(first posted 6/20/2017) If one were to look for the most representative car of the 1970s, this may be it – a mid-sized, mid-priced, moderately-equipped sedan made in the middle of the decade. But typical doesn’t always mean dull. The 1970s US car market was pulled in often conflicting directions: Demands for luxury battled with those for economy; sportiness was in vogue, but performance fizzled; imports surged in popularity, though domestics were more American-feeling than ever. Ford’s Torino range featured elements of all these conflicts, and pulled off the resultant compromise successfully.
The sight of a Gran Torino sedan is a special treat, as these 4-doors were much less likely to have been preserved than their 2-door counterparts. A recent check of Hemmings.com, for instance, showed that of 44 Torinos listed for sale, just 2 were sedans. Seeing such a survivor warrants a detailed look at how these cars fit into the intermediate marketplace in the turbulent 1970s, and what qualities brought about their relative market success.
Ford’s Torino inherited quite a legacy from its forebears. In fact, the “intermediate” designation among Detroit’s Big Three originated with Ford’s 1962 Fairlane. Ford promoted the intermediate concept as trimming the fat from a full-size car (“As bulk goes out, savings roll in”) – and the concept spawned one of the car market’s most competitive segments. By the late 1960s, intermediates accounted for a quarter of all US car sales.
Fairlanes were heavily redesigned (and enlarged) for 1968, featuring swoopy, contemporary styling, and including a top-of-the line version called Torino – a name new to Ford consumers, but not necessarily to management. “Torino” had been the runner-up name for what became the Mustang. Eventually, Mustang prevailed, likely for several reasons, but Ford VP Lee Iacocca later remarked that it sounded too foreign and exotic for areas – as he put it – “west of the Hudson River.” That sentiment must have changed quickly, for there was little resistance to Torino in 1968.
Fairlane and Torino competed in an increasingly contested market segment. Maintaining customers’ interest required a good deal of work on Ford’s part, including a redesigned car for 1970, and renaming the entire range Torino for 1971. But even as the 1970 car was introduced, Ford was working on its replacement – not just a reskinned update, but a completely new approach.
Ford introduced its next iteration of the Torino for 1972, responding to several concurrent trends in the intermediate marketplace. Car buyers expected a greater luxury feel, even for mid-size cars. At the same time, consumers gravitated towards cars with sporty or muscular designs. Comfort and sport may seem like contradictory goals, but success among intermediate cars in the early 1970s depended on satisfying both objectives.
To achieve a more luxurious impression, Ford not only made the Torino bigger yet again, but also shifted from unibody to body-on-frame construction for more of a big-car feel. 4-door and wagon models now rode on a longer wheelbase than their 2-door counterparts (118” compared to 114”), and increasingly, Torino came to resemble a slightly miniaturized LTD.
Another focus of the 1972 redesign was handling, with Ford striving for a stable, as well as comfortable ride. For example, Torino’s roll center lowered from 14” to 8” above ground level – done by mounting the frame relatively low, and using oddly-shaped control arms. Front and rear suspensions were all new for 1972 as well, and featured coil, rather than leaf springs for the rear. Due to these changes, ride and handling both improved significantly over the previous Torino.
Style-wise, Ford took the previous generation’s coke-bottle styling and amplified it. Voluptuous fenders (“flowing side contours,” in Ford-speak) and plenty of curves highlighted a design evoking the sporty image that buyers coveted.
One gets a sense of the Torino’s low, wide and rounded profile by seeing it in a modern setting, such as when compared to this 2004 Focus. The “low” characteristic stands out most in this photo, as the Torino is 3” lower than the Focus. Torino’s shape and curves (not to mention the saddle bronze color) certainly stand out in a crowd nowadays. But as Raymond Loewy once said, “The loveliest curve I know is the sales curve.” So how did consumers respond to the redesigned Torino?
First-year sales of nearly 500,000 units appear impressive – a 50% increase from the previous model year. However, this fell somewhat short of Ford’s target for 1972, and sales were adequate, but not exceptional, throughout this generation’s 5 model years. Not a disappointment by any means, the Torino wasn’t a wild sales success, either.
Source of production figures: torinocobra.com. Chart includes Elites (2-dr.); does not include Rancheros.
Though hard to believe today (given the virtual disappearance of large coupes), 2-door intermediate-size cars often outsold their 4-door counterparts. This held true with Torino – among the 2 million Torinos produced between 1972 and 1976, 56% were 2-door models. Overall Torino sales generally softened as the model aged, but even in each of its last two years, Torinos found homes with over 300,000 customers.
The 1972-76 Torino sedans came in three forms – a base Torino, a Gran Torino and a Gran Torino Brougham – all with increasing levels of trim. Most sedans (about two-thirds) wound up being Gran Torinos like our featured car. Coupes and wagons, though, carried some different model designations, and the Torino family’s sales champ when our featured car was built was the Thunderbird-esque Elite, a high-end 2-door sold from 1974 to 1976 that capitalized on the rising popularity of specialty intermediate coupes.
While our featured car is a mid-range Gran Torino, this example is relatively sparsely equipped. Few extra frivolities adorn this car; air conditioning (a $470 option, but chosen on over 80% of Torinos) appears to be its only major option.
Our featured car’s level of trim can be more accurately judged by looking inside. This car’s standard bench seat, AM radio, and lack of power accessories (only 20% of Torinos were ordered with power windows) tell the story of a frugal and traditional original owner. Regardless of trim level, Torinos featured a well-designed interior for its day. Deep-set individual gauges presented a more modern interior layout than did much of the Torino’s competition – a design that complemented the stylized exterior.
Rear seat room was adequate, though not exceptional for its class. More problematic than size, though, was visibility. The side window’s upswept design placed the window line at head level for adults and above head level for children. Rear-seat passengers couldn’t see much of the outside world (a condition that was worse with the ’72 models, which featured standard high-back front seats).
Poor outward visibility didn’t just affect passengers. Thick, swooping C-pillars, a high belt line, fastback-type trunk lid, and narrow rear window meant that drivers could only guess at their surroundings on occasion. Ironically, poor rearward visibility like this has become commonplace on cars in recent years, but in the 1970s – when people expected to be able to see out of cars – it was widely criticized.
Overall, the Torino’s design was popular. In a 1972 Popular Mechanics Owners Report, nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they bought their Torinos because of the car’s styling – by far the highest reason cited (size was next at 18%). Rear visibility led the list of complaints, and also led the list of recommended changes.
Consumers liked the big-car ride, with the smoothness and quietness one would expect from a larger car. Contemporary reviews praised the Torino’s low noise levels and suspension comfort, but noted vague steering feel, requiring frequent corrections. Handling was not the Torino’s strong point, though certain low-cost options (such as larger tires or an optional HD suspension) made a noticeable difference in cornering ability.
Our featured car came equipped a 351-cu. in. 2-bbl. V-8 (which became standard in 1974). Rated at 162 hp for 1975, the 351 provided acceptable power for the 4,000-lb Torino, even with ever-growing emissions requirements. Ford’s comically-named SelectShift Cruise-O-Matic transmission was standard. Optional engines of 400 and 460 cid brought noticeable increases in acceleration, but most Torino buyers stuck with the 351 – considered to provide a satisfactory combination of power and efficiency for the times.
During the 5 years for which this generation of Torino was produced, changes came incrementally. The most noticeable changes arrived for 1974 when the car received a new grille (with turn signals embedded just inboard from the headlights), and new bumper designs. According to Ford, the revised bumpers added 100 lbs. to Torino’s curb weight over the 1972 model.
Around back, the 1974 freshening resulted in wrap-around tail lamps and the fuel door being moved to above the bumper (from its former home behind the license plate). Less noticeable was that the fuel tank increased by 4 gallons (to 26.5) – a response to the 1973 oil crisis.
Torino accomplished what Ford had intended – to be a competitive player in the lucrative intermediate market. The niche into which the Torino sedan positioned itself was that of a solid, respectable, practical car. Torinos were archetypical Middle American cars, particularly those examples without the embellishments of the Brougham or Elite models. It is little wonder that an example like our featured car was featured in this long-running Caterpillar ad alongside representatively stoical owners.
Today, Torinos are likely to be remembered more for entertainment references than for the car’s role in Ford’s 1970s model range. The 1975-79 television series Starsky & Hutch could easily have been called Starsky, Hutch & Ford on behalf of David Starsky’s red Gran Torino coupe, with its distinctive white vector stripe. Thirty years later, Ford’s intermediate model found another spotlight with Clint Eastwood’s 2008 film Gran Torino, with the eponymous car being a 1972 coupe.
The Torino coasted into its final year of 1976 with no significant changes, however by that point the car’s rounded styling had overstayed its welcome. But not, apparently, its underpinnings.
Speaking about his company’s 1977 product offerings, Ford VP Walter S. Walla said “We have new styling where it counts the most.” That included the Torino… but the keyword there was styling. Torino’s replacement, the aptly-named LTD II, was simply a Torino reskinned with more angular bodywork, and was produced for another 3 model years.
Ford’s Torino was a relatively successful car in what was perhaps the most convoluted decade in automotive history. Success came to the Torino not by excelling at any one characteristic, but by checking more than enough boxes on buyers’ must-have lists. This was a well-built car with good performance, value and room, and with a stylish design that provided just enough flair to distinguish it in a crowded field. It’s hard to think of a car that symbolizes the 1970s any more than that.
Related Reading:
1972 Ford Torino: The Fertile Breeder Jason Shafer
1975 Ford Gran Torino: Isolation Chamber Tom Klockau
Photographed in Fairfax, Virginia in September 2016.
The Torino might have been the car that suffered the most from the addition of 5 mph bumpers. I remember how incongruous I thought they looked with the flowing side styling, like railroad ties had been tacked onto the front and rear.
The 73 got it the worst, 74 at least was symmetrical.
Around the doors, it’s similar to the XA, XB Falcon. The long trunk would’ve been handy – but those C-pillars! That crease on the rear guards! The looong front overhang!
The big difference between Australian and US cars of the 60s and 70s is due to the relative quality of the roads. One twelfth the population in as large a landmass means less money spent per mile, means manufacturers had to come up with something that would cope with long, rough rides. And the Bathurst race.
Eric, you are causing me to have a fitful morning with these Torino pictures. After seeing Vince’s ’72 Sport Coupe the other day, upon which my Torino feelings were starting to soften, you show us this conveyance, in the same Fecal Brown Metallic (or is it Swisher Sweet Metallic?) as the ’73 base model (seen below, the white one that is inset) my parents purchased new years ago.
Plus, it’s the same color as the ’74 Ranchero I was given and owned briefly. It was a monumental rust collector, which may partly explain the dearth of these now.
That said, you nailed it about this being the embodiment of the 1970s. The Torino covered its time quite well, with few better able to reflect their period in time (the Olds Toronado being one that did).
The path of the Torino during the 1970s also mimics a certain maturing and changing of values that occurred – where a 351 with an automatic was standard in 1975, in 1973, for instance, a six-cylinder with a three-speed was standard fare on base models, while a three-speed was still the starting point on higher trim levels, as seen in the picture.
Fabulous find. Despite my cringing over the color, it still beats white!
I didn’t know the base model Torinos in ’73 had different grilles, I have no recollection of that style at all. Or did sedans get a different front than coupes?
The standard Torino used a unique grill in 72 and 74 as well, it started using the Gran nose in 75 to cut costs. Nearly the only takers of standard Torinos were fleets as I understand it, which is why they’re so rare to see.
The non-Gran Torino sure is a strange looking beast.
You’re lucky she didn’t get chopped, mr. Lebowski.
The mid size car for Ford people. It was a decent alternative to the GM colonnade cars and most found it far more appealing than the offerings from Chrysler and AND.
My father got one of these for several days as a loaner when his car was having some work done. I remember it as being very vanilla. I liked the interior better than the 74 LeMans I was used to but found it very floaty with very light steering. Where the Pontiac was a really good road car, the Gran Torino was nautical.
I never really liked the styling of the sedans and wagons, and thought that it’s look had aged poorly by 1976. All these years later these still do not call my name.
I must say I’d FAR prefer the outward rear visibility of the six-window GM Colonnade sedans!
Yeah Ford’s bumpers were ridiculous in the 70s but I actually prefer the ’74 front and rear end to what came before. I especially love the taillights, in particular on the Cougar.
And, just to go against the grain even more, I genuinely love the look of the fender skirts on the Gran Torino Brougham. They make the car look even more dramatic and swoopy; the Colonnade Luxury LeMans/Grand LeMans also pulled off that look well.
Love the colour. I wouldn’t have bothered with an LTD… this would have been enough car for me!
+1 on the fender skirts.
The Torino in the ’70’s was so humdrum and ubiquitous that it could have been badged “car”, and that would have basically covered most people’s first thought upon seeing one. They were mostly just plain old boring transport vessels that attracted very little attention.
I had an aunt who drove a Gran Torino Brougham in a sort of metallic reddish brown (Crayola would call it Burnt Sienna) color with white vinyl top and white interior. In that color scheme, with the upgraded wheel covers and extra trim bits of the Brougham package it was a head turner. Really a very pretty car, despite the ridiculous bumpers it had been saddled with by that time. Scratch the surface and it was still nothing more than a sow wearing lipstick, but with proper attention to the order form a Torino could be quite appealing, at least visually.
I am generally not opposed to fender skirts, but they never looked right on the Torino (or on the LTD of the same era) because Ford would not eliminate the lip on the normal wheel opening. I wanted to like the look, but could never quite get there on these cars with skirts.
The cars where skirts worked did not flare the lip for the rear wheel opening, which is why skirts look so much better on the 74 LeMans (with flat fenders) than on the 73 (which had a lip). The big Chrysler of the 70s also kept flat fenders that looked right with skirts.
This article is dead-on. The Torino – one of my favorite cars with the 1968 & 1969 models, became symbolic of the bloat American cars suffered in the 70s. It seemed the majority of the 70s Torinos came in that brownish color, too – either that or light green.
I have ridden in a few of these over the years, and yes, they have that smooth ride only Ford seemed able to achieve in a mid-sized car, but it was a clumsy boat just the same.
Overall, these 70s Torinos sure made the GM Colonnades look magnificent by comparison!
No mention of the Torino based Ranchero car/truck?
Great post!! I cannot think of a car that better embodies the Malaise era than a brown, big-bumpered Gran Torino sedan with a low-output V8 and a rather chintzy all-vinyl interior. The couple in the Caterpillar ad is the perfect embodiment of the type that would buy this functional beast–and I am sure he appreciated the “road hugging weight” in a “mid-sized” car as he drove the missus around those big trucks.
I also cannot think of a design that was more negatively impacted by the Federal bumper requirements than this one. The styling progression of mid-sized Fords that you showcase demonstrates how the original ’72 styling was actually a logical amplification of the ’70 – ’71 design. The pointed front and rear styling served as a reasonably effective counterpoint to the curvaceous flanks, making the car seem somewhat aggressive and stylish. That look was lost when the battering-ram bumpers were added, giving clumsy, heavy front- and rear-end styling that made the voluptuous bodysides seem fat and frumpy.
Also, this post is the perfect example of learning something new every day: I did not know that the “Torino” name was under consideration for the car that became the Mustang. Good thing Ford went with the filly for its affordable sporty coupe–we wouldn’t have had the Pony Car segment without it!
The only question for car-casting that ad if it were to be remade today would be “RAV4 or CR-V?”
I worked on enough of these when they were new. The only vice that really stands out in my memory on this model was the ignition interlock on the 74 model.
As a dealer, we were not allowed to disconnect them. Buyers so hated the things that whenever we delivered a car, the salesman would demonstrate the device including the underhood override button for whe the device didn’t work. Then they’d tell the buyer that although we weren’t allowed to disconnect the device, a mechanic would show them how to do it themselves is so desired.
Most did. We mechanics would helpfully loosen the connection retaining clips, then show the buyer where to tug the wire. I always remember a big guy taking one look at me trying to show him the wire under the seat. He threw $2 on the sear, said he was going to use the restroom and he hoped the device wouldn’t work when he got back.
It didn’t.
The only vice that really stands out in my memory on this model was the ignition interlock on the 74 model.
iirc, the interlock system was so unpopular that the reg was revoked in the spring of 74. I remember Motor Trend running an article on how to override the system used by each of the big three.
Once the regulation was revoked, I remember seeing ton’s of repair orders (even on new unsold cars on the lot) that only said “disconnect seat belt interlock”.
On VW’s a way around it was to keep the belt connected and lift up your rear end when starting the engine. It was so stupid to see cars running around with the belts connected and people sitting on top of them, if you were a passenger and wanted to buckle up you would need to unhook the belt before you got in, and of course the buzzer and fasten belts light would activate, so it actually discouraged belting up.
The ’72 2 door Torino was the only body style that looked like a decently styled car to me, fat bumpers (and 4 doors) really ruined it’s appeal.
Supposedly more folks were outraged about the interlock system in 1974 then Watergate scandal the year before.
Blecch. I agree with GN that the Gran Torino epitomized the Malaise era. I drove a couple of big-bumpered Torinos when they were current. Time has not softened my disdain for these ugly horrors.
Our driver’s ed cars were stripper Torinos of this vintage: refrigerator white on the outside, vinyl stretched tautly over bench seats on the inside, and a wheezing 351 under the hood. They were on their last legs after years of abuse in the county motor pool, and they looked & drove like beached whales. “Ugly horrors” sounds about right to me.
Such as this one, for instance? White Torino sedans were ubiquitous as fleet vehicles, but unfortunately I couldn’t locate a good-quality photo for use in this article.
Holy cow, Fairfax County seal on the door and everything. That may have been one of the wallowing blobs I piloted around the Woodson H.S. parking lot.
That may have been one of the wallowing blobs I piloted around the Woodson H.S. parking lot.
Ford shocks of the era were terribly loose. By the time my mom’s 72 Gran Torino had 25K on it, it wandered so much she had trouble keeping it in the lane. A set of Gabriel shocks cured that.
Incidentally, I photographed this Torino at the University Mall, about 3 miles from Woodson HS.
A few weeks ago, I posted this story in the comments from another article, but it’s worth repeating here:
As you (obviously) know, Fairfax Co. Public Schools bought a small fleet of white Torinos as Driver’s Education cars. A local dealer gave them a good deal on the cars, since they were to be used for educational purposes, but several months after the purchase, someone noticed that the Superintendent and some other high-ranking school officials were driving these white Torinos as their personal-use cars. There was a minor uproar about this… clearly they just wanted to drive shiny new cars, but they claimed they had to “break in” the new cars before the students used them. I doubt anyone believed them, but the Torinos were pressed into Drivers Ed service immediately afterwards.
One thing that struck me as odd is how tiny the rear doors as compared to the gargantuan front and rear ends. I would choose one with bigger rear doors over the massive ‘Mafia Special’ rear ends…
The ’70s really were a turbulent time, weren’t they? Knowing only the history, courtesy of my 1981 birth, I can see where cars like this both were emblematic of the time and indicative of the epochal change to occur in less than a decade’s time.
I gotta say, though, I do find it attractive. Even the front end and the circle headlights work for me as far as design, which was always a crapshoot during the ’70s it seems. Hell of a lot better than some of bloated crap that passes for design now.
Bloated crap is exactly what I see in the Torino.
While you indict modern styling as terrible, this car demonstrates that the 70’s were no better.
The 70s don’t have bumper covers that will spiderweb when you so much as brush up against them, or have headlights that will get cataracts after a few years in the sun, or accumulate unsightly wheel rash with low profile tires, and at least there was variety in bodystyle and color for any given model. That’s where the 70s was better.
My dad had a company car during the 70’s. For about a 4 year stretch, every time it came up for replacement he chose a different Torino wagon. Finally in ’77 Ford got rid of the Torino and my dad got a Cougar squire for the one year they built them (before the 80’s Fox version). I was so happy that we got something different – but how different? It had the same dash, same windows and same tailgate as the outgoing Torino. Still, I thought Ford had done a great job fixing up the Torino wagon as I really liked that Cougar. Too bad they only kept it around for a year.
Since the LTD II/Cougar wagon was to be one-year-only before being replaced by the Fox body (at the other end of the “midsize” spectrum) it got only the new front, along with the Ford getting the same rear fenders the Mercury Montego had used since ’72.
But as Raymond Loewy once said, “The loveliest curve I know is the sales curve.”
I can think of a few that are much better!
+1
Stogy but O.K. cars at the time .
-Nate
My company had these as company cars. I hated them. Extremely numb steering. plain black cheep vinyl bench seats that smelled like a new vinyl hose and poor visibility. The Taurus replaced them. night and day differences.
It’s hard to believe today that this was once the intermediate size car offered by a major manufacturer. And even harder to believe that a “personal luxury coupe” was even bigger.
In the 70s my sister was given one of these Torino 4 doors while her Mustang II was in the shop. After less than 1 block she made me take the wheel as she didn’t want to drive something so wide and ungainly on the rural 2 lane roads in northern Pennsylvania.
What always stands out in my memory of these cars is how the seat backs, even in the front, seemed to be 6 feet tall (didn’t some of these cars have the headrest integrated into the top of the seat backs, like giant tombstones?), and how thick the doors were because of the “coke bottle” styling. I’ll bet a Torino’s door was twice as thick as a Maverick’s door.
I pass a house with a light, metallic green Torino wagon on 2 flat whitewalls every now and then. It looks near new, but also looks like it hasn’t moved in years.
I don’t know how thick a Maverick’s door is, but I just measured the rear door on my Torino. At the widest point, where the side moulding is, it is 10 inches thick.
Brougham Lite. Everything you always wanted in your big American car. And less.
The Colonnades from GM rode and handled better, looked better, and were quicker and more efficient.
The Furies and Monacos were quicker (and cruder).
An older widow from my parish drove a green one JUST LIKE your picture, and she’d give me a ride as a kid.
Thanks for a good memory 🙂
My great aunt Laura had the green one, too. Must have been a favorite of older widows and spinsters. My Mom got the car after Laura gave up driving, and the car, while not bad, was just another car to drive. But, for that time period, it was just like most (American) cars out there. Not better, yet not worse. A middle of the road car for middle of the road people.
My mom had a 72 Torino. The first car I remember her buying. First car I remember her having was a 67 Impala. All 2 doors. She only came around to 4 doors in the last 20 yrs or so. But the Torino was sky blue with the uglier grille – non Gran Torino. Blue vinyl interior bench seat. Plain wheel covers. Probably the only option was A/C. About the same bench seat used in the Ford Super Duty I drove at my last job. i stood on the hump and looked out the front between the humps (head rests). I remember her getting a set of “radial” tires. they were REALLY noisy on some roads. We only used seat belts on long trips. My uncle the car guy said it was a 351 Windsor and I remember asking what the “2CV” on the air cleaner lid meant. It was a solid car as far as I remember. Replaced eventually with a 78 Granada that I learned to drive in.
Thanks for the write up.
Ford seemed to think referring to a 2 barrel carburetor as 2 venturi (2V) made it seem classier. The decal you remember probably looked like the attachment.
Some of the Cleveland engines may have been marked 351-2CV . Don’t remember ever seeing that type of marking though.
Another reason why smoking is bad for you
It’s not so bad as long as you remember to roll the window down before attempting to flick your cigarette butt/roach out of it.
There’s been plenty of CC discussion in the past about how much of the Colonnade platform carried over to the ’77+ B-bodies, and how the ’79 Chrysler R-body was essentially a revised B. I’m curious how much, if any, of the Torino/LTD II platform carried over to the Panther – the shared 114″ wheelbase has always made me suspicious.
Vince’s comment the other day in his excellent Torino memoir about putting Panther police springs in his car had me wondering the same thing.
The Panther engineering / platform certainly was nothing revolutionary. It struck me as an amalgamation of the ’65-’78 full-size cars and the ’72-’79 mid-size cars. The rear of the Panther (check the trunk design, gas tank location) is all about the ’65 Ford, while everything ahead of the C pillar is similar to the ’72 Torino.
I mentioned this on my Torino thread recently. First the Colonnade frame is different than the B-body chassis. The Colonnade chassis in considerably different and is generally a more heavy design. The 1977 B-body chassis has some suspension parts that will interchange, and the overall suspension design is very similar. The Torino based cars have a similar chassis to the Panther’s. However, in the Ford’s case, the suspension/steering design was changed significantly. The front suspension changed the lower control arm from a single pivot point with a strut rod to a dual pivot point. Ford also rearranged the rear suspension 4-link arm layout. However, even with these changes, some suspension parts still are interchangeable.
The 2-door Torino chassis is a very similar dimensionally to the Panther chassis. Here is a picture of an individual who has swapped a late model Panther chassis under a rusted out ’72 Torino. Note that the Panther Chassis was heavily updated in 2003, and this is the updated Panther chassis on this car. This build isn’t complete, but according to this person the chassis fit the Torino very well and will only really require modifications of the chassis overhang areas in the front and rear (as clearly seen in this photo). There have been others who have also swapped the 2003 front suspension onto the 1972 Torino chassis, but it requires some significant metal work.
Between the stacked cinder and wood blocks holding up portions of the vehicle and those ancient looking floor jacks, I fear our back yard tech may not survive this project!
GM really had the lock on mid-size cars in the ’70s. Ford and Chrysler had a few hits, but GM was the juggernaut – and largely because they simply made a better car. Build quality, handling, fuel economy, reliability and performance (except for a few sneaky Mopars) were all generally superior on consistently fresher and better updated designs.
Even the order in which the big three did their major redesigns in the early ’70s worked against Chrysler and Ford. Chrysler presumably got a small bump in sales in ’71, the ’72 Torino was very successful, and the ’73 up GM mid-size range simply owned the ’73-’77 model years.
Personally, I thought the entirety of the LTD II was an error. From an investment standpoint, Ford might have been a lot better off it had allowed the ’72 Torino to run through ’77, and then the ’78 Farimont should have introduced as the new mid-size Torino. It would have answered the GM new product onslaught in a much more efficient way than the dumbly named and given up for dead after one year LTD II. Of course, the Fairmont’s modest nature would have had to have been considerably upgraded to compete as a mid-size.
OK, I will come out and be “that guy” – Both in 1977 and now I thought the LTD II sedan was an improvement over the 73-76 Gran Torino sedan in almost every way. By 1977 that sharply upswept beltline mated to the swoopy hips on the Torino was sooo 1972, in the way that the Mopar B body sedans and the AMC Matador were. Ford was the only one that spent money restyling that line before it was fully replaced. The LTD II may not have been the best thing out there, but it was so much more attractive than the later Torino sedan.
Now, everyone can proceed with the bashing. 🙂
The dead giveaway for my youthful eyes that the LTD II was a retreaded product of another era, was the long hood and short deck proportions. It said late 60s, early 70s. When most domestic sedans by the mid 70s were tripping over themselves to emulate the ‘Mercedes’ look, and more practical proportions. As the Granada and Volare already managed.
Why would Ford introduce a ‘new’ car with such dated proportions?
Unless they were up to something mischievous? ?
Along with its slab sides, and small passenger compartment (for a mid size), it looked out of step with the times. Even though I was a pre-teen, no matter how sharp its edges were, I felt suspicion when I first saw the LTD II. It *looked* like a rebodied car.
I noticed all these same things and a few others, like the unfashionably protruding front parking/turn indicator lamps and puffed-out wheel openings. But the big tip-off for me that this was a rehashed Torino came when I first saw the ’77 wagon and the rear half looked identical to a Torino, still with the upswept rear window and the same tailgate design (actually it looked more like the previous Mercury Montego without the exaggerated Coke-bottle contouring in the rear door and rear fender). In addition, the LTD II interior was nearly identical to the Torino’s. I noticed all of this when I was a 12 year old and far less attuned to these things than I am now.
I am “that guy” too. Don’t get me wrong, I am no LTD II fan, but wagon aside, it at least tried to look a bit more contemporary. I thought that the ’73 – ’76 Torinos were some of the ugliest cars of the 1970s, and that is REALLY saying something… To me, the FoMoCo products with the curvaceous “late ’60s” styling (Maverick, ’72 Torino) looked especially bad when mated with the 5-mph bumpers–the cars seemed SO fat, with the Torino’s enormous grille, blobby tail lights and Brougham fender skirts particularly amplifying the obesity. The more square-cut LTD II look at least married better with the big bumpers, just like the straight-edged Granada carried its battering-rams better than the Maverick.
In spite of the LTD II’s cleaner lines, I couldn’t get past the very long hood and overall proportions from another era. I thought it announced ‘1969’. As the Torino looked so dated by the end, it probably helped the LTD II look ‘fresher’. ?
I think you are absolutely right. The LTD II still came across as a dated car, but at least the styling telegraphed “mid-70’s kitsch” versus “late-60’s hips.” Just shows how badly the lines of the Torino had aged.
Compared to Ford with the Torino/LTD II restyle, I think Chrysler did a better job re-skinning the 2-door B-Bodies for 1975. The Dodge Coronet Coupe, Chrysler Cordoba/Dodge Charger and Plymouth Fury Coupe looked much fresher than the old “swoopy-style” Charger/Satellite Coupes on that same chassis. It was an effective mid-1970’s revamp of an old product–too bad they didn’t refresh the B-Body sedans with the same sort of updates.
I don’t know what it is about 60s and 70s Fords… they almost all exuded ‘cheap’ to me. Like boxed wine, one look & you didn’t need to taste (drive) it to know it was cheap junk.
I agree with you “that guys” that the LTD II was a logical update, and would have been vaguely leading design in 1975. But, putting a straight edge to the Torino produced a rather long and oddly proportioned look – sort of a Panther mated with a ’75 full-size LTD. That helmet of a B pillar always bothered me, and the tooling investment was a complete bust after 1977.
To me, the LTD II represented how flat-footed Ford was caught in the late ’70s. The best spin the marketers could make for it was that Ford had two LTDs to compete with the new Caprice – the traditional big car for those that felt cheated by down-sizing, and the LTD II which had similar dimensions to the Caprice. But, the obvious problem was that space utilization in the dated Torino platform made the LTD II non competitive as a full-size car.
And, Ford had an economical update for the Torino already tooled. The mid-size ’77 Ford / Mercury mid-size cars were already going to share sheet metal anyway, so why not get rid of that bothersome Torino rear quarter and just use the Montego body until the platform ran out of gas? (Which it did after 1977). GM redefined the mid-size car in 1978, and Ford was sort of there with them with the Fairmont, but touting their car as an economy compact. It sold very well, but Ford cheated themselves out of a potentially much higher average transaction price.
This miscalculation is interesting considering just a few years earlier Ford made a relative killing on a premium compact with the Granada.
What the 1975 – 1977 Torino should have been……..
Oh, yes, it was a symbol of the ’70’s. Overstyled, overweight, overwrought, wallowing, cramped, slow and a gas hog.
I never liked Ford’s ’70’s styling. All the flares and curves and scallops seemed ridiculous to me and the details like headlight surrounds, grilles, and taillights seemed plasticky and also overwrought. Whereas the Colonnades were sleek, this looked bloated and heavy.
I still think the emasculated Mustang II would be a good symbol for the ’70’s. All the show, go, and sex appeal of the Mustang had been taken away to be replaced by a toad shaped, cramped, slow pig. The Pacer or an Eldorado would also have been good choices for the era of Disco, Cocaine, earth tone shag carpeting, and diminished expectations.
+1 on just about everything you say here.
It’s easy to misrecall ’70s cars as all malaise, all the time, but let’s not forget the same decade that gave us the Mustang II and the Pacer also gave us excellent designs like the Golf/Rabbit and the Accord. Detroit gave us some winners too like the Fox Fairmont and Mustang and GM’s downsized B/C body.
I remember these well. Torino four door sedans were the heart, the mainstay of the Hertz fleet for ’74 through ’76 model years. They were workhorses. Our location (Denver) had some GM colonnades (which were a bit more plush maybe with cloth, not vinyl) and many leased Plymouth/Dodge and AMC Matadors. The Chryslers were too fragile for rental car service. The Matadors were durable but the customers did not like being stuck with them. The Torinos were the money maker in the Hertz fleet. This color was common – along with dark blue and dark green.
One year I took a short trip to see a friend on the east coast. Flew to Baltimore and deadheaded a ’75 or ’76 blue four door Torino back to Denver. It was a fine car for the long drive and I remember that it seemed to have a long range for a tank of fuel.
It was not a car I would have bought back then (I liked VW & Volvo) but it was the ideal commercial car for Hertz to rent to America.
With the 26.5-gallon gas tank, Torinos had a very long cruising range — over 400 highway miles (given the EPA rating of 16 mpg highway), which was near the top of any car in the mid ’70s. Ford used that as a selling point in lieu of actual fuel efficiency, pointing out that customers would only need to fill up once every 2 or 3 weeks for typical driving ranges.
I think that became a selling point for a short time after each of the fuel crisis years, 1974 and 1979, since one could drive further between time-consuming (long lines, odd-even rationing) fill-ups, even if the car didn’t get particularly good mileage. Cadillac added a couple of gallons to their fuel tank size for 1980, which was probably something they could easily have done for 1977, but held off in order to save weight.
Sorry, but these are still eminently forgettable to me, particularly as sedans. With the disclaimer of not having lived through them, I think the automotive embodiment of the 70s would be GM A body coupes, especially the Cutlass, Mopar B body sedans, especially as police cruisers, and GM pickups.
Great summary of a not-great car.
But this is an opportunity to raise a question that’s bugged me for years: what the heck is “Gran”? I know it’s still being used today by BMW, but what the hell does it mean? I always thought it meant “grandma” but the Fury Gran Sedan, the Torino Gran Sedan…to me it’s second to “Brougham” as a quintessential Malaise Era car name.
It is the Spanish word for Big. Like French on a perfume bottle, the addition of the foreign word makes it 10% more expensive regardless of cost to produce.
I never thought the “Gran” was that hard to figure out. Torino is Italian and so is Gran. Torino is a city in Italy (Turin in English) known to be the Detroit of Italy. Gran means great, the same is in Gran Turismo (GT) or Gran Turismo Omologato (GTO). At least using Gran with Torino makes more sense than other uses such as Gran Fury.
And if you want to break it down even further, Torino, basically translates into “Little Bull”. In fact Torino’s city shield has a bull because of this. So I guess the full translation of Gran Torino would be Great Little Bull.
Ford would revisit the bull theme with Taurus. I doubt this was intentional though; certainly I never realized it until now.
Well, “Focus” is Latin for “fireplace” and it *is* the line descendant of the Pinto.,,
I agree “Gran” was overused, as much as brougham and landau. Was watered down when all big Plymouths were Gran Fury, but most were cop cars. Not exactly a ‘plush’ image.
Great article sizing up the middle of the market in the 1970s. My parents bought a new 1976 Torino wagon in the base trim level (no Grans for us) and in the same bronze color with a tan vinyl interior identical to the car shown here. The only options on that car were air conditioning (our first ever) and an AM radio.
The Torino was chosen over Dodge Coronet and Plymouth Volare wagons because of its cushy ride and arctic blast air conditioning. None of the GM Collonade models were considered due to the rear lift gate (versus the Ford’s three-way tailgate) and smaller interiors. Those were the Torino’s only redeeming values, as the smog-choked engine stalled at every intersection, the poorly designed rear seat cushion tipped the outboard passengers into the middle person, and the car rusted out after three years of suburban Chicago winters.
The rust was so bad that after I finished detailing the car in preparation for my senior prom date, I slammed the driver’s door shut, only to see the rear view mirror fall off. My father duct-taped the mirror back on and pronounced the car fit for service. My date was nonplussed, given the two new Cadillacs on display in her parents’ garage, but the Ford was her chariot for the evening.
I love this story! My mother almost bought one of these in 1974 before she got the LeMans. The salesman sold it out from under her after she had left a deposit check the evening before. I was disappointed at the time, but have later decided that it was good fortune disguised as bad. It was dark brown, which would have at least hidden the rust somewhat.
Hideous then and hideous now. Given the trim efficiency of the 62-69 Fairlane I always thought these were gigantic mockeries of so called “mid sized” cars.
The industry just can’t seem to help itself when redesigning a popular model. Somehow it just has to be bigger, wider, fatter.
Shorter wheelbases on the two doors to make them even less practical than the bloated overweight four doors. Another dumb idea adopted by the industry. It certainly didn’t help the looks of the Torino.
The car that’s held up as defining the seventies is usually the Honda Civic. I’d have to say that choosing between the Torino Bloatmobile and the Civic is largely a matter of Detroit malaise versus Japanese promise.
Its styling looks like it’s from the late 60s, only more exaggerated, bloated, and broughamized. I would agree with others than the Colonnades are likely more representative of the decade’s domestic intermediates. Most people already knew by the mid 70s, the Torino was a dinosaur of the past.
For me, as a kid at the time, the Torino jumped the shark when they started offering wheel skirts and opera windows. Could they get any tackier?
My biggest problem with all the domestic intermediates of the mid 70s was that a 6 cylinder was not a realistic choice for most buyers looking to save. For all the Pintos and Vegas sold, it was gluttonously wasteful and counterproductive, that virtual every domestic intermediate had to run the same V-8s as full sized cars. When their space efficiency wasn’t much better than the compacts. It still amazes me that for the first half of the decade, AMC was the only domestic to offer a compact wagon.
The opera windows were truly bad but they probably did wonders for visibility through that thick C pillar. Aesthetically the less gingerbread, the less earth tones the better the Torino looks.
This period picture I found illustrates it better than I can verbally. Blackwell tires, light blue paint, no vinyl top, no opera windows, and no fender skirts. It looks barely any more bloated than the big bumper Camaro in front of it.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/keidong/15975546923/
It looks like it may have air shocks in the back jusging by the stance, but that helps the aesthetics a lot. These Torinos look like they’re loaded with concrete otherwise.
Speaking of period pictures, this is one that didn’t make the cut into the article, but it shows an interesting perspective on the Torino’s relative dimensions.
The picture is from a shopping center in the late 1980s — the difference between the Torino and the Colt is eye-popping.
@ Eric
Wow. I think there’s Colts on both sides. Their vastly increased glass area alone, is telling. Combined with the Torino’s penchant for rusting badly, I used to think of them as mobile heaps.
The most interesting car there is the white gen 2 Colt five-door hatch. Offered only in strippo E trim, only in 1985.
There’s another oddball car hiding in that picture — the cream-colored car pulling out of a parking space on the right-hand side is a Yugo.
I have a whole series of these pictures (they were taken in 1988), and some day I’ll put them together and post them here.
One thing I’ve learned at CC, is that nice wheels, chunky tires, and a decent stance makes *any* car look better. The frumpiest 60s Studebaker looks vastly better with the right wheels and tires. And a straight body.
I was pretty young, but the bread and butter Torinos of this vintage I remember typical looked decidedly downtrodden. For me, it was the appearance of extra bloat that plagued all domestic Fords of this era. Look at the size of those quarter panels!? More than any other car maker in the 70s, Ford was the seller of ‘faux’ luxury. And so often it just looked like visual ‘junk’ added on. Like those huge body side moldings the Ford Elite had. The padded vinyl deck lids on Cougars. And padded headlight covers on the Marquis. It was all ‘plasti-chrome’ and fake wire wheel cover luxury. ‘King Cobra’ tape stripe packages.
At the time, it was becoming too much. And Ford was a big source of selling it. A huge source in fact.
Nicely researched article but the car is still a turd.
A great write up! I liked the ’68 and ’69 Torinos best. I had a ’68 Fairlane 500 and I thought it was quite attractive. I was very pleased though, with the redesign for ’72, especially the front styling of the Gran Torino. But, I thought Ford got it wrong the following year. It looked heavy and the huge bumpers to come ruined the design. I was disappointed that real hardtops and styling from the sixties was gone. For the rest of the seventies, I didn’t like Ford styling at all. GM did a much better job of it during those years. I bought a 1975 Century Colonnade coupe which was a very nice car. It wasn’t very sporty, but I liked it very much.
I’ve softened in my view of the ’73 through ’78 Fords, and I even bought a ’76 Gran Torino Squire. American cars had become very heavy during this time, even the intermediates. I didn’t realize until after I bought this car, that it weighs 4400 pounds. About a thousand pounds more than the previous generation Torino Squire and it also weighs a bit more than the ’71 Country Squire! So much for being mid sized.
This wagon’s 351 2V is no different than most seventies engines. It does have the Brougham interior with the super soft split bench seat. I experienced no fatigue when I drove it from Colorado to New England, a three day trip. I’ve always liked station wagons, especially Fords. Just for the heck of it, I sat in the third row seat of this car. Looking out from this position, I realized that, if I was that eleven year old boy again, just how much nicer it was looking out the tailgate of Dad’s ’66 Country Sedan.
Still, I like this car. It is fun to drive. Almost everyone thinks it’s cool, even with it’s multiple layers of mismatched wood grain vinyl, some of it painted over. People say it’s got character. It’s a wonder that it has survived, so it has certainly earned the look.
Whenever I take it out, it get lots of looks and smiles. One day, I took it out with a set of those huge towing mirrors strapped to the front fenders. When I met a large dump truck. I could see the driver start to laugh and shake his head. Everyone wants to look at it and many talk about station wagons from their past. It amazes me that some of them know what it is! I always enjoy the conversations it strikes up. I thought it was hilarious when one young woman said, ” My Grandpa had one exactly like this! Except his was a Chevy!”
Who knew that driving a rather bloated, mid seventies, Gran Torino Wagon could bring so much fun?
You make me think of something: Has anyone ever gyrated so much back and forth between trim, light feeling cars and super thick and heavy cars? From the first Fairlane in 1962 even through the 1971 model, the Fairlane/Torino had a lightness about it that was missing from the competition. Then these, complete opposites. And then back to the Fairmont.
This was sort of the way Ford went from the 1960-64 (heavy, thick) to 1965-68 (lighter feeling) then 71-76 (thick and heavy) to the Panther (lighter).
Even though it has a face only a mother could love, how can it not make you smile, or laugh?
The thought of a 40+ year-old Squire station wagon still rumbling down the highway did make me smile. 🙂
I wish this article had ran a week sooner – the Shelburne Museum car show was last weekend and your car would’ve been perfect for the Father’s Day theme!
I got the pamphlet in the mail, but I knew I wouldn’t be free to go. Don’t know that I’d have brought the Torino, though. It’s not as nice as most cars that were likely there. I guess it could be called a survivor. But, if you see it out somewhere, come see me. I just might put you behind the wheel so you can experience some of what these fellows are talking about.
The 4 doors were ugly, good riddance if there are few left. The 2 doors weren’t bad looking, certainly no worse than any Collonade and compared to a Mopar B body the Gran Torino looks stunning. The 73 was the worst *looking* in my opinion, the incongruity of the flat 5mph front and the unchanged rear made the car look way more compromised than the 74s. The 74s I actually find the taillight treatment more aesthetically pleasing than both the 72 and 73s.
Overall these aren’t any worse in aesthetics than any of the midsize sedans in this supposed golden era we’re living in today – heavy weight, tall beltlines, awful rear visibility body creases all over the place, etc. Today we’ve just figured out the band aid solutions to the worst offenses – too heavy? Add power. Bad visibility? Add backup cameras.
Eric, another really great piece from you – I read it on my morning train downtown for work.
With that said, I would read something really positive you wrote (i.e. “good combination of sport and luxury”, or something to that effect), and I kept flipping back through your great pictures… and I just don’t see any sport, just bulk. It’s not the ugliest, 70’s machine on four wheels, and the front is okay, but from any rear view (dead-on, three-quarter), I find this car really unattractive. I guess maybe I just love your love for this car.
My Encyclopedia Of American Cars (which I have read cover-to-cover over the past, almost-thirty years) had a paragraph on these cars to the effect of something like the “doors measured a full seven inches thick”, and then “there was wasted space everywhere”. Those are the things I recall when I see one of these.
One thing, though – the front grille of the ’74+ models, with the turn signals set outboard within the grille, reminded me of that of a ’75 Plymouth “small” Fury. It’s a very similar look, though I think the shape of the Torino’s grille is slightly more pleasing – and the quad headlamps also help.
Anyway, I look forward to your next piece as per usual.
Is the Gran Torino sedan a sporty design, or not? Wow, that’s a great question. Here’s how I see it:
I think carmakers understood that people at the time wanted sporty-looking cars, but that often translated into just a few suggestions of sportiness… and a few decades later it’s hard to see. I view it as similar to how modern SUV buyers want their cars to portray hints of ruggedness, even though the car itself may not be rugged at all, and may never leave pavement.
I think the ’72-’76 Torino WAS a sporty-looking car when first introduced (early reviews of the often praised the “sleek” or “rounded” shape). At the time, “rounded” equated to sportiness in many buyers’ minds – it was an edgy counterpoint to the sharp lines of the 1960s. But for some reason the Torino’s design aged quickly. Just 3 or 4 years later, it looked dated and bloated, and those 7” thick doors appeared absurd, and any hint of sportiness had been vanquished. That’s just my opinion; I’m curious to hear what other folks think.
Of course, sportiness is in the eye of the beholder, but looking at the competition… well, it IS sportier-looking than an AMC Matador…
I think the 2-door Matador coupe introduced two years after the ’72 Torino coupe looks as ‘sporty’ (or sportier) as the the ’72-’76 Torino coupe. Certainly less ‘brougham’ like. I would suggest they are both equally too large and bloated to be called ‘sporty’. Unless using the mid 70s domestic definition of ‘sporty’. ?
The ’72 Sportsroof Torino does look sportiest among Torinos of this era, in a late 60s evolution way IMO.
Especially in Matador ‘X’ form.
I still love these – especially a red, ’74 “X” like the one shown.
@ Joseph
I really liked the style of the ’74 Matador coupe too. AMC usually did well in dressing up otherwise plain car lines. i.e. The Concord from the Hornet. The Grand Wagoneer. The Eagle. However, the ‘Barcelona’ edition of the Matador coupe is one of the gaudiest broughams of the 70s.
I still have a strange fascination with these Mats. It’s like someone over-inflated a Hornet hatchback. When taken by itself, it looks completely normal. But when stacked up against it’s contemporaries, it looks odd. I think that a 1975 (B-body) Fury or a LeMans is much better looking.
Still, I’m drawn to these cars. When I was a kid, one of the people up the street from us had a 1974 Mat X with the 401. It looked like a real spaceship compared to my dad’s Montego. But compared to my friend’s mom’s Grand Prix, it was just… weird.
Definitely. When I wrote that, I was thinking of the Matador sedan.
I knew that’s what you meant. And you could have easily used the very conservative ’72 Matador coupe as an example as well…
I drove a ’72 Matador 4-door for a couple of years. Light green. 258 six. Three speed on the column. That car would go anywhere in the worst winter weather. Went sideways in a snowstorm one day. Doing 70 in a 50. Skidded over the shoulder. Ended up with rear wheels on the pavement and the front body resting on the gravel I’d plowed up. The front tires were barely touching the ground. I thought that a tow truck was inevitable, but I put it into reverse and backed up onto the pavement. I never thought I’d miss driving a car like that, but If I had that same car now, I’d probably drive it every day. Not in winter, of course.
As a 4-door, this car was certainly not sporty, but often, a car’s good qualities can make it more attractive.
I think if these had late 60s level of power, large and bloated would be a non-issue as far as being sporty. 70s cars performed large and bloated, and just out of happenstance the styling put a face to the feeling.
The Matador is an excellent example, but it’s also an example of being suitably presented – the pictured striped X model would look right at home as a GTO competitor circa 1970, but in 1974 a lot more matadors wound up looking like this
@ Matt
Even in unadorned form, I find the ’74 Matador looks fresher, if marginally ‘sportier’ than the concurrent Torino. For me, a big strike against the ’72-76 Torino’s styling is that tail fin-like sweep along the rear fenders. I find it dated the car and looked like a retro styling cue. In fact, I find the ’71 Torino a much cleaner design. That fender sweep looks like a ’60s styling element to me. I know it helped conceal the massive upper rear fenders.
I think the ’72 Torino was a classic example of “mission creep” and response to competitive pressures. The ’68 – ’68 Fairlane/Torino was certainly handsomer and sportier than its dowdy ’66 – ’67 predecessor, but it still seemed very staid when compared with the swoopy ’68 GM A-Bodies. The ’70 Torino refresh added curves and pointed fenders and more gingerbread, but it was a stopgap car. So for the ’72 Torino redesign, Ford seemingly tried to “outdo” GM’s 1968 mid-sized designs (Chrysler Corp. did the same thing in ’71 with their revamped mid-sized B-Bodies). The resulting ’72 Torino, with its extravagant late-1960’s curves, would have seemed “sporty”/fresh for say 1969 or 1970–but by ’72 tastes were changing (think Cutlass Supreme).
I think Ford also made an enormous mistake by not incorporating the MY74 bumper standards as part of the ’72 Torino redesign–they had to have known that the requirements would make the ’72 design immediately obsolete, but they went ahead anyway. Think of the refreshed full-sized Ford for ’73–it featured the new bumper standards and therefore looked no different for ’74. Ford could have been ahead of the curve by getting a jumpstart on designing the Torino around the big bumpers–in which case we might have gotten the LTD II look 5 years earlier–but at least it would have looked like a 1970s car rather than a ’60s throwback with railroad ties hung on either end.
Totally agree. The 72 Torino line was first penned during the ‘go-go’ late 60’s, just like the ’71 Charger/Coronet. Probably had plans for Cobra Jet versions, that got canned by regs.
They probably had spent R&D cash for the ’72 front end, so they built them. But was a huge change for 5 mph era.
Regarding the “bulk” and huge hoods, note that period owners sais “styling” was #1 like of middle aged buyers. They loved it.
Only when gas prices went up did bulkiness go out of style. And same buyers “got used to” Panthers.
The Matador coupe IMO wore the 5mph bumpers even worse than the Torino. Dick Teague is on record saying the car was originally designed before the 5mph bumper requirement and would have looked much better without them.
They sure do look better without them, This Matador was used in an Aussie movie called Fat Pizza ,It looked absolutely stunning IMO without bumpers at all.
pic from the IMCDB
ps. its a terrible movie IMO but it was worth watching to see this car as it should have been.
The wide tires help as much or more so. These Matadors have an obscenely narrow track for the body width in stock form.
That thing is just gorgeous! Dick Teague could design a car that accommodated wide tires like no one else…
The 1972 with its Ferrari grille was quite sporty, but that was a 1-year wonder. The 5mph bumper of 1973 ruined it.
It really depends on one’s perspective of sport circa 1972. Is it sporty like an Alfa Romeo spider? Hell no. Is it sporty like a Ponycar(think 71 Mustang, 71 Javelin, and Chrysler E-body, not their svelte 60s predecessors)? Yeah, in fact it is pretty much a very large long hood short deck ponycar.
The Sedan? No. It looked like an afterthought hastily applied to the style leading coupe. But in 1972 that was the case with ALL American brands, the 73 Collonades were really the only 4 doors that may have looked as sporty as the coupes.
These look much better as wagons than as “pillared hardtop” sedans. The interior on the subject car looks much more wornout than the outside – cheapness of the materials really shows.
This is what I believe most people picture when you say “Gran Torino.” Although I own a ’72, have never really cared for these mid 70’s Torinos, especially in 4-door guise. I have said it before, that the styling that worked very well in 1972, did not date well as the 70’s went on. Not only do the styling was significantly worse, there were a number of other changes that made these cars poorer overall. It had to contend with engines losing power and rudimentary emission controls which hampered driveability. As mentioned many times, they had the massive added bumpers front and rear. These not only added weight to the car, but they added it to the worse possible locations.
If you compare a 1971 to a 1972 Torino, the was very little change in the size of the 2-door cars. In fact 2-door base cars were actually several inches shorter than a 1971 (1971 206″, 1972 base 203″, 1972 Gran Torino 207″). That said, the 4-doors grew a fair amount, base models were only 1″ longer than 71’s but Gran Torinos were 5″ longer. By 1975, the Torinos had grown and EXTRA 6″ longer than the ’72’s, and were 213″ long (217″ 4-doors). Then on top of that, curb weight went up by close to 500 lbs in that time period. All this was done with little to no improvement in the chassis. In the end Ford erred by installing too soft springs and weak shocks for the base suspensions on these cars. Then added a nice helping of Ford understeer that it included as a standard safety feature on it’s 60’s and 70’s cars. The optional suspensions were a big improvement, but we know most cars left with base suspension. It’s too bad too because the fundamental design of the suspension and chassis is actually not bad, it’s just the execution that was poor. In fact the front suspension used on these cars is the same that Ford NASCAR’s used from the mid 60’s to the late 1970’s. At least in 1972 and 1973 the Rallye Equipment option group, which was a group of performance oriented options, included the competition suspension. So a fairly high number of 1972 -73 Grant Torino Sports had this improved suspension.
When it comes to efficiency though compared to Colonnade cars there really is an insignificant difference. I can tell you with experience both of these platforms were not space efficient whatsoever, and the Colonnades did not have any more space than the Fords. And someone mentioned the door thickness? The doors on Colonnade cars are massively thick and heavy too. I can pull a tape measure if necessary, but I’d be surprised if there is a major difference. I do know that the Colonnade 2-doors are longer and heavier doors than the Fords.
In the end though, this is a car people love to hate. I just feel bad if the guy who owns this car ever comes across one of these posts. Here is a vehicle that has obviously provided 40 years of service and is still running, that’s got to be worth something? Sure it’s not the best car ever made by a long shot, but it was a good representation of the times, and how cars had evolved into things of such excess. In a way, the late 50’s cars with there excesses were kind of similar but in that case, people like them for the excess. And 50’s cars didn’t have to deal with all the regulations imposed in the 1970s.
Just my opinion Vince, but I think the story of you and your dad’s almost 50 year devotion to your ’72 Torino is far more a testament to your personal commitment and high quality of character. You and your dad are 99% of the true honour and truly heartwarming side to this pretty incredible adventure. You and your dad are the stars in this tale. Your Torino is a lucky one, and an accessory really!
I feel really bad that you feel compelled to have to defend decisions of Ford of the early 70s. When clearly you would have looked out for their customers more so than many of their executives appeared to want to. It’s the car you and your dad chose to love. Warts and all.
As others have said, you and your dad are the big story. The fortunate Torino is the recipient of your passion and commitment. It could have been any car that you decided to really care for. It’s all about you and your dad’s devotion! And your commitment to him, as much as the car.
I do wish Ford of Canada would pay you some honour. As you have done a great deal bringing goodwill to them.
Daniel, thanks for the kind words I really appreciate it. While what you say is true, I think it would be hard for me or my dad to have looked after this car for so many years if it were a horrible car, unenjoyable to drive and unreliable. Part of the reason I really like my car is that it’s the opposite of what I just described. Dad ordered his car equipped well and it was a great driving and performing car, certainly not a wallowing barge (we had our share of those in our family too – like our 1972 Buick Skylark). The thing that people forget is there was huge variation in these Torinos and how they were built. Today these Torinos have a decent following, but almost exclusively with the the sporty versions. A 1972 Q-code Torino with competition suspension was a formidable performer and a great driving car for its day.
I guess part of the reason I feel somewhat compelled to offer a differing opinion is that fact that my experience with these Torinos is fresh and not a 40 year old memory. While everyone talks about how bad driving these cars were, how horrible they were in every way, this was just not my experience with my example. Many cars were wallowing boats, but many like ours weren’t. People just forget how many variations of these cars there were. They all weren’t the same and there was quite a variation on how they could drive and perform.
Then people go on and on about how much better Colonnades were, which was another car I grew up with and have recent experience with. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Colonnade GM cars, but they are pretty comparable to the Torino’s of the era. It was the fact that GM was able to keep this platform contemporary is what made them eventually the leader in this segment.
Vince, I think you described well, why so many people have such varying views of these cars. As they came in many forms. No question you would rank in the 1% of owners who have explored and expanded the capabilities of the platform. My recollection of Ford marketing from this era was 100% road isolation, featherlight steering, and barge like handling. Faux luxury over roadability and handling. So, most Torino, or mid 70s Ford owners can’t be blamed for not having good memories of these and other Fords. As that’s exactly how Ford wanted to sell them!! And that’s what people remember. Plus, you’ve heard me go on about Ford’s inferior rust protection.
If you worked at Ford, I doubt you would have lasted. As their sinking quality control in the early 70s, and emphasis on the sales sizzle over the steak would have bothered you.
That’s why I suggest, it’s more a very positive reflection on you personally for exploring the true value and capabilities of your car and this platform. What you have done, is what Ford never achieved. Or worse, genuinely aimed to achieve. Not that the other domestic intermediates were superior. I think consumers were starting to be taken for granted by the 70s by a number of corporations resting on their laurels.
It’s also what the customers demanded, it’s not like Ford’s marketing department alone were responsible for the brougham fad. People demanded Monte Carlo, Lincoln Mark, LTD styles of Luxury and automakers responded by applying it superficially on everything they had, new or old. Marketing had the unfortunate job of trying to convince people that the racy hips and power bulges go well with landau tops and opera windows on former supercars. The Torino was disproportionately affected because this shift happened nearly at the start of a brand new styling cycle.
@ Matt
Marketing’s role is to convince people they want/need to have the ‘faux’ luxuries everybody else has. Marketers created the desire for vinyl roofs and opera windows, and other ‘luxuries’ that ultimately were useless fads. Like tail fins and push button transmissions.
Yes BUT they did not convince the public that they needed any of those things with the Gran Torino. There’d be no thought of saber sawing in opera windows into a Gran Torino notchback roofline if Lincoln hadn’t already been doing it on the Mark IV for a few years, same goes for the super soft ride(and consequent handling deficiencies).
Marketing no doubt played a primary role in convincing consumers to aspire to to these “luxuries” but at some point when the shift is so grand(gran?)these details began to trickle into languishing product lines that need a gimmick to stay profitable, otherwise they wouldn’t have bothered. Personal luxury was a parachute marketing used as the Muscle car market imploded, and it happened first in the mid 60s with full size cars when performance no longer sold them like it did a few years earlier.
XR7 Matt: No car was more ill-prepared for the “Brougham” explosion than the Matador. If AMC had introduced it in 1970/71, it would have been a hit. By 1974, it was yesterday’s news.
I have no idea if anyone will read this comment, but I feel compelled to respond – I am the guy who owns this car. Here’s another pic of the boat: https://imgur.com/a/B8kaX
Happened to come across this article, and for what it’s worth I find all the comments entertaining. Everyone’s got their taste, and I completely understand that it’s a car that a lot of people will find ugly. I myself love it though – it’s big and brown and a little rusty and it handles like a cruise ship, but it has character. As you said it’s impressive that it’s lasted this long, and it’s a moving time capsule from another era. Perhaps it’s a car that most people wouldn’t want to own but I’m enjoying it.
Thank you for responding and giving the owner’s perspective! As you can tell, this car provoked a whole lot of commentary.
I hope you enjoyed the article, and I’m glad you’ve found the comments to be entertaining. It’s great to hear from the owners of the cars we write up here, because simply seeing a car in a parking lot leaves a great deal to the imagination. Great to hear that this Torino’s driver likes owning and driving this car. I was sure glad to spot it. I hope you get many more miles out of your Torino!
Good to hear from you! We all have our likes and dislikes, especially those of us who were around at the time these were common. Whatever our opinions, I think it is safe to say that almost everyone here is glad that you have this car out on the road. It is certainly a nice change of scenery from what most of us see every day. I for one am glad you are enjoying it.
I’m glad to see that you found this article and added your comments. As I read the comments of others, and wrote my own, I wondered what the owner would think of them. I thought my ’76 Torino Squire was rather ugly when I was considering buying it, but it’s looks grew on me. It’s all the things you said your’s is. I agree that our Torinos are cars that most people wouldn’t want to own. But, I’ve found that most people like seeing them. May you enjoy many more miles behind the wheel!
mustardtiger,
it’s nice to see the owner post on here. As someone who has owned many undesirable cars over the years that are filled with “character” I can understand where you are coming from. I am glad you are enjoying it, and while I am sure many on here don’t want to own it, most would probably appreciate you are keeping that machine alive.
BTW, if you are looking for parts or information or other owners, here is probably the most helpful Torino forum on the net:
http://forum.grantorinosport.org/
The plain jane, base Torinos were also popular with elderly folk. Some coming from 60’s Custom 500’s/Fairlanes who didn’t like the 73-76 LTD bulk, but Maverick was too small. These same frugal buyers did love Fairmonts too!
Beauty is in eyes of the beholder they say but I always loathed these cars. Oh and the Starsky & Hutch car, a pig with lipstick on. Yuck yuck yuck.
Ford should have stuck with the unibody Falcon platform of the previous generation and gone straight to the Granada/Monarch. Thereby skipping this design fiasco.
With my apologies to the author as this is by no means a reflection on his writing and research which I do appreciate.
Ford Australia looked at the Torino and did just that, put a new body on the Falcon platform. It even went through a bit of the same transformation over the years, even though our bumper regs weren’t so onerous, and with the introduction of similar emissions regs they did a new cylinder head for the inline six so it didn’t lose any power (other than the change from gross to net hp).
Granada being pushed as a ‘mid size’ in fall 1971 would have been “too small” to Mr and Mrs Middle Ages, with gas shortages only a bad dream. And there would be no huge selling ’77 T Bird, if this platform was “skipped”
Hind sight is 20/20.
Wasn’t the main selling point of the ’77 T Bird the $2,000 price cut? Other than that, all it offered was a little less car and about the same amount of hood. It is astounding how well that pitch worked, keeping sales around 300,000 for 3 years, but some of those were probably people who would have been fine with a LTD II coupe, but were pleased to be informed that they could “step up” to a newly decontented T-Bird for only a little more.
I never had the opportunity to spend much time in a Torino excepting a roommates ride in college and a few “test drives” from buy-here, pay-here lots. See, by 1980, which is when I was finally able to drive by myself at 16, Torinos filled the cheapie lots. Them and Mustang IIs. That ubiquitous brown or green was everywhere.
Having inhaled Hot Rod and Car Craft for the past four years, they’d taught me that the 351-4V Cleveland was an awesome motor, the 460 was a deity unto itself and that 302s needed some work but could be respectable motors with enough edelbrock, holley and hooker parts attached to them. I prowled the lots, checking under hoods for something with a 4V which I rarely came across. I found one 4V 351 in that whole time, the vast majority were 351C or 351M 2V motors, with the occasional 302. The 4V didn’t meet my expectations being just a bit peppier than a 2V, but in no ways being the mega power monster motor promised to me by Hot Rod. I never did see a 460, or even a 400 equipped model.
Good article. I only see Torinos at car shows now
In a way, I’d like to see a division between the 1972 Torino/Montego models and the 1973-76 versions. The 1972’s seemed to be a “complete” design, the later year cars seem kludged, especially concerning the huge bumpers and later, the engine strangling emissions controls.
I’ve got a fair amount of experience with these cars, but none recent. My family had a 1974 Montego (not an MX, no child of the depression would ever spend THAT kind of money) for seven years, most of which were my teenage years. Many friends had Colonnade GMs, a few had B body Mopars and one kid in my class had a 360 powered Ambassador. That he got from his grandfather, of course.
Sadly, I liked my own parent’s Montego the least. IIRC, it did handle like a shopping cart and guzzled fuel. Of course, the government mandated safety equipment combined with less than de-bugged smog equipment did not help one bit. My mother traded the car for a new 1981 Ford Mustang Ghia hatchback, it was like the Fox body was from another planet. In some ways, it was.
As many of these mid 70’s cars that I was around, I never saw a sporty one after 1974. It’s like Ford dropped all pretense of a mid sized car that was actually sporty. Maybe the launch of the Granada and preparing for the Fox body limited funds for development of a truly sporty Gran Torino after 1973. Certainly the PLC market’s meteoric rise back in the disco era didn’t help, either.
Geozinger, I still own the 74 Mercury Montego MX Brougham 2dr my Dad bought new on May 11th 1974. I’ll never get rid of it. He traded in, for $700, his first new car he bought, a 65 Impala SS! I remember the SS well, but I got the Montego which still does yeoman service.
Sorry guys, time to live in 2017.
Yes, they were bloated pigs with huge bumpers. 10-4. Over and out. Got it. Heard it all before. It’s true. No arguments.
Today however, in modern traffic, cruising about town or on the highway, a 1975 Torino looks great. There are few genuinely poor folk driving these anymore. Rather, it’s now a statement car from a cooler decade, something you choose to own.
Something between metallic cherry 68 Cameros at a car show that you’ve seen a million times, and the downsized and depressing boredom and increasingly irrelevance of 1980s domestics.
I love it.
Great article by the way.
Interesting article and comments. One of the great things about the car hobby is the many differences in cars and in what people like. And CC is a great place for those discussions (wish I had more time!).
I’m a former ’72 Torino owner, and mine was a very good and generally trouble free car for 9 years and ~100K miles. I wouldn’t mind having it back today.
Perhaps more than cars of pretty much any other era, ‘70’s cars have to be looked at in the context of the times. I remember the ‘70’s well, and ALL of the automakers had issues (even the imports if we’re honest about it).
I would agree, though, that this car is a good “symbol of the seventies”. After all, the ’70’s were a time of transition, and all the automakers were caught up in all the changes going on. The Torino just showed them more than some other cars did.
Having said that, even at the time, I never saw all Torinos the same way as mine with, for example, it’s dual exhaust and just the right amount of V8 rumble (something most cars of the ’70’s didn’t have).
To each their own, but the bottom line for me: my Torino was a long way from many of the cars discussed in this article (it is pictured here not long after I bought it; never liked the wheels and tires, but my particular car had enough power that they would soon need replaced).
A non-Sport Q-code, that had to be rare.
One of my driver’s ed cars in 1976 was a Gran Torino Brougham. Got to ride in the back while I wasn’t driving and could barely see out the opera windows. Got to drive it home from Seattle on I-5 to Tacoma–40 years ago when you could actually get home on Southbound I-5 during rush hour. I remember it being comfortable and I remember it being dark brown with dark brown vinyl top. Lots of room for three 15 year olds and out instructor. Our other car was a tan Buick Century 4 door sedan which must have been pretty nondescript, because I remember almost nothing about it!
I worked for a company that had a fleet of fleet spec Torinos. I was driving one as the assigned driver had a hangover. We were on an interstate in the passing lane when a semi we were passing pulled into our lane.
I put both hands on the wheel and all four wheels in the median. I may have dented the floorboard with the accelerator, but the Torino made the pass. The hangover victim in the passenger seat got a close up view of the corner of the trailer.
Torinos were astoundingly popular in 72. I remember my mom commenting on how many she saw after she bought her’s. I think it was Motor Trend that said of the 72 Torino words to the effect that it “dealt a blow to the other intermediates from which they may never recover.”
As others have noted, the Torino’s styling did not age well. The chart above shows how the sales tailed off. The winner was the Olds Cutlass. An article in Hemmings notes that in 72, vs the Torino’s near half million sold, Olds managed only 298,877 Cutlasses. By 77, Cutlass sales were 632,742, a very different trajectory than the one the Torino was on as the Cutlass was the best selling car in the US for several years in the mid 70s…and the periodic updates GM made to the Cutlass’ styling didn’t do it any favors either.
We called ’em Grand Routinos when they were new, and hated ’em. Ford’s cover story for the retreat from unit construction was better handling and ride, but it was really to save manufacturing costs while offering multiple model variants:
Bloated, overweight, and apparently styled by the same heavy hand that gave us the ghastly Mustang II, which was a podium finisher in Worst Car Designs Ever:
The unibody predecessor, whose design dated back to the 1960 Falcon, was hardly the paragon of handling prowess. It was deficient in rigidity and the front suspension design was a hot mess, and out back were leaf springs. The body on frame model was in fact better in all areas, it’s only mark against it is the inherently added weight. Bear in mind as well that GM was somewhat of a goalpost for Ford and Chrysler, and their successes with body and frame construction had basically reached it’s zenith during this period, who generally had the best handling domestic products of the 70s. The fact that the Falcon platform lived on for 20 years to 1980 in the first generation Granadas speaks much more to Ford’s penny pinching than the Torino(LTDII) bowing out after 1979 after a mere 8 on that chassis. And as far as being cheaper to make variants out of, bs:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-fords-falcon-platform-from-falcon-to-versailles-in-18-different-wheelbase-lengthtrack-width-variations/
The Torino by contrast had two wheelbases, 3 bodystyles and only one major restyle between 72 and 79. The variants like the Cougar and Thunderbird spawned from it were done almost entirely with trim on the existing Torino/montego bodyshell. That practice deserves plenty of ire, but the body on frame construction deserves no blame for that
I find it funny the author of The LATimes article suggested a Dodge Challenger and a boat tail Riviera would be more heroic picks – seriously? The former car nearly sunk Chrysler, and if he want’s to take a dig at the Torino for lack of rustproofing an early 70s E-body is not the alternative you’re looking for. As for the latter Buick, well, he sure uses bloated tubby and awkward to describe the Gran Torino a lot…
BTW I hadn’t been aware the Mustang II made the podium in one of the thirteen millionth weekly top 10 ugliest cars lists on the internet. Guess I missed that one somehow.
I put a lot of miles on a 1975 Torino when I worked for an oil field service company in Bakersfield, California. The other cars in the fleet were Chevrolet collonades and Plymouth Furys. The Fords seemed to be a bit more durable in the rough service. My own Torino was very reliable. I think a faulty ignition module was the only serious problem I had. The appearance of the cars was a very secondary consideration at that time.
Several folks have mentioned the bumpers … beyond just the size and shape, what bothered me 40 years ago and jumped right out at me again as soon as I saw the lead picture, was the slots for the bumper jack. Just. Looks. Cheap.
I can’t believe I never noticed those before, now I can’t stop looking at them!
Impossible to pinpoint any one domestic car as the malaise icon of the ’70s. As cynical as the Granada was, to its credit, it did popularize the acceptance of smaller cars. I would chose the Pinto over the Gran Torino, having more negative baggage. So many bad cars, during this decade.
I saw a Ford Gran Torino as the top prize in a raffle at the Springfield Route 66 auto show. My kids were all impressed and were excited to tell me about the chance to win. My wife knows how much I love old cars and Fords and encouraged me to buy a raffle ticket.
However, I just couldn’t do that. When I was asked why, I replied, “Because with my luck I would win it – and be stuck with a Ford Gran Torino!”
As fat and as overweight and as overburdened as these cars were, I didn’t really mind them so much at the time. Way too big, their chunky design style made them look more voluminous than their Malibu rival.
That instrument panel was a product of the times also. Dear passenger, I’m the driver, and you don’t get to see or touch anything waaay over here, like the heater or the radio. maybe don’t even get to see how fast I am driving.
I have not seen one of these in decades, and haven’t gone looking.
It’s amusing that this article was reposted today, because just yesterday I saw a Torino sedan – the first one I’ve seen in the six years since I wrote this article. This one was a blue mid-70s Torino sedan filling up at a gas station. No pictures though.
Did you post a pic to a Facebook group about survivors of a certain range of years? (Not sure if CC allows naming the group). Because a dude posted a light/powder blue Gran Torino 4dr sedan on that particular page recently, maybe it was the same Gran Torino ?
Must have been someone else – likely another Gran Torino too, since the one I saw was a darker blue (I’m guessing a recent repaint). If it helps, the one I saw was near Green Bay, Wisconsin.
The older I get, the more I realize that pre-Fuel-crisis America was like another world. It’s almost like science fiction.
It’s hard to imagine now that a car this size was ‘intermediate’.
It’s hard to imagine what worthwhile gain there could be in having anything larger.
It’s hard to imagine the gain in size over the Fairlane of ten years earlier, and this being regarded as ‘normal’.
American society was so different back then.
Very nice! As a little kid, the waste of cars like the Gran Torino made me think what cars from the ’50s, must have felt like owning, and driving. No connection to the future whatsoever.
Nice model of the car! If you lived through those times, you’d probably agree they were pretty darn good. I know I liked them.
My fav Torino years, were the “68-69” /”70-71 styles. My brothers “75 GT coupe” was a nice driving riding car though..
Soo so quiet.