dozen road tests and every single 1970’s Ford sedan with a 400, seems to have run high 17 second quarter mile times. So I don’t believe this car was anything special, maybe a Wednesday car. As I also mentioned, 1976 was one of the strongest year (on paper) for the 400. If this were a 1975, it’d be considerably slower I am sure.
Thanks for those detailed performance specs. They’re coming in very handy for a CC I’m writing just now.
I was around 11 when I discovered car magazines at the base library; Road Test, Road and Track, Car and Driver and Motor Trend.
After we moved back to the US, there was a Consumer Reports I came across, and found the auto test.
By the late 1970s, I read only C/D, R&T, and CR. I felt MT was not as good as it used to be… so that was occasional. And my dad indulged me and we subscribed to C/D, starting April 77.
I was less skeptical then. I noticed that, invariably, CR 0-60 and quarter mile times were markedly slower than the ‘buff books’, when CR and CD tested the same vehicle/power train
I also noticed the often, CD times were a slight tad quicker than RT. Perhaps a little bit of rounding or writers liberty? CD was more irreverent than serious RT
This 76 LTD seems pretty brisk. Perhaps Ford massaged it. The cars the buff books test usually are checked closely by the manufacturer. It’s not like CR buying them off a lot and reporting 30 sample defects (under 20 was remarkable). And generally, my perception in the late 70s that it took a Ford 400 to keep up with a GM 350 or Chrysler 360; a 351 midsize to hang with a 305/318.
This LTD is quicker than CD tested 77 Cutlass Supreme 350, which is a surprise to me
My point is, be careful comparing performance stats from different
magazines.
FWIW, like I already posted, other than a quick 0-60 time, the performance out of this LTD is pretty standard to all other road tests I have for 400 powered LTD sedans. Most ran 0-60 in the 11 second range, but all pretty much seemed to be high 17 second quarter mile times, with trap speeds of about 76-80 MPH. Station wagons were slower though. Note that this ’76 has a lower than average trap speed. I have a road test of a ’72 LTD with a 400 than ran 0-60 within a few tenths of this ’76, but the ’72 had a significantly faster trap speed in the quarter. Much of this difference could have been due to launch techniques, weather, instrument variability, and driver skill.
In fact, looking at the power development of this engine, it’s performance makes sense. Look at the high peak toque at low RPM, and the low RPM for peak horsepower. This meant he engine will pull hard at the beginning and run out of steam at the top end. Which the performance suggest, a quicker 0-60, but by the end of the quarter it’s running out of steam resulting in a slow trap speed and average ET. I highly doubt this car was a ringer. Maybe a very well tuned car, but nothing more. This car was loaded with emissions equipment, had a smog carb and electronic ignitions with limited adjustability.
A 400 Ford generally was pretty close to a 350 in many cases, although I have a road test of a ’76 Caprice 400-4bbl that runs about the same as this LTD. However, keep in mind though that Ford used a 2-bbl carb on the 351 and 400 while GM used 4-bbls in most cases. I am not surprised at all about the Cutlass performance. I have a lot of wheel time behind 350-4bbl Olds from this era, and they were nothing to write home about performance wise.
As for the CR performance times vs the buff mags, a lot of that is the techniques used. The buff mags pride themselves at trying to get the best times possible, and will using drag racing type launches to do so. CR seems to just mash and go, resulting in slower times. Look at C/D’s street start times in their newer magazines. This simulates a street scenario where you mash and go without launching. Some cars are significantly slower from a street start due to a good launch being required for good performance times.
Whoops – it’s Paul I agree with; sorry
Having been a young and starving graduate student through much of the 70’s, I experienced, quite acutely, both gasoline shortages and observed their effects upon consumers. I agree that it was the second gas shortage that was the game changer. People quickly forget the first event, considered it some sort of market anomaly that was unlikely to return. They appreciated the increasing mileage of new cars, when it came, but generally felt like this was not a good trade-off with the decreased performance and drivability. They would have been fine with more big cars, if they just worked better. And a little better handling wouldn’t hurt. The second gas shortage, along with fears that peak oil was approaching and gas prices would continue to spiral upward, put some real fear into people and drove continued changes in the market. Free market economists talk about the consumer as if he/she is this rational being, always making decisions in ways that will benefit him or her over the long term. Careful observation of automotive market trends (count the CUV’s in the parking lot. How many of us really need 18 inch wheels and on-demand four wheel drive?), a reading of the current economics literature, and a trip to the big box store tells me otherwise.
CJSin, 240Ds did outsell the gasoline variants.
But MB was selling a total of what, 60, 70k units in the late 70s. Even if I say 100k ,it was small.
Mercedes was a ‘premium product’ and more Americans were starting to discover ‘premium’ and ‘luxury’.
So it was premium, and chic to get 26mpg, while waiting for 26 seconds to hit 60mph…
The greatest generation, or people born in the 1920s were often frugal. I knew rich people who drove…Caprices! The baby boomers wanted to flash the cash. The 1980s is when Mercedes sales (and BMW, Audi, Saab) took off.
I’ve had two, yes 2, of these. A 73 Galaxie (an LTD in all but name and interior appointments *cough fake wood and chrome tape on plastic trim cough*) and a ’77 LTD. Good cars and reliable.
They were cheap to buy, cheap to fix ($600 for a rebuilt C6 auto) and you usually got close to what you’d paid from the next buyer. They kept you comfortable on trips. The 400 in the Galaxie had some power to it and the 0-60 numbers sound right, the ’77 had a 351C that wasn’t quite as stout but didn’t make me curse it for lack of merging power. The gas mileage sounds right too. These weren’t made to autocross, but they did their job well. I think rust has killed 99% of them by now, that was a problem on both of mine.
Reminds me of how much we’ve lost in the form of thoughtful automotive criticism. C&D in its current iteration is cynical response to changes in print industry.
I will always love these cars. The spiritual ancestor to my beloved Panthers. They were all the good things about American cars in one attractive and affordable package. Big, comfortable, soft riding, lots of room for people and cargo, stylish, imposing, lots of good old American swagger, and a sweeping grandeur you could not get in a Toyota, a Datsun, a Honda, or a VW. The V-8 engines and the BOF construction were the icing on the cake. I agree with a comment from up above–CAFE did kill these cars, and no, we are not better for it. One of these with modern drive train would probably get more fuel mileage than Ford’s precious F-150 they are so damn proud of.
With all that luxury on a Ford, how on earth did Mercury last as long as it did?
The LTD Landau largely used the Mercury Grand Marquis interior. In ’76 Ford moved 64,000 Landaus to Mercury’s 27,000 Grand Marquis, but with Mercury’s higher base price and likely higher sales of high end options, the incremental Mercury sales at higher average transaction prices kept the big Mercury around long enough to enjoy a relative sales surge in the 1980s, eventually outselling the big Ford!
Mercury survived because it did not share a dealership network with Ford, in most locations. The base model Marquis was priced and equipped to be comparable with the LTD and sold only in Lincoln-Mercury stores. Ford of course had their own separate dealer network. Customers in that market tended to buy one or the other depending on the brand of their nearest dealer.
Are you Canadian? I understand that Ford Motor Company stores could be scarce and that either the Ford or Mercury brand could dominate an area.
In the seventies, living in a metropolitan area of about 800,000 we had one exclusive Lincoln-Mercury store, and several Ford stores.
Mercury’s raison d’être was there was a thriving “middle price field” in post war America through the 1980s. GM frequently did very well in this area with Pontiac, Oldsmobile and Buick. Mercury usually struggled in comparison, but Ford was likely loath to simply give up on Mercury and admit defeat to GM. And, at times, Mercury did pretty well selling what was often essentially a high trim Ford.
Ford made up some of the weakness of Mercury by selling high end Fords, putting an endless question to the existence of Mercury. The 1958+ Thunderbird, the 1965+ LTD and the Country Squire wagon were essentially a middle price field for Ford.
In the model year in question, 1976, the base Ford LTD and base Marquis were similar, but buyers were generally reluctant to fork out a $300 price premium for the Marquis. Ford moved 200,000 LTDs to 40,000 base Marquis, a ratio of 5:1. Mercury generally did better in relation to Ford in top trim cars – where prestige matters more, the ratio of LTD Landau to Grand Marquis was 2.3:1.
Ford and Mercury stores were not always exclusive. I bought my 1987 Mercury Grand Marquis at the long closed Bob Anderson Ford-Mercury in Missouri Valley Iowa, and the sticker below is on one of the Fords in my driveway…..
Wow, the ’76 LTD has truly had its day at CC. Combined with last week’s coverage of this generation / refresh of the full-size Ford, I’ve been cruising I-80 at 55 in the Midwest – memory lane considering I literally learned to drive in the ’76 LTD and lived / still live in the Midwest.
Ours was the somewhat plain base model LTD with the 351 that really only had two options; air-conditioning (manual) and an AM radio. It was my Dad’s car.
I think he always felt he under-bought, he’d become a bit spoiled with his high trim / optioned 455 Oldsmobile Delta-88 Royale company cars. He spoke frequently of trading up to a LTD Landau before depreciation completely took its toll.
While a $7,500 loaded Landau was quite a value in full on luxury, and looking back it makes the Lincoln Continental and Cadillac DeVille look almost silly at north of 10K for what you got, the mid-trim LTD Brougham was an awesome value. It probably would have satisfied my Dad a lot more and come in somewhere around $6,500.
From the article, the 400 appears to solve what our flaccid 351 could not, the Brougham interior was 90% of the Landau, and just adding a split front seat, tilt, cruise and an FM stereo would have been very welcome additions to our car.
We had the interior at the bottom, same shade of blue. The Brougham interior pictured at the top would have been first class in middle class Midwest.
I saw one just like this one on the road last week; it was even the same color, sans vinyl top, and it was in immaculate condition! 🙂
I know the greenhouse on the coupe is controversial, but it works for me and Ford moved 111,000 of them in 1976. It is just too “seventies” to not give it some love!
I have fond memories of my own 1973 LTD 2-Door Hardtop as I have shared here many times. I learned to drive in it when it was the family car, and then it became mine when I graduated high school in 1978.
From personal experience, I’ll agree with some above that the second gas crunch had a bigger impact on consumer choices than the first one. It made me choose a smaller fuel efficient car (‘79 Futura), but considered a used ‘78 LTD Landau at the time.
Thanks for sharing this article Vince. It’s nice to see these cars got some love back in the day. My friends teased me back then, but if we were all driving more than 50 miles away, like the 3 hour trip from Baltimore to Ocean City, was it Kirby’s Mustang, Jeff’s Javelin, Roy’s Celica GT, or Anita’s Monza Spider making the trip? Heck no. It was Rick’s LTD. Everyone knew it was the comfortable one. 😀
The reason my Dad bought it back in ‘73, was that we took many long road trips, and this car was THE quintessential interstate cruiser. He was a Chevy man, but could not deny that this was a better car than the Impala of the day.
Wondering, am I the first to remember Hugh Downs, advertising Ford LTD, using the phrase: “Your mileage may vary”?
Thanks all for the great feedback and discussion on the article!
The is a Curbside Classic CLASSIC!
Great discussion here–and I had never seen that LTD road test–bonus.
C/D did a road test comparing the new 73 Cutlass Colonnade sedan vs the new Mercedes 450SE–and had their predecessors in a side bar.
One of my favorite C/D articles of all time.
Has that been shown here?
The is a Curbside Classic CLASSIC!
Great discussion here–and I had never seen that LTD road test–bonus.
C/D did a road test comparing the new 73 Cutlass Colonnade sedan vs the new Mercedes 450SE–and had their predecessors in a side bar.
One of my favorite C/D articles of all time.
Has that been shown here?
Yes, that Car and Driver article was reviewed in April 2016:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/vintage-review-1973-oldsmobile-cutlass-salon-versus-1973-mercedes-450se-no-joke-car-and-driver-compares-a-colonnade-to-an-s-class/
Thanks! And I commented in it….
Another memorable C/D was Dec 1976. The ‘new’ BMW 320i, which I thought was THE car (though it was pricey), and the ‘new’ T-Bird (which I found entertaining) and the Cosworth Vega.
I worked at an Maremont’s exhaust and shock absorber R&D facility back in ’76-’77 when VW was looking for an exhaust system supplier. VW’s exhaust system engineers flew out to spend a couple of weeks checking out our prototypes for fit, output, and noise levels on German Rabbits on our dyno and 1/4 mile test track. The company car we ferried them around in was a ’75 LTD. At first I think they were amused at its size and “broughamness” but after a few days of of spending eight or ten hours a day flogging small, noisy Rabbits I think they relaxed at the end of the day when they were taken out to dinner in that massive, quiet LTD.
I’m really surprised that the straight-line performance between ’65 and ’76 is so close. Even taking the gross to net horsepower calculation into consideration, the ’65 still has about 55 more HP by my calculation. And the ’65 has the steeper rear differential ratio at 3.00; had the ’76 had the same ratio, the acceleration runs would have been closer still.
There are a few things at play. First off, the 1965 car has a 300 gross hp rating. Based on the performance of these 300 hp 390-4Vs, I’d say that this engine was likely overrated to begin with. This engine was not a strong performer, and this test I selected is pretty reflective of it’s performance.
Secondly, we are only looking at peak power, not the entire power band. You must consider the “area under the curve” more than just peak power. The later 400 was tuned for low RPM power. The high compression 390-4V was stronger at high RPM than the 400, which was strangled by the small carburetor, low compression and retarded cam timing. However, the 400 likely was significantly stronger at the low RPM, which helps to compensate for this lack of peak power.
We can see a similar example with modern Ford trucks. The 3.5 EcoBoost was rated at 365 hp when released, but due to it’s ample low end power could out perform other engines with significantly higher peak hp ratings,
As I’ve mentioned before, I own one of these cars , a ’77 Mercury Marquis. I agree with the article and most comments here. My Mercury’s ability to absorb road imperfections, vibration and bumps, with comfortable, quiet poise is amazing, and superior to almost anything else. It’s even more impressive considering the relatively primitive suspension engineering. Of course it’s at the cost of anything resembling handling prowess. The car’s capacity for fast cornering or emergency manoeuvres is very low. At the time, the downsized B-body was a much more capable machine.
If Lee Iacocca’s biography is to be believed, the blame for this lies with Henry Ford II’s wholesale slashing of R&D spending in the mid-1970’s. This ill-advised manoever put Ford’s new model development three years’ behind GM, and placed them at a significant disadvantage. The existence of this LTD in a market shared with the far- superior B-body is a direct result.
I am late here with an actual comment on the article itself, but thanks for this. I enjoy these “time machine” looks into how these cars were perceived when new. Especially in an era when I was just beginning to get a driver’s exposure to cars, and anything fairly new would have belonged to a parent or an employer.
I was not a fan of these at the time, much preferring either the higher-up Marquis and Continental, and especially the Mopars. But as much as I liked the more mechanical feel of the Chryslers, I have come to appreciate the way nobody could make a highway cocoon like the Ford Motor Company of the 1970s.
To quote Einstein: “Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by it’s ability to climb a tree, it will live it’s whole life believing that it is stupid.”
These cars were never going to cruise the Autobahn or the Ginza for that matter. Engineers, given a set of parameters, will usually do a pretty good job of devising a machine that works to those parameters. While our conditions in North America are rather diverse, these things are suited for our style of driving.
My German cousins used to give me crap about American cars, but I really wouldn’t have wanted to drive an Audi 100 across the midwest back then, either. I just did it a couple of years ago in a 2016 Chevy Malibu and it was one of the greatest drives I’ve done in the last decade. I’m sure if I had taken a contemporary Audi or Honda the drive would have been just as good, but it seems to me that USDM cars have come a long way
I still have my 1976 Ford LTD Landau I love driving it when I get a chance. Have a 1979 Mercury Cougar XR7 and I love driving a car too I always get thumbs up from driving either one of them
Sorry – I luv em.