By now you undoubtedly know that I’m not exactly a fan of Fords of the seventies. Most of my vitriol (so far) has been directed at the big LTD/Galaxie and the Granada, which earned CC’s award of The Most Malaise Car Ever. And the Mustang II, of course. But that’s because we’ve managed to avoid the car that best sums up Ford’s “issues” during this period (bloat, crappy space efficiency, wallowing handling, mediocre performance, lousy fuel economy, and dated, overwrought styling). That would be the mysteriously-named LTD II. No longer.
But let’s not focus on all of those negatives. It’s 2018, the sun is shining, this is terrific rare survivor (only 46k of these “S” sedans were ever made in three years), I’ve become mellow in my old age, and therefore I’ve found some positive qualities in this car for me to expound upon. And we’ll try to unravel the mystery of its name. But that might all be a bit more challenging than hoped for. It is a Ford from the seventies, after all.
Let’s start right out on a high note. Or a big one, anyway. What it all boils down to is that the LTD II was the longest mid-sized car ever, with a whopping 220″ of overall length. And with a wheelbase of 118″, it takes the cake in that category too. That’s a full foot longer than the comparable 1977 Malibu Sedan, and still a half foot longer than an Olds Cutlass sedan. Remember how the Buick Electra earned its “225” name? This should have been called the Torino 220. But that would have been too painfully truthful.
But there’s a silver lining in even this very large, dark cloud: Think of the LTD II as a bargain-priced stripper Continental Mark V four door sedan. For a mere 40% of the price of a 1977 Mark V, one got essentially the same car under the skin, with all the same proportions that made the Mark so mark-worthy. Admittedly, the Continental version was bestowed a two inch wheelbase stretch and an even longer front overhang. I wonder if anyone has ever tried to turn an LTD II sedan into a Mk V four door? It can’t be that hard.
Thinking of this as a MK V sedan has been very therapeutic for me. Instead of seeing a bloated, mammoth, mid-size sedan, I see a cheap, lighter and slightly shorter Mark V sedan. Isn’t it helpful to have an overly-active imagination? Or eyes that are going soft?
Does this help? it’s getting closer…somebody please photoshop me a Mark V four door sedan.
Of course there’s some trade-offs to be made for that 60% reduction in price. But frankly, this suits me much better than the pillow-tufted velour bordello interior of a Mark. I’m a frugal, practical kind of guy, and most of my local drives are to the hardware store in my dirty work pants. Or down a gravel road to a trail head. I’d much rather do those in this. Well, that’s not to say I’d really like to do those in this; in fact the thought makes me rather queasy.
The parking lot at my local little hardware store is tiny. I like to nip and tuck in traffic. And this is how I like to bop down the gravel and curvy forest roads of Oregon in my xBox, at between 40 and 50 mph. I don’t exactly see myself drifting through some of these turns in this Mark V sedan. And I’m not exactly seeing it as the ideal long-distance road trip mobile either, although it would undoubtedly keep me from getting expensive tickets. Just keeping up with the flow of traffic would be more of a concern.
The default negative thing to say is that these cars have pathetic space efficiency, given their outside dimensions. It’s true, but I won’t repeat it here. The new 1978 Fairmont was undoubtedly every bit as roomy and of course drastically smaller and lighter overall. But compared to getting into a genuine Mark V back seat, this is a real treat. See, everything really is relative.
One might be tempted to assume that there would be serious trade-offs in terms of performance compared to the Mark. Admittedly, the LTD II’s standard 139hp 302 V8 gives away all of 20hp to the Mark’s 159hp 400 V8. But to pay two and a half times as much for an additional 20 hp is a pretty lousy deal, eh? And for few bucks more, one could get the LTD II with the optional 149hp 351. Oh wait; checking the ’77 brochure it says the 400 is optional too. And the Mk V weighs a whopping 700 lbs more. Now we’re really building a Mark V “S” sedan. Sadly, the automatic transmission is standard; a three-on-the-tree with the 400 would make a sweet combination. It might actually be able to peel a bit of rubber.
You see, the “S” in this car’s model designation really stands for Sport! What else? Stripper? Superlative? Stupid? Stellar? Stultifying? Naw; we know when Ford puts an “S” on one of its cars, it really means it.
That was the easy part. Figuring out why the hell Ford chose to call this Torino with a nose and butt enhancement “LTD II” is perhaps the last remaining mystery of automotive history that I have not yet figured out or heard a plausible explanation for. Ford used “II” when it downsized and changed the nature of its Mustang; in relative terms, that almost makes some sense. And Chevrolet used it after they fixed the worst problems of the Citation. But why this? To create confusion?
In search for a clue I went back to the brochure for some profound marketing insight/BS. Eureka! There it is! “It marries LTD quality and luxury with the sporty spirit of the Mustang II”. At last I am enlightened and the last remaining automotive history mystery is solved. My life’s work in understanding Ford in the 70s is finished, and I can now retire now and shut down CC. Good night and good luck.
Oh wait a minute; that’s for the top-of-the-line LTD II Brougham. What about the bottom-of-the-line LTD II S? Is this a marriage of LTD luxury and Mustang II sportiness? I’m still mystified.
How about “It marries LTD excess size with the bad proportions and long front overhangs of the Mustang II“?
That might work for me.
Ford’s lame explanation about the LTD II having “the sporty spirit of the Mustang II” blew up in its face in 1979 when the new downsized genuine LTD arrived, riding a four inch shorter 114″ wheelbase, and with a foot shorter overall length and about 500lbs lighter. The once semi-logical order of things was now truly turned upside down.
That might explain why LTD II sales went into the toilet in 1979, to under 50k for all versions. The naming of this car is mysterious enough, but why Ford decided to keep it around after the one and true LTD was downsized is a true headscratcher. Well, Ford was charging headlong into its near brush with bankruptcy just two years later, so if you’re going to self-immolate, the LTD II was useful tinder. More like a big log to throw on the fire.
Did I veer a bit astray from the path of positivity? And this all started out on such a high note. The thrill of finding a genuine LTD II, and an “S” no less, put me in the right mood. I just stood there in the golden glow of a summer sunset, squinting my eyes and seeing a Mark V stripper sedan. But now that I’m home and sitting here in my chair, which must be made of cynictium, trying to make sense of its name has put me on a downward slide. LTD II? The sporty spirit of the Mustang II?
They should have just called it the Mark V II. Just need to replace that damn Ford emblem with a genuine Continental one.
Yes these are bloated intermediates, but time travel back and it kinda makes sense (from Ford’s perspective).
The Granada is planned to replace the Maverick but then the brougham era hits and Iacocca moves it upscale, only to have the energy crisis and the industry downsizing movement, so it’s Ford’s lucky day. The Granada will be the new mid-size, after all the old Falcon has spawned mid sizers before (Fairlane). So let’s work on a true compact replacement (Fairmont). As for a downsized full-size to compete with GM in 77, let’s downsize our fullsize nameplate and we’ll give the old Torino the name of LTD but mark II, as that’s kinda broughmy sounding, and everybody loved the Elite, so slap that Elite front on there. There, the perfect head to head competitor to GMs shrunken big cars. Maybe…
If one thinks of it as a stop gap to go against GM 116wb full sizers until 79 it makes sense, although a lame and cheap quick fix. Ford really overhauled their line up from the bottom up first, while GM started at the top.
Stopgap just about sums it up. Add in that the Torino-platform Thunderbird was a real home run and the extra few marginal sales made it worth keeping the LTD II around one last year alongside the new ’79 Panther LTD.
“Road Hugging Weight” And length.
Not seeing the sporty aspect of this barge, ok its lighter than a Mark but so are most cars, its got serious overhang and bloat styling problems, I guess they figured there was a market for it at the time.
“ok its lighter than a Mark but so are most cars”
and many trucks.
1977 was when the LTD II came out. It is basically a 1972-1976 Gran Torino underneath. `1977 was when the new GM downsized full sized cars came out. So Ford redesigned the Gran Torino by squaring it off and added the Mercury Cougar front end. The LTD II name also helped Ford play the “name game” as they could imply to buyers they had a downsized full size car or the traditional (land yacht) full sized LTD. Chrysler did this also in this time frame when the mid-sized Satellite was renamed Fury and the full sized Fury became the Grand Fury. Dodge also did this when the Coronet became the Monaco and the full sized car became Royal Monaco. It confuses buyers but also helps sells cars until they could be redesigned. Another interesting take is the 1977 LTD II wagon which has a LTD II front end and the 1972-1976 Gran Torino body in the rear. The wagon was a one year model until the Fairmont came out.
What I find is interesting is that they tooled up new rear fenders for the Ranchero to get rid of the Torino’s creased “hips” rather than simply living with them for a low-volume niche model. They didn’t do that for the wagons, which simply used the Mercury Montego rear fenders.
Awful pig of a car – I’ve driven a couple. A cynical move by Ford. It’s only good-looking in comparison to the previous fat-hipped Torino/Montego.
+1 You summed it up nicely.
Personally, I saw many similarities to the lines of the LTD II when the 1981 Imperial was introduced. I apologize as I am at work, and prepared this Photoshop extremely quickly. But look at the remarkable similarity between details of the profile of the Imperial and LTD II. I had to do very little work on the roof line, wheel arches and body sides. They matched up very well. I know it’s a rough Photoshop, but there is a resemblance that is uncanny.
I have no idea… this is entirely speculation on my part, but through Iacocca or Ford designers that went to Chrysler at the time, could the lines of the LTD II influenced the design of the 81 Imperial?
As I was creating this Photoshop, I was struck by how very similar many proportions are between the cars.
(Sorry to keep posting replies, but I am unable to edit posts)
Look at the degree of the rake of the windshield and the rear roof line angle. They are virtually identical between cars.
The major difference seems to be the deeper windows and lower cowl of the Imperial.
You’re right Pete. The proportions on the LTD II are just awful. The greenhouse is undersized and especially narrow vertically, combined with too thick body sides. The long hood/short deck profile expresses late 1960s design. Among the worst of 70s domestic styling IMO. It makes the circa 1973 full-sized LTD look leaner.
Love this article, Paul, and love this find! How lovely of you to try and be charitable to a 1970s Ford. When you frame it the way you have, an LTD II doesn’t seem so bad… but a Mark V sure sounds overpriced!
These ’77 reskins were good-looking cars with just one exception: the stacked headlights. Oh, and the overhangs were long but it was the 1970s so I’m not all that surprised. The roofline on these is handsome, the sharp fenders are very Lincoln-esque, and I love the taillight treatment. Even better-looking is the Cougar sedan. Give me a Cougar Brougham!
Of course, Ford had something else that looked even more like a Mark V: the Thunderbird. And so the LTD II lived in its shadow, awkwardly positioned as some “new kind of full-size car”. I wonder how many people went into a Ford dealer, looked at an LTD II, and left with a Granada or Fairmont.
You’re very charitable about the overhang, William. To me, that front overhang looks positively cartoonish. It’s not like this is a modern car with all those black boxes that need to be packed in somewhere. I’m visualising this with about eight inches to a foot chopped off the front – less weight, better economy, better EPA ratings, easier parking, better space efficiency; you might even be able take it seriously against the new big GM cars.
But that front overhang kills it.
A tangential question…Is this (one of) the first use of “S” to denote a base model car?
Volkswagen and Nissan are using it now (and perhaps others, but I’m not thinking of them) but was Ford the first to use this method of earmarking their low trimmed models?
This has stacked headlights, so I’m intrigued immediately. However, the one element of the LTD II that has always perplexed me is the sheer amount of length between the leading edge of the front bumper and the tip of the grille. That’s got to be pushing 10″ and it could easily double as a park bench – just avoid the bumper guards!
Oldsmobile used “S” on their base two-door Cutlass models in the late ’60s. As for the bumpers, in my opinion, Ford did a worse job than any other American maker in integrating those safety bumpers. Most of Ford’s lineup had the massive shelves.
The F85 was the base Olds A body in the late 60s.
That’s why I specifically said “Cutlass”.
Ford stopped using the S to designate a base model for a while, then started again with their modern lineup. The Fusion, Fiesta, Focus, Escape, and EcoSport all use S for their base trims.
Sheesh, do stacked rectangular headlights look like hell. The Cougar’s horizontal version looks so much better.
With that said, it’s obvious that, for a change, instead of last year’s GM product being the inspiration, it’s the Ford that Chrysler aped for the final generation Cordoba/Mirada/Imperial. It’s kind of weird because you’d have thought they’d have went with the usual GM coupe, that being the downsized 1978 intermediates, particularly since it was the Monte Carlo that Chrysler copied for the original Cordoba. But maybe the echos of the 1962 downsizing disaster still loomed in Chrysler exec’s heads so they played it safe by copying the LTD II, instead. At least the dimensions fit Chrysler’s B-body chassis better.
Actually the Chrysler intermediates which you speak of (J-Body) were F-Body (Volare-Aspen) based.
+1000. Those stacked headlights are just so damned ugly. The rest of the car looks good to me. I like the tail end . . . but I must admit I’d have a bought a Cougar just to get the infinitely better-looking horizontal headlights. I wonder who at FORD thought the ‘stacked headlight’ look was attractive? Whoever it was should’ve been slapped silly.
It has nothing to do with looking good, it boils down to cost. The hood was recycled directly from the Elite, which had Monte Carloesque neoclassical single round headlamps with bulges for them stamped into the hood, and what Ford did with the Elite front end to create the LTD II is exactly what Chevy did with the 76 Monte Carlo, Buick did with the Century sedan and Chrysler did with the Córdoba in 78. Stacking the newfangled rectangular headlights was simply the most cost effective way to integrate them without changing sheet metal for noses designed for single rounds.
Just because they could make it cheaper this way doesn’t mean anyone had to buy it.
I don’t know about the overall length number given, but the figure of 188 inches for the wheelbase is off by quite a big bit. The real number is 118 inches….a difference of SIX FEET.
I find the idea of doing a bit of parts swapping from a Lincoln Mark V and this LTD II is intriguing. To me, aside from being very space inefficient, the styling is so plain (but then, all mid sized sedans were in the mid/late 70s) as to be anonymous looking.
118 inches was really long for an intermediate. The big Galaxie of the 60s was 119 inches.
118 is only for the 4 doors, the 2 doors were 114.
Whenever I see these, I think of a neighbor who had a light gray one, and the first Rambo movie as some of these were used as police cars.
These were very common as cop cars, my home town used them in 1978, including some tan & brown unmarked ones that we quickly etched into our memories.
These cars in the movie were ex-RCMP units and they would have had some semblance of road manners. The police units actually used quite a bit different suspension setup, although it still used Ford’s awful 4 turns lock to lock no road feel steering box. The ’78 LTD II tested by MSP actually had a decent road course time depsite it’s poorer than average straight line acceleration.
I owned one of these back in the early 80’s, i bought it with the intention of turning it into a cab. Mine was far more well equipped same color with a red vinyl top and interior. At that time in NYC Olds 98’s and Chevy Caprice were the private cab queens. Well i gave the car a test run to see if i could make money with it as a cab. It wasnt the most recognizable as a cab car and i did not have a partition and as fate would have it the first passengers i picked up were a guy and his girl at around 12 midnight, i should have known something was up when he asked me to drop off his girl first (it was in the Bronx around the gunhill area)after the girl got out he asked to go to a place a few blocks away and asked me to pull over and pulled out a 357 and of course wanted to rob me. i kept my cool and felt if this was it……..what can i do? i calmly told him i just came out and they were the first passengers i picked up and had no money. The guy was pissed and cursing and pointing the gun at me. Thankfully by Gods good graces and protection the guy just got out and i slowly pulled away. I went home broke but alive parked the car and gave up the idea of making it a cab and sold it. I did buy a 77 98 Regency and went on to make lots of money meet many women and had really good times with it.
I think the mystery is solved when we consider that this car was planned in 1973-75 when the auto industry went into full panic mode during Energy Crisis (Episode One). As noted above Chrysler put Fury and Monaco names (back) on the B body with a few minor styling tweaks and GM spent the money on a genuine reconfiguration of each size beginning with the big B/C body.
Ford took the middle approach and did a fairly thorough restyle on the Torino and called it LTD II. Note that the big LTD got zero styling changes over its last 4 model years (75-78), which suggests that they were prepared to dump it after 1976 and replace it with the “new” LTD II. The significant jump in sales of big cars in 1976 may have caused them to rethink, leaving everyone with the unanticipated situation of both LTD and LTD II in the same showroom for 3 years. The Panther was probably planned as the replacement for the LTD II as Ford’s full size standard bearer.
By the time it came out it sort of became a mid sized car again by default. It would not surprise me that it hung on through 1979 only to provide volume to supplement the highly successful Thunderbird in its last year on that chassis.
One of my law school roommates drove one of these in the 80s. It had been a company car issued to his dad and his dad had bought it for family use. I cannot recall if it was an S but it may well have been, trimmed just like this but with vinyl seats. I liked the looks of these better than the post-73 Torino (especially as a sedan) but as much as I wanted to like it the thing was completely uninteresting.
This is what I think is most likely too, Ford would have used the II designation exactly as they did on the Mustang II, as a sequel, not as a size identifier ala Chevy II. There was no Mustang(I) after 1974, and there likely wouldn’t have been a LTD(I) either after 1977.
You and your logical explanations. Jeez; you’re ruining it for me… I like to think there’s some genuine mystery about these cars. 🙂
I pretty much agree with your assessment JP. If Ford had intended to use the LTD II as a stop gap, I don’t know why they did such a half-assed effort. Clearly they spent a fair amount of money to re-skin the majority of the car. Why not spend a bit more and do it properly? Ford made an effort, albeit a poor one, to reduce weight and improve fuel economy. This would have been an easy opportunity to shorten the front overhang of the car, but instead they chose to re-use body panels such as the hood. If you ever look under the front hood of one of these cars, there is a huge amount of wasted space in front of the engine. It would have been a minimal investment to shorten the front frame and move the rad support back to easily reduce the overall length of these cars.
While the space efficiency wasn’t good on these cars, the interiors really were pretty much the same size as a Colonnade GM and a Mopar B-body. The big difference was the Ford had so much wasted space and excessively large bumpers on the front and rear of the car. FWIW, a Dodge Monaco was 218″ long and had a 117.4″ wheelbase, both within an inch of the specs of the LTD II. And they were also pretty well identical in interior space.
Further, Ford made zero effort to improve the road manners of these cars. Something as simple as stiffer springs and shocks would have drastically improved the manners of these cars without compromising the ride qualities whatsoever. Yet Ford continued to use excessive weak springs and shocks, all in the effort of making that pillow smooth ride at literally all costs. The T-birds used a better, albeit still inadequate, suspension setup, and its road manners were significantly better than an LTD II. The ’79 LTD’s had significantly higher spring rates that the Ford’s previous to it which was a big reason for its improved road manners. It’s hard to believe that the Fairmont came from the same company that pumped out LTD IIs.
Had Ford spent some money to shorten and restyle front end (with something more attractive, improved the road manners with decent springs and shocks, and had spent a few more dollars to lighten the car, it may have been an okay stop gap for a minimal investment.
“I think the mystery is solved when we consider that this car was planned in 1973-75”
If this is the best Ford was willing or able to do with as much as four years notice it’s really no wonder FoMoCo was drilling itself into the ground.
Here you go!
Very great survivor find! I’ve never made the visual connection to the Mark V before, but damn it is similar.
This is indeed a rare car. Looking well preserved and maintained.
The only LTD-S models I can ever recall seeing on the streets of my New Orleans suburbs were police cars. “S” models, with a gutless, 351 2 barrel carb V8 engine, low gear lockout on the automatic transmission, power steering/power front disc brakes, factory air conditioning, white with dark blue vinyl interior.
My Police friends, to a man, hated these numb handling, slow and doggy, cramped interiors “units”.
I hated its predecessor 1976 Torino patrol cars. The next year’s Pontiac Le Mans was better and the following year’s Dodge Monaco even better.
I’m guessing the S designation was part of Ford’s “international strategy.” If the Granada was not convincing as an S-Class Mercedes competitor to you, then maybe the larger, steel roofed LTD II S might be…
“Does the angular Aston Martin Lagonda appeal to you? If so, try THIS! Looking for a sensual Jaguar shape? Maverick! Ford cars! Could possibly be mistaken for anything if you’re not paying close attention!”
I drove several of these boats, (and the preceding Torino’s and subsequent full size LTDs) in my job as a police officer ??. The Fords were all slow and handled poorly. When Chevy got the bid, the new for 77 Impalas scorched the Fords. The Fords were durable, though….
Good point in comparing to the Mark V. I, too, never noticed it before.
I find the styling of these LTD IIs to be more pleasing than its Torinos predecessors, except for the first-year ’72s before the safety bumpers were added. Here, the battering-rams actually complement and complete the package IMO. Although if I had to own a Ford mid-size from these days it would be a ’77-’79 Thunderbird, hands down.
A friend and co-worker had one of these for a time about 20 years ago. I helped him put rear brakes on it. It was holding up well enough and the body was still solid.
But as far as a vehicle to live with every day…pass.
I think that the LTD2 based Ranchero from 1977 and 78 really emphasizes just how odd the proportions of these cars really is.
I had the Mercury Cougar variant of this back in grad school. 351W, auto and air. No cruise, power windows or power seat extras. The handling was meh, the ride on the interstate was great and it couldn’t pass a gas station. When the speed limit was bumped up to 65 mph, I ‘achieved’ a stunning 11 mpg on a trip with the air running full blast. Thank goodness for the 24 gallon gas tank.
Not the worst cars available in ’77-79 for sure! Nicer styling than the Torino, but Ford was really into those excessively long front ends. Lop 6 inches off the front and the car would have been much trimmer and better looking too.
My brother who has two driver early 50’s Ford F-1 trucks, a mid-80’s F-250, an unknown gaggle of motorcycles passing 20 in number, actually has a LTD II. Saw it one day at my father’s place and thought WTH are you doing with that and where did you get it. I already know how he had gotten it because his friends know him to run the wayward home for orphan gas powered machines. Yes, his small warehouse has two power boats in it also.
I always liked those base wheel covers on the LTD II. I liked them better than the base wheel covers I had on my LTD 1. I wanted to get those back then, but IIRC, The LTD II had 14″ wheels and the full size LTD (mine was a ’73… and stop snickering JPC ;o) had 15″ wheels. My wheel covers looked like glorified dog dishes with drainage holes. And while the featured car’s are kinda like that too, the dished out concave effect makes them almost look like nice rims. Nice to see that this survivor is sporting all four of them!
Why settle for a 118″ WB short Mark V when you can have a 130″ WB super Mark V?
Top = stock Mark V
Bottom = 130″ wheelbase Mark V. Overall length unchanged.
🙂
Now shorten the rear deck and you really got something.
Really, really, REALLY hate the stacked rectangular headlights on everything from Detroit that ever used them. Comparing the Mercury version to the Ford LTD II points out, even making allowances for the Merc’s Lincoln-lite grill work, how much unstacking the lights makes the front end much less offensive.
I’d like to say something nice about these cars.
The instruments were large and easy to read.
I like the positive outlook. How about: Controls were simple and readily accessible without resorting to a touchscreen.
I suppose I never realized that the Mark V also had Torino DNA. It always just seemed bigger than a Torino / LTD II / Thunderbird / Cougar, even if it shared some of the angular design language with other Ford products.
As for the featured LTD II, it ain’t my cuppa, but I love that it exists, and in such great condition.
The two cars did share the same basic chassis design, but not much beyond that. The body structures are significantly different and if there is anything shared it would be very little internal structure.
The 1972-79 intermediate chassis isn’t significantly different form the full-size Ford chassis. Other than the different rear suspension, the intermediate chassis is really just a variation of the basic full-size chassis design introduced in 1965. in fact the front suspension is identical and interchangeable (short of a few minor changes over the years, such as bushings size) for the 1965-78 fullsize and the 1972-79 intermediate.
The basic styling was pretty much on trend, they just needed to chop off about a foot of wasted space/front overhang. Either that or move the front wheels forward a foot for better proportions (but no more space or efficiency). Clean up the front a bit, chop out some windows in those blind rear quarters and you’d have this, the contemporary Nissan Leopard. See, Ford? This is what you should have done!
I fid it incredible that this beautiful automobile was not more popular considering the awful competition from general motors and Chrysler. Compared to the LeMans, Malibu , Cutlass salon and century this was a gorgeous design and not a box that looked like a five year old drew it. It also had way more durable engines and transmissions and the windows rolled down in the back. Ford’s of this vintage were good on gas if you stripped the emmisions and it was easy to get decent power out of them. Long term they would long Outlast the gm junk. And those big bumpers were very good . Plus you could easily modify it with t bird and cougar parts and build a baby mark or t bird sedan. All in all a great midsized car. I also prefer it to the bland monico and fury Rosco p Coltrane cars.
The engines were durable unless you were unlucky enough to get a 351M-400
from Michigan Casting that was well known for block cracking. This ended when cars started getting the stronger truck blocks when the 335 series engines were introduced in the ’77 F-Series.
And a lot of them had the hoary old FMX transmission too. The only ‘good’ engine available in these cars was the 302, and it didn’t have enough power for a car this heavy.
Keep in mind not all 351M and 400’s were cast at the Michigan Casting Center. Many were also cast at the Cleveland foundry during the “problem years” and the Cleveland cast blocks were fine. While the car’s did eventually get the reinforced truck blocks, this reinforcement was introduced to strengthen the blocks in the main bearing area for manual transmissions. The block reinforcement had nothing to do with the poorly cast MCC blocks, which would crack in the lifter valley.
FWIW, several engine builders today have made very high horsepower from these engine blocks with no problems. The main modification for high performance applications has to do with oil system modifications, which are relatively simple and cheap to perform.
I recall the TV commercial for these. The jingle went like this…. “isn’t it you, in that LTD II ??? You’ll never know till you try !!!’?
It’s actually on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/jbkc8jEX378
That jingle never made any sense to me. You’ll never know until you try.
Try what, exactly? Try getting financing? What?
“Starsky & Hutch” would’ve been worse…
If ever a car screamed “Disco Stu”…
“Could it be you in an LTD II?”
That seventies yellow Ford is in remarkable condition.
Fourty years ago I was working for Hertz during the summer (actually 2 years in a row, 1977 and 1978) as a transporter and these were among the most common cars we drove (we were the guys who returned cars to their home office when they were rented one way). Hertz seemed to use lots of Ford cars back then; besides the LTD-2, we drove a lot of Thunderbirds, as well as Granadas, and in 1978 the Fairmont….but also had some GM, Mopar, and AMC cars as well as a sprinkling of foreign cars.
My parents got rid of their 1973 Country Sedan in 1978 when they bought a Caprice Classic Wagon…so I was familiar with even the next size up Ford…these were OK to drive, kind of “par for the course” back then. But this large size disappeared after 1978, and then the LTDII disappeared too.
One of my grandfather’s work associates had a ’77 LTD S very much like this one, but in white. It was his personal car and I always wondered if he ordered it, as I’d never actually seen another at the time. It did have a radio and AC but was otherwise very Spartan, down to the dog dish hubcaps. Ugh.
in ’79, a local Ford/L-M Dealer had one of these on the lot, a base (not S) 2-door sedan in silver with an AM radio, deluxe bumper group, CA emissions and not anything else. I watched that car languish on the lot for about a year. They finally had pity on it by installing a blue vinyl roof, pinstripes, hood ornament, WSW tires and wire wheel covers on it in an attempt to jazz it up and move it. Eventually someone bought it, at quite a discount I’m certain.
I think this was one of Ford’s most unfortunate cars, ever.
My 1979 with the 302 was a decent Station Wagon. The VVCC Carb was trouble-free and, the only problems were rust, water pump and electronic ignition box. The frickin water pump used 4 different bolt sizes holding it to the block.
The featured LTD II from the late 70’s always reminds me of the scene from “Witness” where the corrupt Philadelphia cops arrive on a narrow road leading to an Amish village to exact revenge on the Harrison Ford character who had ratted them out. The faint glow from the stacked headlights has an especially ominous effect in this scene.
and to think if you had the wherewithal to fit a modern engine into that thing, you could get a 2.0 turbo 4-cylinder from Ford Racing Parts which has as much torque, way more horsepower and way better driveability than that wheezy 400 cast iron lump of crap.
The Ford 400 didn’t compare well to GM’s faux ‘big block’, the 403 Oldsmobile. The 403 with a Quadrajet carburetor was usually good for 185 h.p. in the late 70’s.
The front overhang of these cars is bizarre. For some reason the 2 doors, particularly with the ‘Sport Appearance Package’, almost looks O.K.. Almost.
Probably having to do with Ford furnishing the vehicles, the old CHiP’s T.V. show often featured villains driving LTD II’s. Watching them wallow around L.A. chased by Kawasaki Police 1000’s and ’75 440 Monaco’s was entertaining.
Very few of these LTD II’s had 400’s, most were 302 or 351 powered. These cars could have been equipped with a 351W or 351M, both had similar power and performance levels.
The Ford 400 was seriously hampered with retarded cam timing (1973), low compression, and more restrictive heads (1975). Some years were better than others, but the last ones in the late 1970’s cars were some of the worst iterations of this engine.
FWIW, the 403 was no screamer either (I have owned one). I couldn’t find a LTD II road test with a 400, but I found the larger and heavier LTD which can be compared with a couple of Cutlass road tests from Car and Driver:
1976 Ford LTD 400-2V
1/4 mile: 17.8 seconds @ 76.2 mph
curb weight: 5000 lbs
1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass 442 403-4bbl
1/4 mile: 17.3 secs @ 79.3 mph
curb weight: 4023 lbs
1977 Oldsmobile Cutlass Salon 350-4bbl
1/4 mile 18.4 secs @ 75.7 mph
curb weight: 4130 lbs
Considering the Ford 400 had about 1000 lbs extra to haul around, and that it was only a 2-bbl, its performance wasn’t that far off the lighter 403 Oldsmobile. Mind you 1976 was one of the better late 70’s 400’s. Ford’s ignition systems and emission controls weren’t as good as GM’s of this time, and I’d suggest many of the Ford engines of this era ran more poorly once in real service as a result of them falling out of tune more easily. In the late 1970s it was hard to beat a Q-Jet carb and a GM HEI ignition.
It was an interesting product placement deal given that CHP’s fleet at the time was famously Mopar-centric so having them patrol in LTDs wouldn’t look right, and the stars of the show were on motorcycles anyway.
It seems that, in addition to all the other issues Paul brought up, Ford in general just didn’t even try to keep up with GM on the ’70s engine front. I have a ’70 Mark III with a 460/375HP, great runner. I also have a ’79 Mark V, with the 400/158HP. Worst accelerating car ever. But, they both get the same 10-12 MPG!
Ford was, for whatever reasons, rather undisciplined as far as engines go. Whereas GM had pretty much settled on each brand having one engine architecture (save for Chevy with the SB/BB split.) Pontiac V8s all had the same bore spacing, ditto Olds and Buick.
Ford, on the other hand, was spastic. they had the Windsor, FE, 335, and 385 engine families all with variants with overlapping displacements.
The Mark V is my favorite of the Continental personal luxury coupes. With that said, I stared at that picture of the Mark and LTD II stacked, and I am deeply perplexed. The L-II is probably my least favorite Ford of that decade (and that’s not to say there aren’t some really nice examples out there, and to each his or her own).
While I can some visual similarities between the two cars, I guess I’m chalking my perception of the two cars being polar opposites on the style-spectrum to the little details, regardless of the Lincoln badge on the more expensive car. And the LTD II is… just… so… big.
Great find and piece, Paul.
These machines needed the nine inch rear to handle all the power.
I own a 77 LTD II. 2 door, 351W/FMX automatic.
Ive had it. since 03, havent drove it since 07 (jumped the timing chain, one of these days ill get to it)
My honest opinion is, truthfully, these were actually pretty great cars. Yes, they are huge, but they are as comfy as your living room sofa, get decent fuel mileage (18 was pretty acheivable on the highway), they were as durable as a old stone hammer, and really the overall driving experence wasnt nearly as bad as yall make it out to be.
Was it a drag racer? No. But it could pick off civics light to light, and would eaisly cruise 75-80 all day long (hell, at WOT it wouldnt shift to 3rd untill 85). The handleing wasnt even that bad, i mean, it didnt corner like the CVPI i had, but it could hold its own. The only real con to the whole car was it totally sucked in the snow. But thats any RWD lead sled.
Cool comparison now loaded a brougham Ltd 11 could be made into and even better competitor with a few junkyard parts. Add brougham body side mouldings, vinal top,. Cougar front fenders, t bird header panel, cougar , turbine wheels along with some Lincoln seats and you have a very nice mark 4 1/2.
My grandad bought one of these brand new in 1978. It was a bare bones stripper model with the dog dish hub caps like they put on F-150 pickups. It had a 302 and the only options it had were an AM/FM radio and A/C. It didn’t even have a rear view mirror on the passenger door.
The mint green metallic paint job on it was horrible and he had to have it repainted by the Ford dealer when it was only 5 or 6 years old. I rode in it quite a bit as a kid and it was a nice smooth riding car. I only drove it a couple of times and it handled as well as any of the other 1970s land yachts I have driven. The main thing I remember was the long hood, I still can’t believe that believe Ford called that huge boat a “midsized” car.
Grandad also had a F-150 pickup and he he rarely drove the LTD II except to church and when he died in 2000 it only had about 30K miles on it. Since it had mostly sat in the garage the body was in pretty good shape even though it was 22 years old. My cousin ended up with it and she and her kids drove it another 100K miles. Her son took it to college at one of the Ivies and four years of driving on salted roads up north took its toll on the body. The hood skin started to rust out which was apparently a common problem on these and the Lincoln Continental Mark V.
I used to travel to Venezuela regularly and would see these, still badged “Fairlane” and “Fairlane 500”, the latter featuring the triangular window in the C pillar, but no Mercury derivatives. Strangely, an independent company called GURI made and marketed the Thunderbird as the “Conquistador.”
Anyone wondering what a four-door Mark V would look should fly down to Maracaibo, where perhaps they too can catch glimpse of the LTD II-with-MkV-front-clip that I gazed upon in traffic from my rented Ford Ecosport. Other frankenstein specials spotted included an earwax-gold Mk VI with Town Car front clip, and a beautifully-executed four-door Cordoba.
I was searching around the internet for more information on these….and what do I find? Someone has done a curbside classic on my car! I’m the owner of the LTD II featured in this article. I live in Springfield and frequent downtown Eugene. I can’t remember why I was parked there that night…but you’ll see me around Eug/Springfield – that car is my daily 🙂
I purchased this car from an older gentleman on Craigslist around 2017 for $350. It was in the same condition as you see now, less some mechanical parts and work. She cleaned up nice and made a fine commuter. Repairs are easy and keeping the fabric interior clean is a breeze (I’ve since scrubbed out those water stains on the front seat and scotchguarded them).
Coincidentally, I’ve driven the car to a few trailheads on forestry roads…it wasn’t too bad once I put some better shocks on her. I’ve also driven up to Vancouver and back a few times.
Anyway, thanks for the information on the car – good read! 🙂
-Andres H.
It’s always a treat when owners of the cars I shoot find them here and leave a message. $350! What a deal! I might have been tempted just for the sheer hell of it…
I’ve seen you and your LTD II a on the roads a couple of times since then. And I’m happy to hear you’e replaced the shocks and have taken it out of town.
Hi Andres, nice car you got there. Everybody here seem to hate these cars but I love them. I owned one but I had to sell it:(
I would like to buy the LTD from you I you are interested in selling it.
Warner.
You may appreciate this (what seems to be) factory Mark V 4-door concept picture I came across from 1974
Ah, the car of my childhood. We had a 1977 base model. Green inside and out, vinyl bench seats, AM only radio, the dog bowl hubcaps. My dad called it “Dino”, one of his friends called it “the green slime”. We got it in I think 1980 or 81 and had it until mom got her first minivan in 1986. We were not sorry to see it go
I am looking for a ’79 LTD 2 4 door Left Headlight cover. Any ideas?
I drew this recently, thought I better post it here where it’s appropriate.
It’s actually no mystery why Ford called these LTD-II. They tried to pass them off as downsized full-sized cars! I can even remember a few print ads where they said something along the lines of “Only Ford gives you a choice in full-sized cars: Traditional sized LTD or new trim-size LTD-II!” They were trying to pass off the LTD-II as a rival to the Impala and Caprice, while bragging that with the LTD, you got a car the size of a Cadillac, for the price of a Chevy.
This was also nothing new by this time. Plymouth tried it with “The New, Small Fury” for ’75, and even Dodge did it for ’77, calling the midsized cars “Monaco” while the big C-bodies were all renamed Royal Monaco.
The space efficiency in these things was pretty bad, to be sure, but a good deal of that wasted length was in that long hood, those peaked fenders, and jutting bumpers. Overall, they were about on par with equivalent midsized cars like GM’s Colonades or Mopar’s ’71-78 B-bodies. From what I remember of Consumer Reports and other reviews, the Colonades tended to have the most comfortable seats, and the Mopars were the best if you needed 6 passenger seating.
Compared to a Fairmont though, an LTD-II gave you a lot more shoulder room, a smaller transmission/driveshaft hump, and in the back you didn’t have that wheel well intrusion that makes the outboard passengers tilt inward. A Fairmont most likely had more headroom, though.
I sat in an LTD-II that was for sale, years ago, and from what I can remember, the front seat had plenty of stretch out room, but was low to the floor.
One thing I’ll say in defense of these cars, is that I think Ford did a pretty good job of updating the sheetmetal, compared to the Torino, so it at least looked modern. They put more effort into them than Mopar did with the Monaco/Fury…although to be fair, those two went through a pretty major restyle for ’75, and the ’77 restyle was mainly just giving them stacked quad lights.
I also thought the LTD-II had a pretty nice interior. They also made the right decision in making a 302 the base engine. However, part of the issue there might have been that these cars were pretty heavy…definitely moreso than GM’s Colonades, and I believe a bit heavier than the Mopar B-bodies. And Ford’s 250-6 cyl always seemed to be a dog in those years. I mean, you can say that about most engines, but even among its peers, like the Chevy 250, Mopar 225 slant six, or Buick 231 V6, it seemed slow. So it probably just wasn’t enough engine for a car this size.