(first posted 5/7/2012) The Mercury Colony Park was one of Mercury’s longest-lived models, lasting from 1957 to 1991. While it did have some Mercury identity (such as it is) early in its life, as the years went by it got closer and closer to Ford wagons. It never really got out from under the shadow of its more popular Ford sibling, the famous Country Squire.
Mercury was already familiar with wagons, well before the Colony Park’s first appearance in 1957. Between 1940 and the mid 1950s, station wagons went from a wood-bodied, ultra expensive specialty vehicle, to a steel sided suburban staple, and then to a suburban status symbol, at least in the top trim versions. Mercury’s ‘wood wallpapered’ Colony Park was top of the Ford wagon heap in 1957.
While the Country Squire was also very well equipped, the Mercury had the distinction of being a pillarless wagon, as all Mercury wagons were between 1957 and 1960. Starting in 1961, however, Mercury became essentially a retrimmed Ford, and would remain so through 1964.
The 1965 models were thoroughly redone, with a bit of Lincoln Continental in their lines. As usual, the CP was top of the line. If you could do without the plusher interior and Di-Noc siding, you could get essentially the same car with the less expensive Commuter wagon.
Full size Mercury wagons continued in much the same fashion through the rest of the Sixties and into the Seventies, although they had increasingly more in common with the Ford Galaxie and LTD under the skin. Sheetmetal was still unique., however. Starting in 1969, Colony Parks had a unique front end with hidden headlights, shared with the Marquis line.
In 1975, however, the Monterey line was discontinued and all full size Mercurys became Marquis models with hidden headlights, wagons included. The woodgrained sides still set the CP apart, though. This was as big as the Colony Park would get – a whole new downsized model would replace the Chris Craft-sized wagons after 1978.
The 1979 Colony Park was drastically changed from 1978 models. Mercury wagons were down to 218 inches long, with a 114.3″ wheelbase and 79.3″ width. Colony Parks could still carry a lot of stuff though, with total interior volume of 164.9 cubic feet and 52.7 cubic feet of cargo space behind the rear seat. The Colony Park (and all 1979 full size Mercurys) were powered by a standard 5.0L (302 CID) V8 and Select-Shift automatic transmission. A 351 CID V8 was optional.
As always, the Colony Park featured woodgrain siding. According to the 1980 brochure, it was “designed with both beauty and practicality in mind. The full length of its bodyside, and the tailgate section, feature appliques in rosewood color with matching bright and woodtone rails.” Twin Comfort Lounge seats, shown above in green leather, were optional. You could also get dual facing rear seats if you needed to haul more than six passengers. The three way Magic Doorgate, pioneered by Ford, was standard on all wagons.
Of course, if you were concerned about the woodgrain peeling and fading in a few years, you could also get a plain Marquis wagon. But you’d be losing a lot of cachet at the country club…
The Marquis line soldiered on through the 1980s with only a mild facelift here and there. When the Fox-bodied Cougar sedans were redesigned in 1983 with more of an aero theme, they were redesignated Marquis. Thus, all ’83 full-sizers were now ‘Grand’ Marquis models.
The Panther-bodied 1988 Grand Marquis and LTD Crown Victoria were revised with smoother front and rear sheetmetal, the last facelift for the 1979 body, as it turned out. Colony Parks (and Country Squires) received the new nose only, with carry over tail lights and rear quarter panels.
The CP carried on largely the same throughout the late ’80s, competing primarily with the Buick Estate Wagon, Olds Custom Cruiser, and of course, the Country Squire. A fully loaded Colony Park was as close as you were going to get to a Town Car wagon. With turbine alloy wheels, the JBL sound system and leather interior, these wagons were very plush.
While they were luxury wagons, they could get down and work when it was called for. With the optional trailer towing package, the CP could tow up to 5000 pounds. Try that in your 2.2L four-cylinder Caravan!
But the Caravan would have the last laugh. Starting in 1984 with the release of the Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyager, station wagons started losing ground. These ‘garagable vans’ could haul seven people in comfort, without having any passengers shoehorned into the ‘way back’, as was the case with full-size station wagons. They were so practical, and overnight these vans – plus Chevy Astros, GMC Safaris, and Ford Aerostars – were seemingly everywhere.
After 1988 the Colony Park received only minor changes, and was gone for good after a short 1991 model year. However, I believe there was a strong and loyal market for full size wagons, folks who liked the comfort and luxury of a car-based people hauler. Ford apparently disagreed, and when the Crown Victoria and Grand Marquis were redesigned for 1992, there were sadly no wagons to be found. The dedicated wagon buyers could still go over to General Motors for full sized woody wagon goodness – at least until 1996.
Late Eighties and early Nineties Panthers are still seen in my area, but wagons are pretty rare. I was passing the local K-Mart (where I spotted the 1996-98 Skylark, incidentally) when I spotted this Colony Park. Yes, it had that typical Midwestern fringe of rust, but it’s still pretty solid for a 20+ year old wagon. The interior was pretty clean too. While it looks like it’s white in the photos, it was actually a very pale beige – it might even be very faded Almond paint – as seen in the brochure picture further up.
Yes, wagons used to rule the roost, and this Colony Park is proof that the Wagon Age did in fact exist. Will wagons ever make a comeback in the US? It would be nice.
This sums up what a station wagon SHOULD be – fair and SQUARE!
Seriously, I really liked this body style, which is what the K-Cars were – scaled-down Fords. The proportions worked very well, even if the GMs were better vehicles overall.
Yes it does! A good solid car.
But Mercury/Fords were mechanically much less troublesome, especially the engines . As well as having more interior room and being more comfortable. Styling is subjective.
A CP (Especially a ’57) is one of my dream cars.
I don’t believe wagons will make a big comeback. Minivans are much more efficient, not to mention comfortable.
“Minivans are much more efficient, not to mention comfortable.” Hmm, I am not so sure you have done enough research in both. Sure, if you don’t need to pull a trailer and you do mostly in town driving, a minivan is more efficient than an OLD station wagon. But not more so than a new Volvo or Mercedes wagon. And comfort? I’ll take a late Colony Park or Custom Cruiser any day over most minivans, not to mention how a modern minivan might stack up against a Mercedes E320.
Yeah a minivan is not efficient in the MPG department. When the kids started getting older the Panthers got retired/replaced as the kid hauler/road trip by a Windstar. Despite having only 6cyls displacing 3.8L our road trip MPG dropped 5~6 MPG (and I usually didn’t drive it as fast) and the around town MPG took a ~ 2 MPG hit. Of course a wagon aero Panther wouldn’t have got the same MPG but it should have only lost 1-2 MPG hwy vs a sedan and been pretty similar in the everyday driving. However there certainly is something to be said about someone easily getting in the third row especially when it is to make sure the kids are in separate rows on opposite sides to stop or at least minimize the “he’s touching me”.
I don’t know, my Parents’ have a Honda Odyssey Touring and it regularly gets 27mpg on the highway. It gets about 20mpg around town.
We got over 26 on the open road going a steady 74 MPH in a 2015 Dodge Caravan. That was a pipe dream in any GM B-body or Panther wagon.
> I don’t believe wagons will make a big comeback.
You’re wrong. They’re simply higher now, with bigger wheels and optional 4WD. Called SUV (CUV? MUV? LUV? WTFUV?) now, but really just truck station wagons, or FWD car station wagons (BMW X1, Skoda Yeti, Xovers, and their ilk).
No, not at all. In order to maintain the pretense of off-roadability, they cut the rear overhang off on all these SUV’s and CUV’s sacrificing all the storage area. My Parents’ also have a ’93 Toyota Camry SE wagon and my brother has a 2004 Toyota Highlander (today’s excuse for a Camry-based wagon). The Highlander’s storage area is about 6″ taller than the Camry, but with the rear seats up, the storage area is at least a foot shorter.
That’s not an improvement!
Plus, due to the fact that they are jacked up to provide ground clearance for off-road capabilities that they’ll never need, they give up all their on-road handling capabilities.
That’s not an improvement, either!
Australians call the jacked SUVs “Toorak tractors” after a posh suburb of Melbourne. The only time they’re off road is if some misses the driveway.
In order for “big wagons” to make a comeback, big cars will have to make a comeback. Probably won`t happen because the big wagon audience has gone the way of the big luxury car audience. Somehow suburban soccer mothers have made the minivan their choice along with CUVs, SUVs, or whaterver we choose to call them.It may be sad, but it certainly is true.
It’ll come around the other way – CUVs will get lower and sleeker as sedan sales drop to the point where the only cost-effective way to build a big one will be for it to share the CUV’s front clip and doors.
I remember that sometime in the late 60’s the Colony Park didn’t have just Di-Noc wood sides, but “Yacht-something” Di-Noc wood paneling. What made this different from regular old wood paneling I do not know. Anyway, it sure sounds a lot classier.
I still like the look of these wagons, and if I come across a nice one I might even get one, as a nostalgia trip. As the owner of a then-new 79 CS, I can attest that the wagons lived well up to their expectations, they hauled a lot of stuff, and if you liked that style, well, you traveled in style. Unfortunately, Ford hadn’t sweated the details enough when they made the wagon from the sedan. The rear doors were the same for sedan and wagon, and while the sedan tapered slightly inwards behind the rear doors, the wagon did not, in order to preserve width, it seems. This made for a very home-made transition between the rear door and the body, the door tapering inwards, the body kind of bulging out. This made for a challenging view in the side mirror, and was a point of ridicule from owners of MBs and Bimmers. Just aim down the side next time you see one of these, you’ll see this awkwardness easily. The General burned some more midnight oil on his full-size wagons, they had a smooth transition from side door to rear body. But still, viewed from the side this is not so visible, so I might overlook it.
On the rare models without the wood siding, you could see a vague outline of the Ford Country Squire’s vertical taillight stamped into the rear sheet metal. Was it a knock-out panel, or a stamping mistake, or just some sort of lazy production efficiency? I don’t begrudge Mercury a little clever cosmetics (yes I do), but that taillight outline always bugged me.
The yellow one fifth down is the spitting image of one my parents had, except ours was red, and our family looked much more like the Simpsons than the freshly-scrubbed models in the photo. That particular series of Mercs showed a lot of Lincoln influence, and it could almost be be a Continental Town Wagon, it there were such a thing.
Unfortunately, this vehicle does not inspire fond memories. In comparison to a ’66 Ford Squire that we had previously (itself quite the land yacht), it felt even more bloated, heaved and yawed like a sailing vessel, and simply could not maintain a heading on a straight stretch of road. Driving the damn thing, on the couple of out-of-town trips I made with it, wore me out.
Also, to this day I’ve gotta laugh at the silliness of the hidden headlights, which have no logical reason to justify the added complexity (cetainly not aerodynamics, given the brick-inspired shape of the thing), and it’s not as though one couldn’t guess that there were headlights behind those baroque chrome-trimmed covers. Oh well, of equal utility as with the woodgrained siding, I guess.
With all that said, I wouldn’t turn up my nose at at a clean ’65-67 CP, if someone wanted to give me one.
These wagons could have treacherous handling – especially with a trailer. There was simply too much rear overhang. It was critical to maintain a 10 psi difference between front & rear tires. The front tires had to be down to 22 psi or the tail would wag the car all over the road. Since this was different from sedans and even pre-67 models, most owners and a lot of filling stations didn’t realize this and overinflated the front tires. At the Ford agency I worked in high school, we “fixed” a lot of handling complaints simply be adjusting tire pressure.
“… I’ve gotta laugh at the silliness of the hidden headlights, which have no logical reason to justify the added complexity…”
At least in the early version (’69?) the hidden lights don’t proclaim their location when the covers are closed. That would seem to be the point of hiding them, to bring out the exclamation, “Look, there they are!” when the lids are raised.
That yellow ’75, with the “baroque chrome trimmed covers” falls into the category of “waste as a virtue”, which fits with the brick themed bodies of those years; “class” was denoted by the implication that it is unseemly for rich folks to put any stock in aerodynamics, and “style” manifested itself in any possession, no matter how chintzy, that came in a velvet lined, hardwood case.
I can still imagine a future with large wagons. What if all the folks with Suburbans, Escalades and Lincoln Navigators tire of stepping up into their vehicles, the $7 gallon of gas makes an appearance, and one of the car companies hits gold with a large electric Colony Park descendant?
My father had a 1986 (pre-facelift) version of this wagon as a company car in the exact same colour scheme as the featured vehicle. My parents were divorced and I remember going out on weekends with my father in this car.
I always liked it more than my grandfather’s near identical Grand Marquis sedan. I’ve always had a thing for wagons of this era. The automatic climate control was what impressed my 12-year-old self the most, though.
My son Jimmy is about 6 months into his 89 MGM sedan. I have driven it enough that I have re-acquainted myself with the 5.0/AOD combo that I had remembered so un-lovingly from my 85 Crown Vic. Like you, I see these around, but rarely.
I nearly bought one of these in the mid 1990s. It was a high-mile 87 or 88 that had been owned by a travelling salesman. It was beautifully kept and maintained. My most vivid memory is the way the thing suddered, squeaked and rattled. The wagons’ structual integrity seemed to be miles behind that of the sedans. It was also miles behind that of my Fox-body 86 Marquis wagon, which had been a pretty rigid unit. Even so, I still sort of like these and would buy one if the right one came along.
I made the guy a cash offer for an amount lower than he wanted. He turned me down and I immediately drove over to a friend’s house and bought his 85 LeSabre 2 door. On the way home in the Buick, Mr. Mercury called me and told me we had a deal. Too late. I always find those calls oddly satisfying.
My wagon love is well known on this site but my Angel lumps them in the same unholy category with minivans… I wonder if I could get away with it if I stripped the “plywood siding” (as my Dad calls the vinyl wood-grain) off of one, blindfolded her and put her in the front seat before removing the blindfold…
Give me a Panther or B-body wagon, heavy duty suspension, and miles of flat straight road to bury the speedometer. The B-bodys at least were eerily quiet and stable at over 85 mph.
I don’t know, Dan, about how stable a B-Body is 85mph. The common and garden variety ones started lifting off the road at just over 65 mph, making the steering, which was never too accurate to begin with, positively squirrely at 75 mph. The 9C1s were better but there was never a cop wagon package!
The whale cars had better aerodynamics but I was never really comfortable even with them at over 70 mph.
For me, anyway, the nostalgia of B-Bodies and Panthers is a greater thing than actually driving them. Compared to a modern car with IRS, both these cars are willowy and vague. They don’t really go where you point them all that well, so while I still love this cars in a way, I am not in much of a hurry to drive one every day, either. I like side airbags, four wheel disks and ABS, thanks, not to mention traction control.
Perhaps you have more intestinal fortitude than I do!
My experience with Bs was ALL “box” nothing newer than 1990 station wagons. My fathers boss purchased the cars for his salesmen for the large amounts of lockable storage and the ability to tow 5,000 lbs (the salesmen would routinely tow several John Deer lawn and garden tractors and their implements on a trailer at a time.) Given that I never saw the rear ends on those cars squat much I have to assume they were all “towing package” cars or when the old fellow purchased them (all on the used car market for steep depreciation) or he ordered his mechanics to fit them with heavy duty shocks.
I got to drive everything from stripper Impala wagons with vinyl seats to fully loaded and optioned Pontiac Parisienne to every flavor of Caprice civilian wagon in between. I loved them all and found them far superior in acceleration, road holding, and top speed to my 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with 307V8 and Quadrajet.
My father once tossed me the keys to his well worn Caprice wagon, about a 1987 or so model with the 305V8 and 4-speed auto and told me to run to his workplace (after-hours) and retrieve something for him. The link below is my route. You can see how straight and it is and there is but two stop signs on that whole route. With the needle buried that B was remarkably stable and the 305 didn’t even sound that stressed out, though I could hear the WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH of fuel and air through the carburetor. That is one of many incidents that made me love big V8 powered American cars… ergo the root of my obsession.
http://g.co/maps/zgfsg
My experience with Panthers I must admit is confined to the post 1992 restyle and I found the “mod motor” torque-y enough to make me smile and still pulling strong above city/town speed limits as long as you kept your foot in it.
I’ve also driven every iteration of B-Body there ever was and I too love that whooosh of the Quarda-jet gulping air. The best were the 1977-79 models. My dad had a ’79 Impala F-41 and it was quite quick for its day and the 270 lb/ft for torque was delicious.
The wagons had a much heavier and wider rear end, which is why they could pull so well. The rear end was weak in the base cars, eating axles and brakes. Common on the previous generation A-Bodies, too, which used the same unit.
I also love these cars but compared to modern stuff, they really don’t rate. My TL will blast over the Rocky Mountains at insane speeds, velocities that would have a B-Body’s brakes smoking, or worse, hurtling off a cliff. The TL is totally buttoned down at 200 km/h. Last year I blasted from Revelstoke to Golden at 150 km/h and it wasn’t even breathing hard. Have a look at this ride:
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Miller+City&daddr=Continental,+OH&hl=en&sll=41.117383,-84.1436&sspn=0.135272,0.338173&geocode=FewtcwId-kH8-im_YazA74I-iDEf_7JTkrpOZQ%3BFSckcwIdoTL6-il1qz2HQ4A-iDFDmfR_-Rs9Fg&mra=ls&t=m&z=13
My experience reflects Dan’s on the GM wagons. After over 23 years of having a B-body wagon in the fleet, I am pretty well versed on what they’d do. I never experienced any issues with front end lift or a reduction in the steering precision at speeds over 65 mph. And this isn’t based on very old memories, I had one until 2010.
For a while I was regularly commuting a 300+ mile trip home and and then back to work every weekend using my old Custom Cruiser. Other than the 307’s lack of power, it was a great highway car, and cruised down the 401 in the fast lane without issue. Go any slower than 75 mph in the fast lane, you’d get run over.
FWIW, the B-body wagons generally came equipped with F40 HD suspension, so they were not as floaty as the sedans with base suspension. Wagons also used the larger 8.5″ rear axle, which was a couple of inches wider than a sedan axle. They came with larger front 12″ front discs, and 11″ rear drums. After 1980, many sedans used the far weaker 7.5″ rear differential. Some sedans still got the larger 8.5″ depending how they were equipped. 9C1 cars and factory taxi package cars (9C6) used the larger brakes the 8.5″ axles like the wagons.
Maybe they aren’t up to a modern car’s standards, but why compare it to something new? A B-body is still a great car to drive today in my opinion and I’d gladly own one again if I ever came across the right one.
In many ways I wish there was an Aero Panther wagon. Fact is though that I don’t NEED that 3rd row of seating and I prefer the better MPG of a sedan shape and being able to keep my luggage out of the passenger compartment and the view of passers by.
Even the de-contented versions that lack a rear sway bar are at their happiest traveling at extra legal speeds. The HPP and earlier cars that even the base models came with rear sway bars are even happier at those speeds.
Please permit me to echo each and every word of your comment. I will vouch for my 1993 CV LX as being a very good road car that is also very smooth and quiet, even with its advanced age. But there is just something about a wagon . . . .
I think it’s pretty clear that the instant success of the Explorer killed the Panther wagons. Why invest money in designing a new wagon body when you can generate a higher per unit profit by bolting a long roof and a pair of rear doors on a Ranger.
Not to mention you also don’t have to comply with the safety regs of a car, which is the issue I have with trucks and their obscene profit margin. They ain’t foolin’ me!
Now you know why I hate SUVs and loooooove cars!
Being an `87 or so would ensure that it had an Oldsmobile 307. Why GM did this is far beyond me, as it leads to so much confusion, and for some, even arguments. Anyway, I can attest to a Caprice wagon being stable at speeds higher than the legal limit. I regularly have my `88 on the freeway, and sometimes, you just get tired of seeing the same damn scenery. I have had the needle buried, but with 220k on my poor 307, I try not to keep it there too long.
These cars do not handle as badly as many people make them out to be. I’ve autocrossed mine, and while I wasn’t setting any speed records, I was within four seconds of a `03 Mustang GT on a pretty tight course.
I guess I second that! Even though I still have a fond feelig for these machines, maybe they are best left to the memory for the time being. When I think hard, I remember things like a back-seat cushion that left a grown occupant with his butt on the floor and the knees in the air, a power steering that couldn’t cope with brisk steering wheel movements, a body (lack of) control on frost heaved roads that slammed the front crossmember into the black top, plastic interior in the back that a plastic bucket would have rejected, etc.
Sorry, but compared to the mid-80’s and later mini-vans, I can only say “good riddance”. In my eyes, the only advantage a true station wagon has over a mini-van is a relatively low roof making it a lot more desirable for hauling bicycles on a roof rack (a major consideration when I buy a car – and you wonder why the Tour de France teams still stick with station wagons?). Otherwise, the mini-van hauls more, better, and more comfortably. The station wagon had it’s day, but it’s day is pretty much gone.
If you wanted to haul heavy things, the full-size wagons were better than the minivans. I’ve used both my 89 Ford Country Squire and my 94 Buick Roadmasters essentially as trucks and they took to that duty better than minivans of the same era, thanks to torquey engines and stout frames.
The other thing these cars did better than minivans was eating up freeway miles. I put close to 60,000 miles on those wagons, and 1,000 mile trips were no sweat. I’m not nearly as comfortable in taller vehicles with their higher wind noise, upright seating positions, and comparatively weak engines.
Now, if we’re talking modern minivans, it’s a different story, as I’ve had a new Chrysler Town & Country with the new 3.6L Pentastar + 6-speed combo as a rental and it was fantastic for long distance cruising, but there’s no modern full-size wagon* to compare it to. I can say that the Chrysler 300 3.6L + 8-speed rental I had this week was still more comfortable.
*to me, a full-size wagon has to be able to hold a 4×8 sheet of plywood flat with the rear seats down. Anything less and it’s not full-size. I don’t think there were any wagons on the market after the 1996 B-bodies that could do this.
To haul the heavy things in a minivan and have decent hwy handling with a load you just needed a Windstar with the short lived and rare when it was available air suspension. A couple of times I filled it with 6 of my friends 5 of which were well into the 200lb range and it pumped up and rode and handled just the same as it did with just me in it. Acceleration and braking were a different thing of course but in it’s day the 200hp 3.8 was the hottest engine you could get in a minivan and it pretty much made the traction control a necessity.
Having owned both, an 88 Aerostar and an 85 CP, I gotta say hold on there, Bubba Louie. Two things I couldn’t do in my Aerostar that I could in the CP: lay a 4X8 sheet flat and close all the doors; AND just fold the seats and roll out the sleeping bag. (This is reminding me….where’s Odbop?)
Edit: I see Joe L. snuck the 4X8 sheet flat thing in on me.
Full disclosure means I must tell you I am biased towards wagons and especially chevy wagons. I owned a 77 Impala that was the best work truck ever. I took the way back seats out for cargo and it would haul a new AC condenser of most brands. The back door provided access to tools that I haven’t matched yet in a truck. I couldn’t replace my little farm truck with a wagon but if I were still in the trades I probably would still be driving them.
For what I wanted a two door wagon made no sense but that’s what I have right now. My 57 is impractical compared to the 77 but I can’t sell it. Promised my kid he could have it when I go on to greener pastures. A very near project is to put it under a roof. Not many tin worms here in east Texas but there is rain and the drivers side door rubber has recently failed.
The fuel economy probably had more to do with the minivan replacing the wagon than anything else. It got my 57 parked at 13mpg. Lots less miles now so I am focused on it to the extent my ADD lets me focus on anything.
Back in the early 1970’s a neighbor had two cars for sale – a red and white 1957 Colony Park wagon and a turquoise and white 1957 New Yorker 4-door hardtop. I drove them both and decided that I liked the way the New Yorker handled. Of course the fact that the Merc needed mufflers didn’t help its cause either. I ended up with the New Yorker, which would turn out to be the first of many Chrysler products I owned. Well, almost the first – my second car ever, in 1958, was a 1935 Dodge DU 4-door. Oh, and then there was the 1955 Dodge sedan I owned for less than a month. But it was still the New Yorker that got me hooked on Chrysler products. And this comment is straying further and further off-topic….
Around here unless I’m only going a couple of miles it is a very rare day that I don’t see at least one Panther box out on the road or in a parking lot, sometimes it’s 2 or 3, but yes the Wagons are a rarity spotting maybe only 1 or 2 a month. Certainly some of it is due to the fact that even back when they were new station wagons, at least the larger versions were already falling out of favor so there just weren’t near as many made. The figures I show are that at the beginning of the boxes they acounted for ~20% or sales and at the end ~10% for the CV and only ~5% for the GM. Add in the fact that a lot of the Panther boxes I see on the road are Town Cars and of course there never was a TC wagon it isn’t that surprising.
BTW am I the only one who remembers Al Borland’s Mercury Colony Park on one episode of Home Improvement? When Tim started to make fun of him for having a wagon Al claimed it had a balanced and blueprinted 302 under the hood. Car looked like this…
I remember that! I felt as defensive as Al about it!
“being made fun of..” is why conformist consumers moved away from wagons and bought into big trucks. We are a society that likes to joke on others, but people should stick to their cars and not ‘conform’ to avoid ‘jokes’.
The 1960 Mercury Colony Park Wagon was the ultimate wagon made by the Ford Motor Company.
This car was big! From the massive curved windshield to the rear-most storage area behind the second row of seats.
My family owned one of these cars throughout the 1960s. My father’s car was a black colony park was a tan interior. What a great car to travel the new US Interstate highway in!
This was the car the that I learned to drive in. This was my first car.
Fifty two years later it still has beautiful flowing lines.
Take a look at this 1957 Colony Park Wagon.
From the A pillar through the D Pillar, you can see the shared lineage with 1960 Mercury wagons.
However, the 1957 Colony Park styling is a definitely a 1950s car. The 1960 Colony Park styling is much more refined and reflects the next generation of American cars.
At the beginning of the 1957 model year, the Mercury Station Wagons had single headlamp setups.
The dual headlamp setup of the late 1957 model year was adapted from the Turnpike Cruiser concept car
Here is a shot of the interior. There was a tremendous amount of room in the front seat.
The 1960 Mercury was the second FoMoCo wagon that my Dad owned. His prior wagon was a 1956 Ford Wagon.
This vehicle had the Lee Iaccoca inspired “safety package” with a padded dash and seat belts
The 1960 Mercury seemed like a tremendous leap forward in style, comfort and performance over the 1956 Ford.
The attached picture shows the “top-of-the-line” 1956 Ford Country Squire.
I recall reading somewhere that the ’60 full size Mercury was so wide it was barely legal in some states. I like the voluptuous transitional blend of 50’s and 60’s styling.
I have two words for you: Opera Lights!
Yes, these are becoming an extremely rare sight in the wild. In 2002 I stumbled upon a 1991 CP with 61,000 miles in close to showroom condition. For a mere $4,500 it solved the issue of what we would use to tow a folding camper without falling into the expense of a “me too” SUV. 10 years, an appearance at Ford’s centennial in 2003, three trips from Minnesota to Orlando with 3 kids, and now hauling two kids stuff to and from college.
In comparison to the vans and SUV’s that litter the suburbs today, I suspect it is not as fuel inefficient as most would think. All three trips to Forida netted 21.5 mpg cruising 70-75 mph with the A/C on, 5 people and luggage. On ocassions when I need to use it as a daily driver tanks routinely average 18 mpg. 15 – 18 mpg when towing the camper.
And the thick velour upholstery and navy blue interior is unlike anything available today.
A significant difference between the Colony Park and the Country Squire is in the trim that surrounds the di-noc. The Ford has the simulated wood while the Mercury has the “chrome” trim with wood insert. The Ford trim has a clear covering that peels, then gets dirt caught underneath and eventually looks like crap. And it happens on EVERY one, even those that pop up on E-Bay in low mileage showroom condition. Because of the chrome trim, I always found the Mercury to look much classier than the Ford.
I’d love to find a broughamed-out 69-70 Colony Park, preferably in that dark forest green which seemed to be popular on those. And the 429 engine, of course.
My grandmother decided back in 1996 that she wanted one of these. I picked out a 1991 CP in white with all the options for her. Grandpa bought it for her. She loved that car, as did I and my best friend James. She would let us borrow the car and we truly enjoyed it. I was behind the wheel when it turned over 100k.
Several years later my grandpa’s sister was in need of a car, so he took it to Virginia and gave it to her. Grandma was heartbroken, especially after she found out the next year that it was traded for an econobox.
I love these things…Just imagine if there were panther wagons from the mid-90s-present..what a missed opportunity..
I never got to drive one, but in’99 I (at 18) talked my dad into buying an ’84 Caprice wagon, as a 3rd car, for $1400. If I could have one car from my past back, that one might be it. It had the 305 with a 700r4, and would get about 21mpg on the hwy..
If my memory serves me, I think the all GM wagons were only offered with the 307 Olds after about 1986 or ’87, but the Chevy sedans continued with the 305.
My Dad had a 1982 Country Squire that we bought from our neighbor with 6,000 miles on it. She said it was too big and couldn’t handle it. The color was medium fawn glow with matching leather interior – just like the picture of the green interior above. It truly was like driving a Lincoln station wagon! It was loaded with every option. I remember the 302 V-8 as being sluggish but it was decent on gas and reliable. In fact, my father owned GM wagons for many years and he liked this Ford even better. I learned how to drive in that car and loved it! I remember carrying 11 friends in it to a concert and it handled the weight perfectly! It was sad to see it go – he sold it in 1987 to get a new Nissan Maxima. It had well over 100,000 miles on it but still looked brand new. It was the person who bought it that ruined it in about 6 months. I remember my Dad coming home and saying he saw our old wagon at CVS all smashed up. He knew it was ours because they still had the Red Sox sticker and Bryant College sticker in the back window I had put there years before. Sad ending to a great car.
I am a proud owner of a 1988 CP and I would not get rid of it unless my life depended on it. I am the second owner and it has 175,000 miles and is running strong. Restoration began this december of 2012. I cant wat for the compleation. I will share the photo of befor and after at that time.
I know this is an old post but I must respond to the comments claiming that a mini-van is more efficient. I have had an Aerostar and a Villager mini van. I just this week picked up a 1991 Colony Park and drove it 960 miles home in a single day and still had enough stamina that I could have gone a couple more hours with ease. No other car I have had would have left me in as good of shape. Running a consistent 70 MPH I got just as good of mileage as either of these mini-vans ever did.
The CP can carry 6 people in comfort along with lots of luggage. In the vans you could have the people or the luggage but not both. My CP also has the rear jump seats so if a couple of folks are smaller one can haul up to 8 with some luggage. Forget trying to get sheetrock or plywood in the mini-vans also. That isn’t very efficient in my mind.
The Villager was wrong wheel drive too so if you try to tow you are taking weight off of the drive wheels. The Aerostar was better in this regard because it was RWD and body on frame construction but the wagon is still a better deal in my book. The longer wheelbase of the wagon also makes for more stable towing.
You can have the mini-van, I’ll take the wagon in a heart beat.
I don’t know how comfortable 6 would be in the front two seats of a box Panther wagon. Between my eldest son and I we have two Panthers (93 CV and an 89 MGM). They would be quite comfy for four, but sticking that third person in the middle (unless a little kid) would be miserable, particularly in front. The benefit of the minivan is that each of the two rear rows accommodate 2 nicely, so you can seat six, all comfortably.
I will admit that I never lived with a wagon, but did live with 2 kids in car seats and an 85 CV sedan. Very shortly after a 15 hour one way trip, it was traded on a Club Wagon, and I never looked back.
I own two of these wagons- a 1989 and a 1990, one woody, one not. Heads turn everywhere I go, and I am sure the neighbors must think I am crazy!
Cool! I don’t think I’ve ever seen a non-woody Colony Park. LTD wagons of this vintage, yes, but not the Mercury.
Got any pictures of your wagons?
One time in Spring of 2008 I’ve seen an olive green Mercury Colony Park without the wood trim, I believe it was either a 1969 or 1970 model, it appeared to be in good shape although it was missing its wheel covers.
No thinking you’re crazy here. I own an ’88 and ’89 Grand Marquis Sedans, along with an ’89 Town Car Signature Series. Best cars I’ve ever owned. I’ve been driving the ’89 Mercury since 1997.
To any current or former CP owners: I’m thinking about buying a wagon to replace my aging ’05 Jeep Liberty. We travel around the country and tow a 3500lb travel trailer. I just love the way they look, and their beastly size… Care to share any experiences with towing capacity? Am I crazy??
I have a 91 CP with the trailer package. I tow a trailer weighing about 2800# loaded and I don’t even notice it’s back there. No problems with braking or acceleration or handling. The standard CP mirrors are not the best for trailering though. Fuel economy suffers, but not less than 15 mpg.
Forget the Family Truckster. I want to go to Wally World in this !
I am a very proud owner of a 91 Colony Park that I bought from an estate with only 52,000 miles in 2015. It is Medium Rosewood with wood trim, cinnabar leather interior and every option except the Instaclear windshield. Everywhere I go with this car (which is my summer car) it amazes me the attention it gets. Most people are shocked when I tell them it’s a 1991, as most guess in the 70’s. It is comfortable (but I do miss lumbar support), powerful and elegant. My fuel economy has been around 20 mpg. I couldn’t be happier driving this beauty down the road.
I have this exact color combo! But mine’s an 89. It has 188K miles. Someone was bad with oil changes, needs rings. had trans rebuild because someone didn’t replace the TV grommet.
It’s an LS w/the velour cloth, electronic hvac, single exhaust, premium sound. I added the trip minder and factory dual exhaust to it. I love driving it – great riding car.
That f#cking TV grommet was the death of too many of Ford’s Panthers. An extra $2 spent would have saved many headaches, but Ford got cheap.
For the benefit of the ignorant (i.e. me) can you please explain what a TV grommet is? (Google search isn’t helping me out with this.)
I have an ’89 Crown Vic wagon — a beauty in what seems to be great shape, and I’d like to make sure she stays that way.
This video explains what it is.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM_
52,000 miles? You dog!
I also owned a 91 LS in the Navy Blue with matching leather interior. I bought it in ’94 with 91,000 show room new miles (really). I drove it to 160K before it was totaled by a drunk driver in ’00. Fortunately none of us were hurt. I always said that car would follow us to hell and bring us back.
It was one of many, many wagons (most Ford products) owned over the decades.
Having had, driven, and enjoyed a 1976 Grand Marquis,
I would love to have a 1975-1978 Colony Park.
I will never forgive the SUV’s for killing them. Here the station wagons are back.
But they do not get any better than they were back then.
In 1975, I helped a neighbor move his family and boat from Northen Virginia to Atlanta Georgia. He drove his ’68 Torino GT convertible, and I shared driving their ’69 Colony Park, with his wife. That thing was exactly like the one in the ad here, and the huge 429 V8 would pass anything but a gas station!
While it wasn’t a Colony Park or Caprice, I loved my ’71 Audi wagon. The boxy cargo bay wouldn’t hold a sheet of plywood, but it would swallow a standard size appliance like a washing machine or a chest freezer, and still leave room for four people. Plus the 30 mpg fuel economy of a small car, and the ride, handling and snow capability of a FWD Audi made it my (almost) perfect car for 12 years.
In 1990, it finally got replaced by a small, more reliable ’87 Isuzu pickup with a cap – mainly because finding parts for an ancient Audi became nearly impossible.
As for vans, mini or otherwise, those aren’t an option. Since I don’t buy new, I need to be able to work on my vehicles. Not counting the first generation, underpowered Chrysler minivans, all the rest have the engines buried in a hole under the windsheild.
So I still have a soft-spot for a real wagon.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Not a lot of choices in Wagons these days. I would love to have a wagon. The Ford Flex reminds me of a depot hack. Needs DiNoc. LOL.
I recently bought a 2007 Ford Edge, which is called a crossover, but is not much more than a wagon with bigwheels and a sloped back window and hatch door instead of tailgate. Based on Fusion platform. The new “crossovers” are based on car platforms, like the wagons of old were. Same with toyota Versa, which is more or less a Camry wagon. Just they have a new shape so they don;t have the negative image associated with the “lowly” station wagon.
So the age of the wagon is now the age of the crossover, which is just a fancied up name for a wagon. And I’m finding that the Edge has held a chest freezer and a 48″ dining room table. Had to remove legs to turn it sideways to get thru the hatch, but then it laid down flat. If I would have had a helper, it may have went in with legs on it.
I do hate I haven’t been able to own a GM last gen wagon though. Any of them would be fine. Maybe someday.
I’d like to take a Ford Flex and rebadge it as a Mercury. Avocado green or mustard yellow, or a cream colour. Apply some woodgrain, replace the pleather with something more broughamy.
Ford brought the Flex. A respectable wagon that is a total CC in a few years.
Few people under the age of 50 can understand what a Suburban Status Symbol it was for the WWII/Korean Conflict generation to have a Ford (or even better, more upscale Mercury) station wagon in their driveway.
I’m a wagon lover but I have mixed feelings about these things. On the one hand, they were smaller, more manouverable and had vastly better outward vision and a much better commanding seating position than their predecessors. But on the other hand they had awkward styling and a very long box hanging out the back that just didn’t look quite right to me. I always thought the downsized big Chevy wagons were better looking.
The ’88-’91 models were much better, smoother looking and I’d probably go for one of these if I was in the market for a full-size wagon (with wood, of course). But they still weren’t as pretty or elegant looking as the ’75-’78 models.
Today’s SUVs just don’t compare to the old wagons, they have rear ends that are just too short so cargo room is compromised; most look ugly to me and I don’t want a vehicle that’s 8 feet tall that you have to climb up into. No thanks.
I was raised in 50s-60s-70s FoMoCo wagons, so they’re a treasured memory and there’s no way I can be impartial about ’em.
Would the market return for a full-sized one? Perhaps not. But I *love* my Taurus wagon, however cat-fishy in some folks’ eyes, and would kill to import one of the recent Mondeo wagons, which seem wonderfully right-sized:
that era Mondeo wagon (aka the Contour in the US) would be pitifully small, as a 6’2″ person, my Contour was in reality a 4 door, two seater car, as the legroom behind me was nonexistent.
I prefer the last of the box Mercury’s. I always thought they looked the sharpest and most cohesive over the LTD, just was let down by a rather generic dash.
Driven by “Sue Ellen Ewing” in “Dallas”.
funny you mention that, I was driving by Southfork Ranch yesterday on my way home in my Rendezvous…
Did I miss it, or did no one mention Sarah Jessica Parker?
http://comediansincarsgettingcoffee.com/sarah-jessica-parker-a-little-hyper-aware
Although I generally prefer the GM B/C body to the Panthers, in the wagon body style I prefer the Ford product in some ways. GM reserved its most luxurious interiors for the longer C body which was only available as a sedan or coupe. Things like those huge full-length armrests with big lights on them didn’t make it into GM wagons but did on Fords and Mercurys. The door trim along with the Twin Comfort Lounge Seats and silvery gauges resembled those used on the C-body Buick Park Avenue and were more plush than anything available on the B-body wagons. I also liked the optional swinging vent windows which GM had long ago ceased offering. The twin center-facing seats in the way-back were roomier, more sociable, and just cooler than the GM’s rear-facing third row, although the General’s setup was probably safer.
IF there were going to be big boat wagons again like the Mercury Colony Park, Buick Electra Estate and Chrysler Town & Country, yes, count me in.
All the silly little hatchback/sport wagon crap-no.
I didn’t like fake wood sides when these were new and I don’t like em now. Just like vinyl roofs, when these are 30 or so years old ( which is my prime buying bracket since I don’t like paying more than a few hundred dollars for a car) they are hiding a whole lot of sin. Expensive to fix sin.
About 5 years ago a beautiful southern 1990 Caprice Estate wagon was spotted at a used car dealer by one of my friends so we just had to take a look. It was so nice and clean my buddy was seriously considering it. It was the classic trim level with the 50/50 front seats and twin armrests trimmed in dark blue. Surprisingly it did not have exterior woodgrain but did have wire wheels which looked like new still. Despite having a hair over 100K miles on the clock the 307 ran like a watch but was rather gutless on the open road despite having the optional 3.23 trailer towing gears.
It was a darn shame that GM didn’t offer the 5.7 TBI engine like Cadillac did in the 1990 Brougham or he might have sprung for it despite the fact they were asking 4200 bucks for it.
Today’s generation of the Ford Escape is very much a wagon. With Ford’s emphasis on the Bronco and Maverick, this is the new role of the Escape. The COVID lockdown impacted sales for the past couple of years, but it will be interesting if Ford found a possible niche with the Escape.
Auto Forecast Solution projects the Escape goes out of production December 2025, leaving Bronco Sport as Ford’s only small ICE powered crossover. There will be a small EV crossover built at Louisville starting in 2026 or 2027, but not clear if it will be Escape or Bronco Sport variant
In my humble opinion, pretty much all the “SUV’s” on the market right now are just wagons with more ground clearance. Call them CUV’s, or just wagons, which is the term I use… and it peeves some folks a bit.
The line I draw between the new-age wagons/CUV’s and true SUV’s is fairly clear. If it can be had, standard or optionally, with a high/low range transfer case or center diff then it’s an SUV. Some are body on frame, some not.