(first posted 12/5/2013) Based on the reader’s comments in last week’s 1969 Ranchero article, I know there’s little love for this last generation Ranchero. Based on some personal experience with the Torino platform, I’d say your disdain for this truck is well deserved. This generation Ranchero suffered a painful reskin in 1977, and carried powerplants that were both thirsty and feeble. Add in the limitations of the underlying Torino platform, and you have a product that is far removed from it’s intended purpose.
Initially designed to be a handy sized truck for the working man, this example might best be described instead as a “clown car.” In addition, the owner’s wheel and tire choice only adds to the joke. In the future, I suggest the owner follow the advice of that classic medical creed and “First, do no harm.”
I found this Ranchero in Curbside Classic central. In this location, I’ve also photographed a Dodge 400 (it is in fact visible above the cab in this picture) and a Ford Pinto about a block down the street.
The taillights and tailgate in this photo give away this truck’s ugly secret. Unchanged from the taillights offered on the 1972 Ranchero, these recycled parts warned knowledgeable buyers that Ford had phoned in their 1977 redesign. The basic layout of the cowl, cab and bed remained unchanged despite the new sheetmetal. During this quickie restyle, the stylists simply flattened the rear flanks and modified the front clip. This new sheet metal extended the nose about 2″, making the previous nose heavy design even more ungainly. When it was all said and done, the ’77 through ’79 Ranchero carried forward the weak elements of the ’72 redesign, while bringing new sins to the table.
Speaking of this truck’s roots, here’s a brochure shot of the 1972 Ranchero. The Torino was all new that year, and replaced the previous unibody model with a larger car using body on frame construction. In doing so, Ford hoped to knock out GM’s intermediates by offering better road isolation. At the time, this appeared to be the right move, as the Torino initially outsold the Chevelle. However, a reputation for rusting and the arrival of the oil crisis worked to take the wind out of the big Torino’s sails. Over the next few years, Ford repackaged and renamed the car several times (remember the Elite, LTD II, and Thunderbird?).
The Ranchero did not change names over this time span, but did get saddled with sheet metal based on these “new” cars. In addition, the ’72 Torino platform never translated well into a “Gentleman’s Truck” since its curvaceous styling led to inefficient packaging.
Having said that, I actually like the ’72 version of the Ranchero, but it did NOT age well. Perhaps if Ford had used the front doors from their station wagon, it would have offered better utility and a better silhouette. But given the extreme length of the ’72 Torino front clip, any truck using this platform was destined to go through life with too much hood, too little bed.
Paul has noted several times that a car’s windshield provides a critical clue to its parentage. The same can also be said of the dashboard. While the edges may change a bit model to model, HVAC vent placement, HVAC control placement and the gauge opening generally remains the same year to year. Anyone familiar with the ’72 Torino dashboard will recognize the lineage of this Ranchero. In addition, the door panel and view over the hood also hearken back to the truck’s Torino roots. Not the worst workspace in the world, but also a dated look that did not match the formal lines of the new ’77 exterior.
This view of the Ranchero shows some of the issues I have with the truck’s design. When Ford bolted the LTD II front clip up to the Ranchero, the squared off fender lines forced them to remove the curved side window opening and concave rear fenders of the previous design. In addition, this new clip bore a strong resemblance to Chevy’s Monte Carlo, creating a copycat design that arrived late to the party. In addition, the tall, square front end only emphasizes the length of the hood, and the new side glass line visually shrinks the cab even more. Overall, this Ranchero lacks the sporty feel of the previous model, an important design feature in this market segment.
This close up of the hood really demonstrates where Ford missed the boat. I’ve complained about square headlights before, but this Ranchero demands an additional bitch session! I’m not opposed to square headlights on all cars, but I hate it when stylists paste them onto existing designs that did not begin life with rectangular headlights.
Back in the day, manufacturers promoted square headlights by promising lower hood lines and more aerodynamic body lines. In some cases that happened, but not here. Not only are the headlights stacked vertically, eliminating any possibility of a low hood line, but the hood includes two blisters designed to raise the hood surface up to meet the elevated headlight buckets!
I’m sure this article will bring forward a few Ranchero defenders, people who prefer this restyle to the original. I welcome positive comments, but ask those making them to do one thing for me-
Before posting your comments, please carefully examine this misshapen hood. Stare at that awkward blister behind the headlight, and take in the grille stolen off the Granada. If you can still post a positive review in the light of such undeniable sin, I can only raise you up to the ranks of the true believer.
Alright, Dave – I will take up the challenge. But first, the background. Back when these were new, I was really, really over the Torino by 1976. I had loved the 72, tolerated the 73, but from there on, I was ready for it to be gone. The LTD II came to the rescue. Yes, it proved that a car could be both pudgy (OK, really fat) and sharp-edged at the same time. When these were new, I would have taken an LTD II over a 74-76 Torino all day long.
So now, you bring up hood blisters. Agreed. Really strange (and I will admit that I had never really noticed them), Both this Ranchero and the station wagons got the least revision in 1977, and they get the fewest benefits from the restyle.
So, on balance, I am still where I was in 1977: I would prefer a 72, but after that, I will take one of these. Only in a dark color. Cool find, by the way. The only person I ever knew with one of these was the father of a high school friend. It was black, and it was HUGE.
I’m with JPC on this one, though I definitely see Dave’s points, especially regarding the Ranchero version. I liked the 1972 Torino line the best, ’73 was OK, and then I thought they looked dated, fat and terrible. Square batting ram bumpers on swoopy, bloated bodies, made even worse on the versions with fender skirts. The Elite, with its more formal front but convoluted body and quad opera windows, didn’t help either. So when the LTD II look came along, I thought it was an improvement. Didn’t love it by any stretch of the imagination, but thought it did a better job of at least looking slightly more era-appropriate in that later ’70s square-baroque style. At least on the 2- and 4-door versions. Wagons looked terrible, with old curvy backs and rectilinear fronts. I’ve never paid much attention at all to the Ranchero, and it is really interesting to notice all the styling tweaks Dave lays out as to why this Ranchero looks even clunkier than previous versions, especially toward the back of the vehicle. It certainly is peculiar looking. My clear favorite design for this platform for ’77 through ’79 would have to be the Thunderbird (sorry, I actually like that one) and the Cougar XR7 (like it too, though prefer the ‘bird).
Where I am with Dave 100% is on the stacked square lamps–I think all the “faces” with them, from the Monte Carlo/Malibu to the Cordoba to the LTD II, looked strange and defeated the point of having square lights in the first place.
The ’70’s use of square headlamps are Detroit’s way of saying, “The boss said we have to do the annual revision and to make sure we use the latest cliches. He’s budgeted us twenty minutes for the job.”
But also, square lights were supposedly more aerodynamic for increasing MPG for coming CAFE regs.
The quad versions were also not as tall as round headlamps, and during the approval process the automakers told the NHTSA that this allow for lower hoodlines, improving visibility.
And shortly after they were approved we started seeing stacked headlamps, thus negating any claimed visibility advantage.
The hood is from the Elite, so it pre-dated the stacked quads.
It just happened to be configured correctly to be recycled.
+1, JPC
Though I’d really prefer an Elky, lose the clown rims & I’d give this a whirl.
I too prefer the 72, but these come a close second. I’d be tempted to hang a T-bird front end on them though as I prefer that over this but this is so much better than the 73-76 front end styling.
Yeah, I’ve seen several Rancheros with front end clips from the ’77 to ’79 T-Bird and they look better than those with the factory LTD II front end.
Imagine a smooth-flanked ’77-’79 Ranchero with a ’72 Montego nose on it… IMHO that would be pretty damned good looking, no?
My Torino cut off was the “Starsky and Hutch” model (’75 I believe) With not a whole lot of love for the 1971 front end treatment with the pointy front fenders. After that the just got more bloated and fugly. I love Fords, really do, but they did a REALLY bad job of incorporating the stupid 5mph bumpers…And oh thank the gods for the 5mph bumpers!! No telling how many lives where saved, cause you know how oh so deadly the 5mph crash is 🙁 !!
I hold the same opinion as you pretty much.they also lend themselves to lots of custom potential as I have a 79 and it turns heads where ever I go.I have the 351 that came in it with the only changes being a hi-rise alum intake,an eldelbrock 4-barrel carb.headers and eldelbrock alum heads with a lumpy matched cam.it has plenty of power and sounds really bad ass. has 15′ cragar ss mags.it came from the factory with white paint with red interior and dealer applied red, purple and blue ghost flames and it’s also a gt-brougham. It was far from ugly even back then!
That truck is so ugly, I’m waiting for the mandatory brougham version.
My Dad had the red vinyl roof version with sidepipes. Yeah, it was when he was divorcing my Mom so good taste wasn’t his strong suit. Besides, my Grandpa and my Mom raised me so I hope I have better taste.
Actually, there was a Brougham interior option that was available on any model — base Ranchero 500, GT, or Squire.
that’s the model that I have now the 500 gt-brougham.it has power windows,door locks,seats,tilt wheel and a factory towing package with 9″ posi rear.it’s geared low for towing but i’m not sure what the ratio is.it pulls a mean burn out though! lol
To me the really striking thing about these Rancheros is the almost symmetric proportions with cab centered between an almost equal length hood and bed. Is there any other vehicle that comes close, other than an airport tug?
I’ll go to bat for the Ranchero….I liked it. I am also fond of the ’72-79 body styles. The GT packages with the Magnum 500 wheels was always a nice addition with RWL tires and dual exhaust. Darker colors do work better on the ’77-79 body style but this example actually looks rather nice. The only thing that I would change is the tires (no whitewalls, please) and the wheels to Ansen Sprint or Cragar S/S.
A neighbor had a 77-79 Ranchero GT back in the 80’s in brown with the Sprint wheels and dual exhaust. It was a rather nice looking ride
The comment that this bodystyle copied the Monte Carlo is also true for the ’74-’76 Elites. Their front ends are quite similar to the ’73-’74 Monte Carlos. Ford may have been first with many ideas in the 1960s, but I think they were in a “follow the leader” pattern in the 1970s. My Dad drove a ’74 Gran Torino Elite that rotted into the ground with alarming alacrity. I remember when he sold it (in 1981, when I was 4). I was able to stick my hands through the many rust holes in the fenders and doors.
“Ford may have been first with many ideas in the 1960s…”
Well, they also followed GM a year or so later, finally getting rid of the chrome glass frames on their hardtops.
And that’s why I said “many ideas” instead of “all ideas.”
I am aware that the ’63 Riv pioneered frameless door glass (if my memory is correct). I have no brand allegiance; I own two old Buicks, one Chevy, one Ford, and one Dodge. I was just pointing out an opinion, not trash talking GM.
My reply last evening apparently went up in smoke!
Aaron, I know you weren’t trashing GM, and I should have reworded my comment. No harm, no foul.
I, too, have owned many cars by other OEMs, and none of them were bad, just liked some over others.
It’s amazing how a few years can change ones pespective. Back in the ’80’s and early ’90’s, these weren’t so aberrent to me. Now they are.
Two things pop to mind. One, I actually owned a ’74 Ranchero for a while. It had belonged to a great-uncle and it was given to me several years after he died. His wife had parked it outside and the engine had seized up. It sat and I later sold it, so I never even drove it.
Second, the a/c in the ’77 to ’79 models could double as a meat-locker. All the oomph for a wagon with the cab of a pickup. I once took a trip in one with my grandfather and another older gentleman who had a black ’79 and nearly froze in 100 degree weather.
Ford building these are like our individual accomplishments – some we are proud of and some we aren’t.
lol, I’m going in the other direction. a lot of vehicles that I despised the looks of in the 70s now look pretty good to me. I haven’t forgotten the rust issues and the low powered thirsty engines, but now there are crate motors, and I live in AZ in an area with no emissions testing. so I would take that Ranchero.: )
We agree more than what my other comment would suggest.
As time goes on, I’m liking the ’70’s and ’80’s cars more than I ever have; there is a style there that seems so muted these days. The Achilles Heel of many a ’70’s car is rust. The Ranchero I had was so rusted around the attachment for the hood, one could have easily ripped the hood right off.
The last Ranchero’s headlight blisters are like the last full-size Studebaker’s headlight blisters, a sure sign of the car’s final days.
This reference did occur to me. At least the Ford’s were stamped in and not bolted on.
Whatever. I like it aside from the stupid mods. It’s got the tach cluster which is cool.
I don’t like it at all,the Falcon based Ranchero was a much nicer looker.The 68 Torinos were the best lookers though the other pre 73 models were good.American car styling took a big step back in the 70s with a few exceptions
That would have forced it to be on a Maverick platform for the 72 version that underpins the one pictured. God help me, but that might just have worked. But, that means that by the 78 version, it would have been based on a Fairmont, which, in theory might have worked, and something tells me it just…wouldn’t.
It did work, and rather well IMHO. Ever hear of the Durango (no, not the Dodge)???
Quick! Somebody kill it with fire!
One simply awfully-designed vehicle.
Anyone wonder why, with a few exceptions, why I’m not fond of Ford products before 197… well, 198… hmm… I have to think about that!
It’s interestin just how thorough the ’77 Ranchero reskin actually was. The LTD II wagon didn’t actually get any new sheetmetal behind the cowl – it used carryover doors and the Mercury rear fender pressings – because it was a one-year gap filler to be replaced by the Fairmont.
The only way to fully appreciate these cars is in full profile, when their “center cab” proportions can be properly seen.
Could the hood fit in the bed without spilling over the end? Not doubt the hood is wider than the bed.
It was part of Ford’s exciting new “Cab Not-Forward Look.”
Slice off about a foot of useless front overhang, and it wouldn’t look so bad.
” Ford repackaged and renamed the car several times (remember the Elite, LTD II, and Thunderbird?).”
The Torino line was only renamed once, not ‘several’ And the Elite/T-Bird was the Personal Lux market segments.
Renamed several times for different segments would be accurate.
While you’re entitled to your opinions, it’s clear Ford considered the Elite (and therefore the ’77 Thunderbird) a part of the Torino line.
If you doubt that statement, just check Ford’s intermediate offerings in 1974. The list topped out with the Gran Torino Elite (check your copy of the Standard Catalog of the American Car).
While Ford cut that name down to just “Elite” in 1975, it’s clear this two door PLC was part of the Torino product line in 1974, which means this new, shorter nameplate replaced a Torino, rather than springing forth as a new and unique product line.
To further my argument, if a Monte Carlo buyer wanted to cross shop a Ford in 1972, the Ford Salesman would immediately offer up a full boat Gran Torino. Ford dealers offered a single intermediate nameplate until 1975, so the Torino did double duty when competing with Chevrolet’s two intermediate offerings.
What a piece of crap, Give me a Falcon ute any day that thing is so ugly I couldnt stand looking at it to get in never mind the lack of utility. Ford NA builds a ute without knowing what they are doing again.
A buddy of mine had one of these in high school, white with a green interior and some sort of green stripe on the side. Not tacky or overdone though except for the Cragar wheels and chrome side pipes. We thought it was a gorgeous car and perfect for picking up girls. You could fit at least seven or eight of them back there. That never happened so it was just our nerdy selves cruising to the arcade to throw quarters at the Space Invaders.
Let’s be honest, the ’70’s El Camino didn’t fare much better. It’s only attractive in comparison to this.
Agreed.
The colonnade Elkys were an acquired taste.
I’d love a decent example of either, though, to do Menards runs & such. The blue one Paul posted above would suit me. Resto modding one of this vintage would probably be easier than the earlier ones because the disc brakes are already in place.
I’ll give this car some defense. I’d take a ’72 or any number of earlier versions over this, but I don’t think it’s that bad. Personally, I think the headlight blisters give an otherwise bland and generic Ford look a bit of personality.
For readers born well after this car was made, be aware that this appears to have started life as a stripper version, and it has some minor customization in a black / white theme. The blacked out grill is not correct, and the headlight bezels are also blacked out.
My criticisms of the car would be:
The grill is all but straight off the ’75-’78 full size LTD. Not bad looking, but totally lacking any imagination.
Ford was the worst at integrating 5 mph bumpers, earning them the name “park bench bumpers.” This front clip is the poster child for the argument that Ford was the worst. I rest my case.
The rear of the car is basically the 1972 version, and is out of sync with the rest of the car. At least it’s not bad looking.
Not a great car by any means, but pretty much in sync with the entire Ford look for almost all of their 1975 – 1979 cars. Based on the LTD II, it was a fairly clean design, but GM and Ford’s own Thunderbird had the market mojo when these cars came out in ’77, and it was fairly trampled in the market. You could argue that GM put 4 B body car lines and Ford put the Thunderbird and Cougar coupes squarely in this car’s market space. That’s a lot of new competitors that proved to have the edge over this car.
LTD II on one of its better days…….
actually the LTD II was a hedge by Ford knowing that GM was downsizing their big cars. remember, bigger was better for decades so noone really knew if the public would accept a downsized full-size or not. this way if people suddenly decided to stop buying the LTD Ford had an option in place that was the size of the GM cars. what happened was that both sizes of full-size sold OK. in fact, the big Lincolns increased their percentage of the market against Cadillac til they were downsized.
Agreed. There had to be a lot of nervous energy at the Big three in the fall of ’76. GM was either going to fly or fail, and Ford and Chrysler could have been left behind if they flew. As it turned out, 1977 was such a fantastic year for auto sales there was a piece of pie for everyone, and Ford and Chrysler big cars managed to enjoy some backlash sales to traditionalists that did not like the “down sized” GMs. The LTD II was a nice try by Ford, but the space efficiency of the GM B sedans and wagons killed the similar size LTD II, and the T-Bird sucked up all the coupe sales in the still hot “personal luxury mid-size” category. Trunk space and rear seating in the LTD II were poor compared to the Bs.
I was just a teenage car nut at the time, but there are so many things from that period that people today just wouldn’t believe….ads about how you should buy a “little” Dart because it got 17 MPG…the idea that a 77 Caprice was perhaps too small to sell…the general assumption that the world would be out of gas by 2000….I still have an EPA mileage sheet where Novas get 17 MPG, Caprices 16 and trucks 15. and the absolute lowest in the industry were 440 Chrysler wagons at 9. with that small of a spread, why did people even worry about mileage ratings?:)
Over the next few years, Ford repackaged and renamed the car several times (remember the Elite, LTD II, and Thunderbird?).
There’s a Ranchero owner in Texas who definitely remembers the Thunderbird.
Nice, I like that it has the GT stripes though I could do without the hood scoop.
and don’t forget, the Cougar XR7 Ranchero
The aero dynamics are so much better with the square headlights properly laid out! 😉
I like the thinking behind a car like this. Someone had fun.
I’ll second that. The Cougar’s square headlights worked much better than the ones on the LTD II.
Probably not any more aerodynamic, but certainly better-integrated and half a generation more modern-looking, if only by association with the very similar face of the box Panther Lincolns.
That T-Chero is cool, but then so’s this one.
Decisions, decisions!
I got a 78 just like that with the cougar headlights but mine has thunderbird fenders
I absolutely love front swaps. God bless rebadges that make it so easy.
This one was featured on CC already.
I actually kind of like the 77-79 Rancheros. They can do double duty as either a posh boulevard cruiser / road trip vehicle, or a handy hauler for that latest gardening project. I’ve driven and rode in both these and same-year El Caminos, and these Rancheros are certainly more comfortable, as well as having much nicer interiors.
Even so, I’d probably still take the El Camino instead 🙂 .
If Ford started selling the Fairmont-based Durango in 1978, rather than 1981, this is the car-based pickup from Ford I would have chose at the time. That’s if I was in the market for a car-based pickup. I prefer the Durango to the El Camino. Even in the late 70s context, I found all the Ford mid-sized cars were too bloated and bulky. Plus the weight killed mileage. Performance with the 302 equipped Durango would be excellent by late 70s standards. With the Ranchero, you are almost forced into the 351.
Now that’s rare! I’d never heard of one before, so I had to go look it up…
I’m almost in shock when I see these. I just don’t remember them well at all. I always had a hard time warming up to the Fairmont’s econo car looks and trim, but I think it makes a surprisingly handsome pick-up.
I think GMC also used the Durango name. Funny that it got passed around so much and finally got traction at Chrysler.
They were only made in 1981-1982 according to Wikipedia. I remember reading an article about them at the time in Motor Trend. They were made by a third party firm for Ford, using Fairmont Futura bodies. I’m sure they gave Chrysler the encouragement to proceed with the 1982 Dodge Rampage and Plymouth Scamp mini-pickups.
I’m surprised too Ford didn’t try to maintain the name ‘Durango’, I liked the choice… but it’s now obviously fully associated with Dodge.
I go a step further, Ford deciding to do a Fox-body Ranchero, being a Fairmont and later a Fox-body LTD. It would had gived one more decade to the Ranchero. I could even imagine a Fox-body Mustang Ranchero. 😉
I’m pretty sure a full-production Fox Ranchero would’ve been identical to the Durango except they’d use the wagon taillights and a cut-down wagon hatch as a tailgate rather than the full width coupe taillight thing.
I had a ’74 many years back that performed yeoman duty for me. About the only thing it wasn’t good for was hauling loads longer than the bad floor, as the tailgate did not lay flush with the bed floor when open. Did suck gas like Rosie O’Donnell at an all-you-can-eat buffet tho…
The CC effect strikes again! I’ve been passing this ’77 Ranchero for the past couple of weeks but until Dave’s posting I didn’t find the car interesting enough to photograph. Now that we have sufficient snow to add some dramatic sculpting, I offer the Utah version of the Pinhead Pickup.
I agree with most that the 1972 is by far and away the best Ranchero of this generation. A 1972 Ranchero GT is actually one of the best looking Rancheros ever made in my opinion. It’s not the most functional car, but most people bought these for looks and not functionality.
http://www.dearbornclassics.com/media/cms/rl72ranchero.jpg
After 1972, the styling got progressively worse in my opinion. I actually prefer the 1974-76 models to the 77-79 LTD II based models. The LTD II extra long hood just really messed the proportions too much and looked too tacked on. There is also too much front overhang. I also always thought the front end styling was one of the worst Ford had during the late 1970’s, and one of the worst for the “trendy” stacked headlights. If I had a 77-79 Ranchero, I’d swap the front end to a better looking clip (T-bird, Cougar or Montego).
That said, this particular example is not the best 77-79 Ranchero I have ever seen. The paint and wheels are not that great. The low stance and small wheels make this car look worse than it actually is. There used to be a black 1979 Ranchero here in town with Cragar SS wheels, wide tires, and slightly aggressive stance and it looked not half bad. These cars may have left the factory with anemic engines and soft suspensions, but today they represent a cheap low cost platform that easily can be improved. A decent 351 Ford, stiffer coils and sway bars and this car would be a halfway decent “weekend” fun car that would be unique and cheap to maintain. Best of all it’d cost far less than the more desirable models.
I actually had a pre-CC effect ’cause I saw a white Ranchero from the later 60’s a few days ago. It happened too quickly to get a pic.
I do have to say that the el Camino’s styling is better in any year where they were both being made, it always seemed to be better proportioned.
I can’t disagree with anything you said, but even with the horrible front overhang. I like it, I would change the wheels to a nice lincoln wheel, change out some trim to lincoln spec, contintal seats and you could have a cool cruiser.
I must say I love this truck. Its beautiful . Make mine a cougar or t bird front clip and replace the 400 with a 460. Turbine wheels n dual exhuats or side pipes complete the package. Then you have the biggest most beautiful car/truck ever unless you can find a pre 77 Cadillac flower car. Why the hate? Even in story k form this is beautiful a d it don’t take much to improve the performance. Advance the cam 8 degrees and remove the egr cat air pump and bypass the ported vacume switches to the distributer and performance will be decent. I wish I had a cougar ranchero or t bird ranchero. The elcamino was a pitiful second.( still better than a Subaru brat)thanks for the write up even though it is overly harsh. I love this truck!!!!!!
Hey, I said I liked the ’72 Ranchero (although having paid the fuel bills for a ’72 Gran Torino back in my youth, I’d never use one as a daily driver)!
My “hate” was directed at the styling decisions made between ’72 and ’77. They may accuratly reflect the era, but did no favors to this truck.
I have to agree with you I like the idea of a thunderbird ranchero…
The ‘More road-hugging weight” era run amok….
Ok, folks are defending the car and trashing the Supremes and whitewalls. I’ll be a pill and say the only thing wrong with those wheels is the car on top. 😉
lol.. I can’t say anything nice about this era Ranchero so I’m staying quiet. but your comment made me laugh!
This was the era of Ford’s notorious random parts installed on random Ford products. Where you had to know where it was made, when, what color a specific part on it is, which engine, and God help you if you just took a stab at it, you’d almost always get the wrong part. I hated selling parts for this era Ford.
GM, Chrysler, and AMC were a cinch, but Ford was a PITA.
I just bought a 1977 Ranchero GT a few weeks ago. I was on my way to a golf tournament and it was for sale at the side of the road. I was quite taken with it but my two travel companions thought it was one of the ugliest cars they had ever seen! Well that made me really want to have it. I took my 12 year old son, a car fanatic, to see it and he loved it. Brought it home and his friends all loved it. Every guy who sees it responds the same way: “sweet ride, cool, awesome”. Every female who sees it responds the same way: “ugly!!!, why would you buy that??”. While the car is in in really good shape, my son and I will work on getting it into “show” condition over the winter. The interior is nearly perfect and rust is minimal. (I remember the life of the bodies on these was about 4 years at most so I was pleasantly surprised) Anyway, I loved the new look of the midsize Fords in 1977. My favorite was the TBird but the LTD was pretty cool and imposing. But I can appreciate the disdain for this car. It’s appearance is quite polarizing. But I can also tell you, cruising thru town in a Ranchero of this vintage attracts as much attention as a new Lambo or Ferrari.
I have a 1978 Brougham squire. Put in a stroked 460 to 557. Super comfortable on the highway with all kinds of luxury options and can pull a car hauler through the Rockies with ease. Huge comfortable seat to sleep when needed. With 4 extra powerful LED headlights I feel secure on back roads. With dual exhaust and huge tires it rumbles around town. Get lots of attention from almost every type car nut, girls and kids love it. It is more attractive than my shwinn metalic purple c3 vette! I put my 85 honda saber in the back with luggage maybe a camper trailer or boat out back it has the tow package so massive brakes.I feel I have the best of all worlds. Couldn’t be happier.
This one’s pretty extreme
I’d love to have a 77-79 Ford Ranchero! Have you seen what they’re going for these days?!! With a 351W/400M, these trucks can tow a house! Especially if you add an aftermarket 4V carb and intake manifold. I owned a 78 T-bird with a 400 and it would pulled down 18mpg hwy at 70-75 mph. Better than my injected 86 Ford F150 5.0 ever pulled do 60-65mph. I’ve owned an 89 Ranger Supercab for 25 years and they just can’t tow anything heavier than 2500lbs without getting pushed all over the place. Fine as parts getter and commuter vehicle but that’s about it.
Four years since I posted this? Where does the time go?
Interestingly enough, I recently purchased a car based pickup, and put my money where my mouth is. Instead of this bloated Ranchero, I went with a 1987 El Camino.
Significantly smaller than this CC, my “truck” came with a 4.3 V-6 equipped with (factory) throttle body injection and an overdrive automatic transmission. While no quarter mile monster, it provides adequate performance and returns 20 mpg on the highway.
Actually, for the most part I like the ’77+ Ranchero styling better than the ’72-’76 models because of the lack of the earlier cars’ bloated curvature. However, that LTD II front end is an awful mess. I like the previously pictured car with the Cougar front better, though it’s still no beauty. All in all, I still like the pre-’72 Rancheros a lot better. Or if I was looking to buy a car-based pickup in the late 1970s, I’d look to the downsized El Camino/Caballero.
After college and before we all started getting married, I shared a house with a few friends. One bought a 1974 Ranchero GT, about 4 years old at the time. It was fully loaded and had a 460-4v. By this time the big V8 had been pretty emasculated, but with the light rear of that car it was capable of incredible, view-obscuring burn outs. It also seemed to get 10-12mpg, no matter how or where it was driven. Needless to say, the 1979 gas crisis prompted him to sell!
I always liked this generation of Ford’s intermediates-including this Ranchero, and especially the wagons-particularly for their front and rear styling.
Aside from the Mustang, Thunderchicken & Fairmont, these were the only taillights from Ford during this period I didn’t outright loathe.
These taillights-particularly on the wagons-were my favorite. The mom of a neighborhood friend had one in the ’80s and I loved riding in it.
There was a *Durango* Chevy S10, for a few model years. The 1977-79 Thunderbirds, Cougars XR7’s were huge sellers when they were new. And Hank The Deuce was no fan of smaller cars. cheers
To be polite, that thing is really hard on the eyes.
Montego front end looks great on these.
+1 The cleaned up sides and bulged fender lips were a trait unique to the Montego body(until the Ford Elite borrowed the coupe body) so the Montego nose looks really natural with it
Thought the whole LTD II program redo was an easy copout for Ford. Never a fan of this style. To me it took two steps backward but with quirky sharp slanted windows. I remember they were c.uncomfortable and handled like a sloppy slug. The seats were too low. OK for a sports car bad for a mid sized (70’s perspectice) bread and butter hauler. They didn’t age well. BTW my name for the pimpey T-Birds 77-79 DISCO BIRDS.” But Ford sold a ton of them along with the LTD II. So, I guess they achieved whatever it was they were after.
I like it, a lot, but I come from the land of the ute, so these and El Caminos are something special indeed.
I love the proportions of these, but I like the Chrysler fuselage coupes too which also don’t get much love here.
One thing I love about these Fords is the shape of the windscreen, very sharp angles, yet when viewed from 3/4 front the A pillars seem to bow outwards for an interesting effect.
Even the bumpers don’t turn me off these like most US cars, but some custom work behind the bumper so the bumper could be tucked up closer would be beneficial.
So there you go, I love these, and if one came up for sale over here for a reasonable price, I would buy one for sure.
This car is not one that is pleasant to view. However, it has survived 40 odd years, and is in magnificent shape. True, the wheels are too small and the tires seem inappropriate for this vehicle, but I’m in the camp on this one that says you should get to do what you want, (within reason of course) with your classic car. They don’t all have to be returned to factory configuration to be appealing.
The styling just seems out of sorts on this car. The LTD II / Granada / Elite grille and the whole front end are out of synch for a pickup. Perhaps something ‘tougher’ looking would be apropos. The pickup bed’s side walls are much – much too high in comparison with the front end. The side windows are just funky looking. All in all, it has too many themes and design directions going on which all confuse the eye.
What did you mean when you said you found it on “Curbside Classic Central”?
I know only of the Cohort on this site.
Thanks!
“Curbside Classic Central” is a location here in LA where I had found a disproportionate number of CCs. I’d made reference to the area in a number of postings back in 2013, but since this is a repost, it lacks that context.
I’m afraid that I need to come to the defense of these later Rancheros. I had a ’73 at one time and loved it. It was handy for hauling firewood for my fireplace and even pulling my 24 foot camper. It was oddly optioned with 302, three on the tree, Magnum 500 wheels, painted lower body area , radio, heater, and nothing else. Since I only worked a couple of miles from home and only needed to haul small loads (except for firewood) it was ideal. I especially liked the passenger car comfort. I bought it cheap and fixed it up to suit me. The only reason I sold it was a noise in the motor and the fact that I found a ’75 El Camino that had full power, including factory air. It also was one that I had to fix up several problems on when I bought it. I drove both of these on fairly long trips and found them up to the task.
I know lots of people think both of these car/trucks are ugly, but I loved both of them.
If I was going to buy a truck for my use today I would try to find one of these. Even though I own a ’79 Malibu, I don’t really care for the looks of the El Camino of that vintage.
well im about to own this 78 ranchero gt im only 18 and personally i love it u gotta love that old time muscle
I don’t know what the schedule was for crash-worthiness standards increases in the late 1970s, but the requirements increased a great deal during that decade and bumper standards did not reach their peak until 1980 (followed by the Regan era rollback in 1982). So, I have to wonder if Ford added all that front overhang in hopes of having enough extra crush space to conform to both bumper and crash standards using a platform that, between the wheels, dated back to 1972 (and probably had full-sized-Ford components from much earlier). There were certainly ways of complying without adding over a foot of otherwise useless length (Volvo never resorted to anything like this.), but they might have involved re-engineering the structure of the car behind the front wheels. I just have trouble believing that between two of the worst gasoline supply crises in the country’s history, Ford would add all that clumsy length and weight for the sake of “styling”. Interestingly, Ford met all of these standards with the 1979 LTD, which had an almost interchangeable frame with the 2 door Torino and LTD II models, but there might have been subtle changes in that frame and the larger body riding on it that wouldn’t have been feasible in the “facelift” that yielded the LTD II, T-Bird and Ranchero from their Torino predecessors.
My favorite Fairlane/Torino/Ranchero remains the ’68-69′ versions. The pointy 70-71 was a step down. And I really hated the ‘Starsky & Hutch’ generation behemoths, especially after they bolted on those ‘railroad-tie’ bumpers. This one actually looks decent to me, except for that ‘Town-Car’ sized front end.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Hmmm – Ford really hauled in a lot of loot with these Torino/LTDII/Thunderbird/Ranchero/Montego/Cougar body. It stuns me to realize just how many they made. It was ugly from Day One. That bloated mouth-breather 1972 grille was bad. Then for each year, it got worse – yet it still sold! What was it, over two feet of front overhang so that the car could look right? Sorry – it didn’t help. I remember sitting in these and feeling like I was suffocating under the windows and dash. Worse was the sedans and wagons where the belt line swung upwards towards the concave rear fender sculpting.
At the local car show, they were raffling off a 1974 Torino wagon and I bought tickets, but also prayed that I would lose. It had a bench seat covered in panty cloth, and it was about as exciting as drive as – a 40 year old Torino. These cars were everywhere during the 1970s and into the 1980s. Just the Thunderbird version, I think they sold over a million, and that comes after this generation was already on the road four years. They were popular. It bogged my mind even as a non-driving kid that people bought these.
Brown Torinos. Gold. Colors straight out of from a Brady Bunch kitchen. Shudder.
The previous generation rusted as fast as a Chevrolet Vega. This generation rusted about as fast as most cars of those years. There’s that. But you add the weight of a BOF intermediate, and these bloated behemouths were ripe to be outshown by anything out of Japan at the time. Rooting for the American automobile industry with these cars being manufactured was like rooting for your favorite baseball team when a 350 pound player waddled up to bat. I remember wondering why anyone bought these cars.
The Raunchero took the worst parts of this generation of Torino. Sorry – one of the dumbest looking generations they made.
I’ve come around on the LTD II a little bit, the front end design is clumsy to be sure but it’s no worse than the Elite, and maybe a little tidier in some ways like its simple eggcrate grille. I actually wonder if this front end was originally destined for the 77 Thunderbird (technically the Elite’s successor, of which it gets its hood from) but Ford pulled a last minute switcheroo to make it a more distinct product from both its predecessor and the Monte Carlo and Cordoba. The Thunderbird front end with its headlight doors actually had a more familial resemblance to the full size LTD front end than the LTD II front end does.
As for the Ranchero, I have no complaints, it’s an inherently polarizing configuration so whether it’s a bloated LTD II or a early Falcon based one it’ll have detractors no matter what. I always liked the concept personally and thought the 72-79 shape was slick, and the 77s cleaned up sides are a big improvement to the overly sculpted Torino flanks. The various front end swaps that have been presented do the design justice, I particularly like red one with the Montego nose, it’s a wonder Ford never did that earlier, GMC had the badge engineered Sprint/Caballero, why not a Mercury with a totally unique front clip?
The cab is so small it’s the automotive version of a pinhead.
I’ll take mine in green with Di-Noc.
Might as well take that rug off the dash and fabricate a faux vinyl roof for the Brougham edition of this thing.
That hood blister. Those small-ish tires. That rakish windshield more suited to a Mustang than a wagon/truck. I hope this came with crushed velour seats!
The hood is longer than the bed!
We had one, it wasn’t unreliable but it was otherwise horrible, as far as anyone can remember. Visibility was terrible, ergonomics were terrible, ride wasn’t great, utility was poor. Not a good truck, not a good car, not a good anything. 8 mpg or something.
It had an 8-track tape player though. Only car we had so equipped.
I’ve owned two of the vehicles in this platform. First was a 77 LTD II sedan with 302 (my first car) , which I consider among the ugliest of these siblings. Other was a 76 Cougar XR7, which I consider the absolute best looking of all, and among the best of the malaise era PLCs. Mine looked much like this one that was posted recently in my area, but mine was dayglo light green with avocado skin green roof and interior – which looked a lot better than it sounds.
For many the 74-76s were the point the Cougar nameplate lost its way but I too like them for what they are, of all the 74-76 intermediates it’s the only one that makes sense with a coke bottle shaped body, essentially upsizing the themes started on the 71-73s. By Contrast the Elite looks like a low budget Monte Carlo knockoff and the 74-76 Gran Torino looked like a muscle car festooned with brougham clichés that went together about as well as oil and water.
My almost first car was a 74 Cougar in triple black with the Q code 351, unfortunately my Dad(rightfully) put the kibosh on it due to terminal rust but I still have an attraction to it nearly 20 years later.
I had 2 77’s at the same time, plus 2 77 T-Birds. Swapped the front clip on one of the Rancheros with one of the T-Birds so I had a Thunderchero, which I thought sounded better than a Ranchbird. But then I gues I ended up with a Ranchbird anyway when I put the Ranchero clip on the T-Bird! The Thundechero was powered by a 351 Cleveland 4V. All the others were 351 Windsor 2V. The Thunbderchero would haul a**, but you’d better have a couple sandbags in the bed if you wanted it to stop, especially in the rain! Nice thing, it was an easy swap over, all the bolt holes line up perfectly.
An interesting side note, speaking of bolt holes lining up, I had a friend that was a body man and was rebuilding a 88 Mustang with a bent frame. He asked me one day if he could take some measurements off my 88 T-Bird. I asked him why, he told me the Mustang and the T-Bird shared the same front end, just different sheet metal. Now that woulds make an interesting looking beast, a Tunderstang, or a Mustbird???