(first posted 3/29/2014) Every car has a story, but some are a lot more obvious than others to divine. What is this Montego Brougham trying to tell us? Do we even want to know? I’m almost afraid to ask, because it’s not likely to be pretty.
I found it just a few blocks from my place, where some new folks seem to have moved into a rental house, along with their less-than typical agglomeration of cars. Welcome to the neighborhood; you’ll fit in pretty well, it seems.
The Tercel and Horizon are the obvious daily drivers, but they keep the Brougham (along with a mattress) in the driveway for special occasions. This car is such a mess; and not because of the state it’s in now; it was a mess the day it rolled of the assembly line. It’s such a conflicted vehicle; what a hodge-podge of mixed messages and stilted styling. Sporty, luxurious, practical, or thrifty? Which shall it be?
Its highly “expressive” front end styling was obviously intended primarily for its swoopy wild brother, the Cyclone Spoiler. Still stilted and affected, but the front end works a bit better on the Cyclone Spoiler, right down to its ever-so awesome “gunsight” center section. Wasn’t 1970 wonderful?
Ok; the Cyclone Spoiler was trying to catch some of the GTO The Judge’s stardust; it managed a certain cult following even if it didn’t exactly set the muscle-car world on fire. But the Montego MX Brougham? It obviously appealed to white-water canoeists. Right. Poor Mercury; it really didn’t know who it was supposed to be chasing with most of its cars. Putting old folks into ads and brochures obviously wasn’t a good strategy, even if it had been a lot closer to the truth than canoes.
What exactly was the Montego, other than a Torino with a different front end? Umm; let me think on that…I know! It carries the distinction of being the longest car ever built on the “Falcon Platform“. With a length of 209.9”, it was almost two and a half feet longer than namesake 1960 Falcon that spawned this whole family.
Look closely, and you’ll see a 1966 Falcon hiding in this 1970 Montego, and not all that successfully. Yes, there’s a bit more wheelbase (116″ vs. 110.9″), but that didn’t really affect the passenger compartment. But is sure did on the front end.
If I told you this was a 1966 Falcon interior, many of you might not take me to task. This is a Brougham? A Valiant Brougham had nicer upholstery. Or at least as nice.
Somebody was determined to keep that fine red cloth looking new as long as possible. Those clear seat covers give me the willies; my father ordered the cheaper version (from Fingerhut), which were perfectly smooth, clear plastic. The embossed version created channels that allowed the sweat to run more easily to the front or rear of the seat, and didn’t require someone else to peel a kid wearing short shorts off them. Of course, these did leave tell-tale imprints on the back of one’s thighs.
This was a mighty fine car, one to be proud of, and one that put its best feature out front, for all the world to admire. Sadly, the hidden headlights aren’t working anymore, which really gave it its maximum impactful effect. Is this what inspired the famous 1974 Matador’s front end?
Lest there be any doubt, this is a genuine Brougham, as this 23¢ badge authenticates. And lest there be any other doubts, I’m proud to feature it here at CC; we’ve had a lot of Broughams grace our pages, but way too many of the obvious ones. CC is committed to giving equal time to all Broughams, and we’re going to be announcing a new initiative on that subject. So let’s hear it for the underdog Broughams, no matter how sad and ugly.
These are why you guys ended up with those 5mph cow catchers a few years later!
These noses were know as “Bunkie. Beaks” after Bunkie Knudsen who had moved to Ford from Pontiac. He had a love for strongly defined centre grills and quite a few Fords ended up with them during his tenure.
The only problem was that they were very vulnerable to parking damage, and expensive to repair. So the insurance industry lobbied hard and got rules to beef up front ends….
Good point; the industry really did bring it upon themselves.
But the non-protruding rear ends of the full-size Mercurys of that era were just as vulnerable, especially the 1971-72s with the taillamp lenses within the bumper practically flush with it. They were hardly ever seen uncracked, even when those cars were fairly new.
So this is the culprit. Cheers for the heads-up Glen.h.
Bringing the neighbourhood down. Or lifting it out of a Subaru torpor, Paul?
I guess Bunkie Knudsen played a part for the Montego front end for 1970, the nose reminds me of the 1970 T-bird.
I wonder why Mercury tried to market their mid-size offering as Montego instead of continuing with the Comet nameplate? The Comet monicker taked a year off for 1970 after being demoted to low-stripper version of the Montego for 1968-69 before its return as a Maverick’s duplicate for the 1971 model year. I could go even a step further and wondering if the 1962-63 Meteor was successeful; I guess Mercury wouldn’t need to use Montego nameplate.
Same reason the Fairlane name was phased out in favor of Torino. New, newer, newest ‘fancier’ names were applied to compete with GM’s successful mid size cars. But even they did the same, such as dropping Tempest for all LeManses.
I wanted a Cyclone Spoiler since I saw a feature on a new orange one in a magazine in 1971.I see a lot of Mk2 Ford Cortina in the 66 Falcon.The beaky front doesn’t work on the 4 door sedan,it’s not a nice feature but works a lot better with the Cyclone
I am shocked by that upholstery in an upper trim-level Mercury. It is EXACTLY the same brocade cloth that my 1971 Ford Custom (not even Custom 500) used. I guess there’s a reason they don’t sell Fords and Mercuries in the same dealer- less chance of seeing what you’re really getting!
If ever there was an unlovable Mercury, this would be it.
The front seat just radiates mediocrity. At least the original owner had enough forethought to cover the seats.
Broughams are ugly to begin with. Then you do the Montego Brougham, and you set new standards for ugly, cheap and pathetic.
All it takes is a picture set in with an article on a Montego Brougham, and you realize just how quietly attractive the last generation Falcon was.
Now, that Cyclone Spoiler works. Well, it works as well as you’re ever going to get on this body style.
Ahhh, that’s it! I was trying to figure out why that Falcon in the ad looked so good.
Maybe the whole sales philosophy behind the Montego was similar to the one adopted by attractive women who are always seen hanging around with their not-so-attractive friends. At Mercury dealerships in 1970, these must have made plain jane Monterey sedans look like a million bucks!
Broughams are ugly, at least in our current view. Remember, in 1970, the whole idea of them was fashionable, just like a lot of other questionable fashion choices. Remember bell bottom jeans, quiana disco shirts, leisure suits, and the like? The choices were often different just to be different. Different fabrics, different color choices and combinations, and different ornamentation. This really is no different. And one of the problems in design is that once something comes out, many either blatantly copy the idea, or it unconsciously influences many a design.
What is funny is that the more conservative the design, the more we appreciate it later, as you stated with the Falcon. The bane of fashion is that the current fad is fleeting and lasts but a moment, but a classic design is often treated as boring.
On my list of least favorite Blue Oval products. Never liked Maverick styling either….
and that post Montego sedan kinda looks like a Maverick sedan with a Pinocchio problem. The pillarless sedan looks much better.
Wow. Even in the midwest, you hardly ever saw these when new. Ever the contrarian, I would kind of like one of these, though it would have to be the 4 door hardtop. That schnozz is just so . . . so . . I don’t even know. It’s so weird that it makes me want one for the same reason I would like a 61 Fury or a 62 Dart.
I think that at the time, Mercury still (rightly) considered its bread and butter cars to be the big ones – Marquis and Monterey, along with the Cougar. You couldn’t make the Montego too nice, or it might take a bite out of Monterey sales.
On a deeper level, Ford’s whole idea of trying to make a platform work as both a compact Falcon and as a mid size Fairlane/Torino/Comet/Montego did little more than make a car that was not really competitive in any of the segments it competed in. If not for Ford brand loyalists in those years, would they have sold any? Just a guess, but I would bet that these resulted in very, very few conquest sales over anything from GM, or even Chrysler.
It’s got a schnozz like Jimmy Durante.
“On a deeper level, Ford’s whole idea of trying to make a platform work as both a compact Falcon and as a mid size Fairlane/Torino/Comet/Montego did little more than make a car that was not really competitive in any of the segments it competed in…”
True in long run, since the 1972 Ford Middies switched to BOF, and sales took off. At least for Gran Torinos, 1974+ Cougars, and 77-79 T-Birds.
In 1969, Ford produced about 366,900 Ford intermediates and 93,000 Mercury intermediates.
For 1970, Ford completely restyled its intermediates, and racked up production increases for both. Production of the Ford version hit 407,000. Production of this Mercury and its line mates, pointed nose and all, was roughly 106,000.
It’s interesting to compare the production figures for the Chrysler intermediates in 1969 and 1970. Plymouth produced 246,000 intermediates for 1969 – boosted, no doubt, by increased sales of the Road Runner. Dodge produced 203,400 Coronets, plus 89,200 Chargers.
For 1970, Chrysler Corporation fielded slightly restyled intermediates. Plymouth intermediate production declined sharply to 160,736, while Dodge intermediate production was down to 114,700, plus 46,500 Chargers.
Whatever the merits of this car, the Montego/Cyclone and its Ford twin helped the Ford Motor Company to a decent production increase in 1970, which was also a down year for auto sales in general. (The Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu, of course, outsold all of the Chrysler and Ford intermediates during these years.)
It’s also interesting to note the production balance between the two divisions of each corporation. Plymouth and Dodge intermediate sales were closely matched, particularly if Charger sales are added to the Coronet totals. At the Ford Motor Company, however, there is no doubt that the Ford Division was the one bringing home the bacon in the intermediate segment.
For 1971, Chrysler Corporation fielded a line of restyled intermediates patterned after the “fuselage” full-size cars, and they recorded lackluster sales at best. The 1968-70 generation was, in retrospect, Chrysler Corporation’s high-water mark in this segment.
Meanwhile, the restyled Ford intermediates for 1972, so maligned today, were a solid hit. The Torino sold so well that it beat the Chevrolet Chevelle/Malibu for the first time since the latter had appeared on the market in 1964.
The issue with Ford trying to make a platform work as both a compact Falcon and as a mid sized Fairlane/Torino/Comet/Montego really paid dividends as a cost savings with no real loss of sales. If it was AMC being considered, we would never question it, because they were effectively broke. GM spent more money, but then, they made more money, so it really kind of made sense for them to do that.
I think of it as Ford being the more conservative, thrifty family that had that depression era childhood that colored how money got spent. GM was the one that survived the depression and never looked back. We all know families with either disposition, and we see how they run their lives. Ford just seemed to squeeze the nickel until the buffalo screamed if they could.
Looks like a super-Maverick
A prow like that one brings two words to my mind: “Ramming speed!” Fitted with a suitable reinforcement, say a plow head, that beak would have been perfect for use in D-Day’s last drive in “Animal House.”
“What exactly was the Montego, other than a Torino with a different front end?”
You could ask the the same question about Mercury in general. It was suppose to be the bridge between Ford and Lincoln, but when Lincoln becomes a thinly disguised Ford is there room for another brand? Uh, no. So, you’ve got the Torino a disguised Falcon and Montego a disguised Torino, throw a brougham package on it and pretend it’s a luxury disguised Falcon. I’m surprised that Ford didn’t go into the toupee’ or Halloween costume business.
The 1972 Montego wagon, in the car collage above, is not based on the Falcon. The 72’s were on new BOF platforms.
CC Effect: I read this article earlier today and read about the source for the plastic seat covers your dad had (fingerhut), and then proceeded to see an ad for Fingerhut less than 10 minutes later.
That would be the Google Effect. I’m surprised it took even ten minutes.
Where have you been?
Planning my Eagle Scout Court of Honor (with obvious help from sources that shall not be named).
Congratulations!
Thanks!
Paul and JB, I watching a show about treehouse builders on Animal planet.*
*Yours truly is an architecture geek.
Hadn’t heard much from you in awhile. Just curious. Architecture is certainly a cool thing to be geeky about.
Got it…maybe your tv is infected by google too?
Yes, and so is my dad’s laptop:
What an odd car! First, a four-door pillared sedan. Second, a surprisingly down-market cabin. I think the Torino Brougham pulled it off far better. In the Torino lineup, the Brougham was available only as a two- or four-door hardtop. The upholstery was better, and the door panels were far better. A trivial matter, but even the “Brougham” identification was better: a medallion on the C pillar rather than the script of the Mercury. Other standard equipment was similar.
The photo is a little murky in the dark areas (I scanned it from a slide), but shows a better interior than the Montego had. This was the car I had from the late 70s to the early 80s.
Yes, oddly the Ford version had a much nicer interior.
The ’71.
Little Debbie, passed out from the out gassing from all that plastic trim!
Yep, that’s what the original upholstery was like. When it started to deteriorate (not difficult in Arizona sun!), I had new seat covers put on that were in the same green color and heavy brocade suited to a car like this. Not quite the same, but still loads better than what I see in the Montego.
Does anyone know the origin of the “MX” moniker? This posting reminded me that when I was a kid we used to joke about the Montego Motocross. By the way, I think some of the comments area little harsh. I agree that within a few years of the ’68 makeover that launched the Torino name, these cars got a little (a lot?) bloated, and frankly after about 1955 Mercury did have an identity problem, but it’s really not much worse than some of the Colonnades. And, nose-wise, it’s a lot better than a first-gen Hyundai Santa Fe or an Acura ZDX.
Back when I started to drive, my grandma had a 1972 Montego MX that she let me borrow all the time. This was during the first Reagan administration, and some of my friends called it the MX Missile!
Of all the things AMC should not have copied.
I always wondered what made AMC do this. I have to say, the Mercury looks better – and not just because of the old-style “bumper” either.
I agree. As bad as the Mercury snout is, it’s at least somewhat interesting compared to AMC’s take on the same idea. Both are horrible, though.
I wouldn’t kick a 70-71 Cyclone out of bed, beaky front notwithstanding.
Little known fact, Montegos were the main unit for the LAPD in 1970.
For some reason, Reid and Malloy didn’t get one, keeping their ’69 Belvedere another year. Maybe Jack Webb didn’t like them either?
By all accounts, they were dogs, the 429 engines barely able to equal the performance of the Mopar 383. LAPD switched back to Satellites the next year.
Also had a supporting role in the original Gone in 60 Seconds as the unmarked unit that relentlessly pursues Eleanor.
That was the same oddball year that the California Highway Patrol bought 428 PI-powered Montereys. They were every bit as unloved by the CHP as the Montegos were in LA.
The Mercs were an especially huge letdown after the previous year’s bid winner, the all time Holy Grail of police package cars, (at least until the LT1 Caprice came along) the 440-powered ’69 Dodge Polara.
Yikes. I wander off for a week and return to the ’58 Munster Mk III, and then this here Cyrano de Broughamiac. Hard to stay anti-demo-derby in the face of these particular faces.
Check back in a couple of minutes. It gets better, seriously.
The only thing that doesn’t sit well with me besides some of the extremist comments is the “Brougham” badge on a so-not-Brougham car. I’m very surprised Mercury would offer this in a pillared-sedan body style.
As for the car itself, I LIKE it. I love this front end — it’s just sinister when the headlamp doors are shut. Those somewhat intricate wheelcovers are another nice feature. Even though the outside is white with a black top, the red interior makes up for it — that under-dash A/C would be removed STAT if that prize were in my driveway though.
I like it too, and I think it’s a damn shame that it appears as though this car was in really good shape when it was parked in that driveway, and then they just let it rot…I wouldn’t mind owning it just for the rarity factor.
I actually rented one of these for a couple of weeks in early 1970. Other than the bulk, they were not bad cars. The 289 was a good performer with quite reasonable gas mileage.
Oh, those clear plastic seat covers. It seemed that from the mid 50’s until the mid 60’s you could not buy a car in the Detroit area without them. I remember someone who paid $100 to have them put in their new, 1967 Chyrsler to protect the upholstery from their dog. (I never would have thought the dog was worth that much.) The end result of all those hours of torture sitting on seats, which were either very hot or very cold, were cars rusted to the point of being undriveable with seat fabrics which were in new condition.
Not a Brougham, but a 70 Montego MX wagon, in possibly the same color without the green moss. Long time for sale now. I like Ford wagons but just can’t even get a little excited about this one even though the rear looks like a typical Ford ranch wagon of the time.
Thats the best looking Horizon I have seen in years
Actually saw a white Omni or Horizon running around Columbus, OH in the last few days. Wasn’t a rust-bucket either.
LAPD actually used the Montego for one year only in 1970. Equipped with the 429, too. But the car did not perform well. They went back to Plymouths in 1971, then in 72 they started with the Matador years.
If the Mercs were just fancier trimmed Fords, but fleet cars are generally the stripped version with ordered equipment, how did these beat out the Torino on bid?
Are you sure the LAPD Montegos had 429’s? I could of swore they had 351 Clevelands and no power steering nor AC. Living in Culver City back in the day our neighbor had a detective unmarked version with a 351.
in mOPAR POLICE CARS BOOK had the 1970com,paison, the police units had 429 (slower than 383’s), unmarked most had 351, could have 429.
Being a young guy back in the day, I liked the looks of the Cyclone Spoiler. Have seen very few over the years, so doubt that they sold all that well. The regular Montego, not so much. Can’t even remember the last time I saw one, so it’s been years.
Yeah, it’s one thing for shorter and longer wheelbase full sized sedans to share the same station wagon body and wheelbase, but when two classes of car share the same body, the compromise shows through. Especially when you do things like sell the Ranchero as a Falcon in ’66 and a Fairlane in ’67.
In contrast, all that last-minute work up off the A Body for ’62 ultimately gave Chrysler a distinct presence in both compact and intermediate cars, a saving grace as their full size lines waned from the late 60s.
That said, Joe Friday and Bill Gannon sure loved them some ’66 Fairlane.
Actually it’s a ’67, they drove a ’66 in the Pilot that was also seen in a few stock footage scenes. Interesting tidbit about the ’67 is that it has the deluxe fake wood type steering wheel with holes in the spokes, like a Fairlane GT. This was a rarely ordered separate option on lesser models.
Thanks for the clarification, I’ve seen it listed as both. They kept it right to the end, in 1970, didn’t they? Just like Friday and Gannon’s clothes.
The 1970 Montego is an example of the ‘W’ front end which was Mercury’s styling theme beginning around 1967 until the start of the battering-ram 5mph bumper years.
During this period, all Mercurys had some variation of the ‘W’ but this particular year/model was the most extreme, probably due to Bunkie Knudson’s Pontiac-inspired influence at the time (as others have pointed out). It’s usually forgotten in the wake of the more polarizing and well-known 1970-71 ‘beak’ Thunderbirds.
In fact, it could be said that if you were really taken by the beak-Bird’s styling, but couldn’t afford one, you could get a Montego Brougham hardtop, which might be considered sort of a poor man’s Thunderbird. That was probably the intent but the Bunkie-beak styling didn’t catch on. Ford didn’t sell too many of either the beak-Bird or Montego, and Bunkie was soon cashiered. This styling flop wasn’t the only reason (Bunkie was a performance-oriented auto exec, and performance was all but dead by then), but it was notable.
A memorable thing about the ‘beak’ Cyclone were the extra gauges that were set into the dash to the right of the main speedometer. Modifying the dash in such a way, particularly for a low-production model, had to be expensive.
Not to mention, pretty useless, unless you were driving rally-style with a navigator to read them off!
The extra gauge placement is odd, to be sure, and even more so when one considers that, for a long time, a big difference between a Mercury and Ford interior was that Mercury products used round gauges while Fords had a horizontal pointer-and-scale.
Switching Mercury gauges over to whatever Ford was using might have saved money, but it was yet another way the Mercury brand became diluted and ‘just a Ford’ with no real reason for existence.
Interestingly, while the very first Mustangs used a standard Falcon gauge cluster, in 1965, Ford began using the round gauge cluster from the Mercury Comet on some uplevel Mustang trims and models. By 1966, all Mustangs used the Comet instrument panel.
That’s a pretty incredible instrument panel. While the gauge placement is “not optimal”, it sure looks cool from a distance.
I didn’t realize how important proper gauge placement was until I mounted a tach in one of my work trucks quite low on the instrument panel it will be relocated soon.
It does look cool, but it’s also such an insane contrast with the incredibly pedestrian instrument panel. That’s a really, really weird solution to adding gauges… I’m sure they could have just revised the instrument panel for much less $$$, which also would have been far more functional.
What’s even more strange is that the Torino GT and Cobra of the same year actually did have a space in the standard instrument cluster where they were able to wedge in a small horizontal pointer-and-scale tachometer.
The weirdness continues… it looks like they left the mold of a blank automatic shift indicator on top of the column on this 4-speed car. WTF? That whole piece of trim around the base of the steering column is very shoddy looking, so maybe I’m looking at some shadetree mechanic engineering rather than a factory installation.
I’ve never used one, so I’m not really sure how useful they are, but I’ve always thought those type of tachometers were cool – especially in a “get-in-where-you-fit-in” installation like this. I wonder if there was an entirely different (and rarely ordered) tach/gauge package available on the Montego sedan. Seems like nearly every American car had some sort of option like that available circa 1970.
I wonder if it was supposed to be an “M” for Mercury rather than a “W”.
That front end also looks similar to the 1967 Oldsmobile Delta 88.
LOVE. I want a ’67 Delta 88 Custom so bad. Beautiful car.
I don’t see a resemblance to the Matador at all. They both have prominent beaks, but the Montego’s was more rounded and less blunt than the Matador’s. Of for that matter the Ambassador.
I would have been too busy in an Old’s showroom back in the day to buy this car, but it is off beat enough to interest me now. A loaded hardtop in great condition would be fun. In the day, the Torino Brougham was a better looking package.
Let me make a case that this might be mid-grade Montego MX, and not a true brougham.
*The subject car definitely sports a mid-grade interior.
*The door cards and seats seem different in the brochure Brougham photo. Close enough to cause second looks, but I think they are different.
*The Brougham logo on the pillar seems to be a smaller version from a Ford / Mercury
a few years newer than this car. They looked tacked on, especially the driver side where it is cockeyed.
*The Brougham logo in the brochure photo seems quite a bite larger and a bit different script.
*The hidden headlights may have been optional on the MX. I know that Chevy did that on Impala and Caprice in ’68 and ’69.
*Somebody could have swapped the front clip along the car’s 44 year journey.
*It makes no sense for a Mercury to not offer the top interior while the Ford Torino does.
*I’ve seen interior photos of top mid-size Mercurys from earlier and later years, and they were nicer.
1969 Montego MX Brougham……
No, that’s definitely the correct interior.
In vinyl.
That is pretty amazing. They gave the Torino Brougham a carpeted lower door and a pretty nice door upper. It’s like they mostly skipped the upgraded interior in the ’70 and ’71 Montego MX Brougham.
This looks so much like an OZ XA – XB Fairlane, we trimmed the snout by about 12 inches. I’m at work so can’t pick and attach a photo, maybe someone else can pull one up for comparison.
KJ
Well called KJ, there is a big resemblance to the ZF-ZG models (Fairlane model codes) if you tone down the ‘beak’ by 80%! Mind you these were regarded as not being sufficiently separated in appearance from the Falcons they were based upon. The same front fender was used on both the Fairlane and Falcon in 72-73, for example.
This Mercury isn’t the longest ever Falcon-based car though, the 1976-78 P6 model LTD has a 121″ wheelbase and 211.3″ length. The Fairlane was only 198.8″ long on a 116″ wheelbase.
There’s a reason that ZF snout wasn’t sufficiently different from the XA face. I’ve written it up for CC. Methinks article may be waiting for Paul’s new initiative on lesser known broughams. Well called on the P6 being longer, not sure if there’s an Argentinian derivative that trumps us though.
I look forward to reading that Don.
In the top picture (a great shot, BTW) you can see the “W” effect that they were going for and I think it looks kinda cool… but then you look at the rest of the car and it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I agree that this front end works so much better on the Cyclone and I have to say I actually like that Cyclone Spoiler a lot, especially the gunsight grille! The black air dam isn’t integrated so well, but it disguises some of the awkwardness in the transition between fender and bumper/grille.
Oh wait, I forgot… I’m supposed to be talking about the Montego MX Brougham here. Although it’s not a beauty, it’s still quite a find! I looked it up and only 3,315 of these built as (non-hardtop) sedans in 1970. At this point, I’m sure the number left on earth is in the low hundreds. I know I’ve never personally seen one, or any 1970 Montego for that matter. In fact, the first time I saw a picture of one here on CC it was quite a shock. Seeing it right next to the Falcon really drives home the similarities and how convoluted this Mercury is. I’ve also seen a Valiant Brougham recently and can confirm they had a nicer interior.
Being hideous and odd also makes this car unique, and though I would’ve hated them when new, I can kinda see the appeal now. I owned a 1970 Catalina once for the same exact reason: interesting conversation piece/so ugly that it offends my neighbors. And like the Catalina, if I had one of these, I’d want it to be a hardtop.
…we’ve had a lot of Broughams grace our pages, but way too many of the obvious ones. CC is committed to giving equal time to all Broughams, and we’re going to be announcing a new initiative on that subject. So let’s hear it for the underdog Broughams, no matter how sad and ugly.
Does this mean that there’s an Obscure Brougham Week upcoming, or that there’s a ban on B-body/Panther articles?
That’s hysterical about your dad and Fingerhut. They have a perpetual mail list….20+ year after my dad died, we STILL get catalogs addressed to him. He loved their mediocre, over priced stuff because of the availability of payments….
Our house, same stuff…those hideous seat covers that left a print….we had a 1970 Torino, ps, pb, 250/6, AM radio….I remember thinking it was pretty ‘swoopy’ styling, although us 3 kids were really hoping he’d bring home a ’70 Mustang since my mom drove a ’66 Ford wagon, but alas no.
This was when 2 door cars ruled the mid-size market, and 4 doors were an afterthought. GM’s 1968-72’s were in the same vein. Mopar’s boxy middies looked more evenly balanced between 2/4 doors. But, when they copied GM/Ford formula in 1971, sales went down.
BTW: In the original [real] “Gone in 60 Seconds”, a Montego cop car chases “Elenor” nearly the entire time. Most of the other cop cars get wrecked. The guys in the Merc are the first to find Elenor and start the whole sha-bang.
Amen on the 4 door hardtop. Too bad Chrysler never offered one as an intermediate B-body – which is kind of odd, since they’d already offered one for the ’64-’64 “full size” B body.
As with the interior trim, I suspect some of those decisions were driven by a need to maintain separation as the number of classes within a brand proliferated. Would you rather have, say, a ’68 Satellite 4 door hardtop, or a Fury II four-door sedan?
I recall seeing one just like this around here a few years ago, it was all rusty and beat up and the exhaust smelled horrible and was very noisy, some old guy was driving it.
As I’m one of the oddball folks that has a soft spot for this – admittedly – incongruous mess of styling, I must honestly say that I wish this thing was for sale, and near enough that I could get my paws on it.
Maybe a closer inspection would prove otherwise, but – under all that mildew and grime seems to be an unusually rust-free starting point. And there aren’t even any rust stains starting under the vinyl roof – that’s a novelty.
I’d gladly start with something this clean and have to re-do the entire suspension and drivetrain than bug about for ages doing bodywork on one of these. Rip the vinyl off, smooth out the roof-to-pillar seams, fill the vinyl trim holes, and turn it into 1-Baker-11.
-Kurt
P.S.: Thank you, Toby Halicki. If it wasn’t for your movie, 1-Baker-11 wouldn’t have seeped into my heart – mis-matched grill and all. Now I want to add yet another hunk of junk to my driveway.
Have a 70 Mercury Montego MX 4dr sedan. I need to sale. It runs great! Drove from North Carolina to Montana no problem. It can be a project car, there is only cosmetic and general maintenance to take care. Please if you know anyone wanting one get in touch with me!
We love it just can’t maintain and don’t want to leave it in the weather!
I am looking for the front grille for my dad’s 1970 Mercury Montego MX 4door. I damaged it as a teenager and have wanted to replace it for years. Any information is appreciated.
I had one.It was a great car,and I like the looks,love the aggressive front.
Echk. A pox on Bunkie Knudsen, his stylistic preferences, and his infantile nickname.
If I had his given name, I’d prefer the nickname.
Fair enough—shame on his tonedeaf parents, no matter what fusty old tradition they felt was so important to inflict on the boy—but I don’t see where those were the only two options. “Sem” would’ve been fine. Or what would’ve been the matter with going by his middle name, Emil?
This generation of mid-size Ford was very durable and reliable. My father had a 1970 Fairlane 500 wagon for over 11 years and over 200,000 miles. A school friend’s family had a 1970 Montego sedan even longer. Had I been born 20 years older, I would love to have had a 1970 1/2 Falcon sedan.
Scrolling down to the third photo, from the A pillar back, I thought it ” Wow, it looks like a huge Maverick”
Then, after reading the comments, a couple of posters from 2014 had also noticed the resemblance.
And the “Bunkie Beak” ? No thanks, a fad that quickly came and went.
Montego MX Brougham.
With that extra-long schnozz, I’d have called it the Brontego. As in Brontosaurus.
It looks as though front of the car could be easily modified for use as an agricultural harvesting implement.
Extravagant front sheetmetal on what appears to be an average car, I prefer the Aussie Fords of the era, the styling was better,