(first posted 3/16/2011). Headline superlatives are a slippery slope, but I’m standing on pretty solid ground here: This is the car that completely changed the marketplace, the car that launched what I have dubbed the Great Brougham Epoch. Hail what may well be the single most influential American car of the whole modern era.
Pretty strong words, and our featured CC two-door without the vinyl roof doesn’t make the best example (this four door is more representative), but hear me out. Prior to the LTD’s arrival in 1965, “luxury” was just not an overtly promoted quality in the low price brands, largely in deference to the more expansive brands in the Big Three’s portfolios. That’s what Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Imperials were for.
Sure, the word “luxurious” might have made it into the ads for the high-trim models to separate them from the strippers, but that was a very relative term of the use. Up until 1965, all the top trim models usually sported shiny vinyl upholstery, preferably in the shape of bucket seats, like this 1964 Galaxie XL; and that includes the top line Pontiac Bonneville and most Buicks and Olds, except for their very top sedans. In 1964, vinyl roofs were still mighty scarce.
That largely reflected the times: in the late fifties and early sixties lots of folks were sitting on vinyl chairs and couches at home too. The 1959 Cadillac De Ville brings that home: very casual, if not downright sporty, in the golf club sense of the word. Of course, there was the Fleetwood Sixty Special sedan and such by Lincoln and Imperial. But suddenly in 1965, here comes Lee Iaccoca pushing a radical notion indeed: a new definition of luxury, one that was way ahead of its times. Or just reflected the changing taste of the times.
This notion of affordable luxury was a huge cultural shift that deeply influenced design for decades to come. That included our houses, interior furnishings, and so much else. This came to bloom in the seventies and the seeds really popped in the eighties. And it really hasn’t fully ended yet: let’s face it, today’s Lincolns are much more of a true successor to the Ford LTD than the 1961 Continental, which is why I called the ’65 Conti “The Last Great Luxury Car,” even if it didn’t have a padded vinyl roof or velour upholstery.
The 1965 LTD was not really a separate model until 1967; it started as a trim package available for the Galaxie 500. And not a cheap one: for an extra 20% over the price of the Galaxie 500, one got different upholstery in a peculiarly sheer and softly-textured synthetic fabric that’s commonly been referred to as “panty cloth”; nothing like the re-upholstered seats in this car.
This may be another car for which it might be difficult to ever find an exact replacement fabric.
Past the softer seats, some extra sound padding and the standard 289 (4.7 L) V8 and automatic, the LTD’s additional content was heavy on the badging. The important thing was to let your neighbor know you’d bought an LTD, not just any old Ford.
And Ford brazenly started comparing the LTD with the Rolls Royce, including the famous “Quieter than a Rolls Royce” tv ad.
Here’s a more flattering picture of that rear seat. Now that could look straight out of a Lincoln or Cadillac brochure. Yes, this was a whole new ball game. And what relevant role was Mercury ever to play again in Ford’s future? The LTD was Mercury’s death sentence.
The direct competition instantly knew what they had to do: rush out their own LTD packages, as quick as possible. Chevrolet’s Caprice package arrived as a mid-year option for the Impala, and Plymouth trotted out their VIP, and even AMC trotted out a DPL. The acronyms of success were rolling off the marketing men’s lips like schoolboys reciting the ABC.
But that was just the opening salvo. The ’65 LTD marked the great turning point, when sporty became passe, or just the playthings of guys who knew the difference. Sure, the final days of the golden sixties performance era were still just ahead in 1965, but the LTD was already looking beyond that, right into the mid-seventies. A true visionary.
It foreshadowed the era when emission controls and high insurance rates all but killed true performance cars. But that wasn’t the real market anyway; the overwhelming majority of Mustangs and Camaros had low level V8s or sixes. It was all about the image. And the sporty image is what had increasingly predominated since the early fifties.
That started with the little MGs and such the GIs brought home after the war. Within a few years, it couldn’t be ignored, hence the Corvette and original two-passenger Thunderbird. And by 1961, it was in full bloom: bucket seats and floor shifts were everywhere, even if it was for a two-speed Powerglide hooked to a six.
The popular 1961 Corvair Monza gets a big helping of credit. Right on its heels, Chevrolet released the SS option for its big cars: buckets, console, etc.. and a six was still the base engine. And everyone else plunged in too. The Mustang was the explosion. Ironically, the LTD arrived only some six months after the Mustang. All too quickly, it upset the sporty applecart, and the trappings of luxury were the thing to have in your driveway.
1962
I don’t have the resources to do a full cultural survey, but I can’t help but wonder if the 1965 LTD’s influence was even greater than we give it credit for in the automotive realm. Did the whole cultural shift from sparse and modern design…
1965
…to the seventies’ growing taste for velour, dark wood paneling, and other trappings of luxury in our homes and offices start right here? Was Lee Iaccoca that much of a genius? Or did he just feel the earliest winds blowing in that direction and set sail sooner than anyone else? It was in the air, but brilliant, either way.
And not without its danger, as the LTD upset the traditional “Sloanian Ladder” as had been practiced by all of the Big Three since the late thirties.
Obviously, the LTD didn’t bequeath its actual name to the Great Brougham Epoch; the “LTD Epoch” just doesn’t have the right ring. And of course, the brougham name had long been used by Cadillac for its very top sedans.
Even Nash used it during the its bathtub era; possibly others. But the name was revived in the true sense of the modern word by no less than Pontiac, who started using it on their top-tier Bonneville in 1964. But that car didn’t make any significant impact; in fact, I’d long forgotten that it existed until recently. It was just a case of Pontiac reaching up even further into Olds 98 and Electra 225 territory. Let’s call it the prophet of the Great Brougham Epoch.
But the fact that the long-exclusive Brougham name soon graced the most pedestrian of cars is what this Epoch is all about. So now we also have to define when it ended; vinyl roofs are no longer available from the factory for current cars. Certainly, the Lincoln Town Car was the last living dinosaur of the Brougham Epoch.
Of course, in certain parts of the country (I’m looking at you, Florida), dealer installed vinyl-roofs are still selling.
The ’65 LTD is an excellent precursor to our CC Complete Cutlasss Chronicles, because the Cutlass Supreme appeared just two years after the LTD, and was perhaps the first overtly luxurious mid-size car model, and went on to dominate the Brougham Epoch. Stay tuned…
The mechanical details of the LTD are boring and largely irrelevant. It seems (from memory) that the biggest majority of them came with the first-step optional 250 hp 352 FE (5.8 L) V8, due to Ford’s inability to keep up with 289 V8 production thanks to the Mustang’s unexpected sales success. Along with the Cruise-O-Matic, the combination suited the LTD well enough in a way, as Ford’s major efforts to soften and hush the ride of its all-new ’65 full-sized cars resulted in the beginning of another era: the Great Wallowing Big Fords Epoch. A driver’s car the LTD was not.
The 240 six was not available on the LTD, but in addition to the standard 289 and optional 352 and 390 FEs, the very gnarly 425hp 427 was also available, only with a four-speed stick. Now that would be the one to have gotten.
Maybe that’s the real reason the LTD was created; trying to sell the sport qualities of the new ’65s would have been a stretch. The Ford Total Performance Era was already fragmenting before it reached its peak. And the Great Brougham Epoch wouldn’t need all that expensive racing to make its point. Charging 20% more for a different upholstery and a handful of badges was a hell of a lot more profitable too; Ford sold over 100k of the LTD packages in that first year alone. No wonder the whole industry piled in, and quickly. It didn’t take a genius to see that the profit margins were intoxicating.
Well, that was my original theory. Having had a bit more time to reflect on the LTD’s creation, the answer is pretty obvious: after having exploded the Ford line-up with the compact Falcon, intermediate Fairlane and sport Mustang, Lee Iacocca must have had concerns about the waning desirability of the full size cars in this era of fragmentation. Full-size cars had always been the bread-and-butter, and undoubtedly the most profitable. Despite the obvious impact to Mercury, Ford undoubtedly felt that the LTD would put the shine back on its full-size cars.
And unlike GM, Ford could only hurt Mercury, whereas Chevy’s Caprice would step on the toes of Pontiac, Olds and Buick; even Cadillac, to some extent. Of course, this strategy worked for a while, but all too soon, big cars lost their luster, and permanently. The Brougham crown would soon be passed to mid-size cars like the Cutlass Supreme. But the LTD’s impact would be felt for decades; has it truly ended?
All hail Lee Iaccoca, Sir LTD and Emperor of the Great Brougham Epoch!
Related:
1965 Chevrolet Caprice: The LTD Reaction
1964 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham: The True Father Of The Great Brougham Epoch?
Another great article! I know that you aren’t a big fan of full-size Fords, but I’ve always had a soft spot for full-size Fords from the 1960s, and the 1965 model in particular. Maybe it was because Matchbox used a 1965 Galaxie sedan as the basis for its police car and fire chief car from 1966-69 in its 1-75 range. EVERY boy had these Matchbox cars at that time.
I was really hooked on the stacked headlight theme, along with the rectangular taillights, which Matchbox captured perfectly in its miniature diecasts. The collector-car market, of course, prefers the equivalent Chevrolets from those years, particularly the SS models.
Of course, I was too young to know that pundits called the 1965 Ford “the box the 1963 Pontiac came in”.
If I recall correctly, the suspension and frame of this car were all-new, and the front suspension design is still used by NASCAR.
In the long run, this car really kicked off the dynamic that enabled Ford to undermine GM. For years, Ford had been very weak in the medium-price market. Mercury wasn’t much competition for Chrysler or Dodge, let alone Buick, Oldsmobile or Pontiac. But if Ford could take the Galaxie upscale, and charge extra money for it, then Chevrolet would be forced to follow suit.
Only problem was that Chevrolet was soon stomping on the turf of the BOP divisions. Ford, of course, was encroaching on Mercury’s turf, but given that Mercury had never really had much of an image – or the sales to go with it – it really didn’t matter all that much to the corporation.
But if one could get a Chevrolet that was as nicely trimmed and luxurious as an Eighty-Eight or Bonneville or LeSabre, then why buy one of those cars? Over time, the rationale for Sloan’s stair-step divisional structure came crashing down, and GM never found another formula for success. Today, very few people really believe that a Buick is more prestigious than a Chevrolet.
Ford, meanwhile, was happy to sell increasingly luxurious Fords, whether they were LTDs or Gran Torino Broughams or Thunderbirds, and if a few sales were lost by Mercury, it was no big deal to the corporation as a whole.
This excellent post takes us into the world of those who were still classed as (cringe) baby boomers but were too late for Vietnam (thankfully), legal LSD (I wouldn’t know), free love (at least in my case), and pre-malaise American cars.
The Matchbox Ford Galaxie police car and the (equally nice) Fire Chief version were the perfect cars at the perfect time, with good road holding, an intimidating presence, and the ability to ram everything off the road if necessary. (Someone some day should make a list of what diecast vehicles are all-time classics, but this certainly would be in the top ten.)
Lesney had replaced an earlier Ford with the Galaxie and slipped up by changing the blue-and-white color scheme of that (mistakenly two-door) model to overall white, but they made up for this somewhat by including the same logo on the vehicles, so our municipalities (made up of shirt cardboard roads with pencil and a few new-fangled Pentel markers in my case) could share both new and old cars. And they also later upgraded the Galaxie to a Mercury, with no other changes, so my police force was able to buy new cars.
The LTD specifically, though, was further emblazoned into my consciousness by the FBI TV series, starring Efrem Zimbalist Jr. (son of the great violinist, hence the “Jr”) that made its debut at the time my parents first allowed a (black-and-white) TV into the household. A major and relatively early example of product placement, the show was not only sponsored by Ford but featured Ford cars pretty exclusively, and they must have given the producers some of the first cars off the line every year, since it was always amazing how quickly the featured cars were updated after the model-year change.
Producer Quinn Martin later continued his association with Ford in “The Invaders” and “The Streets of San Francisco,” both classic shows that are (only to some degree in the case of the latter) available on DVD. “The FBI” unfortunately isn’t, as far as I know, so I don’t know whether it was only baddies who lurched around in the LTD — while the FBI men drove Custom 500s — or they were more widely seen.
Meanwhile, here’s another diecast example from my collection, the Dinky France Galaxie. There’s no sign of LTD badging on the car, but the plasticwood dashboard is nicely reproduced as is even the hood ornament …
I don’t have the resources to do a full cultural survey, but I can’t help but wonder if the 1965 LTD’s influence was even greater than we give it credit for in the automotive realm. Did the whole cultural shift to the seventies’ growing taste for velour, dark wood paneling, and other trappings of luxury in our homes and offices start right here? Was Lee Iaccoca that much of a genius? Or did he just feel the earliest winds blowing in that direction and set sail sooner than anyone else? Brilliant, either way
I believe I mentioned this a while back at TTAC, but I’ll post it here too since we’re discussing the LTD and the Great Brougham Epoch.
What made the LTD luxurious was what was on the inside. Cars in 1958 had more glitter and chrome, but they didn’t have the interior of a brougham. What made the Brougham Epoch was the affordability and popularity of air conditioning in family and large cars, and the affordability of new polyester fabrics that didn’t have to contend with hot sweaty human bodies, thanks to air conditioning.
Thanks to A/C, interiors didn’t have to contend with fabrics based on their ability to mop up sweat and remain clean. Plush, pillow-tufted car interiors are not practical in an unairconditioned car. Fabrics that enrobe passengers in luxury feel don’t feel so great when they are full of perspiration and sweat. Entombing passengers within an LTD’s inner sanctum isn’t attractive without air conditioning.
When the 1958 cars were unveiled, family cars were no longer compact. As they grew in size, it forced luxury brands into becoming even larger to justify their price tags. Without the obvious benefits of sheer size, luxury brands needed to justify their existence in new ways, notably interior appointments. What we see by the time the Great Brougham Epoch occurs is a focus upon how luxurious and insulated luxury car interiors could become. It took the LTD to bring this level of luxury into the common auto makers.
It was profitable. Full size GM and Fords sold in the millions each year compared to luxury brands. Model year tooling costs were ameliorated quickly when a million full size Fords and Chevies were sold annually. Putting a luxury option package upon a vehicle that already had it’s costs paid off meant that the LTD, Caprice, DPL and VIP generated profits above and beyond what luxury brands could. It wasn’t until Mercuries and Lincolns, Cadillacs and Buicks shared the same body as the full sized Fords and Chevrolets could similar profits generated by a luxury optioned lower brand be similar.
The LTD killed Mercury, and the Caprice killed Oldsmobile but not for another thirty five years. Until that time GM and Ford reaped years of luxury profits by pimping out and Broughamifying their cars.
Good points about a/c. Your mention of interior isolation made me think that these cars are probably also indicative of the time when the fantasy of the ‘two-lane blacktop drive in the country’ was being replaced in the average car buyer’s consciousness by the reality of the 6-lane, 20 mph commute and the 10 acre parking lot oven. In that sense Iacocca probably knew exactly what he was doing, and initially it made a good deal of sense.
It seems that by the 1970’s the same paradigm was moving into other areas of consumer culture as well – that’s where a little more cultural theorizing would be interesting.
Excellent article and as well all the comments. You all hit on all the points I’ve always held about cars. I was 10 years old in 1965, and was about 95% car at any given time. I loved and still love everything about American cars. I was born in Detroit, with family working at both the Chrysler Corporation and Ford Motor Company. The family drove Chryslers and a few Fords. By the time I was 10, we were living in Southern California, but still driving Chryslers. The neighbors all drove Ford County Sedan wagons with a few Chevy wagons mixed in. But it all changed in 65 when our next door neighbors bought a new County Squire, white with tan interior. It was big and beautiful. The Squire was trimmed like the LTD, and it really turned heads. One by one the neighbors all bought LTD sedans and Squires. My dad’s last Chrysler was a 69 300, four door hardtop with a 440 four barrel carburetor. My brother had a 66 Mustang 289 four speed, I bought a 69 Mach I, that is still my favorite car. From then my dad, mom and uncles all drove Lincoln Town Cars and F Series trucks. My brother’s and I all have Explorers. I never really thought about it until reading this article, but it really all started with our neighbors 65 Country Squire. I too remember all the Quinn Martin TV shows featuring the latest models from Ford. There were a few shows featuring Chryslers, very few had cars from the GM divisions, but I always thought it was a marketing thing, although I did feel the Fords photographed better.
I would also like to mention this article and comments really helped me to feel more connected to you all after reading that we all share the same views about our cars from the 60s. The styling, the options, the Power, and of course the sound of a big V8 with duel exhaust has never been the same. I realize we had to make necessary changes in technology to improve economy, but did we have to sacrifice styling to the point that all cars look like bars of soap.If we could use today’s technology with the passionate styling of yesterday we would have exciting cars to appreciate today. Until then I will continue to collect diecast models of my favorite cars from the 50s, 60s and even the seventies. I have a great collection that I’m always adding to. Again what a great article and corresponding comments.
My grandparents (both sets) and a few aunts and uncles were full participants in the Great Wallowing Big Fords Epoch; there were always several big Fords in the family during the late 60’s-to-late 70’s period (eventually this morphed into Great Wallowing Big Mercurys as well). And my parents had an Impala SS, but just the badge-and-bucket-seats version with the 327, not the big-block V8.
Ford is still trying to evoke that LTD-next-to-the-Rolls thing; when the new Taurus was introduced, one of the ads featured a guy who was proud of his SHO and how it was one of the cars the valet parked out front with the higher-end stuff.
I’m glad you brought up the new Taurus. I drove a very nicely equipped one in Colorado last summer and kept thinking to myself, “They should have called this the ‘LTD.'” The Town Car might be headed for oblivion, but the Brougham spirit lives on. Without stepping up to the EcoBoost you can get a FWD Taurus Limited to nearly $42k. Heck, it’s possible to spend over $33,500 on a Fusion without opting for either AWD or the 3.5 liter V6.
Boo, and here I always related the introduction of the Cutlass Supreme to the success of The Supremes…..
Iacooca, the man the myth, the legend.
Ironically during my parents rotation of Oldsmobiles, Pontiacs, and Chevrolets the Chevy dealer loaned them an early 1980s LTD while their Chevy Celebrity was in the shop. (FWIW the Celebrity was advertised as “the little car with the big car feel.”) Mom declared the Ford was a “wallowing pig” and I can’t ever recall my father even test driving a used Ford after that.
Smaller cars were the “in” thing back then. We called anything larger than a Celebrity a “boat” or a gas-hog! Your mom was right on the mark! When the early mid-80’s Buick and other FWD “full sizers” came out, well, they were pretty special and impressed me. FWIW, we drove K-cars, Fairmonts, and an AMC Concord on both sides of our family.
Paul, you did it again! That 1965 Ford Galaxie 500 is one of my all-time favorites with the 1966 model right behind it. Aside from being a Chevy man, a certain female I chased around Yuba City when in the air force so very long ago drove one of these – 2 dr. hardtop, white, black vinyl top, red interior. Extremely beautiful girl, beautiful car, even if I liked my ’64 Chevy better! Now my brain is running in overdrive, so I have to list my favorite cars in order: Chevy Impala, Chevelle/Malibu, Nova, Camaro, Ford Galaxie 500, Morris Minor. Well – that’s it for the cars that really matter(ed) to me. In looking over the limo version, it kind of reminds me of the mini-limo K-car, which I thought was really cool. Our local Plymouth dealer had a couple back then.
Yet another example of a simple, straight line design that holds up nearly 50 years later. Gracefully aging much better than an equally conditioned ’65 Impala IMO.
(I’ve written before, there is an “evil” glint in those stacked headlights that is absent from the Pontiac of the same vintage that I find appealing.)
Definitely one of my all-time favourites.
Just to stoke the embers of debate, could an argument also be made that Chevrolet started the “Cadillac look for Chevrolet money” trend in ’58 with the introduction of the Impala?
That said, I don’t dispute Paul’s point that this car began the Brougham Epoch that peaked in the 70s.
You would also have to consider the 1957 Ford Fairlane 500, a longer-wheelbase, more luxurious version of the “regular” Ford, that was built to take on the Buick Special. Buick had claimed third place in sales by 1954, and would hold that position through 1956. Ford was going after customers in the lower-medium price field.
It wasn’t an LTD but my ride for Prom in ’90 was a 66 Galaxie. We had more attention rolling up to the valet in that than ANY of the Limos there!
My mother had a beat-to-poop example, a white ’65 4-door (yes, it was a genuine LTD) with a 352/dual exhaust (until the exhaust system fell off). We got it in 1974 for $50.00 because it was all she could afford, and we knew the seller and a little of the car’s history. It had been hit hard in the rear, so we drilled holes in the tops of the rear quarters and mounted trailer lights on top for the brake lights – kind of a poor man’s Imperial gunsights.
Amazingly, that thing got my family (single mom – 4 kids) everywhere we needed to go, even in the infamous 20″ blizzard that hit Detroit in December ’74. No, it wasn’t perfectly reliable by any means, in fact it truly was a POS, but we managed to keep that beast on the road for over two years, until the gas tank fell off on the freeway in the spring of ’77. When we came back to get it, it was gone, and my mother didn’t even care, she was probably relieved to have gotten that thing out of her life once and for all. My grandmother, upon hearing of our plight, gave us her ’70 Maverick and got herself a new ’77 Maverick (could she have been the only repeat Maverick buyer?).
Despite this tortured history, I still have love for the clean look of this generation of Ford; I especially like the ’66. They must have really loved it in Brazil, because they kept making these up to 1983. Here’s an ’83:
http://www2.uol.com.br/bestcars/carros/ford/landau4g.jpg
That Brazilian Ford is a really attractive car, more like a Mark III than an LTD.
Exactly how long does a car run after the gas tank falls off (having never had that particular piece fall off, I’m curious)?
Long enough (after the terrifying clunk) to notice that the gas gauge had gone from 1/2 tank to below E in an instant (yeah, I know, American gas guzzler). My mom pulled over and shut it off, so we’ll never know just how long it could have gone on. Maybe a few more seconds. We were all fortunate we weren’t incinerated. I found the gas tank and dragged it to the shoulder (I was 15 and
stupidbrave enough to do it). Walked to a pay phone, called a neighbor to please rescue us, and that was the last time I ever saw the car. I’ve never wondered what happened to it, not even now; to me it was a symbol of poverty that we hung onto for a little too long.Outstanding article and comments, thank you. I hope you’ll cover the XL as well. As LTD was introducing the cheap luxo-barge, XL was closing the book on very big cars with very big engines. My folks kept their 1968 XL fastback for 15 years. Metallic gold, black vinyl roof, fake mags, racing stripes and a 428. Absolutely preposterous. I called it their sports aircraft carrier. That 428 insisted on Sunoco 260 (102 octane), 7 mpg. Mom adored it.
My maternal grandfather who worked in a GM factory but drove Fords only bought ONE new car in his life. It was a Ford XL.
Ford division (especially with King Lido in the drivers’ seat) didn’t feel like doing any favors for then struggling Mercury, and much like Dodge, went after the more senior division with an upmarket car – and a nice one at that. Lincoln like luxury at a Ford price! Certainly created the immediate knee-jerk reaction at GM with the ’65 1/2 Caprice (very Olds 98/Electra 225/Cadillac Calais like luxury) and the Plymouth Fury VIP (a car as a six year old I remember my Dad actually contemplating buying).
I still remember all the Ford LTD comparison ads to high priced (usually British) cars; especially the ’72 LTD being compared to a Jaguar XJ6!
Remember, Iacocoa was head of the Ford Division in those days. He liked his battles under the “scorched earth” rubric.
He didn’t care WHERE his sales came from; GM or Dodge or Mercury. He just WANTED them!
Its DNA shows up in the current Taurus. In profile (especially the C-pillar) and in the taillights.
+1
I always saw traces of the 65-66 taililights in the new Tauruses (or is it Taurii?)
Wish Ford would just rename the Taurus the Galaxie…
Great article, Paul.
As I recall, the fabric was universally referred to as “panty cloth”.
Very durable stuff too …. as is the fabric in most cars and trucks.
But when the cloth in the car got dirty or wet, it got a funky smell and never left the car, we would go down the shore and even with towels and stuff on the seats we always managed to get sand and wet on the seats causing that funky smell
There was a number of differences in Canadian built (Oakville, Ontario) cars before 1967. One was that no 2 door LTD was offered to us in 1965. The 4 door HT that we did get had completely different interior trim (same as 1965 Merc Park-Lane).
This was repeated in 1966. Also, couldn’t get a 289 engine until 1966. So in 1965, you went straight from the 240 Six to the 352 ,minus the 4 bbl carb of the US version, which made it a real boat anchor at 220 HP (versus 200 for the 289, and a lot less front end weight). Also, our option listed was more restricted, the most notable restriction being no factory in dash AC. If you wanted air, it was a dealer-installed unit under the dash.
In 1966, while you could finally get a 289, there was no 352 as in the US (no big loss).
And the 390 was 2-barrel only for Canada. Curiously, the two 427s (4V & 8V) were available in both countries, although I have never seen one.
These variations were all a result of the trade barriers which existed before the 1965 Auto Pact. We could order AC starting in 1967, but it had to be a US built car. Oakville was finally set up to install factory air in 1968, when it finally became available on the Meteors.
I would say that the LTD was the second shot from Ford. The first would be the 1955-57 Thunderbird. The LTD (Long Two Door?) was a much cheaper implementation of the undercutting strategy. The Thunderbird required a whole lot of effort to produce, this car, just gussy up an existing sedan. Styled to ape the very successful Pontiacs of the day, while appointed like the Cadillacs of the day. Excellent strategy for the time.
I think LTD was acronym for Luxury Trim Decor. I’ve also heard Lincoln Thunderbird Design.
My father had a 1965 LTD 4-door hardtop in silver-blue – no vinyl top. It had the 390 (T-bird) engine (4 bbl?) – this car was previously used by the coroner – so it had some kind of police-package? I drove this car in my early-driving years. It was a quiet ride compared to other similar vintage cars.
Several comments about the interior. This was the first car in my memory that had keys which could be inserted either side up. The dashboard was swept back very dramatically at the bottom – my father had after-market air conditioning installed and the unit created a shelf at the bottom of the dash because of the swept back dash. Finally, I remember a vacuum operated rear vent (near the rear window). There was a knob on the dash that opened/closed the vent – this whole rear-vent system was an answer to the similar GM system.
I think you’re right about the reversable key. Ford started introducing it in 1965, and it would make sense that they offered it first on the expensive cars. My ’66 Mustang did not have them, but the ’67s did, IIRC.
Regarding “T-bird power”, I believe that was merely a marketing gimmick by Ford. I notice that this car has a “352” fender emblem with the T-bird logo. While I happen to like the 352/360/390 group of FE-Series engines and have many happy memories of them, I’ll admit the 352 was nothing to write home about, power-wise.
Loved this article. Karl, the reversible key feature wasn’t just for the LTD’s. Dad ordered a new ’65 Custom in March ’65, the bottom of the basement trim level! But it still had the reversible keys. Even that stripped down model had a very quiet ride. I still wish Dad had popped for the LTD trim but he was a product of the Great Depression, hard wired to be frugal, and he just couldn’t see the sense in spending all that money for some plastic wood, I guess. The ’65’s styling was obviously influenced by Pontiac but manages to look cleaner, and its ultra modern dash was one of the best of the ’60’s. Now it’s time for the diecast makers to give this car its due!
Always liked the clean dash of the 65 and went to PEP BOYS and bought a roll of the wood grain plastic and dressed up the chrome in the car with it, along with white pinstripes and a 4 way flasher install from pepe boys and signal stat that car was da BOSS!!!!!!
Any idea what ‘LTD’ meant? I always thought it stood for Luxury Through Design, but does anyone have the official word from Ford?
Numerous theories and assumptions, but none verified. It means nothing; or anything.
one possible meaning is shortened “LimiTeD”. “Limited” indicated some kind of exclusivity.
yup, that’s it. LIMITED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Limited to as many as they could sell.
Researching the Aussie LTDs I found mention it was Lincoln Type Design.
I always thought it stood for Lincoln Thunderbird Division.
Perhaps indicative of Ford’s aspirations for mass market luxury, I remember the local Ford dealer tell my dad that LTD stood for “Lincoln Trimmed Down”. And some of the detailing certainly bears this out: the panty cloth knit nylon seemingly matched the luxury of brocade fabrics in Cadillacs and Lincolns; the c-pillars housed not only courtesy lights, but (gasp) stereo speakers; and, a center rear armrest provided a luxury touch not found on other entry full-sizers. (An aside: I’ve got a theory that the entire collapse of the American domination of the market can be traced to removal of that armrest by American manufacturers, while imports had them on all but the lowest trim lines.)
Paul nails it here, in terms of how quickly the luxury-themed race went, and the link between cars and home luxury. Chevy (in ’66?) had a “formal” coupe roofline for the Caprice coupe only; in ’67, LTD had both a formal roof AND covered in vinyl. Reminiscent of home, the LTD later added “TwinComfort Lounge seats”, 50/50 split bench front seats with each half having it’s own armrest. And by ’69, Ford introduced a dash severly swept back on the passenger side–and dubbed that space “the front room”.
My parents had one of these rather briefly in 1965-66. My father had a one-man body and fender shop, and a friend of his who ran a junkyard hooked him up with a nearly new wrecked Galaxie 500. It was a gold two-door with the 390/Cruis-o-matic setup.
It had a black top, and for a long time I assumed that it was factory vinyl top, but based on what I’ve read here, it may not have been. Around that time Daddy had become enamored with this stuff that you sprayed on that looked like a vinyl roof. The stuff really looked like a vinyl roof, and it adhered well. We found out (much later) that its down side was that when you wanted to remove it, it took a strong man, a large side grinder, and a box of rough-grit grinding wheels to get that crap off again. So, maybe the ’65 was Daddy’s first experiment with the fake vinyl roof. Regardless, the black roof and gold body looked sharp.
What led to the car’s early departure from the family was it’s gas mileage, which was in the range of 8 mpg. Even back then, Daddy wasn’t going to put with that crap. He had bought another car from the same source, this one a ’66 Galaxie 500 XL with the 390/C6 drivetrain. It’s mileage was almost double the ’65 at 15 mpg. Adios, ’65!
the 65-70 Fords were the mainstay of our family either new or used, dad had the 65 LTD used for over 8 yrs and unc would buy a new car every yr for tax purposes so the cars kept coming in fast..t he 68 LTD wagon was the frost car we had with factory Ac in it, darn near froze my little kid arse off on vacation sitting in center seat and loving it!!!!! Alas the 68 took a good hit in from a toytoa but the wagon smashed the shoot outa it.. but bent the frome on the LTD and unc just wrote it off and bought a swoopy new gold 1969 in May of that year with power EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Chevrolet released the SS option for its big cars: buckets, console, etc.. and a six was still the base engine.”
Actually, that’s not the case. To get the SS package on a ’61 Impala, you had to order the 348 engine or its mid-year successor, the 409. By ’62 the SS package was available on an Impala with the lowly 235 6 cylinder or V8’s from 283 through 409 ci.
Dang, you have the second-greatest avatar which I was thinking about using over on TTAC until I could come up with something better than the door of my Impala.
Now I gotta find something else! Love it!
In late 1964, our ’55 Chevy BelAir was on it’s last legs. After going through hell with a cracked block in a late 50’s lemon Plymouth Fury (same car as in the movie Christine), we bought a ’55 Chevy used from someone moving to Australia and became a GM family.
We would have looked at Impalas and the like but GM was on strike. My dad saw a TV ad for a new Ford during a football game…the LTD. Yes, it was only a trim package but was cleverly promoted. We took a test drive and were amazed at how quiet it was. We would not have normally bought a Ford but were convinced. We ordered a sedan in silver blue with a dark blue padded vinyl roof. It was just around $3,000. It had the standard 289 2bbl and 3 speed Cruise O Matic. It had that novel flo-thru ventilation…a vacuum driven motor that opened a vent under the rear window. That, the wing vent windows and the vents under the dash helped some, as we didn’t have AC. It was the most luxurious car we had. To us it was a limo. It was big but at 210″ long not as huge as some other large cars. I remember it had a blue cold light on the dash to tell you the engine was cold. No temp gauge though.
We kept the LTD for 10 years and it had about 150K miles, a lot back then. I remember the engine locking up once and it was rebuilt around 100K. It had no PCV system and just a road draft tube to ventilate the crankcase. When I drove it late in its life, I found that my parents were using the wrong drive position all the time. They were starting out in second gear, the one for low traction starts! That couldn’t have been too good for the car!
By the time I started driving, the car was about 9 years old and was pretty battle scarred from a motorcycle who crashed into the back door and tons of stop and go driving. The paint had faded badly too and had no shine. Still, I loved driving and working on it…until it was on a lift and the doors would not open…because the frame was badly rusted. I was advised to carefully drive it to the junkyard. I did and it was sad to see some young kid drive my beloved LTD towards the pile of metal that it would soon be part of. I got $50. I kept some of the LTD medallions and the owners manual.
We replaced it with a 2 year old ’71 Caprice we bought from a relative for a good deal. That was a good car too and died of rust as well…the rear axle almost came off the car as it went around a turn like a fire truck!
After the LTD, I had some $100 cars in my teen years. A1966 Bonneville wagon was a great car we had until it was at least 15. But that LTD made a Ford fan out of me and I have bought small Fords since, Fiesta (German import), Escort GT and my current first gen Focus zx3. I still dream of that LTD and although cars have improved so much since, perhaps because I grew up with it, I would love to drive it again.
I remember the 1968 LTD Brougham very well!
My dad bought a demo at a small Ford dealership in MN. I thought it was beautiful! I loved the cloth upholstery. BTW the “Brougham” was now an optional interior package. Perhaps because of the additional expense of the standard LTD/XL hidden headlights?
The standard LTD interior was like the XL bench seat but in cloth, still a bit nicer than the Galaxie 500.
Dad’s LTD was a 4 door HT in Seafoam Green (pale avocado), black vinyl top, Dark Ivy Green interior. 390 2V. It could do some mean smokey brake lock burn outs!
It looks like you can still get the upholstery ( for anyone restoring one):
http://www.smsautofabrics.com/product-info.php?pid=66-6129&pcl=c&ino=17325
As I remember Ford used a lot of satin fabrics on their premium cars: Lincolns, Thunderbird/LTD Broughams, Park Lane/Marquis, while GM used brocades…..all were slippery!
My grandfather had the midnight blue hard top 4-door– as depicted in the brochure. No post between the front and rear windows. That car floated. It was absolutely beautiful, and if I could find that car today, I would spend quite a lot to bring it back.
yeah the road feel on these cars was zip. we took a LOL car on a test drive in the mid 70’s with the 390 and just about blew away every toyo and Nissan on the road with it.but zero input on the road feel like you FLOATED on the road!!!!!!!!!!
I like large cars with a quiet ride, good upholstery, and arm rests, at affordable prices. The only thing I dislike about the mythical `Broughams’ are the fake classic touches (including fake RR grille), and the poor packaging causing less interior space. The 65 LTD doesn’t suffer from the first shortcoming at least. For me, fake luxury is more desirable in a commuter car than fake sportiness, at least when said fake luxury has good aircon, nice seats and soft suspension. Even a sport-ish car has no excuse for installing poor, bleak interiors. But that’s just me.
Actually, most ’65 LTDs came with the 300-horsepower 390 Thunderbird engine as did many Galaxie 500s rather than the 352. Both had 4-barrel carbs with the biggest difference being the 352 ran on regular-grade gasoline (93 octane) while the 390 demanded premium fuel (100 octane).
Also notice the back seat view of a window crank rather than a power window switch. Definitely not a Cad or Imperial touch as all of their cars had power lifts standard.
Mark; From what source do you have that info on “most of the LTDs coming with the 390?”
Also, in 1965, Cadillacs still had wind-up windows; I’m not sure what the last year was, but this is from the ’65 brochure.
I can tell you firsthand that crank windows were still around in 67.
That was the Calais – the stripped Caddy. Few bought that when a deVille w/ pwr windows etc was just a few more $.
I think Ford is given too much credit in retrospect. In reality, Ford, w/ the exception of the Mustang, was always following Pontiac, the hot brand of that decade.
Full-sized Pontiacs just looked and performed so much better than anything Ford could offer. But that didn’t stop Ford from aping (poorly) Poncho styling.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/that_chrysler_guy/10168150674/in/photostream/
That 1965 Ford interior looks like a copy of the 1964 Pontiac:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-Pontiac-Bonneville-Brougham-Interior-Automobile-Photo-Poster-zm1903-76MC7K-/290979227760
Oops, forgot about the Calais which came standard with crank windows (or optional power lifts) until ’67. I meant Lincoln Continental and Imperial had power windows standard on all models.
OK I believe it was the ’64 Galaxie 500 and XL upon which the 390 4-barrel was the most ordered engine. For ’65, it appears the LTD’s most popular was the 352, not surprising due the fact it was designed for regular-grade fuel while the 390 required premium and remained the most popular for the sporty XL while the 289 was most popular for the regular Galaxie 500, Custom 500 and Custom though many of those also had the 352 as there were reported shortages of 289s due to the Mustang’s popularity.
WOW, did this article bring back memories of DAD buying a 1965 LTD off the used car lot in FEB of 1969 for 24oo bucks, it was a minty green with a green gut and some kind of vinyl roof, that car had a 289 cid power steering and am radio that never worked , he got over 200k miles on it before he hit a chunk of concrete in 1976 and totaled the trnany and engine oil pan…………………………..Still car was a chick magnet and had to explain was LTD meant to the girls when we cruised with it………………..
And Unc had 3 Wagons that were BARGES, a 1968, 69, and 1970, boy they were HUGE and power everything up the yazoooooooo………………..They even took a good front end hit on the 68 and saved us kids from going thru the winshield and totaled a 1969 Toyota.that sucker was no match for Detroit Iron and folded that Toyo front end like a sardine can.BAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!
Nice. The big Fords of the mid-Sixties were the first cars I remember liking as a young ‘un in the late Sixties, and in the early Seventies a friend’s dad had a ’65 or ’66 Country Sedan. They still look good today, and though we never owned Fords, I think one of these in our driveway would have made for some pleasant memories…though I can imagine my dad grumbling about the gas mileage and going for the ’67 Beaumont with the six and a Powerglide anyway.
My parents bought a new 1965 LTD. I was only 4 years old but I remember that car well. They kept it until 1967 and traded it in on a new 1967 Oldsmobile Delmont 88.
The LTD had a little known predecessor in Broughamification – the 1964 Pontiac Bonneville Brougham. Same as the LTD, it was a trim option on the then top-line Bonneville. But it didn’t get nearly the promotion that the LTD did.
Growing up, my next-door neighbor had a triple dark green ’67 4-door hardtop, with below-dash a/c. He was a Methodist minister, and it was his retirement gift from the church at the end of our block. Always liked the lines on that car.
It’s been a long time since I read Iacocca, but I don’t recall him discussing the birth of the LTD. Would love to hear his perspective.
Very attractive cars,Ford was at the top of it’s game styling wise in the 60s(apart from the 67 Thunderbird).Looking back although a winner for Ford it seems to lure buyers away from Mercury and could be seen as the first nail in Mercury’s coffin.Thanks for another great read Paul
These really were smooth and quiet cars, and were therefore the perfect foundation for the LTD’s luxury concept. As a teenager, my friends and I lived in the world of 10 year old cars. These Fords were still tight, quiet cars at that age when compared with the others. If not for their tendencies towards fatal frame rust, these would have been nearly perfect.
I also recall that the LTDs sales came to dominate over the Galaxie sooner than the Caprice did over the Impala. I think that Iacoccas brilliance was in recognizing the basic car’s smooth and silent personality and then leveraging on those strengths in a singularly effective way.
You’re so right about the prevalence of LTD’s over Galaxies where the Caprice lagged behind Impala. From my Standard Catalog of American Cars, in 1969 LTD production was 417,677 compared to 359,238 Galaxie 500’s. This same year there were 777,000 Impalas made compared to only 166,900 Caprices.
Great article Paul. Putting the car aside for a second, the significance here is the willingness of the Ford, then GM, to eats it own. Encroaching on Mercury’s turf like this was the death knell for brand differentiation. No wonder these behemoths eventually floundered. Put a salesman in charge and the rot starts.
Not sure I agree. GM dominated for 40 years on the strength of the “brand ladder” as conceived by Alfred Sloan. Neither Ford nkr Chrysler ever got anywhere trying to play by GM’s rules. The only times Ford ever succeeded were when they broke out of GM’S paradigm as with the 58 Tbird, the Mustang and the LTD. Ford’s eventual success in becoming a brand not defined by price or class made Mercury irrelevant. It was this shift in brand perception that has played havoc at GM over the last 25 years.
Yep, I was thinking of the squarebird when I wrote that. It goes against the Sloanian principle but it worked. Mercury was never strong enough to counter Pontiac and Olds, so it was fair game.
I suppose I’m seeing the Sloan take on Durant’s beginnings as the most significant moment in what is loosely known as ‘brand differentiation’. It was a systematised way of managing a stable of products at the widest range of price points. Ford and Chrysler had no choice but to follow, as did many other businesses in categories across the board. And for various reasons they never matched the brilliance of Sloan’s organisational ability. So Lido’s moves kept the Ford brand running strong. And, as these pages so deftly describe, the malaise in Detroit wasn’t down to a single factor.
One needs to keep in mind that GM was an aggregation of existing car companies, some of them which had very strong brand identities going back to the the first decade of the 20th century. That may explain in part why Sloan’s structure worked, and perhaps the only one, as well as the fact that back in the 20s and 30s, each brand only built a very narrow range of cars, and price differentiation was much more extreme than after the war.
A ’31 Caddy V16 cost what? 10 x a Chevy? By 1965, a Caddy only cost some 25% more than a Caprice.
The Sloan structure started to collapse very soon after WW2, and was essentially an obsolete construct from a different era. GM made it work on the strength of their brand’s momentum, but there were times GM almost pulled the plug on one or the other of the mid-range brands.
Ford and Chrysler essentially tried to re-create the Sloan structure with new, created brands (Mercury, deSoto), at the end of the 30s, when that concept was just about to become obsolete. They should never have bothered….
after WW2, GM was saddled with a structure that was irrelevant, from the perspective of the classic Sloan purpose. A ’55 Chevy Nomad cost more than a Buick Century Riviera!
GM made the best of it, and milked a lot of profit from the volumes it generated, but it soon became a huge liability; inevitable in a new world order.
The Toyota/Lexus thing works, because it’s so big in the US, and can support the volume needed to support high-end Lexus stores. Same with Cadillac. The rest….wait and see.
on the other hand, brands aren’t what they used to be,with such a fragmented market. See Chrysler/Dodge/Ram/Fiat…. Multiple brands that don’t compete under one roof work; but the GM model was doomed, from way back. Once it’s market share started to drop, the ugly end was inevitable.
I didn’t realise the price spread had narrowed by that much after WW2 on GM products, but the commoditisation of technologies etc can do that.
This goes to a broader philosophy of capitalism, the prevailing model of strength – to me – is the VW and BMW type group (and Toyota) which have taken the Sloan principles one step further by stratifying their brands in response to the consumer. There is enough difference between a Skoda to a Seat to a VW to an Audi to a Porsche (imagine if the reverse takeover had actually happened) to a Lambo. Blurring has starting to occur between the Cayennes and others vehicles across some of these brands, so they still need to be careful balancing these differences between shared platforms.
But we are living in an era where critical mass is becoming a much larger figure, hence the rush of carmakers to consolidate. That leaves gaps for niche makers like Tesla to fill and the cycle in some ways starts again. Apple also occupied that type of niche before they launched their handheld products. Lucky or smart? Do Tesla need a breakout like the iPhone at some point?
Capitalism does not stand still, as IBM have learned through their various metamorphoses. Reading DeLoreans book ‘On a Clear Day.. ‘ is in some ways like reading Sloans in terms of the woolly legacy structure existing when each had taken control. Capitalism also has no single best practice model but being in marketing skews my POV to thinking that the aforementioned commoditisation of technologies means that a lot companies are just in the business of ‘brands’.
It strikes me that Fiat group are now where GM was after Durant made his purchases and before Sloan took over.
Please excuse me if I get a bit longwinded here. I think the narrowing of the price spread to an extent reflects the changes in society in the 20th century.
In the early days of GM, the Sloan brand ladder made sense. Society was more class-conscious. A Chevrolet man might well aspire to a Pontiac, perhaps he might stretch to an Olds. He might dream of a Buick, but he would know that a Cadillac was way out of reach. Even if he won the lottery, would a Cadillac dealer sell to him? I read somewhere years ago of someone (in the early fifties, I think it was) who came into money being told he was not yet ready for a Cadillac, and being politely but firmly turned aside to an Oldsmobile. That wouldn’t have happened twenty years later!
How society has changed. There is not the same sense of classes in society these days. Sociologists and historians can argue the cause, and I don’t want to get political here, but I will just say that the rise of Marxism in the early 20th century had a profound impact on thinking even in countries that did not go Communist. Union leaders stirred up the workers. There was a growing sense of “Jack’s as good as his master” as my late father used to say. Couple this with the admiration for the “self made man”, the man who “bettered himself”, and the widespread success stories we so often heard from America (I’m Australian), and there was a fundamental change in attitude in society. Whereas once the lower-paid worker “knew his place” as they used to say, and was content with it, now there was a feeling that betterment was possible, even within reach. Coming out of the depression, and especially after the deprivations of WW2, this fuelled the growth of the middle class (IMHO), as people began not just to want more but clamour for more. It took a while for this to reach full flower – Brougham era, anyone?
So where did a five-brand strategy fit into this changing market? We see Chevrolet move upmarket (and eventually get too big and expensive for many export markets) and gradually become more luxurious. We see Cadillac move gradually downmarket – no more Twelves or Sixteens. And this was just reflecting the expectations of society, as sales of the big Cadillac’s had dropped to unprofitable numbers before they were discontinued. This naturally put the squeeze on the brands in the middle, and they had to have some outstanding feature or features to justify the higher price.
Consider also the effect of component-sharing. Once the five GM brands each sat on their own chassis. The buyer knew that his Oldsmobile was different to a Chevrolet. It didn’t just look different, it was entirely different inside and under the skin too. Did the rot set in with the ’59 models, when they all went to the same basic Fisher body structure? Contrast that with the increasing component-sharing of later years – and eventually you reach the seventies scandal of Chevy-powered Oldses. Go forward a few years from that, and – you know the rest. With five divisions selling the same car, it came down to either your styling or interior preference – or which dealer gave you the best deal!
No wonder the Sloan ladder toppled over.
I also don’t want to get into a political discussion, but you remind me of a story I read about a Motown (the music label) session musician in the sixties. The quite rigid company hierarchy was such that he was not allowed to own a Cadillac in his home town of Detroit (where Motown was based at the time). His position within the label was not high enough so he had to make do with owning a Buick. He said he loved playing gigs in other cities because the first thing he would do when he got there was rent a Caddy.
One reason the VW model works is based on component sharing. It’s just that when you buy a Skoda, you’re buying older or de-tuned technology. And at the price point offered, the consumer for that car doesn’t really mind. There are obviously many more facets to running a successful car conglomerate but I think this is an important one for VW.
I once had a discussion the owner of a business who manufactured radiator fluids. He said his cheapest product was actually rated at tolerances higher than his most expensive, so he just ‘de-tuned’ the product on the label.
The Sloan ladder fell in part because GM couldn’t anticipate how to handle the subsequent phases of this brilliant strategy. To be fair, it’s only individuals such as Buffett, Soros and Murdoch (and Neil Young – his music not his cars) who have demonstrated the type of vision required over the longer term.
Don, All good points. The simple reality is that GM was a brilliant construct by Sloan, one highly suitable for the times (20s-30s). After WW2, GM rode high on the hog of America’s “Exceptional Period”, but its leaders had absolutely no genuine new vision or a sense of where things were going and what GM needed to do to go there. Kodak; PanAm Xerox; it happens again and again.
And when the boom of the Exceptional Period ended, it coincided with the beginning of the end for GM. Literally. The 14th floor was all about keeping the gravy-train party going as long as possible. Period.
I don’t know; the LTD demonstrated that buyers were quite willing to pay extra for a dressed-up version of the same basic product, which if anything should have validated the idea of Mercury as upscale Ford.
The more I read about the Toyota approach to dealer networks and model differentiation, the more I begin to question the traditional cant (which I’ve certainly repeated myself on many occasions) that an automaker should feel obliged to follow the Sloan hierarchical model.
I suppose it depends on your goal. If the objective is simply to expand your dealer network so you can sell more cars (which was Toyota’s goal and was one of Ford’s original goals for the Edsel), or to give the dealers who sell your more expensive products something else to keep money coming in between big-ticket sales (which was the goal of pairing Chrysler and Plymouth or (re)joining Mercury with Lincoln), you don’t necessarily need a hierarchy. Hell, as the Japanese automakers found in the home market, you don’t necessarily even need different brands.
To some extent it also comes down to the strength of your basic products — if you have a flock of turkeys, adding spinoffs isn’t going to do you much good. On the other hand, if you have an appealing product, a premium version of it that offers some worthwhile benefits is probably going to do pretty well.
A case in point is the mid-90s Lexus ES300. Its kinship with the contemporary Camry wasn’t terribly hard to see, but even if you were perfectly aware that it was basically a dressed-up Camry V-6, the ES300’s price premium bought you nicer materials, a few more toys, a longer warranty, Lexus customer service, and the ability to tell people you had a Lexus rather than a Toyota. Of course, I don’t know how well that would have worked if Lexus had not also had the LS400 (judging by Acura’s fortunes in recent years, probably not so well), but in the event, a lot of customers evidently decided it was a pretty good deal.
So, I may be having a volte-face on this one…
Yep, I’m only just starting to understand the Japanese makers from the point of view of their domestic as well as international markets. They had the strength internationally twenty years ago. The jury still appears out on the Ghosn period for Nissan.
What I never understood is why Ford persisted with those plain panels around the headlights on the LTD. They said, very plainly, “basic car.”
Well written Paul ;
I remember when these came out and the square styling was the thing to have .
I especially liked the big wagons .
-Nate
Very nicely written analysis of the Brougham epoch’s beginnings. And, yet, when I think of the ’65 Ford, I think of the 427-powered XL and Fred Lorenzen’s dominant #28 Holman-Moody NASCAR racer. Maybe it’s because I wasn’t around at the time so my view is shaped by what examples are still around as classics.
And as undeniable proof that the Brougham epoch has ended, that vinyl-roof equipped CTS coupe very nearly made me lose my breakfast. That just looks AWFUL. And the CTS coupe is normally one of my favorite cars…no accounting for taste (or lack thereof) I suppose.
Probably the same type of buyer who would have been found in one of the “superfly” Eldorados with the absurd headlight magnifiers back in the mid 70’s.
I donno — maybe a retiree who still misses their Continental Mark V…
Could it be that the Brougham epoch was directly linked to the rise and fall of the musclecar era? Prior to the GTO, musclecars were still full-sized, NASCAR style cars. But once the big-engine intermediate coupe showed up, suddenly, everything switched from oval track to the 1320 and, with it, something new was needed to market the large cars and draw consumers into the showrooms. That ad trumpeting a small 289 V8 in the large LTD really speaks volumes.
When muscle’s brief reign ended and it ceased to sell, the Broughams came out in full force and completely took over.
I would add that it was also all about demographics. The WWII generation was moving into their late 40s in 1965, about the age when people become less enamored with speed and sports cars and more desirous of comfort. The LTD was right there waiting for them at the perfect time. Muscle cars were mostly for the younger crowd.
In an ironic twist, while Iacocca’s always remembered for the Mustang and minivan, those were both relatively short flashes-in-the-pan compared with the Broughamization of the auto industry. The LTD started it in 1965 and it could be argued that it didn’t end until the final year of the Panther platform (2012). That’s nearly a half century for a specific style of car that essentially never really changed from its original concept.
I can’t speak directly to Ford or Chrysler, but I remember the GM history fairly well, and it somewhat applies to all of the Big 3.
Through the 1958 model year, each GM division did their own thing, building everything for themselves. For 1959, upper management ordered all the divisions to share frames.
(This is why the all-new ’58 Chevies were one-year-only cars, and the 1959 was again substantially new.)
Once frames were shared, suspension and steering bits were not far behind. This trend of sharing continued, finalized with engine sharing in the mid-late 70’s. GM even faced a lawsuit when Oldsmobiles started shipping with Chevrolet small-blocks. (Hey! Where’s my Rocket 350?)
At that point, there was scarcely anything to differentiate a fully-loaded Caprice Classic from a Bonneville, Electra, or Delta 88. Same story for the A-body intermediates, etc.
That was the beginning of the end for Pontiac, Olds, and (should have been) Buick.
I’m sure Sloan was spinning in his grave by 1977.
Suspension and brake parts were always shared throughout the GM range that goes back to the 30s it enabled country town dealers way out here to stock parts for nearly everything the secret is in the part numbers.
Actually, that’s not the case. GM cars shared bodies, not the frames. This started with the 1931 Pontiac, which used a Chevy body with a longer hood. Eventually this became commonplace, because the bodies were the most complex and expensive component, and standardizing them meant huge cost savings.
But the frames underneath them were all different, at least until 1965. That also goes for suspensions, brakes, engines and other drivel-line parts, including transmission, up to a point.
My article on the GM-X frame details the quite different frames GM used during the 1958-1970 era: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-an-x-ray-look-at-gms-x-frame-1957-1970/
After 1965, there was a growing communality between divisions, but even that took some time to become across-the-board.
Also, the way the shared body plan originally came about in the ’30s was that Vincent Kaptur observed that a lot of GM’s existing cars were already very close in size. His argument was that since the differences between the lines that ended up sharing bodies weren’t usually more than an inch here or two inches there, it didn’t really make sense not to have them use common bodies.
I remember when my folks bought their ’78 Estate Wagon, the dealer went on about Buick’s “exclusive” suspension system. I know the car had coils front and rear, but not sure if that was any different from any of the other B-bodies…
One curious question about the original series LTDs – what’s up with that weird trim piece on the roof on the ’65-’66’s 4-door hardtops that runs above the drip rail then down the front of the C-pillar and curves around the medallion? It was gone by 1967, but oddly seems to persist on non-vinyl roof ’67 LTDs, at least in brochure photos. It’s also absent from the “budget limousines” produced by Lehmann-Peterson in ’65-’66, as seen on Mission Impossible, no less.
A fully optioned 65-67 LTD sedan is a VERY becoming car. I have only seen one in person.
Recall riding in a ’65 LTD back then and being awed by how much more luxurious it was over the Galaxie. Loved the speakers in the sail panels and the seats were Lincoln like. Recall most ’65 Ltd’s having the 352 and the Galaxies the 289. The 390’s were quite rare, but became more common when the 352 was dropped a year later. Dad bought one in 1969, but it was greatly decontented by then. It was basically a Galaxie 500 with hidden headlights. You had to get the optional brougham package to get most of the luxury goodies back.
What a year 1965 was for the auto industry. The full size ’65 Fords were attractive and huge hit, but over at GM they were selling over a million big Chevys.
The Galaxie 500 interior choice started in mid-’69. It was a step-down option. The formerly standard, and much nicer non-Brougham interior became the “Luxury Trim Option”
This included better door panels, a clock and more velvet-like trim.
Then, there was the Brougham option, with a center armrest, cut pile carpet , door lamps and other items. For the ultimate in Botany-500 luxury, you could order the “Twin Comfort Lounge Seat” (a 50/50 seat with dual armrests, with or without a passenger recliner). If you count the split seat, a ’69-’70 LTD could be had with a choice of 4 different interior grades.
Yes, this sounds familiar. My dad’s 69′ LTD, which he bought late in the year, didn’t even have a clock. Strange that they decontented this in mid year. Didn’t they also offer, the 351 on the big Fords in mid year?
1965 was also the year that the most convertibles were built.
The 240 six was available in the LDT in 65. I may still have the brouchure . I still think the ’65 LDT was the best looking car of the year. I did not like the GM rear roof lines of the two door hard tops at all.
The 289 V8 was standard equipment for the 65 LTD:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/NA/Ford/1965_Ford/1965_Ford_Brochure/1965-Ford-06
Another twist to this story is how these top trim names usually ended up the ‘base/fleet’ model or take over the whole line up. LTD started to cover Galaxie 500 slot, as mentioned with the decontented 1969, and eventually was the whole [US] big Ford line. Same with Caprice and Gran Fury.
Crown Victoria was an ‘exclusive’ LTD model in 1980, then by 2004-ish was ‘fleet only’ cop/taxi autos. It was funny to me to see ‘LTD Crown Victoria’ badges on cop cars starting in 1983, kind of dilutes the ‘brougham’ aspect somewhat.
I always thought both Ford and Chevy persisted far too long in giving model names to trim levels and insisting their full-size line collectively was “The Ford” or “The Chevrolet”. By 1965, all full-size Fords should’ve been Galaxies, with the Galaxie LTD quickly joined by a Fairlane LTD and a Falcon LTD.
Well, there was a Maverick LTD concept. You can see this was the nexus for the LDO, the production car was watered down somewhat.
The interior.
Nice looking car. It’s too bad it wasn’t carried out. It would’ve made the Maverick a little more stylish and exciting.
These rear operas window glasses on that Maverick, I wonder if it had inspired GM to add them for their 1975 full-size 4-door hardtops?
And there was a Fairlane LTD in Argentina. http://www.productioncars.com/gallery.php?car=1443&make=Ford&model=Fairlane
For all the hype about quietness (one of my strongest memories of my father’s 1965 500XL is the non-stop rattling on the gravel road to our summer cottage), it is a very elegant looking car. In some respects it seems like the last gasp of the 1961 Continental in Ford’s marketing and image strategy – just before tautness gave way to bloat. The Brougham phenomenon really did start on the inside & work its way out.
The press announcements mention the new 240 six along with curved side glass (in the full-size Ford), dual-sided keys, “13% reduction” in size/incursion of the driveshaft tunnel, and the wagon’s first dual-facing rear seats. With the switch away from the signature round tail-lamps and squared-off lines, even the base (Custom) big Ford seemed “formal” vis-a-vis the space-age ’64.
/”panty-cloth”–I hadn’t heard that before. 🙂
Where do we have to sacrifice a goat and a Prius to get the Broughams to come back to us?
That awful looking baby Cadillac looks even worse with that vinal top. Bring back the big broughams!
Our neighbor across the street on Kirk Drive had a 1966 LTD, gold with a black vinyl top. I remember the interior material seemed as thin as a woman’s stocking.
That dark blue four door hardtop LTD is solid, silent, and elegant, just like the ad says. Chevy’s answer to it was also very well done. These really did do away with the need for the mid-priced brands. But, most of those brands did live on to do well for another couple of decades due to the need for a bit more variety. Chevy was selling a million full-size cars a year. Thank goodness Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Buick, Chrysler and Mercury were there to break up the monotony!
I have never been fond of Fords, so I don’t know much about the LTD. However, the Chevrolet Caprice was a very nice Chevrolet in 1965 and 1966. As pointed out above, the Caprice was a late 65 model. By 1968 or 1969, and certainly by 1970, the Caprice model was more or less what I would have expected the Impala to be. The Impala deteriorated to Bel Air class, and if Wiki is right, the Biscayne was a fleet car. Looking at pictures of 1970 or so LTD’s suggest to me that Ford did much the same thing.
I fail to see how the LTD started any trend. If anything, the 1938 Fleetwood 60 Special might have started some sort of trend, leading up to the 1974-76 Fleetwood 60 with the Talisman option. Things went downhill from there I think. Or possibly uphill depending on ones point of view.
I agree with your point, but with a slightly different take – the fact that LTDs the and other low-price broughams felt de-contented by the 70s was a function of decontenting across the board by the big three. Metal trim pieces became poorly plated plastic, on Cadillacs and Lincolns and Imperials as well as Chevys, Fords and Plymouths. Wood went from real to fake on luxury cars, and fake wood from plausible to pathetic on all cars by the mid 70s – the “wood” on mid 70s Cadillacs is particularly egregious.
Like you, I’m not a Ford guy (Mopars here) but I do like the 65-58 LTDs a lot – and it’s interesting how well they outsold the Caprice in the early years.
While the wood trim may have been plastic, it was fairly good imitation wood. At least the “wood” trim in my 71 Riviera looked real. The bad thing with Cadillac is that they used the fake wood everywhere, even on the radio knobs.
But, even so, a 1975 Cadillac interior looks much more luxurious than the corresponding 1965 interior, particularly DeVille’s. At least the pictures that come up on Google leave me with that impression. My ATS does not have any wood trim, getting carbon fiber instead.
I think perhaps the point was that Brougham trim levels were found on a multitude of cars, even the most pedestrian of makes or models. This is a valid point, but I am not sure that the LTD started the trend. The LTD probably prompted Chevy to come up with the Caprice, which did start out as a nicer car than the Impala was. This did not last. I am not sure about the LTD, except that I found that there was an LTD Brougham later on. The LTD Brougham was much the same car that the first LTD was.
And the basic 1965-66 Galaxie/LTD bodystyle soldiered to the early 1980s in Brazil. Here a Brazilian 1972 Galaxie LTD http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_254393-Ford-Galaxie-LTD-1972.html
http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_brasil/galaxie_brasil/landau_brasil/1982.html
I’ve always liked the 1965-66 Ford Galaxie.
Looking for a 1974 ford ltd 2dr brougham
For sale
Thx
Looking at the hub caps on the feature car. I’m going by memory here but I think they had to be inspired by the old television test pattern, the one with the Indian Chief on it. For the younger viewers, many stations did not broadcast programs through the overnight hours, so when they signed off for the night they would show a pattern that looked like that hub cap with an Indian Chief above it. That way you knew they were off the air but your set was still working.
I remember coming home from school in the afternoon and having to wait until 4 pm for the tv stations to begin broadcasting.
I prefer the 66 refinements to the design, but the 65 is no slouch. What really got me going was the shot of the 64 Galaxie 500XL interior, one of my favorites from the 60s.
I remember the LTDs as a kid. Not even a car buff kid, but not totally oblivious. I didn’t understand why the LTD, Galaxie and Custom 500 had different names, even though they were obviously the same car. I didn’t understand marketing. I still don’t, although I now acknowledge it.
Eventually, the LTD name became the common and stretched thin, with LTD II replacing Torino and the Fox body LTD. Also, the badge was upstaged by Crown Victoria for 1992.
Seeing LTD/Crown Vic cabs & police cars diluted the model name, same with Caprice.