(first posted 5/23/2016) In 1968, I was fifteen, rebellious and insolent. I was a smoker, and my intoxicant of choice late that year switched over from alcohol to marijuana, and soon LSD. I had very strong opinions on all sorts of subjects, most of all the Vietnam war and other related socio-political issues. And in terms of cars, my long-simmering anti-Ford bias came into full bloom, directed most of all at their 1968 full size cars. They were ugly, bland, boring, boxy, klutzy, pretentious, slow, dull, out-of date, and just reeked of all the values I was railing against.
Almost fifty years later, it’s time to make amends. I hope I’m finally up to it.
In terms of aesthetics, I was spoiled by what was coming out of Europe, most of all Italy. Never mind mid-engine sports cars like the Miura or Mangusta. The Lamborghini Espada showed what a full four-seater coupe could look like. Why couldn’t Detroit build this, even with a bit more height so the old folks who were buying LTDs could get in? Seriously; why not?
Instead we get a blank horizontal void cluttered with floating rectangles grafted unto a car that had been designed to wear stacked headlights years earlier, which were of course just imitations of the 1963 Pontiac. Poor Ford; the stacked headlights had long run out of favor, and they were one year away from the all-new ’69s, which wore a more organic version of this maw. I actually mustered some genuine respect for that effort in 1969, but this attempt to bridge the two different designs was most unfortunate.
Putting aside cars like the Espada, my point of comparison was of course its main competitor, the 1968 Chevrolet Caprice (yes, I was still a GM acolyte, despite my loss of faith in other institutions). Although both the big Ford and Chevy were in their fourth year of trying to keep their new-in-1965 bodies looking fresh and relevant, to me it was pretty clear who was winning at that challenge. The Chevy’s skin looks like it’s stretched tight over a firmly-muscular framework, and pointed and chiseled in all the right places, like just above its grille. There’s tension almost everywhere. It looks alive and dynamic, and exudes the potential of its vastly superior top engines (425 hp 427 vs. 340hp 428) under its deftly-sculptured hood. Of course almost nobody bought that version of the 427, but when you’re 15, one can imagine; all too well. And then there was the lack of those old-fashioned vents on the front side windows, and the hidden wipers. And the reprisal of the ’65’s high-mounted floating and delicate front bumper. This is the kind of stuff I obsessed on.
In comparison, the poor Ford looked geriatric, with loose, sallow skin, badly fitting dentures, old-fashioned jewelry, and a bad hairdo or wig, depending on the body style. And of course, there were those sad old plodding FE V8 engines, that dated back to…1958! Veritable antiques, compared to the porcupine-head Chevy 396 and 427.
Admittedly, those FE’s could make some nice tunes, given a proper dual exhaust system, which they mostly weren’t (not even the four-barrel 390). But this one has been given some proper pipes with which to play its tunes from the 390 under the hood. I’ve learned to find love for that engine; that’s come easier than to find love for some of the details of this rear end. The ’68’s rear end received very little attention, and was largely a carry-over from 1967, with a few minor differences. More floating rectangles, mainly.
Chevrolet reprised not only the ’65’s front end, but also went back to its traditional round tail lights, this time set in the bumper, after two years of deviance form that formula. This was the last year for the curving hips that had rocked the world in 1965. Hips that Ford tried to graft on its angular 1965 body, with very limited success. Chasing GM…into a dead end alley.
Compared to the Chevy’s delicate, high bumper, the Ford’s looks like a crude battering ram, and is even retrograde from the ’67s. It would definitely make the Ford more suitable for taxi cab work. Or just getting through almost 50 years on the road. And like so many older folks, one of its eyelids is drooping a bit. Character, now; if not beauty. And one more appreciated at my age than back then.
Of course, that applies to the LTD’s hidden-headlight grille. The Galaxie and Custom 500/Custom wore an utterly generic grille that was perfectly suited to the little fleet of three pastel Custom 500 sedans the nuns at Immaculate Conception got that year. Icing on the Ford-hate cake.
Ford struggled to find a suitable roof for the LTD coupe during its first few years. The ’65 and ’66 were the same as the Galaxie 500/XL hardtop’s, which probably explains why they seemed to not sell many LTD coupes those years. The ’67 was still the same semi-fastback as the others, but with a filler panel to cut down the rear side window. But in 1968, Ford decided to follow Chevy’s lead and go with two totally different coupe roofs; the fastback Sportroof and the more formal coupe roof use don the LTD and also available on the Galaxie 500. Something Chevy figured out in 1966 for their formal Caprice coupe roof.
Just like the grill, this was both an imitation of Chevy’s formal coupes and/or a preview of Ford’s design direction for 1969 as well as the coming Continental Mark III. This was more appropriate for the LTD, and heralded the general shift in the market to formal coupes, large and mid-sized. And small too, as on the yet-distant Mustang II.
The LTD was Ford’s big money maker, and undoubtedly a key to their relative sales strength in the second half of the 60s. Whereas Chevrolet was widening the gap of Ford (in full size cars) during the first half of the 60s, and peaked with a phenomenal 1.67 million in 1965, Chevy’s full size cars then began a mostly steady descent. while Ford stayed fairly steady.
By 1968, Chevrolet’s lead was 1238k to 867k. But Ford’s all-new ’69s had a very healthy surge, and cut Chevy’s lead down to 1227k vs. 1016k. That was also the first year full-sized Ford broke the million barrier since 1959. And the last time. Full-size cars were on a slow descent from then on.
This car has been re-upholstered, in that ubiquitous fabric I see over and over in all sorts of older cars. But by 1968, the famous LTD “panty cloth” knit nylon upholstery was no longer standard; that was now relegated to the more expensive LTD Brougham. The perpetual game of de-contenting was already in force for the LTD, as it always had been for every new top-line name plate out of Detroit every few years.
Ford used a rather chunky padded steering wheel center in 1968, which did look a bit less odd than the very strange tall round hub used in 1967, as part of the emphasis on safety. That also affected the dash, which was rather dull and dreary compared the unsafe bright dashes of yore.
This traveler from Colorado is occupying almost the exact same space as the Olds wagon from Florida I shot and posted a couple of weeks earlier. And it had a trailer hitch too. Hmm. Well, keep them coming; the more the merrier. And I do love these now, really. Have I convinced you of that? Or will it take another 50 years before I can really gush over a ’68 Ford?
Here’s Jason Shafer’s more sympathetic story about a ’68 Galaxie 500 Fastback He grew up loving these big Fords. And he and JPC have helped me to get where I am today, and for that I’m thankful. It’s never too late, hopefully.
The object of my ire was the full size GM line, mostly Chevy, from 1971-76. I hated the hell out of those bloated beasts, even the mid size ones, and I have really never made peace with them.
But in 68, I would have been strongly with the Chevrolet, and the 69 Chevrolets were even better. 1970 on I was Ford all the way until they got way too bloated.
I was right there with you on those Monstro Chevys, Fratzog. For that matter, most GM cars of that time. I guess that was my big youthful rebellion, because almost everyone in my extended family (both sides) drove GM stuff all through the 60s and 70s, with rare exceptions. The heck of it was that they were almost all really good cars that gave very few problems. But then teenaged opinions are often based on more than just objective fact. 🙂
I did buy a very nice 76 Buick Regal, still a Colonnade generation midsize, but at least it seemed to have about a foot less of hood than the Monte Carlo of the same generation did. It was a little thirsty, but overall an excellent car for the few years I had it.
I much preferred the downsized full size GMs of 1977, and loved the downsized midsized GMs of 1978, including my Cutlass Calais. They seemed to have all of the good qualities and none of the bloat.
Wow, the CC Effect is strong today. Two days ago, I passed a red 68 Ford 2 door with this roof, for sale in a suburban yard. I was pressed for time and did not stop. And here we are, almost the same car today.
I would not have had anything to say that was anywhere near as interesting as this. In truth, even as a youthful lover of these, the 68 kind of left me flat. It was like a 67 with all of the personality removed. The LTD/XL front with the hidden headlights looked OK on the fastback or the station wagon, but this roofline was just a complete fail with me.
My father had to leave his 66 Country Squire at the dealer for service one weekend and got a Galaxie 500 version of this car, solid light green. Bo-Ring!, even to this young Fordophile. I will take either a 67 or a 69 any day over one of these. Or if it has to be a 68, make mine a Mercury, please.
As a fellow former ’67 Ford owner, I’d have to agree with your comment on the ’68. Paul’s picks on the details are pretty much spot on.
I have to admit, Ford had me fooled just a bit over the years, I never saw a strong relationship in the ’68 to the ’65 – ’67 cars. But, Fords were not much on my radar in the late ’60s and early ’70s, as my avatar sort of suggests.
One of the worst details on the ’68 is the character line that kicks up over the rear wheel, sort of following the coke bottle hip. That line was straight on the ’65 – ’67 cars. The entire rear quarter just doesn’t look right. They made that line straight again for ’69, giving them a much better base to put the details on.
Ford, with the details done right in ’67………….
Definitely a better-looking car.
That Galaxie grille on the 68s always struck me as a slightly tweaked rip of the 66 full size Mercury. And I always hated the taillights after the fantastic ones on the 67. The rear side reflectors were a ham-handed job as well. The placement is all wrong, too close to the trailing edge of the fender.
The repaint of the LTD in the pictures is a dead ringer for the lowest priced Earl Scheib green offered back in the day. The cheapest jobs were always relegated to the funkiest versions of basic colors [blue, green, beige, etc] plus an off white.
Looked at a profile shot of the 68 Caprice with the formal roof and the trunk seems way too long and the roof hits at almost the same awkward spot as the later N Bodies. Other than that [and it took nearly 50 years to notice], it wins this beauty contest straight up.
Agreed, I don’t think either car does the formal coupe roof particularly well. Both Ford and Chevy would nail it in 1969, though.
I like the 69s of both, JP; but I’ve always thought that 67 was the peak year in styling for most all the makes.
Plymouth made the same mistakes as Ford, messing with the clean and razor edge looks of the 67 Fury : grille, dumbed down taillights, eliminating that delicate hump in the trunk and side pressing changes. Just wonderful detailing on the 67.
AMC did it with the Ambassador for 68, as well, with the tails and grille.
Seems like 68 was just a year for random hash slinging.
The big news for the 1968 model year were the restyled intermediates at GM, Ford and Chrysler.
All three had completely redone intermediates, and the emphasis was on the muscle-car versions, particularly the GTO at Pontiac, the Charger at Dodge, and the Road Runner at Plymouth.
Being a Ford Fan, you’d think I’d side with the LTD… but no. To me the 1968 full size Chevy was my favorite of that era. My Dad had a ’66 fastback Impala that he traded in on a ’68 Impala Custom Coupe (with the same ‘formal’ roof line as the featured Caprice Coupe). I’ve always loved the looks of that ’68, and my dream CC is still a ’68 Impala Convertible (Make mine light blue metallic with white top and white interior, please ;o).
So how does a GM child of the 60’s grow up to be a Ford man? My Dad traded the ’68 Chevy in on a ’73 LTD hardtop coupe in gold with a brown vinyl top. During the Great Brougham Epoch, Ford had it all over GM as far as styling, IMHO… I know in retrospect that these cars were bloated, but this beast became my first car, and let’s face it, we always have a soft spot for our first car, am I right fellow CC’ers?
I learned to appreciate the older LTD types after having one of my own. My favorites were probably the ’72 Convertible (only 4,260 built) and the ’69 or ’70 in “XL” trim. Oh, and a ’63 or ’64 Galaxie is always a cool car, too.
Oh, and Paul… glad to see you’re making progress with your hate for these full size Fords… I gotta ask, though, did this disdain come from your working at Towson Ford, perhaps? ;o) – Great write up!
I didn’t start working at Towson Ford until the fall of 1970, just in time for the ’71s. Yuck.
I always thought the 71’s and 72’s were nicely styled, but after becoming a loyal reader of this site, I am more than aware of their flaws now. The ’73 we had was a reliable car, but subsequent Fords I’ve owned over the years turned out to be much more reliable. My ’88 5.0 T-Bird got to 236K (running well when traded), and I’m currently at 167K on my ’07 4.0 liter Mustang (chasing down that personal record of 236K). Proper maintenance and better build quality these days probably have a lot to do with that longevity.
I have had a soft spot for ’68 Fords going back to my moms Country Squire. The wagon was much better looking, as was the fastback. And 390’s are quite a reliable anvil, which is a plus, less spent on repairs, the more $$$ for the fuel tank.
The Chevelle line from 66-69 was just incredible. The full-sized Impala was a grown up Chevelle to my young eyes, competent and good looking, and available in Super Sport. I didn’t feel they fell short to their overseas competition in any way but then again I wasn’t driving. I just knew from comments my dad would make, like “this is so smooth” or “this has the Turbo-Hydramatic, the best automatic transmission in the world”, or my favorite “the hot-rodders all use a Chevy engine because it is the best”. I remember how quiet and cold the A/C was in the new American cars and I loved power windows. It felt like the future.
The ’68 Ford was as Paul said frumpy and bloated. Great job comparing the Chevy to the Ford. The 65-67s weren’t that great either except for the wagons and XLs. Imagine everyone’s surprise when that gorgeous new LTD rolled out in ’69. I was so disappointed with the restyle in ’70 and remember thinking: Why do they change the design every year, even after it’s perfect? They did the same thing with the ’70 Mustang.
My great grandmother drove a ’68 LTD coupe, in blue, with a black hardtop. Rode in it exactly once. Felt just like my dad’s ’66 Galaxie 500. Wondered then why the windshield had exactly the same size, shape, and curvature. Oh, I had so much to learn then.
Great analysis. Even though my family had a ’68 Caprice Estate Wagon I never thought about how much more cohesive the Chevy styling was. Just look at the crispness of the formal roof where it turns in to the rear window, miles ahead of Ford’s blobby transition point.
Usually I preferred Fords, but not in 1968. Chevrolet had it all over the blue oval that year, in both full size and mid size cars. The green Caprice pictured above would suit me down to my bootlaces. Make mine a 327-4V, please.
I happen to like the ’68, but that’s because I was about seven or eight when my folks bought a ’68 Country Squire LTD wagon that stayed in the family until I was well into my college years. Rolled around in the “way back” as a youngster, then in my teens on dates. (c:
Having never driven or known anyone with a ’67 or ’69, I never thought to compare. I do remember that the movie Chitty Chitty Bang Bang had come out maybe a few months before we bought it, and we named the car the same, because it had all the idiot lights on the dash.
In Country Squire wagon form, I think the ’68 LTD looks great. In sedan form, it’s pretty much a tie between the ’67 and ’69. I had a teacher that bought a new red with black vinyl top ’69 LTD, I would catch a ride with him as he lived just up the street. He was cool, he knew I lived out of the district after we moved a few miles but he didn’t care.
I really liked that car, really nice especially when brand new. I think it had a 390. The best looking Ford in ’68 was the Cougar. Friend who recently passed had a ’68 XR7 in deep blue that really looked sharp. The 390 moved it along quite well. Was a beautiful car, too bad he beat it into the ground. It was traded in on a new stripper ’74 Pinto.
IMO the ’67 was the best of that era of Ford. Although a green Galaxie 500 hardtop nearly mowed me down running the school bus stoplights as I got off and went to cross US Rt. 5 in Guilford, VT in 1972.
And although that very same Galaxie scared the snot out of 16-year-old me the next summer, riding the bumper of the ’68 Mustang convertible I was driving down VT Rt 9 into West Brattleboro…(Mom’s car that Dad bought her earlier that year)…oh crap, there’s a CAR STOPPED IN THE MIDDLE OF A STATE HIGHWAY!!!
I had time to slam on the brakes. The Galaxie didn’t. And I learned that day, that you’re responsible for the car in front of you.
The ’67 was totaled, as was the ’68 Fairlane stopped in the middle of the road. We repaired the Mustang but it obviously wasn’t the same, although it did provide fodder for family members (but not my parents) to throw in my face for a few years.
By this standard, I should hate all ’67 Fords. Yet I remember them to this day as the best-looking of the ’65-’68’s. And the ’68’s, in retrospect, look like placeholders until the ’69’s could come to market.
While Mitchell and company just kept hitting them out of the park with Chevrolet. No wonder there’s an entire culture built around those old Impalas. Even the ’68…that I didn’t care all that much for back-in-the-day…looks dynamic, especially compared with what came from Dearborn.
Of course the roles reversed themselves in time, especially in the midsize segment. Hopefully the new ‘Bu’s gonna make it a fair fight as the Impala seems to be taking it to the Taurus, that is, except for sales to police departments. Seems like Taurus cop cars have become as omnipresent as the Dodge Diplomat 30 years ago.
The 68 Fords were first of the luxo look that carried into the Panther era. No more ‘swinging 60’s’ stacked headlights, and even though same body, looked way plainer or ‘mature’ than the 65.
Always loved the front end of the ’68 Ford LTD’s, it’s my second favorite year of the LTD after the 1967’s, then again I’ve always big a big fan of the Ford LTD’s up to the 1972 model year before they became bloated in appearance and performance.
The only thing LTD about this car was its ability to compete with Chevrolet!.
The critique if the visuals of the Ford, against the Chevy, is spot on. Got to be the Caprice for me.
In the fall of ’67 Paul, I was a junior at Venice High School. I’d go cruising around the dealer lots, mostly on my bicycle (because I wouldn’t be 16 until that October), looking at the new models as they came in. Overall, I thought the ’68 model year was a bit of a let-down. I liked the big ’68 Fords a bit better than the ’67’s, but not by much. The ’68 Chevys were a bit more cluttered than the elegant ’67’s. Some of the other makes came off similarly affected. The big winner, I thought, were the all-new ’68 Fairlanes and Torinos. Real clean and smooth. I thought the side window treatment of the all-new Chevelle 2-doors rather ugly, not cleaned up until the 1970 model year. Rest of the vehicle was rather nice. Wagons were beautiful.
I think the 68 and 69 Fairlanes and Torinos are Ford’s most attractive intermediate cars ever. I’m not a fan of the 68 and 69 intermediate GM’s, except for the LeMans and GTO coupes.
Yeah, pretty much a design that’s a big yawn, even with cool covered headlamps. I much prefer the ’65-’67 years with stacked headlamps.
But I bet this 2-door version is one of the hard ones to find. Especially almost 50 years after the fact!
At some time in the past, somebody here (and I wish I could remember who) said the ’61 to ’64 Fords had the same trajectory as the ’65 to ’68 models. The first year was pretty good, the second was meh, the third was awesome, and the last not so great.
While I do find full-sized Fords to be an automotive version of comfort food, the ’68 simply doesn’t turn my crank as rapidly as a ’67 (or a ’63, or a ’61). Perhaps there is reason everybody knows Bill Mitchell was readily involved in styling the Chevrolet while the Ford was molded by …..?
I’m glad I can help re-sculpt your Ford thoughts as it makes me realize influences have gone both ways. If only the next visitor is driving a ’71 LTD. 🙂
I have to say that this almost universal “Meh” may be the most united that the entire CC crowd has ever been on a single car. Nobody loves it, nobody hates it (well Paul did, but he outgrew it), and it merits a big collective yawn. It is like a big slice of white cake from the supermarket bakery. Everyone will have a piece, but nobody is going to remember it tomorrow.
Yeah, this may be the most united that the CC comments have been. I thought I may have been a tad harsh on the “crack” comment above, ha ha, but that’s probably because I’m shocked that I don’t agree with Paul, which is almost all of the time. But you never know, maybe we will find out that we’re wrong. I know that there’s been some cars that I just didn’t like that I have came around to either liking, or at least seeing some of their merits.
My parents had a ’68 Impala SS (though with “just” a 327-4V), without the hidden headlights, so I’m biased in favor of the Chevy. I think the Caprice looks athletic, for lack of a better term, while the Ford looks like something my grandfather would’ve driven (both my grandfathers were Ford guys, while my dad has only ever owned one Ford, a car he hated).
The Caprice’s hidden-headlight treatment looks so much cleaner, in fact one of the better versions I’ve seen from that era, I wonder why more buyers didn’t opt for it.
Took Paul’s idea and played with it. The “after” Lamborghini is about 5 inches taller, all from waist up and with 2″ bigger wheels. Passengers will seat more upright, thus creating more leg rooms. Huge green house probably make the car a lot heavier but hey, minor details right?
This version is not only taller and with bigger wheels, but also longer wheelbase by 3″ or so. More balance look and even more room for rear passengers.
Nice but I think if it WERE produced in the US the there would be a longer rear overhang?
True, please see the first rendering, it kept the original shorter wheelbase so more rear overhang. I thought it looked off, so move the rear wheels back about 2-3 inches. To my eyes, it looked more balanced, and very helpful to rear leg rooms. This would have been a proper 4 seater, with proper head and leg rooms. As the top was raised by 4inches and gotten almost 3 more inches of leg room.
This is a rendering of a notchback for more traditionally minded.
Verging on De Tomaso Mustela territory
Wow! That’s a beauty!
Isn’t it just? One of one I believe. Tom Tjaarda for Ghia shape. ‘Ford’ Mustela II lost some of the magic…
Don, there’s a production version – sort of:)
Sorry, toffee, but all of these are suffering badly from your larger wheels, which makes the car look much smaller and stubbier. The wheels were perfectly proportioned for the design of the times…and large wheels/tires like that just didn’t exist back then.
Hard to improve upon perfection.
Starting to look a bit too familiar
We all lusted after the 200 SX’s!! I wanted a blue one.
Version 1 looks off due to the larger wheels, which make it look like the car is much smaller. it totally throws off its splendid proportions.
Well Paul, I think that it’s clear that your intoxicant of choice now is crack. 🙂 I don’t know…..something about Ford’s ’68 lineup still just doesn’t appeal to me. The Thunderbird (though in ’67) became more luxury oriented (and the front end reminds me of an electric razor), the steering wheels in Ford’s cars had that bulky round thing in the middle of the steering wheel, and the full size cars look like they were getting ready for the bland, anonymous bloat of the 70’s Colonnade era. Mind you, I’m not really a full size car fan, so take this for what it’s worth…..but I do think that early to mid sixties full size cars (all brands, though Chrysler/ Dodge/ Plymouth products the least so) had a certain it factor to them, including interesting styling, whereas after ’67 or so, full size cars in general, seemed to de-emphasize performance and go almost straight for Grandpa’s garage. Maybe that’s just the economics of having the Pony Car wars, but I do miss the sportiness that the T-Birds had, along with their luxury. A friend of mine had drove up to work last week in his ’66 Galaxie 500 with a 428–an excellent blend of full size luxury, but with some sportiness (Palomino leather buckets, console shifter, that 7 litre badging, etc). Or maybe I just kind of am a dreamer in that if you own a full size car, that you don’t have to completely hand over your balls whilst doing so. 🙂
Your explanation on why the 1968 Chevrolets were so much better than the Ford’s sounds exactly like me when I was young too. The 1968 Ford just wasn’t even on the radar for me, especially a non-fastback bland-mobile LTD. Of the late 60’s Fords, I used to favour the 1967 Galaxie 500 XL fastback, and always thought that Ford ruined in in 1968 with the reshaped rear windows that didn’t flow as well with the top.
Now that time has passed, I have softened somewhat on the styling of the 1968 Ford, although it is still in my opinion the least attractive of the 1965-69 full-size Fords. The heavily revamped 1969 Ford was certainly an improvement, especially when equipped with the upscale front end of the 500 XL or the LTD. I also now lean toward the 1966 Ford being my favourite of this era of Fords (make mine a 7 Litre). The ’66 was an improvement in over the overly box 1965 in my opinion. I tend to think Ford’s original roofline worked the best on the 1965-68 Fords, while the more formal roof jobs on the 1967-68 LTD did not work well for me.
On the topic of the Chevs, I have never liked the formal top Chevrolet’s, but the 1968 was probably the worst. Chevrolet had the formal roof introduced on the 1966 Caprice and it looked decent. It was revamped in 1967 and again in 1968, where it became so short and upright that it made the trunk look excessively long. On the other hand the 1968 fastback’s look fantastic in my opinion. In 1969, Chevrolet improved the styling with the formal roof with better proportions. However, I still preferred the ’69 Chev 2-door hardtop with the non-formal roofline (even though no longer a fastback), albeit they seemed to be much less common.
I think of the 68 Ford every time I’m at the dentist because the light that shines over the chair looks like a taillight off of one with clear glass.
Wow, you are right. My dentist has the same light.
My brother had a beautiful 67, dark green hardtop 4 door with black vinyl top. It was a stunning car to me. My sister in law wrecked it one night coming home drunk. This was 1975, and i was 11. It got parked in our shady back yard, and i would sit in it and marvel at that metal dash, and panty cloth bench seats. I knew then it was a special car. And i was sad that it was wrecked.
Only a casual dope smoker (acid came later with the odd steer-fry rise a la magic mushrooms) and anyway, these were AMERICAN cars for goodness’ sake and hence above all critic in Israel, but my angry young man’s pet hate were 70s-90-s Subarus, which typified the “unified Israeli car” back then and bought mostly in their most basic and boring versions. Nowadays I appreciate them for what they were: the first true peoples car for us, one which put thousands on wheels at a price they could pay and featuring that legendary Subaru reliability. But styling wise they were oh so gormless.
It always seemed to me that the gen2 Leone (1980-84 or so) was designed to look good as a wagon, hatchback and BRAT and the three-box versions were afterthoughts.
Having grown up in another time and another place, and therefore not knowing any of them, I have to say I love the look of the Caprice.
My Grandfather had a 68 Galaxie 2 door coupe that he bought new with the roof design like the featured car.. His was a slate gray wih black vinyl roof…..He only had the car a couple of years because it had so many mechanical issues..I remember the fanbelt squealing and slipping when the car was only 2 years old…..He had electrical problems with the wiring…inside of car filled up with smoke one day…..The car would be hard to start until he jiggled the shift lever around a bit in the park position….He had to pull back on the lever as if to shift into gear to get the car to crank….He got rid of it and drove my Uncle’s car for a few years until he bought a 1973 Dodge Dart Swinger Coupe….Slate gray, black vinyl roof and slant 6……He had better luck with that car then the Ford.
I’ve always liked the 68 Fords, but that’s got to be the ugliest green 68 Ford LTD I’ve ever seen. The Caprice looks wonderful though, I guess from the photo’s the Caprice would look better all day long….
Despite its numerous shortcomings, the ’68 Ford did faithfully serve Detective ‘Popeye’ Doyle in his dogged pursuit of heroin traffickers as depicted in ‘The French Connection.’
Was also used to get the thieves to the cars on the list in the original Gone in 60 Seconds
The perfect ‘invisible’ car? Now it would probably be a silver Camry.
The 1968 Ford is one of my least favorite 1960s full-size Fords. What is interesting is how much difference the hidden headlights and changed grille of the LTDs and XLs make to their character compared to the garden-variety Galaxies and Custom 500s. The LTDs and XLs do look more upscale, but the Galaxies and Custom 500s ultimately look like police cars and taxi cabs, even with white wall tires and a vinyl roof. If nothing else, the 1968 Ford did encourage plenty of buyers to pay a few extra dollars a month for the more profitable, top-of-the line versions.
I will say that a 1968 Chevrolet Caprice with hidden headlights was a rare bird even when these cars were new. I don’t ever recall seeing one in the wild until I started attending car shows in the early 1980s.
Even with its handsome styling, the full-size Chevrolet lost ground after 1965 to not only the full-size Ford, but also the full-size Pontiacs and Plymouth Fury. Build quality and reliability on the full-size Chevrolets declined after 1964, and word was getting around by 1968.
By 1968, all full-size cars were mom-and-dad cars, and the emphasis was on the Brougham versions. Intermediates and pony cars were aimed at younger buyers. The full-size performance car was about dead by 1968. The future was with the LTD and Caprice, not the Super Sport and XL versions.
I’m a Ford fan, but really only liked the 1965 & 1967 big Fords. I own a ’65 Ford Custom 500 (pictured).
Our “67” looked like your “65”.
Yeah I can’t defend this car either, despite being a Ford guy, the 68 Caprice is gorgeous, the 68 LTD is clunky. I feel the same way about the Fairlane line in 68-69, which was essentially a 7/8th scale version of these 68s.
wow. my first car. almost. mine was a 68 XL. fastback. 302 w/ ATX. i duplicated the 390 rocker call outs n’ stripes and mounted a dummy exhaust tip for a duals look. i was entering my smug know-it-all punk years just then and started dabbling in “substances” also. used to rev the 302 in neutral and dump the trans into drive to get that 390 tire chirp. lotsa late night mindless cruisin with similarly maturity challenged friends. good times. good memories.
The only reason they had a 302 was so that the dealer could advertise “V8 engine” at a low price. People didn’t understand that you weren’t actually supposed to order it that way. It was a double penalty, since you also got the spindly WER Dana-type rear end instead of the 9-inch like God (Henry) intended.
A high school buddy had his parents hand-me-down ’68 with a tired, 130,000 mile 302, and man was that thing slow!, we actually pitted against one of the stronger guys on the football team on his 10-speed, and the cyclist actually pulled him for about the first 30 feet.
This example has everything stacked against it, ugly Earl Shieb green, ugly incorrect wheel covers, blackwalls and a ratty interior. This one was born with not only the Brougham interior, resplendent in panty cloth and embroidery, but also has the split seat option. Was really something when new.
Give it a decent paint job in a darker blue or green, or white for that matter, some narrow stripe whitewalls (Michelin X) and a set of those 5-spoke covers with the exposed lug nuts, and the table levels somewhat, although it’s no ’67, which I consider to be the pinnacle of this generation.
I would also say fix the interior, but that fabric is woven unobtanium.
My dad took his road test in this exact configuration car in 1968! 302/Auto/Green 2dr
Have to agree…it’s no contest: ’68 full size Chevs? Absolutely!!! ’68 full size Fords? Oh, HELL no!!
For many years, Ford’s attempt at coming up with a GM competitor usually fell short, and one of the best examples is the 1968 full-size line. The 1968 Chevy was still a good-looking car. The Ford? Not so much. A commenter referred to it as “meh” and that’s even more damning than the the feared Deadly Sin moniker. Deadily Sins tend to be dramatic in their styling faux pas. But at least they’re memorable.
The ‘meh’, blandly-styled cars are, to me, much worse than a polarizing vehicle. Totally inoffensive, while safe and might not hurt sales nearly as much, just doesn’t cut it.
Indeed, the full-size Ford was too “meh”, they should have continued one more year with the stackhead headlights like Plymouth and Cadillac. Btw, wasn’t an article of Curbside Classic who showed some proposed renderings of the 1968 full-size Ford published by the late Road Test magazine?
Sorry, but I’m not a fan. My experience has been that they are notorious rust buckets. The floor pans dissolved, as did the trunk floor, leaving behind the frame, thin air, and the pavement below. My 1968 Fairlane 500 didn’t have a trunk to the point where we couldn’t put the spare tire in it. It rode on the back seat because the rear floor pans were also gone. This was a common problem that year.
May be the lighting in the pic; that color green is soo wrong on the that car!! Eeek!
My grandparents got a new 68′ LTD 2 door green and white vinyl top with the styled hubcaps and LOADED,,, that thing was BEAUTIFUL inside and out.
They usually traded every 3 years but they kept that one for 5 years..
Only have one blurry picture and great memories…
Looks like a “convertible” in the pic!
Being a Ford man I’d say the 68 LTD was just Ok. I’d much rather have a 68 Mercury Marquis any day over the Ford.
In this article’s context and comparison, the Chevy wins the day.
However, at just a couple inches shorter of a wheelbase sat the 1968 Dodge Charger (117 inch WB). Speaking for myself, that was the one to get that year. It may not have been in the same competition or target market, (that would have been the big Dodges – Monacos and Polaras at 122 inches approx.), but hell yeah!
Hmm…somehow I don’t think Paul’s hatred has abated very much. 🙂 I always look at the 68 models as placeholders. The 67’s were beautiful (to me) and the 69’s were art on wheels.
I like Paul’s observations but I don’t agree with them.
The 1967 Chevrolet looks much better than 1968 does.
The 1969 Chevrolet is just horrible looking.
The 1970 Chevrolet looks okay, and nicer looking than the 1968 Chevrolet.
The 1971 – 1976 Chevrolet is ugly but not as ugly as 1969.
The 1977-1989 Chevrolet is a great looking sedan.
It marked a simplistic return to a more practical 1966 style shape.
I always liked the Baretta car (Tony Baretta’s car…that 1966 Impala).
The 1965 Chevrolet has a better looking grille than the 1966 does but the 1965 tail lights look like garbage and ruin an otherwise great looking car.
The 1964, 1963, 1962, 1961, 1960, 1959, 1957, 1956 Chevrolet all look like feces.
I do like the look of the 1955 Chevrolet and I liked the 1958 Chevrolet.
The 1957 Chevrolet is ugly and the front end looks like a fish face in my opinion.
My favorite full size Chevrolets are the 1966 Chevrolet Station Wagon, and the 1967 Chevrolet Convertible.
In my opinion the best looking cars that the Chevrolet division of General Motors ever produced were:
1978 Chevrolet Monte Carlo (the first year of the downsized 108.1 inch wheelbase)
1969 Chevrolet Malibu 2 door (1969 only, as 1970-72 they ruined it, ’68 isn’t as good)
1968 – 1972 Chevrolet Corvette
1977 – 1989 Chevrolet full size four door sedan
1966 – 1969 Chevrolet Corvair coupe (I hate the tail lights on the 1965 Corvairs)
Other GM cars that I think were great looking:
1967 – 1972 OPEL Kadette L station wagon
1969 – 1973 OPEL GT
1970 – 1972 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME coupes and convertibles
(the 1968 & 1969 OLDS CUTLASS doesn’t look nearly as nice, so forget about those!)
1967 & 1968 Pontiac Firebird (the ’69 is ugly, and the 1967-69 Camaros are ugly!)
1978 – 1980 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS SUPREME coupe ( 108.1 inch wheelbase)
1977 – 1978 Pontiac Firebird (think Jim Rockford, so no damn chicken graphics etc)
(the 1979 Firebird was incredibly UGLY, they ruined it, no wonder Jim Garner refused
to go and update Jim Rockford’s copper colored car to the 1979 model.)
1964 OLDSMOBILE 98 sedan
1964 BUICK 225 sedan
1965 – 1968 CADILLAC Sedan De Ville
1967 – 1968 CADILLAC Eldorado
1976 – 1979 CADILLAC SEVILLE
1965 BUICK RIVIERA
1965 – 1966 BUICK SKYLARK sedan
1965 – 1966 BUICK SKYLARK/SPECIAL station wagon
Those are my picks for the best looking GM cars, not necessarily the best built GM cars.
What does that say about me, other than I am old?
Here just for the heck of it are some other cars that I think are great looking:
1972 – 1989 Mercedes Benz 450 SL / 560 SL
1962 – 1980 MGB
also the MGB GT coupe
1976 – 1977 TOYOTA CELICA GT LIFTBACK
1979 – 1983 DATSUN 280ZX
1970 – 1973 DATSUN 240Z
1974 DATSUN 260Z
1975 – 1978 DATSUN 280Z
1974 – 1978 TRIUMPH SPITFIRE (yeah its a POS, but its a beautiful car)
1978 – 1983 MAZDA RX7
1960 – 1971 Volkswagen Karmann Ghia (’72-’74 has UGLY BUMPERS so no to those)
1969 – 1982 PORSCHE 911 Targa model
1979 – 1986 JAGUAR XJ 6 (series III , yes they are POS but very beautiful cars)
1966 – 1980 Rolls Royce Silver Shadow Saloon (anybody notice how much the body side proportions and bumpers on pre-74 cars, resemble the 1956 & 1957 RAMBLER sedan…the 108″ wheelbase Rambler of 1956 and 1957 except that the Rolls has a modern front windshield and a better looking rear roof pillar, however the sides and the rear and trunklid and the front too except for the grille and headlights are nearly identical. It is almost as if the Rolls Royce people gave the 1956 – 1957 big RAMBLER a restyle and stretched the body out to make 119″ wheelbase on the regular wheelbase Silver Shadow and out to 123″ wheelbase on the LWB Silver Shadow models that were later known as Silver Wraiths.
GOOGLE 1956-1957 RAMBLER Sedans and compare that to the 1966 – 1973 Silver Shadow saloons with chrome bumpers…….the bumpers are nearly exactly the same style, the wheel arches, and the body side sheetmetal is nearly identical, the rear end and trunklid design is nearly identical too. I’ve often thought that if I could locate a 1956 or 1957 RAMBLER Sedan that isn’t too far gone, that I would get headlight assemblies from a 1962 PONTIAC full size model, and get a grille from either a ’69 to ’71 Lincoln Continental Mark III, or from an 1986 – 1989 Lincoln Town Car, and graft those on to the front of the 1956-1957 big RAMBLER sedan, and make a sort of pseudo baby Rolls-Royce look a like. You need the 1962 fullsize PONTIAC headlight assemblies because they look almost exactly alike the Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow’s headlight assemblies. It is my assumption that you would pay too much for real Silver shadow headlight assemblies from a Rolls specialist junkyard. The same thing for using an actual RR grille. Heck maybe, you can find RR headlight assemblies for $300 or so, but I’d doubt it although I have no idea at all. I wouldn’t imagine that you could buy a used RR grille for under two grand but again I have no clue at all.
I’ll stick to my plan of 1962 PONTIAC headlight assemblies and a Lincoln look alike grille.
…….I’ve got to go look at CNBC and see what the market is doing.
I did put all of that money to good use. It has served me for almost 51 years now.