Have you ever had a day at work when you thought “What am I supposed to be doing here?” Maybe your job became directionless, your tasks poorly defined, changed over the years to something unrecognizable, or maybe your duties were subsumed by your co-workers. If the Mercury Monterey was a person, it would have realized that all these things applied by 1971.
After all, Ford Motor Company’s Mercury brand had itself developed chronic uncertainty, unsure of just what it was supposed to be. A fancy Ford, or an attainable Lincoln? Slotted between those two brands, and selling models that were rarely unique, Mercury’s personality seemed non-committal through much of its seven-decade lifespan. Perhaps nowhere was that more evident than with the Monterey.
Mercury itself was founded in 1939 by Edsel Ford, who wanted a somewhat flashier and more aspirational model range to join Ford-branded vehicles in the company’s lineup. But Mercury’s precise marching orders were never quite clear. While the brand displayed occasional moments of clarity – for instance, the 1949 Mercury Eight, the flamboyant Turnpike Cruiser, the exciting Cougar – such examples appear in hindsight as random flashes of inspiration rather than evidence of building momentum.
The Monterey highlights this unfocused wandering. First introduced in 1950 as a slightly more upscale version of the Sport Coupe, the concept of a higher-end Mercury proved immediately successful. Monterey was anointed as its own model range (at the high end of Mercury’s lineup) two years later. However, despite its success, this newcomer didn’t remain at the pinnacle for long, as the top spot was taken over by the Montclair in 1955.
During the late 1950s and early ’60s, Mercury models and pricing strategies meandered in several directions. Monterey itself migrated to the bottom of Mercury’s lineup – a spot that was similar in price to that of a fully equipped Ford. As for Mercury itself, after briefly experimenting with premium models like the Turnpike Cruiser and Park Lane, the brand focused increasingly on conservative mid-priced cars. But conservative didn’t equate to unambiguous: what Mercury offered over equivalent Ford models was often hard to demonstrate.
1965 was a revealing year for the future of the 26-year-old Mercury brand, particularly for the direction of its full-size models such as the Monterey. Full-size Mercurys grew that year – both in dimensions and also in aspirations.
Lincoln-Mercury Division General Manager Paul Lorenz hosted the press release for these cars, during which he stressed that “Lincoln-Mercury is the only division offering products in the medium-price field that also has extensive experience and acceptance in the luxury field.” It must have taken some bureaucratic gymnastics to conjure that up as a selling point, but the implication was clear: think of big Mercurys as quasi-Lincolns. And this was no slip of the tongue from Mr. Lorenz – for he was awarded that job just months before and tasked with charting a more successful course for the Mercury brand. While the design itself was well underway by the time Lorenz took Lincoln-Mercury’s helm, he plotted to restore customer interest in full-size Mercurys by making them (both in product and marketing) more closely resemble Lincolns.
Such a task was well suited to Lorenz, an accountant whose previous position was executive director of Ford’s marketing department. Promoting a car whose main attribute is an implicit resemblance to a more premium model is a combination of beancounting and marketing triumphs. Or tragedies, if you prefer.
With the Continental, Ford found its Halo Car
Sales jumped for 1965, and Mercury’s product planners figured they found the right market position for their big car. As Lorenz stated months after the ’65 model’s launch: “Mercury is now positioned correctly in the market. It is the kind of product we are going to maintain from now on.” While Mercury’s overall brand image still wandered in circles, the trajectory of the full-size Mercury was now set: these cars would emulate Lincolns for the next four decades.
Between 1965 and 1968, Mercury sold over 600,000 full-size cars – successful enough to spawn a successor created from the same concept. Within months of Lincoln introducing its Continental Mark III, Mercury introduced its own new 1969 full size models, whose resemblance to big brother Lincoln hardly needed words to explain. Not surprisingly, Mercury’s top-of-the-line Marquis, with its concealed headlights and luxury equipment, got the most ad focus.
Still, a third of Mercury’s full-size cars of this generation were the cheaper Monterey or Monterey Custom models. Montereys were less dramatic – showing a prototypical early-’70s look of a base-model mid-size car, not unlike Chrysler’s Newport or Oldsmobile’s Delta 88, bereft of high-end styling cues and equipment. This design was either crisp and clean, or plain and dull, depending on one’s viewpoint. Prices reflected this frugality, as the Monterey was priced 20-30% less than the Marquis.
Why upgrade to a Mercury when your Ford LTD could look this elegant?
The pricing situation became complicated when comparing Monterey to Fords. For example, in 1969, Monterey prices started at $3,141 while Ford LTDs started at $3,192 – an overlap that remained with full-size Mercurys for years to come and made it difficult to ascertain just what advantage one car had over the other. Our featured car – a 1971 Monterey – serves as a good case study to examine just how Mercury’s entry-level full-size model tried to accomplish its ambiguous job.
For 1971, the full-size Mercury entered its third year of what would be a six-year run, and was treated to a minor design refreshing, highlighted by even more length – the car grew by 2¾”. Monterey now matched the Marquis’ overall length… or “grown up to Marquis size” as a Lincoln-Mercury spokesman said at the press introduction.
Much of the sheetmetal below the beltline was redesigned in a way to be “bolder” with smoother lines, and also enabling the entry-level Monterey to better visually match the Marquis. Above the beltline, the car was unmistakably a Ford, looking suspiciously similar to an LTD.
Other touches new for ’71 included a more pronounced, pointed grille, ventless side windows, hidden windshield wipers and flush door handles – all intended to “add distinctiveness and glamour.”
And in case anyone had doubts, this car was produced by the Lincoln Mercury Division. A revealing bit of name-dropping there.
The top-line Marquis & Brougham continued to be distinguished by covered headlights.
Full-size Mercurys for 1971 came in four models: the base Monterey, a slightly better equipped Monterey Custom, and two upper-end models, Marquis and Marquis Brougham.
A sizable price difference separated the top and bottom. Monterey prices started at $3,423 ($26,000 in 2022 dollars), while a fully-loaded Marquis Brougham could sticker for nearly $6,000 ($45,000 today).
Sedans throughout Mercury’s full-size range came in hardtops (like our featured car) or pillared versions. Hardtops cost more – adding between three and four percent to a car’s price. More customers of the higher-end Marquis lines opted for hardtops… for example, over a third of Marquis Brougham buyers. Naturally, the take rate for lower-end hardtops was less, and that makes our featured Monterey somewhat of an oddity. Of the 25,000 Monterey sedans produced in 1971, under ten percent (2,483) of buyers sprang for the extra $165 to get a hardtop.
Let’s take a look at this car’s details. At first glance, it appears to be a Monterey Custom, sporting the deluxe wheel covers and protective side moldings that came standard on Customs. However, these were optional on base Montereys, and this car’s original owner checked those boxes, as well as opting for a vinyl roof. A glance inside reveals some other interesting options.
While this may look like a base model’s typically frugal interior, this car is equipped with automatic temperature control – certainly a luxury fifty year ago, and at $525, the full-size Mercurys’ costliest option. Other options here one wouldn’t expect on a base Monterey include an AM/FM stereo ($252), power windows and locks, and speed control.
Meanwhile, although the original owner ordered some pricey options, he or she chose not to spend an extra $82 for upgraded seats. Undoubtedly there are other intriguing option combinations among this car’s equipment. From a modern-day perspective, I’d love the opportunity to buy a base-model sedan, binge on a few expensive options, and then pick and choose between a few dozen other available goodies. This could be fun: I’d order a Monterey with the twin comfort lounge seats and also a three-speed manual transmission (Monterey was the only full-size Mercury in 1971 to offer a standard manual).
From this angle, one can see Monterey’s new-for-’71 dashboard, with instruments (speedometer, fuel gauge and a giant clock) recessed into deep, square pods surrounded by simulated cherrywood applique.
Here’s a better view of the dash, courtesy of the Mercury brochure. Incidentally, while front-seat passengers couldn’t see the clock due to it being sunken in a deep pit, they were treated to their own ashtray.
It’s unknown what lies under this Monterey’s long hood, other than a V-8. Montereys came standard with a 240-hp, 351 cu. in. V-8, while a 400 cu. in. and two versions of the 429 (with 260, 320 and 360 hp respectively) were optional. Although a 3-speed manual came standard, the vast majority of Montereys left the factory with the Select-Shift automatic.
As one might expect from a car billed as offering the “smooth, quiet ride of a luxury car at a lower cost,” Monterey provided customers with a pillowy-soft ride. Evidently though, a Monterey could outhandle some of its competitors. In a 1971 Motor Trend comparison test between Monterey and Buick’s Centurion, the author noted that the Monterey handled better than the Buick – “considerably less uncomfortable when cornerning” was the quote… faint praise indeed.
And that big, flat decklid served a purpose, other than to visually balance the even longer hood. Monterey’s trunk could hold a whopping 20.4 cu. ft. of cargo.
Of course, looking at our featured car still won’t answer the question about just what role Monterey was supposed fill in Ford Motor Company’s lineup. But few probably asked that question at the time, because it turns out that Mercury’s combination of near luxury, formal design and relatively good value was successful. And who questions success?
Source of production figures: Standard Catalog of Ford, 1903-1998.
For 1971, Mercury sold about 162,000 full-size cars (though the new compact Comet stole the brand’s limelight that year). The above chart shows how those full-size sales were dispersed over various models and bodystyles. The big sellers resided at the top and bottom of the price scale, with the value-oriented Monterey and the plush Marquis Brougham accounting for the majority of production. Additionally, this chart illustrates the relative rarity of 4-door hardtops among the lower priced Montereys and Monterey Customs.
Interestingly, the base Monterey’s share of total Mercury sales rapidly diminished through the early 1970s. While Monterey made up over 40% of the 1965-68 generation’s full-size Mercurys, by 1971 that proportion shrank to about 24%. That share withered even further after ’71. By our featured generation’s last year of 1974, Montereys accounted for just 11% of full-size Mercurys. Reflecting the Great Brougham Epoch’s full bloom, the plush Marquis Brougham consumed well over half of total sales by 1974.
1974 was the end of the line for Mercury’s Monterey. When updating its full-size line for ’75, Mercury retired the Monterey nameplate after a quarter-century of service.
Perhaps the closest thing to a job description that 1970s Montereys had was to be different things to different people. After all, these cars were like a patchwork of concepts. From some angles they looked like a Ford, from others more like a Lincoln. They were staid enough not to seem flamboyant, but not so much as to appear frumpy. They shouted out neither wealth nor austerity. But eventually, the notion of a car with this combination of qualities just naturally lost much of its appeal.
It’s safe to assume that by the 1970s Ford had no definitive plan for the Monterey. By the time our featured car was produced, the Monterey name itself was simply coasting along on recognizable brand equity. Inevitably, the concept of a full-size entry level Mercury with an identity crisis ceased to be marketable, and the model faded away.
And while the Monterey may never have figured out just what its role was supposed to be in Mercury showrooms, five decades later, that’s perfectly OK. This particular car’s current role as one of the few survivors of its kind surpasses any function or purpose it may have had when new.
Photographed in January 2019 in Burke, Virginia.
Related Reading:
1971 Mercury Monterey: You Could Have Had A Marquis Jason Shafer
Great article Eric. Your first two paragraphs exactly sum up what I too have always felt about Mercuries. “Why?” Even as a kid, I somehow picked up on the idea that Mercuries were supposed to be special, but outside of the Turnpike Cruiser (which I loved mostly for it’s rear window) and references to hot rods in the lyrics of various 50s rock and roll songs that I can’t seem to fully recall right now, I just didn’t get it.
The only Mercury I spent any time in was a friend’s family’s 1976 Colony Park wagon. That was a tremendous wallowing beast of a car that stood out all the much more for the fact that it was yellow (with of course massive swaths of vinyl wood). I only remember that it was big enough for 8 of us teens, plus a few random siblings to cruise in, with room left over. We were new drivers around that time in high school, but the only time the Colony Park was the vehicle of choice was when we had massive amounts of people to carry, otherwise it was simply too much for a 17 year old to drive. At least us suburban teens who had little experience operating trucks or farm equipment.
Come to think of it, I believe that this was pretty much precisely what my friend’s dad (a PhD-level economist at the International Monetary Fund) was shooting for in his Mercury choice.
Your comment got me thinking about the people I’ve known who’ve owned Mercurys. And there’s no common theme to them. My guess is that many people bought Mercurys simply because they were cross-shopping with the Ford-branded equivalent and simply got a better deal at their local Mercury dealer.
I knew one serial Mercury purchaser who’d buy a new Grand Marquis every few years. He was a pretty middle-of-the-road guy.
” Your first two paragraphs exactly sum up what I too have always felt about Mercuries. “Why?” ”
Exactly this. Even as someone who owned a 93 Mercury Topaz from 93-04, I found it humorous that the differentiation between my 2-door coupe and the Ford Tempo 2-door was limited to the header panel, non-functional lightbar grille, the center pad of the steering wheel, the upholstery pattern and the taillights. Also, the trim I got had the fancy alloy wheels. Everything else was identical.
Even as a kid I knew that Mercury fit in between the Fords and the Lincolns. Even the dealership that we bought it from was a Lincoln/Mercury dealership. But as Eric703 said, I ended up getting the “fancier” Topaz because the deal at the L/M dealership was better than what was being advertised at the Ford dealership.
This was a very enjoyable and comprehensive article. Thank you.
Despite being one who has sang about the attributes of Mercury a time or two in these pages, I cannot really argue with much of what you say. However some Mercurys have more easily found attributes than do others. But I will chuck out a few random thoughts…
The price overlap between the top Ford and bottom Mercury does make sense on some level. The Mercury had a longer wheelbase and generally a much larger standard engine. Apart from two years in the early ’60s, one was never going to find an asthmatic straight-six under the hood of a full-size Mercury. That is definitely worth something.
In a sense, Mercury always seemed like it was one brand forced to compete with Pontiac, Olds, and Buick. So it had to cover a broader swath of the market. This, to me, explains the plainness of a base Monterey versus a top-gun Grand Marquis. That formula was of arguable durability as time and market forces have eradicated all of these brands except for Buick, which doesn’t seem to currently be at a high point for vibrancy.
A week or so ago I commented about how I’ve never seen an episode of Seinfeld, a show that claimed to be about nothing. Yet being about nothing still yielded success. In a sense, I would say Mercury is cut from a similar cloth – it had reasonable success for a long time, when nobody was quite sure what it was all about. Perhaps that was the intent; it wasn’t constrained by anything and was a much more malleable product in the process.
This particular Mercury is fascinating. It appears whoever ordered it wanted to save some money but still have a few more upscale touches. I’d say they did well.
Also, thank you for the inspiration. I found a 1969 Newport a while back and have been at an absolute loss about what to say. This helps.
Thanks! I agree that some amount of overlap does make sense, but to me the level of overlap diluted both the Monterey and the LTD. As part of this article, I graphed Ford, Mercury and Lincoln prices from the 1950s-70s, and I was surprised at how the base Monterey was slotted right in the middle of the LTD range – I’d assumed there was more price differential than there really was.
Coincidentally, there are two connections to Northwest Missouri in this article. One is that this Monterey had a 30-year-old windshield from King City (see picture below). The other is that the Ford executive Paul Lorenz was a St. Joe native.
Glad to spark inspiration on the Newport — sometimes it’s tough to build up enough inertia to get an article started. I’d started this one on-and-off for about two years.
Moving Mercury upscale “in the Lincoln Continental tradition” was a response to both the forthcoming LTD and the fact the Continental itself’s success was built on strategic retreat.
Part of the ’61’s Linc’s last-chance, two model lineup was that with all Lincolns being Continentals the sedan was priced between the Cadillac Sedan de Ville and 60 Special, the convertible firmly in Fleetwood territory. That left Ford with a model gap and meant the sensible thing to do would be to leave Pontiac and Dodge to the LTD while the lower-series big Merc would match up with the Buick LeSabre and Olds 88 and the higher one would not only face the Electra/98 and Chrysler New Yorker but reach up into the low end of Cadillac’s market that the Continental ignored.
King City is rather diminutive in population. How in the world did it end up in Virginia? And, better, considering where it came from, how are the fenders not infested with rust?
Further proof this Mercury has been well cared for.
“I found a 1969 Newport a while back and have been at an absolute loss about what to say.”
Another idea – it was the “I’ve made it!” destination of every Fury, Polara and Monaco buyer ever. Plymouths and Dodges were just Plymouths and Dodges, but a Chrysler was a Chrysler!! 🙂
Plus, this was the Newport Custom, I believe. So not just any old Newport. I do like the angle you suggest.
You are on the money about engines. My 67 Parklane came with the standard 410-4V while the equivalent LTD came with the 289-2V.
I find it weird then Mercury didn’t recycled the Monterey name to use for the “luxury compact” counterpart of the Ford Granada instead of using Monarch.
However, on the other hand, we didn’t have Montereys in Canada but the Meteor who seem to menaged well in the Great White North. http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Ford-Canada/Mercury/1971-Mercury-Meteor-Brochure/index.html
Monterey was a good name – I surprised it was never recycled.
From the brochure, it’s interesting that the ’71 Canadian full-size Mercurys seem to have the Ford LTD dashboard rather than the US-model Mercury-specific dash.
Monterey was reused on the Ford Windstar clone in 2004-07.
Ah – how could I forget that?? Thanks!
By the time Mercury reused Monterey, Ford of Canada stopped offering the Mercury line-up except the Grand Marquis after 2001.
Only the Meteor use the Ford LTD dashboard, the Canadian Marquis dashboard is the same as its American counterpart.
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Ford-Canada/Mercury/1971-Mercury-Marquis-Brochure/index.html
Thanks – that makes sense.
It’s always interesting to see the text differences between US and Canadian brochures. The two countries’ Marquis brochure images seem largely the same, but here’s the text difference from the page featuring the Marquis Brougham sedan – the Canadian brochure is from your link, and the US brochure is from my collection from which I scanned the image in this article.
Just interesting stuff for those of us who like minutiae:
Guess this was last generation full size Mercury to have a different dash than the Ford…I think the ’73 Mercury and Ford shared a dash (maybe different equipment but the same dash). Guess Mercury didn’t generate enough volume to justify unique tooling?
Interestingly, my Dad owned a ’73 full sized Ford, but by the late 80’s bought the first of 3 Mercury Sables in a row…the first was an ’89, and I think it had a different dash than the equivalent Ford (Taurus), plus unique light bar in front. The next two (a ’94 and a ’96) I think had the same dash as on the Taurus, plus the light bar was gone…some cost cutting apparent at Mercury going on, but of course the volumes were much lower than the Taurus.
He switched to Chevrolet in 2001, where he bought 2 Impalas in a row (he’s gone, but the last 2006 is still in our family). The dash might have also been used on the Monte Carlo, but I don’t think any other division used the Chevy dash…they might have been similar but not the same.
Our next door neighbors in Burlington in the mid 60’s had a ’63 Comet and a ’68 Park Lane wagon…we moved away and lost touch, often wonder what their sons are driving now…remember driving with their oldest in the Comet, right after he got his license probably in 1969 or so.
It is funny, I never liked these much when they were new – I thought both the LTD and the Marquis were more attractive. But I really like this one. I think the combo of the dark color, the fender skirts and the fancy wheel covers make the difference. A 71-72 Monterey with no skirts and those dull, plain wheel covers is still not appealing.
Mercury could never figure out the right balance between Ford and Lincoln. The 49-54 cars were very Lincoln (though maybe Lincoln wasn’t Lincoln-enough) and most of the rest of the time they were too much Ford. I thought the 1969 model was the first where they hit the bulls eye, at least with the Marquis. The public agreed – and it’s a good problem to have when everyone wants the expensive one. Chrysler could have used that kind of luck.
Another thought – at least they didn’t offer the basic sedan as a Mercury, they way they did in the lower-level big Fords in 1971-72. And really, I never saw a lot of styling difference between the true hardtop and the one with the pillar – both shared the same roofline and frameless glass.
I remembered a slightly newer Monterey I found and wrote up a few years ago – it had the skirts and optional wheel covers too, but a darker color would have helped it.
Now that you mention that, I’ll admit this: I didn’t realize this car was a hardtop until I looked at the pictures afterwards, and even then I verified it by examining the interior shot that shows the (missing) pillar.
To me, the ’69 through ’72 Monterey’s were nice looking cars! Of course I also liked the Marquis of this period, but the Monterey’s were also very good looking. At least when optioned out correctly with nice wheel covers, white walls, vinyl top.
Good day. I was born in 1930 or thereabouts and I remember the Model T well. My pops had one. Had a Model A and a flattie too. Ford always had good value for the money. Old Henry hated luxury cars,and I do too. Car for rich folks are no big deal. That car in the story is a working man’s car all gussied up. That’s all it is. It don’t fool nobody. Good mechanicals,reliable.
Always appreciate the exhaustive research of your in-depth biographies, Eric. Thank you! Consistently very interesting topics as well. Mercury Meteors of this generation, were popular here in Canada. The Meteor name still had value. As we typically have less disposable incomes, buyers may not have been as discerning among their luxury car choices, as American owners.
As the Meteor model and brand was exclusive to Canada, the Canadian Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa has a display on the Meteor’s history. Including a ’73 Meteor, built in Oakville. Part of a larger display of cars with a Canadian connection.
The ’71 Monterey/Meteor were a bit before my time. I found them bloaty-looking, and out-of-place, by the late ’70s.
Since the early 60s, Ford embraced the appearance of having the headlights embedded within the grille, on many models. Wasn’t a fan of this. I felt it often cheapened their looks. Particularly, on the ’71 era Monterey.
Amazing the rust didn’t consume this one.
An engaging read and lots of useful data here to put things in perspective–thanks!
I figure Ford *had* to have something between its fanciest (LTD) Ford and even its cheapest Lincoln—-I can’t imagine a GM with nothing between Chevy and Cadillac—but it’s interesting to see the overlap of prices, features, and so on.
But (setting Edsel aside) at FoMoCo there didn’t seem to be anything like B-O-P competing against each other, establishing separate identities for each marque, engineering exclusive engines and such, etc; there’s a certain little niche there that Mercury had to itself.
I’m a big fan of the late-60s, early-1970s Mercury cars—the ones I learned to drive in. This suburban Cleveland photo has Dad’s car I was borrowing during senior year of HS; I don’t remember any special interior options, but vividly recall its powerful 429. Here in 2022 I’m startled to see the base hubcaps…is there some box on the order form that didn’t get checked (assuming every Mercury came with full-size wheel covers)? I wonder…
Just why Mercury never really took off is a good thought experiment. GM’s mid-price brands (Olds, Buick) had a very deep history as unique brands, even if they eventually had to share bodies, and then increasingly other aspects. Pontiac did start out as a tarted-up Chevy (similar to Mercury) but eventually broke out of its mold with genuine energy, youthful image, great styling and unique power plants. And of course the Chrysler brand had a stellar image from almost day one.
But everyone knew that Mercs were just a slightly flashier and longer Ford. That reputation was deeply embedded in America’s consciousness. And the one time Mercury tried really hard to break that mold, in ’57-’60, the timing was terrible, as Americans were suddenly turned off by garish, big, higher-priced cars.
The reality as I saw it from the ’60s on was that there were some old-school loyal Mercury buyers, but mostly it was just…an alternate-universe Ford, for folks who got sucked in by a tv ad, a promotion, a different grille they liked better, or? But every one of them knew what it really was: a Ford with some different skin here and there.
Buick, Olds, Pontiac and Chrysler buyers convinced themselves that these brands still had some cachet and unique qualities. For a while, anyway.
Good article! Iacocca had been given the job by Bill Ford to fix Mercury back in the mid-60’s. His plan began with the ’67 Cougar, then by ’69 he had the full spectrum of models in the new Marquis (which was also introduced in ’67). Then his pièce de résistance: the Mark III Lincoln in late ’68 (a ’69 model). By the early 70’s Mercury had established itself pretty well as a solid mid-price line taking on BOP and Chrysler. Lincoln-Mercury as a brand and dealer network was something of consequence.
That green painted car in the magazine ad just jumped off the page at me screaming 1971 Ford, so infamous here on these pages. Same lines, same look and feel to my eyes.
I only ever built one AMT model of a Merc. It didn’t go together well, or at all, and it met the crusher. I think that kind of tainted or shaped my opinion of the brand.
“Try to act nonchalant driving the 1965 Mercury. Just try.”
That’s very funny copy.
My favorite Mercury model was Jill Wagner.
I really appreciated this well-researched article. I think you put your finger on the basic problem that plagued Mercury throughout its history, except maybe in the 1970s, when it was flying high.
I too am at a loss to explain the existence of the Monterey, which never really made much sense, except as a reason for a customer to trade up to a Marquis, which to me really defined Mercury during its 1970s heyday. The exposed headlights, the lack of fender skirts, and a base interior straight out of a Galaxie 500 Custom made for a plain and unattractive sister compared to the more upscale Marquis, laden as it was with every Brougham-era styling cue.
I would also argue that the contemporary LTDs were better-looking cars than this Monterey as well. Why spend more money to get an uglier car?
Yikes! Why would you want a manual transmission with one of these? Just doesn’t seem to be part of the program. Aren’t these all about smoothness and isolation?
Towing?
The Monterey through about 1968 was generally a decent looking car, and had a reasonable function competing with lower end big Buicks and Oldsmobiles.
Mercury, like Chrysler, struggled with GM’s distinct B and C body big cars. GM could afford a lot of unique sheet metal aft of the B pillar, and vastly differentiated interior packages between the junior and senior big Buicks and Oldsmobiles.
Mercury and Chrysler were competing with one basic car with varying trim levels. If the junior nameplates, Monterey and Newport respectively, got too fancy, they began to walk all over the senior name plates – Marquis and New Yorker.
Chrysler’s handling of this seemed a bit more deft to me. By ’71, the Monterey came across as sort of an uglyfied Marquis. Loaded up with trim and features like this one, it comes off better than some, but why not just spring for the Marquis?.
A heavily equipped junior Buick or Olds had the luxury of having high level trim, lots of options, and not looking like you should have just bought the senior Electra or Ninety-Eight.
Cars that know why they are here…..
I agree that GM and Chrysler seemed to handle their mid-range product placement better than Ford in these years. In some ways these base Montereys seem like a thought that was unfinished.
I think one of the problems Mercury had was that outside of big cities, the brand was dual slotted with Ford dealers. Many small town dealers were Ford-Mercury stores with no Lincolns.
Our small town dealership did get an occasional Monterey. Buyers could compare the Monterey side-by-side with an LTD on the same showroom floor. Similarly priced LTDs were better equipped than Montereys. Pretty much as you’d expect comparing a top of the line Ford to a bottom of the line Mercury.
Buyers were not only paying for a name, they were getting a lesser equipped car for the same price. A few still picked a Monterey over an LTD, but I never understood why.
NIce article.
From ’39 to ’51 Mercury established its own reputation as the Fast Ford. Then the company decided to set up Lincoln as the race winner, which made no sense for a luxury car and duplicated Merc’s real reputation.
In ’57 Merc gained its own identity as the Space-age Gadget car… and then the company duplicated the niche with Edsel. After that, Merc never established a real niche again.
Interesting angle. However, iirc the switch to Lincoln spindles and brakes and rear ends happened with both Kurtis and Wally Parks Carrera Panamera entrants between ’50 and ’52 out of necessity.
The Ford stuff broke. How different were Merc susp components to either Ford or Lincoln?
Soon followed by complete Lincolns in Carrera (to save time?)?
Just going off on a tangent – that front seat looks to be an awfully long way back, behind the B-pillar stub, which seems to be in a strange place considering the car’s wheelbase. I thought it was only sixties/early seventies Japanese cars where the seat was behind the pillar for a Western-size driver. I’ve had the seat right back in most of my cars, but it’s never been behind the pillar to that extent.
That’s an interesting observation – the seat in this car must be WAY back. I checked the ’71 Mercury brochure and most of the images have the top of the front seat ever with the pillar (and brochure pictures are typically staged to make the car look as roomy as possible).
Well, at least with the hardtop, this very tall driver wouldn’t have his side vision obstructed by a big pillar between the windows!
The vinyl roof seam on the D pillar is awful. A straight line vinyl roof meets a curved fender with absolutely no effort make it look right.
I think the bottom line for Mercury was that for most of its history, at least in the U.S., it existed so that Lincoln-Mercury dealers would have something to sell to keep the lights on between Continental, Mark, and Town Car sales. Some years, that was junior Lincolns, some years it was a Taurus or Explorer with a different grille. As much as Ford occasionally tried to present this as some kind of brand hierarchy, it was never really that in practice, and the brief period in the fifties where they tried to move Mercury upscale so it wouldn’t overlap with Ford and Edsel, they nearly lost their shirts because the result was to immediately push Mercury out of the price range of people who’d been buying the cars.
Fancy Ford or Junior Lincoln matters not one wit to me. I absolutely adore the 70’s Mercurys. They just look “right” to me. In fact I own a 76 Grand Marquis and it’s bigger cousin, a 79 Lincoln Continental Town Car. Plus my folks 74 Montego they bought new, although that’s not in the scope of this article. Then, and now,. I prefer the Mercs over the Ford’s.
I never thought of Mercury as anything besides a slightly different Ford. Yeah, I knew they were more expensive, perhaps I was too fixated on stats like HP, but to me they were just another, slightly different, slightly more expensive, Ford. Nothing wrong with that, but NBD.
While unimpressed in general, the one I did like was the ’63 only? Monterey. In spite of my disdain of the chopped off rooflines, which GM among others refers to as “formal”, and I call slowback as in the opposite of fastback, I just loved the retractable rear window. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was miserable to be in with it down, buffeting and all, I always thought it was cool and something I’d like to have.
My bold idea of the Monterey’s purpose: Unless you’re catering to cost-no-object customers (who either don’t have to care, or just genuinely don’t care, and simply buy what they like), every single one of your products is Entry Level Luxury to someone, starting with a Mitsubushi Mirage (it’s new!) up to any heights, someone with still limited funds is willing and able to swing.
Having overlaps in your line up is sure not that helpful, perhaps harmful in some ways, but having too big a price gap is even worse, as you’re clearly leaving money on the table, some poor sap would have thrown at you otherwise. So if you can close any gap on the cheap, you just do, laughing all the way to the bank.
Mercury was always a middle price car that tried to compete with GM’s middle priced cars, Pontiac, Olds and Buick. Trouble was, Mercury didn’t know which of the BOP trio to compete against. Sometimes (like the sixties) it was a slightly upscale Ford, as Pontiac was to Chevy. Sometimes (the seventies) a serious luxury offering, like Buick. Sometimes (late fifties) an effort to experiment a bit, like Olds. In the Panther years it reverted back to a slightly upscale Ford, whose differentiation with became less and less with each passing year, until it simply faded away.
IMHO Merc was most successful in the seventies in the big Grand Marquis years, when it was a significant step up from Ford in size, power and luxury. A nice ‘74 Grand Marquis with its standard 460-4 bbl., unique sheet metal and dash, was a real nice ride and wasn’t confused with an LTD.
FWIW, the 73-78 LTD were same size as Marquis, [Grand Marq wasjust the top trim.] Don’t see any ”significant” difference, other then trim/features. Non-car people would see LTD or Marq as same car. If someone really wanted to show off, Lincoln was it.
Also, the 460 motor available in Fords til ’78, before Panthers. Was more a matter of taste. Mid lux brands faded due to buyers realizing “why pay more for just a badge?”
Incorrect. A 1974 Grand Marquis was 226.8 inches long, 79.6 inches wide, weighed 4,832 pounds and had a 124 inch wheelbase. The same stats for a 1974 LTD was 222.5, 79.5, 4,552 and a 121 inch wheelbase. The GM had a different instrument panel and those cool hideaway headlights. They were as different as an Impala and Electra.
There was a reason McGarret drove a Grand Marquis and Dano, a LTD.
Is there anything to the phrase “Merc is a Ford with lock washers”?
There were some loyalists to Mercury, and were upset at its demise.
“I’m not driving a Ford!” said many Grand Marquis owners. They had memories of big cars all over, and ‘mid lux’ brands being a “step up” to neighbors/friends/coworkers/relatives.
Now, its mainstream or luxury makes. And even then, a loaded Ford pickup is more of a status symbol than a Lincoln CUV.
One thing that seems a bit odd now, but I’m sure back in the day (probably 50 years or so before Mercury finally was withdrawn as a model) is that bigger was better, and for awhile the Mercury cars were slightly longer than Ford (not sure if in wheelbase or in actual length). Not sure when this stopped, guess early 70’s, maybe with the ’73 model full sized car (maybe Comet or Montego were different timing)…I think the early 70’s Comet was slightly longer than the corresponding Maverick and had slightly different trim. Don’t think the Pinto equivalent Bobcat was different than the Pinto in length though, which was probably less of an issue in smaller car. If you got a bigger car, you’d expect to pay a bit more…I think GM and Chrysler were similar (Chrysler used to brag about only full sized models until the Cordoba came out in ’75 and was a big success). Probably you got better insulation to make Mercury a bit quieter, but with decontenting, maybe even that went away. And even through the first Sables, they had different interior (think the Marquis interior was a little different than Ford Crown Victoria).
Once these differences went away, the horse was out of the barn, and I’m sure it was harder to get people to pay more for Mercury if they couldn’t tell the difference between it and a Ford. Was the dealer experience better at Mercury than at Ford (a la Lexus vs Toyota, back when similar models sold at both, Infiniti vs Nissan?….even Audi vs VW.
I guess you have to ask the question why the brand was offered in the first place, assuming the “non-luxury” brand already existed. My Dad bought 3 Mercuries in a row starting in the late 80’s (he never owned any before), I think partly due to the location of the dealership, which was close to where he lived, but I don’t recall other advantages over the Ford dealership (my Mom had a Tempo during the time he had 3 different Sables in a row, so we also went to the Ford dealer for servicing her car sometimes). My Dad wasn’t much into luxury models, the plushest car he probably owned was a ’78 Chevrolet Caprice Classic wagon that he bought out of the showroom (only car he ever had that was in a showroom).
Wonder if AMC could have done something similar with Jeep in the late 70’s and early 80’s when they came out with AWD cars…would it have made sense to make them Jeep (and make Jeep the “uplevel” AMC, at least until acquired by Chrysler)? Chrysler kind of had that for awhile with Dodge offering both cars and trucks (at least till trucks came out as Ram instead of Dodge).
Even at Ford…why did Crown Victoria replace LTD or even Galaxie? Why did Grand Marquis (or I guess Marquis) take over for Monterey? I’m guessing with the trend toward smaller cars, the volumes were no longer there to offer multiple trims of the large sized car, so only one model per brand was left, with a larger price spread between the base stripper and the loaded model. Also, they stopped offering all engines in all trim levels (remember when you still had engine options?). In the mid 80’s right when Acura debuted , I remember when you still had to spring for the LXI trim Accord if you wanted the fuel injected engine, else you got the carburated model, which eventually went away, but they bundled it with power windows and locks as if fuel injection were a “luxury” feature (I guess it kind of was for awhile, just like anti-lock brakes weren’t always standard, or even disc brakes if you go back half century or more). Guess it boils down to marketing, like most offerings do, even if you can’t figure out the logic behind how they implemented it and how they were going to amortize the cost for adding different features on certain models.