Since the 1990s, the car magazines of the world have pushed the idea that serious luxury cars must have rear-wheel drive. However, there have been plenty of luxury sedans that gained little or nothing from RWD. Lincoln’s bustleback 1982–1987 Continental was the last RWD Continental to date, but it wasn’t nearly as successful — practically or commercially — as its lighter, roomier FWD successor.
If you’ve looked at any automotive forum in the past 25 years, you’ve no doubt seen that some people still have very strong negative feelings about front-wheel drive. The comments in any article talking about FWD or FWD cars will inevitably have at least a few people complaining about “wrong-wheel drive” and insisting that FWD spoils handling, performance, and even proportions. In the sports car or luxury arenas, car magazines eventually started dinging almost any competitor that didn’t put at least 50 percent of its power through the rear wheels. Those same magazines invariably attributed the commercial decline of big domestic luxury models like the Lincoln Continental to their failure to adopt (or revert to) a “proper” RWD platform like BMW or Mercedes-Benz.
In the ’80s, the picture looked quite different. Except for certain high-end sports and GT cars, rear-wheel drive was regarded as legacy hardware, and automotive pundits of that time often saw it as old-fashioned. Of course, few car magazines back then would have said anything very negative about BMW or Mercedes for retaining RWD, but when it came to domestic cars other than the Corvette, RWD was mostly associated with models that either hadn’t yet been modernized or were holding out against it.
The 1982–1987 Continental fell into both of those categories. It was — in concept if not in name — a successor to the profitable but unloved 1977–1980 Lincoln Versailles, offering traditional American luxury in a somewhat smaller package. When this Continental was developed, Ford Motor Company had been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, so an all-new platform was out of the question. Thus, the bustleback Continental was yet another variation of the versatile 1978-vintage Fox platform, with unitized construction, modified MacPherson struts, RWD, and a solid rear axle.
By the standards of the early to mid-1980s, there was really nothing wrong with the Fox platform, although when the 1982 Continental arrived, critics like Consumer Guide grumbled that its suspension was “basically what you’d find under a Fairmont.”
Lincoln addressed that from 1984 on by giving the Continental and the new Mark VIII a complex electronic air suspension (EAS), which substituted flexible rubber air springs for steel coil springs both front and rear. The EAS was computer-controlled, with a three-sensor four-wheel self-leveling system.
While many Fox-platform cars (including most V-8 Mustangs) had rear drum brakes, the Continental had four-wheel discs and Hydro-Boost as standard equipment. A Teves four-wheel antilock system was added to some models from 1985, becoming standard across the line for 1986.
These were not bad pieces, and as the Mark VII LSC demonstrated, they could be the ingredients for a very competent sports-luxury car. However, Lincoln didn’t even try to do that with the bustleback Continental. On the sedan, the big selling point for the EAS was that it allowed an even softer ride without impairing load capacity. The standard EAS wheel rates were only 54 lb/inch in front and 64 lb/inch in back, over 30 percent lower than the already marshmallow-like steel springs on the 1982–1983 car. This was not a recipe for handling precision, but that was obviously not the goal.
Given the character and objectives of the bustleback Continental, the bigger problem the Fox platform presented was that it was somewhat heavier and less space-efficient than the latest FWD platforms. Base curb weight of the 1982 Continental was 3,563 lb, which was on the hefty side for its era and contributed to lackluster gas mileage except in straight highway cruising. (Since buyers were still uneasy about gas prices during the recession, Lincoln-Mercury briefly offered Ford’s new 3.8-liter V-6 as a no-cost option in 1982.) By 1987, the ever-growing standard equipment list had added a further 236 lb to the total, making the Continental only about 250 lb lighter than the much bigger Lincoln Town Car.
Despite its bulk, the Continental was not outstandingly roomy. It was adequate, but this was a luxury sedan, not a personal luxury car or a sporty coupe, and its interior space was unimpressive for a car this size.
Underwhelming performance was another consequence of the heft: Although the 302 engine now had EEC-IV digital controls and, from 1986, multiport fuel injection and roller lifters, it still had only a so-so 150 hp, and the sedan wasn’t offered with the high-output version from the Mark VII LSC. (The engine in the 1987 Givenchy car pictured here has been modified with an assortment of aftermarket parts, which is easy enough to do, but not something I think most of the original clientele would have contemplated.)
If you liked this kind of luxury, didn’t care about 0 to 60 times or sporty handling, and only occasionally carried adult passengers in the back seat, none of this was necessarily a problem, but it left the Fox-body Continental in an increasingly difficult commercial position. Once the recession was over and gas prices came down, Lincoln buyers mostly decided they’d rather have a Town Car, which offered the size and space customers in this class expected and wasn’t really any thirstier — in 1986–1987, both models had the same EPA mileage numbers (19 mpg combined adjusted).
By 1985, even Consumer Reports and Consumer Guide now ignored the Continental almost completely to concentrate on its sportier, sexier Mark VII sibling. Continental sales weren’t calamitous (given the shared platform and high prices, I think Lincoln still made a decent profit on this car), but they were very weak compared to the Town Car. The best year for the bustleback Continental was 1984, when an improved economy and a mild facelift had boosted sales to 30,468. However, that level wasn’t sustainable, and within two model years, sales had dropped below 20,000 units a year. Total production for 1982 through 1987 was a lackluster 136,069 cars.
How much of that could be blamed on the Continental’s neoclassical styling is arguable. Judging by the sales figures, buyers weren’t blown away by the bustleback Imperial or bustleback Seville either, but it probably didn’t help that the Continental was a bit too small inside and out for Lincoln traditionalists while being too soft and thirsty for buyers who weren’t already domestic luxury aficionados. (The Mark VII, by contrast, was at least trying to attract a new type of customer who hadn’t previously shopped this brand.) The Continental was also rather pricey: A base 1987 sedan started at $25,484 (a relative worth of almost $82,000 in 2025 dollars), while this Givenchy Designer Series started at $27,899 (a relative worth of almost $90,000 today).
For 1988, Lincoln left the Fox platform to the Mark VII and introduced a new FWD Continental based on the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable platform, with a transverse V-6 engine, fully independent suspension, and electronic damping control. Although it was actually 4.4 inches longer than the Fox-platform car it replaced, the FWD Continental was about 150 lb lighter — enough lighter, regrettably, that Ford decided it could get by with the underpowered, head-gasket-eating 3.8-liter V-6. The new Continental’s ride was as cossetting as ever, and its overall composure benefited from the big reductions in unsprung weight.
The FWD Continental was still not a driver’s car, and I don’t recall any of the enthusiast magazines being more than lukewarm about it, but front-wheel drive paid dividends in interior space. There was now room for three adults in back, plus a generous trunk and all the usual luxuries. It was not likely to talk anyone out of an Acura Legend, much less a BMW 535i, but for the kind of car the Continental was intended to be, FWD served it better than the RWD Fox platform, and it sold much better than the RWD car had. Continental sales more than doubled from 1987 to 1988, and they remained pretty solid until close to the end of this generation in 1994.
Big, modern FWD domestic luxury sedans didn’t ultimately have a very bright commercial future, hampered by the shift to SUVs, older traditional buyers aging out of the market, and the decades-long erosion of the domestic makes’ badge cachet. That didn’t mean that big FWD cars lacked virtues — if you were more interested in stretch-out room and comfort than in canyon-carving, they made a lot of sense, and could still be very satisfying to drive at a more relaxed pace.
RWD can (emphasis: can) offer better balance and better ultimate cornering ability, and it involves fewer compromises than FWD when it comes to very powerful engines. However, RWD also imposes penalties in weight and packaging efficiency that aren’t always worthwhile, and not all RWD cars handle well, or try to. FWD, RWD, and AWD each have trade-offs, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. It’s a matter of horses for courses — and not every car (or even every luxury car) needs to have 400 hp or handle like an BMW 5-Series, no matter what the car magazines may tell us.
Related Reading
1984 Lincoln Continental Mark VII Turbo Diesel: American Luxury, BMW Power (by Aaron65)
1985 Lincoln Continental Valentino Edition: ‘Jewel Box Beauty’ or Styling Failure? (by Stephen Pellegrino)
Curbside Classic: 1987 Lincoln Continental – Last Of The Bustleback Breed (by Eric703)
Curbside Classic: 1988-94 Lincoln Continental — Continental Drift (by William Stopford)
In late 1985, my father bought his first Lincoln in several years – a one-year-old 1984 Continental much like this one, painted a two-tone silver and gray. I recall not liking it very much at the time. As a young guy excited over my then-new VW GTI, I found the soft air suspension almost scary in the way it undulated over dips in the road. And I agree that the car felt quite small inside. I could acknowledge, however, that it felt very solid and well built and was trimmed very nicely. Better, in my eyes, then the 80 Town Coupe that had been Dad’s previous Lincoln.
Four decades on, I like these far better now than I did then. The basic goodness of the Fox platform shines through for me, though I still don’t love the styling. History says that the FWD Continental was more successful, but I believe that this version was the better car.
The 1988 Continental was on Car and Drivers “10 Best List” in, and only in, its inaugural year. The car was handsome, with a crisp, understated elegance but was shockingly unreliable. The suspension, transaxle and engine failed often, sending their resell value tumbling. Make mine an ’83 with the underwhelming but bullet-proof 302.
I wanted to really like the ’88 Continental; it had a great, modern design that seemed classy but also current. Alas, the Taurus/Sable donor components were half-baked. My sister’s ’87 Taurus, while a marvel compared to her previous ’83 Crown Victoria, fell apart within 2 years with mechanical maladies. You would have thought Ford would work out the kinks stat, but sadly it didn’t. My mom’s ’91 Sable suffered several similar problems; warped rotors, failed ABS sensors…I could go on. These experiences are part of the history that put my generation off of domestic vehicles.
Ford stuff of the era was notoriously unreliable, even the simple ones like the Fairmont. My family made a lot of money fixing them, but most Conti owners moved on to more reliable brands like Lexus.
We had three of these in my wife’s family.
Paul (FIL) started with a base 83, which he never had a single issue with. Then his aunt bought an 84 Valentino edition in which the rear window shattered one day. Surpassing Lincoln replaced it under warranty. The finalwas an 85 base that had all sorts of little issues, such as an occasional no start/ hard start, driver’s window stopped working. But the most frustrating was the new foot the year real wood veneer. It peeled off the dash three or four times in the 3 years he owned that car and it went away for a new Acura Ledgend.
But what started his Lincoln ownership was Cadillac. He and his sister were both wanting to trade in their current Cadillac.
Paul’s was a 79 Fleetwood and Arlene had an 81 Fleetwood. They both found the cars they wanted and went to negotiate. The dealer was happy to have Paul’s car, but wouldn’t take the 81 (with the disabled, by GM, V864) at any price. Arlene went over to Chrysler and got a 5th Avenue and Paul went to Lincoln!
GM not willing to take in on trade is own products should be a Deadly Sin
In retrospect, it’s too bad that, instead of introducing the Taurus-based Continental, Ford didn’t give this car the treatment it gave the Mustang for 1994. If Ford had ditched the bustleback styling, and worked over the basic platform, it would have had a an acceptable entry in this class. It obviously wouldn’t have had class-leading refinement or dynamics, but the car wouldn’t have turned off buyers like its trouble-prone successor did.
These still pop up at car shows – generally in excellent condition – while the front-wheel-drive models have completely disappeared.
The relative scarcity of the FWD models today likely has a lot to do with the 3.8-liter V-6 engine’s appetite for head gaskets: https://www.autosafety.org/ford-38l-head-gasket-trouble/
And/or the weakness of the AXOD: https://www.autosafety.org/ford-automatic-4-speed/
The Taurus, Sable, and Windstar shared the same problems.
Maybe the best looking instrument panel of the era, and one of the best of all time.
Agreed. I love the sleek, black instrument panels on these ’82 – ’87 Continentals that light up brilliantly once the key is cranked. Even the “Continental” lettering on the passenger side of the dash was illuminated from behind.
There is no doubt cars like the V8-6-4 Caddy, among other fiascos cost GM a lot of customers. And they were a deadly sin for sure.
But it wasn’t GM who didn’t want to take them on trade it was the dealer who, at that time, was usually a small independent business. One of the reasons my Dad left a good job as fleet and lease manager at a GM dealership was because of problems like this. Diesel Oldsmobile powered stuff started the trade cycle and customers were shocked at how much their investment had depreciated. Lease returns generated a guaranteed loss for the dealership, and trade ins practically guaranteed a lost customer unless the dealer was willing to take the hit.
In the early ’80s this probably sold a lot of Lincolns but by 1990 or so those folks had drifted over to imports like Acura and that business was lost to the domestics (and their dealers) for good.
Either way, it wasn’t only GM (and their customers) who suffered. Lincoln had a few miscues as well but in general they took the safer path and were seen as the better product by the time the featured car came along.
I think the dismissive attitude towards FWD is less about the layout itself than the perceived cheapening in the way platform sharing was executed by domestic manufacturers, the 88 Continental was one of the better efforts in my opinion, the Taurus roots are well hidden, but a decade of K car Chryslers or the Cimmaron certainly gave FWD luxury cars bad optics, especially in the era of glass transmissions and half baked V6s.
That said I think the styling sold the 88s more than the space efficiency benefits of FWD, these cars were mostly bought by older empty nesters where the rear seat usage wasn’t frequent enough to be priority. I don’t ever remember them ever being used by livery services either, that remained firmly Town Car territory.
I don’t entirely agree. The empty-nesters who bought the FWD Continental or the contemporary De Ville liked big cars, and they liked cars that FELT big. FWD enabled the Continental and De Ville to feel expansive inside despite being smaller than a Fleetwood Brougham or a Town Car. In a quantifiable sense, that was the FWD Continental’s best feature, and I think it’s something that buyers responded to. Whether they actually needed or regularly used the space was incidental (just as lots of people buy 4WD SUVs who never use them for any terrain more challenging than a snowy parking lot), although in my experience, empty-nesters are often MORE concerned about rear seat room, because when they do have back seat passengers, those passengers are more likely to be adults, or grandchildren in bulky child seats.
Also, I’m looking at the Continental’s success not only in 1988, but through the entire run. Its sales remained pretty consistently decent well past the point where the styling was no longer new or all that fresh. Since its performance was never terribly good, I think interior space remained a big selling point.
The rather homey Fox Continental would likely have been more successful had it looked more like a 4-door Mark VII.
It’s rather analogous to the FIAT 130 4-door sedan in that way.
I have never understood the ranting that goes on about FWD. For the vast majority of drivers, FWD gives better packaging and very little cost in driving dynamics. Case in point is my Golf: in sweeping turns, it sets up absolutely neutral and at the apex, judicious steering inputs will actually make it oversteer. It hangs on so well that I have never approached the limit.
I have also never understood this generation of Continental. Like Aaron said, the cars were very expensive compared to their competition. For less money, one could have an Acura or a Lexus. I would wager many budding Conti shoppers were turned off by what was obviously a warmed over Fairmont. Of course, GM did the same with the Seville, but for some reason GM pulled it off better than Ford.
I think the key case in point is it’s in a small Golf. I love the way my FWD focus handles too and it’s just a lowly base model with an automatic. As size increases(wheelbase, weight being the big factors) though the shortcomings of FWD tend to become more apparent. It isn’t to say bigger RWD cars inherently handle better but I do think they’re more fun to drive in a totally subjective manner (power on oversteer and whatnot… IF the car has the power of course)
That said nobody who bought either these Fox based Continentals or Taurus based Continentals likely cared. But I do think the sales increase was the fresh styling over the bustleback styling that had a very very brief shelf life, more so that the switch to FWD.
Was never a fan of that iteration. Looked too much like an overpriced “Ford”, or “Mercury”. Didn’t know about that built to fail, suspension either.
Nice write up!
When these were new, this was my least favorite of the Big Three bustlebacks. The Seville worked for me, and reflected the final vestiges of Bill Mitchell’s attention to detail and Wayne Kady’s realization of the bustleback he’d been drawing since the late 1960s.
The Imperial from Chrysler had a lot of plastic in the front end that was deformed from the factory and time has not been kind to it. The Continental appeared too much of “hey, let’s pull the file we’ve been keeping on Kady’s designs for a dozen years” and apply it to……….the Fairmont.
That cowl with the exposed wipers screamed Fairmont from a million miles away. The exposed roof seam in the B pillar may have been a first, and looked cheap at the time. The tail lights were overly fared in and lacked imagination.
It’s grown on me. Exposed wipers and seams are now the norm. I don’t automatically see it as just a bad Seville clone. The quality may have been the best of the bustlebacks, and they seem to hold up well.
For the novelty, I’d own one as a collector.
Never liked these or the Seville even when I was a kid. I would have chosen the Chrysler Fifth Avenue over either.