My dad has been a passenger on many of my automotive journeys, but there’s one that certainly made him ill-at-ease, and that’s when I bought my first General Motors product. He didn’t bash me or make too many disparaging comments, but watching his son shopping across the aisle from the Blue Oval offerings he raised him to love was certainly one of those moments where a parent needs to remind themselves that they rear us to be independent and not mere facsimiles. Years before that, when I was hesitant that it would be OK to like GMs and Mopars, I had resigned myself to a life of choosing what Fords I’d buy when I had enough money to do so someday; therefore, it was natural that I had to weigh the 1972 and 1973 Gran Torino Sport in the balance (only the SportsRoof, never the hardtop). Upon seeing these pictures of this 1973 model that Hyperpack posted in the Cohort, I had to again face my conflicted emotions, because to this day, I’m not sure how I feel about Torinos.
Most people immediately point to the ’73 Gran Torino’s front bumper, the first in a long line of poorly executed five-mile-per-hour units that Ford would graft to the front ends of their 1970s products, as the object of their derision. While this one is certainly not as egregious as the protuberances found on mid-1970s Mavericks and Comets, it does make one wonder how Ford would have handled the 1973 facelift if the designers were able to have their way. The nose itself is certainly more inoffensive and “Ford-like” than the 1972 offering, but it also lacks that car’s distinctive personality.
Leave it to the charismatic Uncle Tom McCahill to sum it up in a way that somehow manages to offend both Ford lovers and StarKist: He thought that the ’72 Torinos looked like “land-locked tunas sucking air.” (Author’s note: CC author Vince C. has pointed out that this is a misattribution; CARS magazine actually made the comment.) It’s certainly a pessimistic way of looking at it, but I think time has declared the ’72 model the winner in any impromptu discussion of the relative merits of it and the similar ’73. The bumper is intricate and lithe, and the wide, shallow hood scoop is better than the flat, almost featureless hood of the ’73. Besides, if the ’72 looks like a tuna, it’s the angriest tuna you’ve ever seen; if you’re going to build an aggressive-looking car, build an aggressive-looking car.
The 1973 model’s new nose, as comparatively featureless as it was, didn’t have that much of a deleterious effect on sales, and there were certainly other factors at work, including changing customer preferences from muscular mid-sizers to plush ones. In 1972, Ford moved 60,794 Sport SportsRoofs (a mouthful) and 31,239 Sport Hardtops; in 1973, those numbers fell to 51,853 and 17,090 respectively. Those are impressive figures, but more telling perhaps is that the standard Gran Torino two-door hardtop sold 132,284 in 1972 and 138,962 in 1973.
The Gran Torino Sport could be as sporty as you wanted it to be in either model year, with engines ranging from a base 140-horsepower 302 (a little less in 1973) all the way to 351 Cleveland four barrels and 429s. It was possible to order a fairly potent Sport with a 351 Cobra Jet and a four speed in either model year.
But back to the styling. My dad once (or twice) mentioned that he shopped Gran Torino Sports when they were introduced in 1972; he ended up buying a repossessed ’71 Mach 1 instead, but the Torino is certainly the kind of car he would have liked at the time. Part of my conflicted opinion of them stems from the fact that the rear three-quarter view looks so heavy compared to its General Motors counterparts (even the Colonnades), but on the other hand, it’s styled so dramatically that it just about pulls it off. The swept up quarter panel and bisecting bodyline increase the height of the rear to create the effect, but it would be so bland without them that I can’t think of any way it could have been done much better. It’s certainly written in Ford’s early ’70s design language, and honestly, I can’t think of anything that Ford did in the ’70s (Mustangs notwithstanding, and some would disagree with that) that looked any better.
Interestingly, Hollywood has reinvigorated the ’72 Gran Torino Sport’s popularity in the 21st century through such vehicles as Fast & Furious and Clint Eastwood’s Gran Torino, but a little known chase scene in Fear Is The Key (starring Barry Newman from Vanishing Point, remember him?) put a ’72 SportsRoof through the wringer when it was brand new. A few jumps created a boomerang of a Torino in profile, which didn’t do anything for its appearance.
The rear end of the ’73 model was updated only slightly from those initial ’72s; a rubber strip and protruding bumper guards added a couple inches of length, but they didn’t make the bumper look any better.
Again, the ’72 model is a little cleaner from this angle without the extra black trim. Is it just me, or did the ’73 Satellite/Road Runner take a little inspiration from the Torino? And is there a barely, vaguely European feel about the SportsRoof from this vantage point?
When I was a kid, I would vacillate between liking the ’72 and the ’73 better, and because I’ve always been like I am, I would really need to have one of each to be truly happy.
But these days, I’d have a hard time not choosing a ’72 Sport SportsRoof with the laser stripes. Of course, in the back of my mind, I would know that there are Buick GSs and Oldsmobile 442s just across the aisle, and I would have to take a much closer look at them before making up my mind. Sorry, Dad.
Related Reading
Auto-Biography, Part 1: 1972 Ford Torino · A Torino, Fathers, and Sons by Vince C.
Auto-Biography – Part 2: 1972 Ford Torino – A Tale of a Torino, Fathers and Sons by Vince C.
Curbside Classic: 1972 Ford Gran Torino Sport SportsRoof – Do You Feel Lucky, Punk? by Tatra87
Parking Lot Classic: 1973 Ford Torino Sport – Shopping With Mom by Rich Baron
A friend of mine has a 72. A barn find he came across a few years ago. My mom had a 72 4 door “pillared hardtop”, which she bought new, and drove for 9 years. So, yup, I have a couple Gran Torino connections.
I suppose if the fish-mouth hadn’t been popular and the bumper standards failed in Congress, the ’73 Gran Torino facelift would’ve been a matter of a new, more complex, chromey and elegant grille pattern insert in the ’72 non-Gran sheetmetal. Quick, cheap and easy second-year zhuzh-up.
Aesthetics are subjective, but I much prefer the 1972 SportsRoof compare to a GS or a 4-4-2. That swept up quarter panel and the curve of the roof flowing to the tail seem more cohesive to my eye than the GM products.
The front grill was perhaps excessive; certainly it was very characteristic.
Ford toned it down excessively in ’73 and combined with the loss of hood scoops, it gives a much more bland and generic appearance, not helped at all by the bumper
On the other hand, I do not mind the 1973 rear; the ’72 was perhaps too plain
“72 All the way for me!. I do like the ’73 rear bumper better, though. IIRC, Car and Driver stated that for ’73, “Ford chromed a rail road tie and stuck it on the front end!” 🙂
I can’t help but wonder if those are Pinto tail lights turned upside down.
They were not. They look similar in styling but are completely different parts and do not interchange. The Torino lights are sunken in, while the Pinto’s protrude and have chrome bezels.
Very similar to the Maverick, as well. So similar, in fact, it’s very odd that Ford did ‘not’ use interchangeable lenses between all three models, given how penny-pinching both Ford and GM were with other, much less cost-effective cheapening.
I’m 90% sure Pinto and Maverick ones did interchange.
This is a debate my father and I have had for many years as well, mainly because, as you know, he bought a 1972 Gran Torino Sport brand new. In his case, he said that he likely would not have bought a Torino in 1973 due to the drastic change to the front end of the car. Part of what really sold him on the 1972 styling was the grille. He said it reminded him of both a classic Ferrari and the 1972 Camaro RS front end. He would have seriously considered a 1972 Camaro, but the car was too small to carry adult rear passengers with any modicum of comfort. I, on the other hand, thought the 1973 Gran Torino Sport Sportsroof was an okay-looking car, and more sporty-looking than a 1973 Chevelle SS or Laguna. While I greatly prefer the 1972, the 1973 was not an unattractive car in my eyes, despite its rather blunt front bumper, which was applied somewhat hastily.
Your point about the 1972/73 rear three-quarter view looking heavy is true, although this is greatly exacerbated by the vinyl top on the Sportsroof models. I would argue the vinyl top does not work very well with the fastback roofline and makes the rear end of the car look heavier and more awkward. I think the looks are far better without the vinyl top. Thankfully, in 1972 when my dad was ordering his Torino, he did not select the vinyl top, as he liked the black top on the red car. However, he knew that vinyl tops created rust problems, and this was the reason he avoided it.
One little point of contention for me on your article: it seems old Uncle Tom is oft misquoted when it comes to the 1972 Gran Torino Sport. I have his article on the 1972 Torino, and he road tests a Sportsroof model with a 351CJ. He says this of the styling: “the gaping grille looks a little like it was patterned after Namu, the killer whale,” but also stated that the Torino had “kind of pleasing, no-nonsense styling.”
The Landlocked Tuna reference was from Cars magazine. While their road test article on the 1972 Gran Torino Sport is relatively positive—where they call the styling very “hairy”—the attached article is an overview of 1972 muscle cars that has the infamous “land locked tuna sucking air” comment. Clearly, whoever wrote this short article did not like the styling of the 1972 Torino.
Thanks for the image of the Cars article, Vince! My materials have failed me! I’ll change the text when I get a chance.
I think this 3/4 view looks much better than the subject car, mainly due to the lack of a vinyl top. The chrome strip on the trunk lid edge also improves the rear end looks compared to the more plain red car in the article, which does not have the chrome trim.
Did GM offer the Tempest in England as a 1972 model? I thought it was cancelled after the 1970 model year.
The comments regarding the type of aquatic animal have it all wrong. (IMHO)
Washing my wife’s CX-5 one day it came to me where I’ve seen that look before… not the Killer Whale or a Tuna, but either a Whale Shark, Basking Shark, or some type of Baleen Whale.
I’m not being derisive, as I think the CX-5 has style for miles, and that big baleen is one of its nicer styling elements.
Enter Vince’s ’72 Torino. I have ALWAYS liked these and have said so on these pages many times. To quote Clint Eastwood from the movie Gran Torino, “Ain’t she sweet”.
Then it dawned on me then why I like the CX-5 so much… I’ve seen that styling element somewhere before… You all be the judge…..
My dilemma is this: do I pick the gorgeous 70-71 Torino despite its thin feel and squeaky Falcon suspension design? Or the 72-73 that is superior in almost every physical way except for its styling that was clearly inspired by an overinflated pool toy. I guess the only answer is a Satellite or Charger. 🙂
Ah ha, so the canary in the suspension wasnt a Ford OZ only feature, turn the stereo up and it goes away, earlier Torino styling is better I saw one on Sunday at a show.
It is the 72 all the way for me. Never cared for the grille on the 73 when I first saw it in 73. Have driven a 72 429 once as it was a temporary company car for me father before the Porsche 991E company car. My impression on driving it? Could use less sway in curves and the 429 wasn’t the 429 of previous years.
Do you know what year Ford retarded the cam timing on the 429? If it was ’72, you probably could have awakened one pretty easily.
For me, as I’ve stated here many times before, it’s the ’72 over the ’73 for sure. As I mentioned above, the “baleen” of a grill on the ’72 makes the look, and the ’73 just seems off. That, and the fact that ’73 was the year in between, wherein you had to have the big bumper in the front, but not out back until ’74. This all works against the ’73 because it looks out of balance (to my eyes anyway).
By the Starsky and Hutch years (’74 to ’76), it was back to being of a cohesive design again. I even liked the Elite being a brougham fan in those days, although I wasn’t wild about the single headlight treatment out front of that truly ‘Grand’ Torino.
The Pinto wore the cow catchers better. The battering rams killed this and the Mavericks looks.
Yes. I think the 72 looks MUCH better. However, when I opened the page to the Blue 73 Feature Car, I studied it for a few moments and thought, yea, that’s a pretty decent looking car. And it IS, BUT when you THEN see a 72, the 73 almost disappears, as the 72 has so much more style.
Of course, if we’re ONLY judging on looks, the 70/71 is So much better looking front to back, top to bottom, inside and out.
That’s funny, Terry, and it goes to show how subjective beauty is…I’d take a ’72 over a ’70 or a ’71 any day.
This is where I land.
I’ve had several 72 or 73 Gran Torino Sports over the years. This one is being built as what Ford should have done in 72.
351C stroked to 393 cubic inches. 10.7:1 compression, roller valve train. 477 dyno’ed hp and 513 lb ft of torque (built for torque and not high rpm hp), TKO 5 speed manual, 3.55:1 Traction-Lok. 12″ Thunderbird brakes in front and CV Police rear brakes. 1.125 Front sway bay with .625 rear. The car idles at 700 rpm, accelerates, stops, and turns WAY better than any 72 built.
I never liked Ford’s styling in general much, and this generation of Torino was like they had taken the ’67-72 Chevelle and “Forded it up” (We didn’t say Ford, we said another word), the back did look at lot like my ’74 Satellite/Roadrunner. It always seemed to me Ford would take a great looking basic design, and do what they did to it and mess it up. I thought the GM A bodies were pretty great looking, vastly better than anything Ford had done since the original Mustang, which I wasn’t really a fan of. Along with the A body GM cars, the ’68-70 B Body and ’70-74 E Body Mopars were at the top, styling wise, I thought the ’71-74 Satellite and Roadrunner were pretty great looking, too. This is a duplicate of the first car I bought, a “Silver Frost Metallic” Roadrunner with red stripes:
I’ll take any 1972-79 Torino/Ranchero, as long as it has bucket seats, but I’m with you on the ’72 versus ’73 debate. If the ’73 has smaller bumbers, it would win the styling contest hands down IMHO, but the newer “73 grille is there solely to accommodate the Federal “Bash Beam” bumpers. Ironically, the Feds dialed back the number standards when Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules were adopted, from 5 mph to 2.5 mph, as the heaver bumpers made it harder to comply with the CAFE standards, due to the extra weight they forced the car to carry.
The ’75-’79 examples, however, wore faces only a mother could love, with the vertically stacked quad rectangular headlights and baroque bumpers and cheek pouches for the turn signals that made those cars look like a gerbil or hamster that had just finished stuffing its face full of sunflower seeds, LOL! The ersatz Mercedes grille that those cars wore didn’t help matters any! Ford wasn’t fooling anyone with the big, baroque chrome grille grafted onto the front of those cars. The only reason to like the later examples is the fact that these were the next-to-last full frame cars Ford made before uni-body FWD cars almost completely took over Ford’s product line. Only the Panther full-size platform held onto its frame for longer, until the Crown Victoria Police Interceptor was finally retired in 2011.
This is not true. The bumper standards were weakened in 1982, after CAFE had been in effect for five years, and not all manufacturers adopted the weaker 2.5 mph bumpers the relaxed regulations permitted.