(first posted 1/8/2016) As George Washington once said, I cannot tell a lie. Saying I don’t have a certain, indescribable attraction to full-sized Mercury models between roughly 1963 and 1978 would be a bigger whopper than anything ever served up at Burger King. The upside is exposure to this particular Monterey has prompted some clarity about this minor quirk of my mine.
Let me take a moment to explain.
We all have those moments that have stuck with us from our impressionable years of being children. After much contemplation and introspection, I may have determined what helped create my terminal and wonderful yet inexplicable infatuation with the big girls from the winged messenger.
Part of it can be traced to these two people who married around 1918. Not only did my great-grandfather Isaac truncate our surname down to six letters, one fateful day in the early 1920s they discovered my great-grandmother Allie was pregnant with the third of their five sons.
Grown up, third-born James Leland was likely the only person ever to have purchased two brand new Edsels. After Edsel evaporated James Leland transitioned to being a serial Mercury owner, but let’s face it – anybody who purchased two Edsels is a special case.
So Isaac and Allie can be credited for James Leland who inadvertently facilitated my innate passion for the big-boned goddesses of Mercury. By the time I came along in 1972, James was driving a 1970 Marquis that left a mighty big impression on my young, malleable mind (as did the bizarre and contrived stories he told a four-year old me on how he lost his left leg, but that’s for a different website).
Credit for my Mercury affinity can also be given to my parents as they let me watch way too much television as a youngster. I vividly remember being three years old and watching this square-jawed guy and his well-coiffed hair careening around some island in the Pacific, driving a 1968 Park Lane and, later, a 1974 Marquis. It’s hard to get past those initial impressions.
All this early psychological imprinting certainly facilitated the monumental level of giddiness I had after Kale called, wanting to show me his 1969 Monterey Custom.
Kale came across this Mercury outside of St. Louis earlier this year. Looking for a 9″ Ford differential and a stout drivetrain, Kale was told this Mercury was a rusted out pile of junk. So while the seller was grossly overstating the situation, Kale knew he had to purchase this Mercury. He immediately realized this Monterey was way too nice to part out and he has no desire to do so.
This Mercury was built May 21, 1969. Shipped to the St. Louis sales district, it was purchased new in Troy, Missouri. Originally owned by an older gentleman, the Monterey was used to pull a small RV camper.
The white on the roof is paint as this is a factory two-tone car.
Incidentally, this dealer is in the same town and just up the street from where reader Sevair‘s father purchased the 1979 Cadillac Seville Paul, Jim Klein, and I rode in at the 2014 CC meet-up in Auburn, Indiana.
Did I say this Mercury, in addition to being a charmer of epic proportions, has another 429 reasons for liking it lurking under the hood? That’s a full seven liters of neck snapping torque – excuse me; in my excitement, I’m getting ahead of myself. But I will say Mercury didn’t entertain the asthmatic straight-sixes and weak-chested small V8’s like Ford did during this time period. Mercury was a indeed a step above Ford – at least for a brief while.
At whatever point this Mercury was sold to another older gentleman. This second gentleman had a grandson who was turning sixteen and getting his driver’s license. Grandpa wanted his grandson to have a large, safe car to drive. Grandson hated it.
However Grandson did drive it. Being a young driver, he hit a road sign that fell and branded the hood. This is about the worst blemish on the entire car. And the rust the seller mentioned? Yes, there is about a six inch strip on the left rocker panel, right in front of the rear tire. It faces the ground and one has to look to find it; it hasn’t even perforated the metal.
It seems the grandson wasn’t the choir boy sort and is now under the long-term tutelage of the Missouri Department of Corrections. This Mercury Monterey sat for several years before Kale came along and he was warned any number of things may be found inside. Apart from an aftermarket stereo and some broken beer bottles in the trunk, the only thing of concern Kale found was the 1.3 meter long snake skin under the seat. Kale was clipping wires to the stereo upon his discovery and he has never made such a hasty retreat.
Despite the previous owner, the cloth and vinyl interior of this Mercury is quite remarkable.
The backseat looks even better. Given the ample room back here, let’s not think about what may have transpired with Mr. Non-Choir Boy.
Like any car, the biggest story is told in how well it runs and drives. Once upon a time, CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite had a show called You Are There. So in an effort to recreate the sheer glory of this Mercury, I triumphantly offer:
Your very own form of being there – just turn down the sound if you are at work. Keep in mind Kale had started this car exactly once prior during his ownership and that was two months ago. Before that time it had been sitting for the last five to seven years. This video shows it awakening from its two month slumber. We did discover it to be a quart low on oil after the initial start seen in the video.
So often before driving a car, most of us tend to anticipate certain behaviors. In the case of this Mercury, I had expected a lot of float, body roll, and quiet. Good thing nobody was keeping score.
As seen in the video, exhaust noise is present at speed but dual glass pack mufflers will make their presence known in any application.
What I found truly surprising was how well this Monterey carved through corners – it doesn’t drive like it’s on rails, but it isn’t a like water buffalo wearing ballet toe shoes, either. The road to Kale’s house is rather winding; to provide better comparison, I had driven my ’63 Ford Galaxie there. This Mercury, on its ancient tires, swooped through these same corners at speeds a good five to ten miles per hour faster and without the body lean experienced in the Galaxie. I’m curious how a set of non-aged tires would benefit this Mercury.
While I was driving the tires did squeal once while navigating a curve above the advisory speed.
The seating position is very comfortable although the angle of the seat back is a degree or two reclined from ideal. Room for the driver is ample in every way possible, but this car isn’t some sprawling mass of living room furniture encapsulated in sheet metal. Visibility and maneuverability are both excellent for the era, easily masquerading its 124″ wheelbase.
It has disc brakes up front, allowing me to easily and quickly scrub velocity from this 3,968 pound Mercury. While the steering is heavily boosted, any input results in immediate and noticeable course correction. It isn’t 1970s era Ford Delayed Response™ steering.
Earlier I mentioned there being 429 compelling reasons residing under the hood for liking this car. While the FE Series 390 cubic inch (6.4 liter) V8 was standard issue, this car was built with Ford’s 385 Series 429 cubic inch V8 (7.0 liter) with 320 horsepower being generated under its two-barrel carburetor. However, somewhere along the way, the two-barrel in this Mercury was jettisoned for a four-barrel Holley. In original equipment form this would have been good for an additional forty horsepower; torque is around 450 lbs-ft.
This car is delightfully powerful and the torque will push your head back even during moderate acceleration. During harder acceleration, the force on your head pulls at the edges of your mouth, causing a wonderful fertilizer-ingesting grin. It’s the snappiest accelerating car I’ve ever driven of this size and of any car equipped with a 2.75:1 rear axle ratio. Ample torque can easily camouflage gearing.
All these elements combine into this Mercury hitting a really sweet spot.
That sweet spot is from this Monterey having one foot firmly planted in a higher quality and more tasteful 1960s era adornment with safety features facing the future. It’s the best of many worlds – unencumbered with an emissions strangled engine, a more contemporary braking system, and power steering and brakes that aren’t ludicrously over boosted. It also does not have the novocaine infused suspension settings and plasticized interior the Monterey and Marquis would gain in the early 1970s.
This is likely one of the most drivable and pleasant examples of this platform.
Unfortunately, this translated into the mid-range Monterey Custom being the poorest selling full-sized Mercury behind the base Monterey and top-tier Marquis.
Mercury sold exactly 7,103 Monterey Custom four-door sedans, the most-popular body style of Monterey Custom. All Monterey Customs had a front seat center arm rest, leather door pulls, and rear dome lights.
This Monterey appears to have influenced the Australian ZH series Fairlane that would come along in the mid-1970s.
Oddly, an automatic transmission still wasn’t standard fare despite 99.7% of Monterey Customs having one. This translates to around 440 Monterey Customs having a three-speed column-shifted manual transmission. How times have changed; what manufacturer now would gear up anything for such a ridiculously low take rate?
Speaking of ridiculously low take rates, one has to wonder how many Montereys were sold to the boys in blue. At the time, Mercury was quite the popular police cruiser, being used by the highway patrol (or equivalent) in Indiana, Missouri, and Iowa in 1969.
Going further with low take rates, these ground pounders were all equipped with the 428 cubic inch (7.0 liter) Ford FE Series engine due to the ability of its lighter rotating mass winding up quicker. This engine was not available in the retail Monterey as only the 390 and 429 were offered.
source: hemmings.com
California followed suit in 1970, purchasing just over 1,800 Monterey cruisers.
This piece starting with explanation of my fondness for the full-sized Mercury. It is safe to say I do suffer from some degree of Mercury poisoning, but there are worse things to endure.
One of those would be to own this sweet Mercury and having a need to sell it.
Yes, Kale is reluctantly and painfully putting this Monterey up for sale.
The odometer states it has 83,000 miles.
Kale has been amazed at its overall solidity. The doors close better than those in some new cars and this Mercury is free of rattles and air leaks.
These pictures were taken January 1, 2016, and the ambient air temperature was right at freezing. While Kale was driving it (we took turns), we realized the gasoline we were burning was a good five years old.
This Monterey isn’t perfect, but is in remarkable shape. It would benefit from some carburetor adjustment, replacement of rubber parts, and fluid changes. It’s doubtful the factory air conditioning is still holding a charge of refrigerant.
If you are interesting in purchasing this Mercury, please email me at mercury.enthusiast@gmail.com. I will put you in touch with Kale.
This Mercury sits on a platform that sold 7.8 million units, Ford’s most successful platform after the Model T. While I do suffer from Mercury poisoning, that affliction has been given such an unfortunate negative connotation.
Related reading with more full-sized Mercury goodness:
That’s a nice one ! .
I hope it goes to a good owner .
-Nate
Another CCer with Mercury poisoning here. They’re the first cars I look for at shows or in magazines.
What a great color combination.
+1.
I just woke up — it’s 3:30AM here on the West Coast — and I must say having owned a humongous 1969 Mercury Colony Park station wagon myself that I bought bought unseen in Arkansas from an online lead in the Yahoo! station wagon group (does anyone Yahoo! anymore?), drove it to my parents in NJ then to Florida replicating family trips from the 1960s — and other than driving a Ford GT and a Dodge Viper from London to Maranello and back in 2005, never did I have more fun on a road trip. I guess that means I have Mercury poisoning as well.
This looks like quite a find and if the price is reasonable, is going to provide some new owner/enthusiast more automotive enjoyment than some unknowing person with more money than brains driving some new Italian exotic.
I’m posting a link to this wonderful story on my Facebook page. I have a feeling that more than one of my almost 4,000 friends and followers are going to enjoy reading this with their morning coffee as much as I did.
Great job Jason Shafer. I tip my cap to you. You started my day with a smile.
Here’s my take on Mercury poisoning, written almost eight years ago.
http://bit.ly/MercuryOceanDrive
Thank you for sharing the link to this article. This Mercury sorely tempted me but I simply have no place to put it.
Your article was great and your trip sounds awesome! Having made an 1,100 mile journey in a 1963 model this past summer, such trips are unparalleled fun but can be equally frustrating at times.
Now you know why I am seriously thinking of taking the 67 Park Lane on a 600 miles trip this April during my son’s spring break. Of all the cars I have, and that includes my very first car a Cougar, I get the most pleasure driving the full size beast. Smooth, quiet, not bad handling and lots of power. One would be surprised how fast you can go from 60-100 and yet not really feel like it.
Remember reading this in Classic American magazine, thank you for a great read Richard.
That was a long time ago Gem. Are you in the UK?
In the UK, many happy memories of holidays in America as a child in the 60s & 70s. I’m a long time American car fan having grown up near a USAF base, Dad had 2 Falcons, a Dart & an Aussie Valiant in the 60s & 70s.My first interest in Mercurys came with the 67 Cougar having seen a new lime frost green car in 1967, it remains my all time favourite American car. My first American car was a 64 Mercury Comet 4 door sedan with a 6 then a 69 AMC Javelin 6 which later became my big brother’s first American car then he sold it to my younger sister.
The white 70 Colony Park woody featured in Classic American early last year was a frequent sight in Blackpool’s South Shore area during last summer’s punk rock festival and airshow
My first car was a 1968 Lime Frost Cougar with black vinyl interior and roof! That car stayed in our family for over 10 years and survived several collisions.
Do you still have any photos? I finally got to drive a first generation Cougar in 2000. It was a black cherry 68 with 302 4 barrel auto.
This Monterey has the following thought repeating
through my mind:
“Hi! My name’s Friday.”
😉
For me it’s “Bookem, Danno.”
re: Seatback Ashtrays
Was following an older car like this some years ago when
suddenly it started driving erratically, then quickly pulled off
to the side. In my rear view I saw light smoke coming out
of the windows.
I signaled, pulled over, and did the most dangerous 500′
reverse in my driving history, within a car length of the
aforementioned rolling inferno. I got out to check on
everyone, but they were already out and one was calling
for help on their mobile.
Turns out one of the back seat passengers improperly
extinguished their cigarette in one of those seat back
ashtrays, and the combination of that and an unseen
scrap of paper caught the f___ng SEAT ON FIRE!
?
“Given the ample room back here, let’s not think about what may have
transpired with Mr. Non-Choir Boy.”
Is that a ‘Mystic River’ reference? 🙂
Sweet! I vividly remember these from when they were new. My 10 year old self concluded that Mercury had finally turned a corner and would sell a lot of cars. My father had a dark green 69 or 70 Marqis loaner for a week or so. I remember it as really nice.
That interior is really, really nice.
Another poisoning victim here. I rode in and drove a 69 Colony Park a family friend owned from Davenport to LA in 1974. Wyoming had no speed limit at the time and the thing would easily eat miles for hours going 80-90. Same interior as the Custom but in a dark blue plaid.
And of course my parent’s 66 Montclair in Palisades Turquoise [ same interior color as the 69 above ] was the car that set off the bon fire. First love and all that.
I think this Mercury comes off better than the Marquis simply because it’s less “Broughamed” than the Marquis.
Jason: you’ll be happy to know McGarret’s 68 was found, with documentation, after a long search and treated to a restoration a few years ago. I cannot remember the name of the magazine I read it in, but the buyer was a fan of both the car and the show. The car itself was probably one of several but for some reason IIRC this is the one actually seen in the show and not a “double” for stunts and such.
“Tiny”, the 66, got it’s automotive wings decades ago, but it still sets the standard for me in ride and quiet. If the Ford was quieter than a Rolls Royce, the Mercury must be even better.
What a sad waste of a brand and resources, Ford. I’m surprised they didn’t put a waterfall grille on the Fiesta and chrome strips on the tail lights and call it a Meteor.
” I’m surprised they didn’t put a waterfall grille on the Fiesta and chrome strips on the tail lights and call it a Meteor.”
In Australia they darn near did just that, except it was a Mazda, not a Fiesta.
Nooooo. Shameless.
http://www.mjq.net/fiveo/50mercury.htm
Link to the story here. Surprisingly, this is the only ’68 shoot car used on the show. The ’74 had no stand-ins either.
There was one episode where the ’68 was supposedly blown up, but a close look reveals a ’65 LTD was subbed.
Having watched the original Five-O shows again, it strikes me as another example of the “Main Characters Do Everything” trope. Really, a police captain doing field work? Same goes for Star Trek.
This reflects “John Wayne” individualism; Americans didn’t get off watching more realistic teamwork. Modern Police Procedurals have gotten a little better about that.
Also known as “Economy Casting”. It’s cheaper when you only need your main characters and some non-speaking extras.
Thanks for the link. I didn’t know it was just the one car.
So many times the crash and burn stunt cars are so obviously another year it’s not funny.
One of Rita Hayworth’s last movies called “The Bastard”, a 66 Dodge turns into a 65 and back, a Ford LTD becomes a Torino and back and a 61 Ford Ranch Wagon becomes a 62 and back again.
None of them are blown up, but it’s an Italian film and I would imagine availability might not have been consistent.
In those shows, old cars were as doomed as Star Trek security men.
The ‘Red Shirts’ of the automotive world.
Love it. Great writeup.
>>It also does not have the novocaine infused suspension settings and plasticized interior the Monterey and Marquis would gain in the early 1970s.<<
Tell me about it. My parents had a '71 or '72 Colony Park wagon, and that thing had about as much connection to the road as a hovercraft.
I nearly wrote Aussie Fairlane on the clue but I knew you hadnt found one of those but this is really close, nice lookin car with plenty of grunt under the hood it should go ok
Didn’t Aussie Fords use bigger Mercury engines at one time when Mercury was an actual step up from a Ford?
They sold Mercurys in the 1940s with Mercury engines, I’d need to check what else they used them in but I’m pretty sure they were used in the war and possibly trucks afterwards.
I was going to note how similar the ZH Fairlane looks too, there is a real little-brother vibe there; 8″ shorter wheelbase and 18″ shorter overall, 300lb lighter (going on a 4200-lb curb weight), and just a little slower and more economical with the 351C engine.
This looks like a great classic for someone, I’m glad it was saved.
I have three Mercurys. A 74 Montego that’s been in the family since new, 75 Comet that is very rare because out of 31,000 4Drs built that year only 388 are 200’s with stick and only 2 of those have factory AC ( thanks Kevin marti), and a 76 Grand Marquis I bought in cherry condition for $700 back in 02. So I also have mercury fever.
Any idea on the value of this car? You said you’ve owned a few Mercurys, just thought you may have a idea.
This might well be one of the top ten all-time Curbside Classics.
I’m not a Mercury man, but this car absolutely sways me toward the cause. This is just perfect. Low miles, solid but not perfect, a white-roofed pillared sedan…. swooooooon!
The only thing that would make this sweeter in my book is if it was a Canadian Meteor, which looked almost identical outside but had the Ford interior and the strange left-hand radio dash.
This one has the visual check panel option, quite rare,
especially on a lower-line model (the four little rectangles in the center panel, low fuel, door ajar, headlights-on and seat-belt) .
That option was usually bundled with vacuum locks, but this one lacks it. Also, based on the location of the cockeyed aftermarket radio antenna, I’d say it was also ordered with a power antenna, which the factory placed there instead of on the front fender, but is evidently long gone.
Having said that, I prefer the Marquis. I’m a sucker for hideaway headlights I guess.
Very fine auto there, although my Mercury sweet spot is 58-64 that would be a compelling candidate for a Roadkill-esqe fly in and drive home trip.
Wonderful photo of your great grandparents as well.
Thank you. That picture so perfectly captures the time period of post World War I.
Given that it was used for towing, maybe a trailer-towing suspension upgrade explains its less flabby than usual roadholding.
That 429 brings back memories of the one in Dad’s ’70 Squire. A good if thirsty engine. My late Uncle was into Mercurys, having owned a ’70s Marquis & ’68 Cougar.
Now that’s a Mercury even I could love.
I’m curious about what you said regarding the police cars having 428s instead of the 429. That seems a bit odd. And the statement about the 428 “winding up faster” doesn’t really make any sense, as in a 4000+ lb car with an automatic,the engine is going to be held back by the mass its trying to accelerate, not its internal rotational inertia.
Internal rotational inertia is really only an issue with serious race/performance cars that rev to very high engine speeds between closely-spaced shifts. It’s essentially irrelevant in a…big Mercury.
May I ask what the source of the 428 being used in police cars because of its rotational mass is?
If anything, the FE is a more lethargic & lazy winder-upper than the 385 series.
Why the 428 was kept is unclear, perhaps it was simply viewed as a proven package with a good service record.
Having said that, back in October I had some correspondence with the webmaster of this site, who’s a second generation Minnesota state trooper.
http://www.marooncruisers.com/
Originally, the topic was the police cars used on Fargo Season 2. I then queried him about something he mentioned in the 1969 section. He stated that the Fords used that year had 429-4Vs.
I asked him if he was sure about that, and attached the following image.
He said he’d check with some old timers he knew and get back to me.
When he did, he was adamant they were 4-barrel 429s, an engine supposedly unavailable for police use. He wondered if there was a revision to the brochure, to which I replied, the situation was the same in the 1970 listings.
I guess when you’re a large volume fleet buyer, you get what you want, regardless of what the official literature says.
Sometime in the mid-60s, didn’t Dodge have a wheelbase 1/2″ longer than retail simply the troopers in California?
Yes. The ’65 Polara had a 121″ WB. CHPs wanted 122″. They got it.
What I’m not clear on is how. Did they just move the axle 1″ back on the springs or what?
I believe so.
I’ve heard similar stories about nearly identical Dodges and Plymouths being built on the same assembly line and the Dodges had the rear axles pushed back slightly to give them a longer wheelbase than Plymouths, although I’m not exactly certain how.
According to my Ford factory parts manual, the police cars were equipped with 428’s in 1969-70 while civilian cars got 429-4Vs. That said, keep in mind that many police depts. from that era may not have purchased police package cars, which could explain the 429-4V’s making it into some police cars.
Would love to have one with the 240 and stick.
I found the Mercury information in “Ford Police Cars – 1932 to 1997” by Edwin Sanow. I purchased the book shortly after it was published in the late ’90s.
These cars having a 428 struck me as odd also; the book also stated the 428 engine weighed less than the 429 by about 75 lbs. The “winding up faster” is how the book described it but might that have been a function of now propelling a car that weighed 75 pounds less? You’re right, that really doesn’t make much difference in a 4000 pound car.
I was just about to call BS on the FE being lighter than the 385, since the latter is thinwall casting and lacks block skirts, but first I went here and checked.
At least according to this site, it’s true! And PI engines used an aluminum intake that took off another 55 pounds over the retail version.
http://www.gomog.com/allmorgan/engineweights.html#engine
I’m not at all surprised about the FE being lighter, as it’s a “medium” block engine, not really a big block. The 385 engines replaced the MEL engine, and most likely used the same bore spacing.
The MEL and 385 series both used 4.9″ bore spacing, while the FE used 4.630″ bore spacing. That said, I know I have discussed this before, but I disagree with the labelling of the FE as a medium block, when it has a bore spacing larger than a Pontiac and Olds 455, or a Caddy 429. It certainly is fairly close in physical size to other so called “big blocks” made by other manufactures. Then again, I also don’t label Ford engines with big and small block anyway since these are Chevrolet nick names.
Further, the 385 series was designed to replace both the FE and the MEL engine families. All the 400+ cubic inch FE’s eventually became 385 series engines. The smaller FE’s were replaced by the 335 series engines.
Jason’s correct. The Mercury police interceptors in ’69-’70 (as with the Ford P.I.’s) had the 428, an engine unavailable in to the public, which got the 429. (See E.J. Sanow’s excellent book, Ford Police Cars 1932-1997). The 429 was from an entirely different engine family.
Recall that in the mid ’60’s Dodge added to the wheelbase of CHP cars to meet the 122″ minimum requirement. The CHP had a good deal of clout then, as many other LE agencies just followed their lead.
Got it. I was questioning the comment about “winding up faster”.
Obviously lighter rotational mass will rev up faster. That’s the whole point of putting lightweight rims on a car. The engine components rotate at much higher RPMS than does the wheels so lightening the engine internals will have a greater impact on performance than lightening the wheels. If you think lightening the wheels of a big car will have no effect on performance because the weight of the car is great, you probably will never grasp the concept.
BTW, compression ratio also has a huge effect on the rate at which an engine will increase RPMs. My guess is that the 428 revs up faster mostly because of a higher compression ratio with the weight of the internals being a secondary factor.
Comparing stroke length (as others are doing on this thread) of the two engines is pointless. We are not talking about RPM in this case. We are talking about RPM per second…that is the RATE OF CHANGE of RPM.
John, no need to preach to me about this subject; I understand how it works. My point was that it’s essentially irrelevant in this application. And that the comment “winds up faster” was most likely a subjective one, without any likely basis in fact. Did the person who said it test the two engines side by side to come up with that observation? Not likely.
Which was my point all along.
I have all of Sanow’s books on police cars. His books are good, but still have some errors. The Ford book is the worst of his publications and has some significant errors in it. That said, it is still probably the best police car book that have been published on Ford police cars.
Check out this episode of Jay Leno’s show. They have a CHIPs Mercury on display.
Makes no sense to me either. The 429 has a 3.59 stroke, basically a small block stroke, and far shorter than even the 390 which is 3.78. 428 is 3.98. Which one should rev quicker? Hmmm….
I was going to say the same thing that the 428 has a much longer stroke and thus should rev slower and have a lower redline, all other things equal. Of course all other things are not equal when comparing a 428 and 429, however comparing the 428 to the 427 which are much closer to being equal in that they are the same engine family, and the shorter stroke, bigger bore 427 revs quicker and higher than the 428.
Had the same thought, although I expect the comparison was between a HWP 428 and a standard 429, so more in the tune than the physical characteristics of the engine.
I imagine that police departments would rather have the proven 428 rather than a high-output version of the brand-new 429.
“a water buffalo wearing ballet toe shoes”
That is exactly how I would describe the way my 1963 Ford behaves on tight, curved offramps. I think it may be time for new springs.
What a delightful writeup, which grabbed me early and provided lots of smiles along the way (including our uncommon purchaser of *two* new Edsels).
Memories come rolling back of Dad’s ’69 Mercury–I took my driver’s license test in one of these (back when parallel parking was still required), and was able to borrow the car for dates. Spacious interior for sure; pretty much anything two fit youngsters might do in the back seat got managed OK in the front seat. My 16-year-old then girlfriend is a gray-haired grandmother now–another reminder of time marching on.
The Mercury was likewise fast, and I once (alone) got it up to an indicated 117mph before chickening out.
Those interior fabrics were very sumptuous; can someone tell us if it’s the same stuff as the “panty cloth” of Ford’s mid-’60s LTDs.
Today’s car is sorely tempting–I’ll be secretly relieved if it finds a devoted next owner before I cave in and adopt it….
Go on, Sally. How long are New Year’s resolutions meant to last anyway?
And you’d look so cool piloting it around.
“However, Grandson did drive it. Being a young driver, he hit a road sign that fell and branded the hood.”
I thought he got mad at the car and shot it.
That was my first thought also, but the hole doesn’t go through the rib right beneath it. I’m sure this car could tell a few stories.
Monterey sold fairly well. But after ’73, Marquis took off and then was the whole line. Seems Mr and Mrs Avacado Suburbs loved hideaway headlights, 🙂
Wow, what a beautiful car, especially that interior. Absolutely perfect condition. And to think it was sold as a parts car! What the heck was the seller smoking?? Just needs a set of hubcaps (and a recharge or R134 conversion on the A/C) to be perfect.
The color is fantastic too. All other things being equal I’d probably go for a Marquis as well, having a thing for hidden lamps, but to find one in this “perfect imperfect” condition would be a very tall order.
How much is he asking? (Not that I have the room for it, nor the garage it deserves.)
A truly outstanding piece, Jason, and that Merc is a honey. As I was reading this, I though my comment was going to be about the frontal styling being similar to an Australian Ford I remember seeing a picture of (as you pointed out, the ZH Fairlane), but you had that covered. I love that this example is Howard Johnson’s-aqua. Aside from the cost of fuel, how amazing would it be to take a road trip in this beauty? I hope Kale finds a devoted buyer, and I’m sure he appreciates your help with the shout-out.
Thank you.
Your statement about a road trip and fuel costs has me thinking – for the ease with which this car will hit 70 mph, the fuel cost is going to be a pay to play scenario. Plus, with the article about the ’69 wagon above – where he realized 13 mpg – it wouldn’t be impossible. 13 isn’t anything to brag about but that’s better than my dad’s pollution strangled 302 got in a ’73 Torino.
Turns out Steve Miller was right all along. I love the 429. A friend of mine has a mildly built one in his ’78 full size Bronco (429/460 are directly interchangeable with 351M/400). Fun truck it is!
This Mercury was built May 21, 1969. Shipped to the St. Louis sales district, it was purchased new in Troy, Missouri.
Almost certainly built in Hazelwood. Mercs were their specialty in the pre-Aerostar/Explorer days.
That was something I had wondered about but didn’t get into that much depth of research. Sounds like it’s never been very far from its birth place.
No doubt the fact they were being cranked out on Lindbergh played some part in MSHP’s Mercury purchases. Why not throw a little love toward the home team, even if they weren’t quite the lowest bidder? It’s as old as politics itself.
Terrific write-up! I had an inherited 71 Marquis from my grandfather. Believe it or not I took my driver’s test in that car! My grandparents both got new Mercurys in 1971 from Pugmire Lincoln Mercury in Marietta, GA. My grandfather ordered a dark green 4 door Marquis sedan and my grandmother got a 2-door Monterey in black. I used to love seeing both of those trunks sticking out of the carport because they were too long. The Marquis (429-2bbl) was very dependable but unfortunately the Monterey (390 I think?) was in the shop a lot. Man, I miss those…
What’s the value of this car…. Any ideas out there ??
A very nice survivor car. I wish I could buy it. My great uncle was one of those very few owners that had a standard 3 speed on the column in his Mercury’s throughout the 50’s to the late 60″s when he died. He bought a new one every 2 or 3 years. My dad asked him once why he did not buy one with an automatic. His reply that it gave him more control while towing his 24′ travel trailer that he towed to Mexico and back every winter.
“It also does not have the novocaine infused suspension settings and plasticized interior the Monterey and Marquis would gain in the early 1970s.”
Fullsize Fords from 1965-78 essentially used the same suspension system front and rear. I don’t have the factory specs for Mercury, but I do for Ford. I compared the factory coil springs for a 1969 to a 1972 Ford with a 429. Depending on how the cars were optioned, the 1969 and 1972 cars actually used some of the same springs. However, the 1972 car was generally had a stiffer spring for the same application. For example the 1969 car might use the 6B spring for cars with 429 and A/C, which was stiffer than the 5A spring used in a car without A/C. While in 1972, the 6B spring was used on cars without A/C, while A/C cars used the even stiffer 8B springs.
It should be also noted that the steering in these cars didn’t really change over these years either. However, Ford did use two different types of steering boxes. Some cars had Ford manufactured boxes while others used Saginaw (GM) steering boxes.
Ford suspensions of this era get a bad rap. It is not that they were fundamentally flawed in design, it’s just that Ford often used overly soft springs and shocks. Cars equipped with heavy duty suspensions often had better handling with minor increases in spring rates and the use of firmer shocks. Keep in mind the front suspension design from these Fords (also shared with the BOF intermediate cars), was used for many years on the NASCARs.
Although I am not a fan of these big Mercs, this car is very nice and I am glad to see it’s not being parted out.
I’m a fan of many big Mercurys – ’64 – ’68, ’71 – ’72, ’75 – ’78. I have to admit, little about the ’69 – ’70 ever worked for me.
But, you’ve converted me on this one – great color combo, well equipped for a non Marquis level car, and indeed the exact sort of car an old retired dude would have bought in 1969 to pull a trailer.
I’ll argue that the interior is a reason why Olds, Buick and Pontiac were so much more successful in this sort of mid mid-price class. Cars like the Olds Delta 88 Royale sold circles around this car, and seemed much better trimmed and equipped. The single ashtray in the back of the front seat was economy class stuff at GM – I doubt any GM B body had this. An LTD Brougham would have been nicer inside – and sold a whole lot better for that reason.
Is it just me, or are the window cranks, particularly the rear doors, just a bit oddly located? I guess my brain was wired by big GM cars of this era.
But, time heals all wounds – I’d let this car hang around my house for a few years for the novelty of it.
Terrific review – I feel like I was there with you.
’69 Ford LTD Brougham interior – what the Monterey Custom should have had……
Good point on the interior. A close look at the door panel showed a lack of carpet along the bottom, a feature that even high trim Cutlasses had in the 60s. GM ruled the “nice interior” game of the 1960s. Neither Ford nor Chrysler was every quite in the same league until you got way high up the price ladder.
The interior of this car is very similar to that of my old 68 Newport Custom sedan. No carpet on the lower doors there, either, and the rest of the door panels were not as ornate (and certainly no pull straps). The seat upholstery looks quite nice, however. Probably much nicer than a base Monterey.
I will throw in with more love for this color combo. A family friend had a 69 Galaxie 500 convertible in this same authoritative shade of turquoise. The white painted roof was unusual on these. Black vinyl roofs probably adorned most of them.
Equipped with an interior like this, it would have encroached on Marquis territory.
The whole idea was/is to upsell buyers to more profitable models.
That’s a valid point, but I think there’s a root problem with how Mercury, and for that matter Chrysler, struggled with competing with GM’s B and C model range. There are exceptions, but Olds and Buick generally offered two trims on their B cars and two on the Cs. Mercury also had four basic trims in ’69, if you don’t count the Marauder.
The difference at GM, of course, was that the B and C bodies had a lot of differentiation, and the Cs were physically larger. So, if the high B trim and low C trim intersected, buyers still had something to differentiate the cars by.
Mercury was pushing out 4 trims on one basic body. That’s a LOT of parsing that buyers obviously didn’t care about. This created a lack of clear image for the luxury versions – and why people bought 98s and Electras over a Marquis Brougham – a car from the rear quarter view that could be easily confused with a base Monterey.
Even getting to just three trims, and avoiding crossover with mid-range Fords would have given Mercury a clearer luxury image.
The subject car probably should have been the base Mercury, and like Jim mentioned, Ford needed to work on some of its interior details to really compete with GM.
Ford eventually figured this out, and by the ’73 – ’78 years high end Ford and Mercury cars could battle with 98’s and Electras more effectively.
What I find interesting is all these huge engines with 2 bbls around this time. The ’69 & ’70 Ford and Merc offered a 429 2 bbl, while over at GM Chevy had a 396 2 bbl. and Olds a 425 and 455 2 bbl. There was also a special edition Olds Cutlass Turnpike Cruiser with a 400 2 bbl.
Can’t think that fuel savings were much greater with the 2bbl. I’m sure some fellow CC’ers will have some good reasons.
The mission of these engines was low-end torque to propel these heavy cars to sane speeds. A four barrel is totally unnecessary for that task. The extra 4-bbl hp is only gained by increasing the redline another few hundred rpm, where a normal buyer would never go. Also, big three beancounters were still into saving every $5 per car that the customer would not notice.
Great article. Thank you for specifically highlighting the engine performance. This 429 is one of the best Detriot engines. Effortless, instant and ample power and torque. Imho this engine is superior to is 460 big brother. Its shorter stroke allows for a more lively free-revving character.
I own examples of both engines and the 429 is superior. Too bad Ford only made them for 6 years.
For a number of years I had a 1975 Thunderbird with a 460. While heavier, that car simply did not have the power of this 429. The Thunderbird did not have catalytic converters, so it wasn’t entirely bogged down with emission controls, but the differences are profound between the two.
The brochure page also points out that this 69 has the old high compression/premium gas version of the 429. Your 75 460 would have been significantly lower compression and regular gas, in addition to the emission controls.
Indeed. Mine was rated at around 200 net horsepower vs the 320 to 360 gross of this Merc. What a difference six years can make.
My parents had a 460 Elite that was an absolute terror for the time. Not only could it roast the tires, but punching it at 35 or 40 mph gave you a downshift into 1st, and away you went. I got it a hair past the 120 on the speedo, no real way to tell how fast it was really going.
I remember racing a 400 GTO and a schoolmate in a 383 Super bee. No, I didn’t beat them, but they were amazed at how well it was able to keep up, nonetheless. It was a Canada spec version, also no Cats, and dual exhaust.
The engine in this car is truly awesome – it’s same one I transplanted into my 1971 LTD back in 1990. As mentioned in the article above – even with 2.75:1 gears in the back, it could easily light up the tire(s).
But you’ve got to run an octane booster and lead substitute in order to get the power out of it (or run leaded aviation gas). The compression ration is either 10.5:1 or 11.0:1, depending upon which literature you look at (I still have all of my 1971 Ford manuals, specs, and wiring diagrams in a box somewhere). You can dial the ignition timing back, but it really kills the fun-factor.
I have the modern variant of this engine in my 1990 F350 – a fuel-injected 460. It has so much torque down low that you’d be forgiven for thinking that it has a diesel underhood. The 385-series is one of the best big-block engines ever made IMO and the modern Ford and Dodge V10s just don’t hold a candle to it.
I hope this car finds a good home somewhere. With a few suspension upgrades (I put a steering box and front sway bar from a 1979 T-Bird into my 1971 LTD and wow, how that tightened things up), this car can easily cruise at low triple-digit speeds.*
* off-road, closed-course only
A tangential reminder that Ford/Mercury pulled back their big factory racing effort (NASCAR & otherwise) after 1969. They used the intermediate body for NASCAR, with–IIRC–the heated-up incarnation of the mighty 429 (David Pearson here):
I’ve always liked the 1969-70 full sized Mercury’s and always felt the Monterey deserved to be a huge seller, also wasn’t 1969 the first time where the Monterey wasn’t the best selling full sized Mercury? For 1971-72 I loved the sedan’s but wasn’t big on the coupe’s, I absolutely love the interior inside of this car.
Love it, add some correct wheel covers and roll.
Thanks for sharing.
Aqua with aqua interior. Love!
one of my first cars was a 1969 Meteor Rideau coupe, probably the equivalent of the base Monterey in the states. as someone mentioned above the Canadian Meteor came with the Ford dash and interior. it also came with a 302 v-8. no soup(big block) for you!
my fascination with the mighty Mercs went back earlier tho, with an uncle owning a black w/ red interior 64 Park Lane convertible and the old man having a 69 X-100 Marauder in exactly the same shade of turquoise as this sedan.
never mind the Ram pickup I asked for in the “what do you want in a new car” story.
how about if I promise to give it a very good home and visiting rights to all my fellow CCers, we do a go-fund-me page for Mr. Shields and this awesome car to have a happy life here in Canada? 😉
Actually, from 1967 to 1972, the Rideau 500 came with the exact interior of the base Monterey, except for the dash. It was the odd one out, as all the other trim levels were Ford based.
Great find and a great story. I’ve always liked the big Mercurys from the mid ’60’s to about 1970, and I’m old enough to remember them new (though I was way too young to drive). The interior is wonderful – lots of room and in great shape. I love the sound of that 429 as well – there’s nothing like a big Detroit V8. If I took that car for a tour I don’t think you’d be able to wipe the grin off my face. I hope it goes to a good home. It will definitely make its new owner quite happy.
My mom owned one…a 1970 Custom 2-door, dark green with a black vinyl roof, from new until 1988. I learned to drive in it in 1972. Same 429 under the hood. A truly great car. She only ditched it when she did because she lived 500 miles from her soon-to-be grandchildren and wanted something “more reliable”. I prefer the look of the 1970 to the 1969 because they made the grille and the turn signals a bit taller, making the car look a bit less heavy-lidded.
I never really looked at the ’70 closely but you’re right. And I would venture to say it was the only 2nd year face lift of all the ’69 big cars that improved. Just think,
’69 Impala Vs ’70, ’69 Galaxie or LTD vs the ’70, & every ’69 Fuselage. As for BOP, certainly Pontiac, which was hideous in ’70.
Love the colors inside and out on this one, looks like a blast to drive!
I too like big Mercuries, my first experience and the source of my land yacht lust was my grandfather’s powder blue ’86 Grand Marquis LS. Not as quick or agile as this car, but sure had a nice ride.
Oddly, an automatic transmission still wasn’t standard fare despite 99.7% of Monterey Customs having one. This translates to around 440 Monterey Customs having a three-speed column-shifted manual transmission. How times have changed; what manufacturer now would gear up anything for such a ridiculously low take rate?
Hmm. .03% of 7103 is @ 21 units, not 440. So your point is even more emphatic.
The taillights look remarkably similar to the 1965 Chrysler.
7,103 is only the number of four-door sedan Monterey Customs. You need to consider the quantity of other body styles, such as the two-doors and four-door hardtops..
That makes it 440.
Not really. Even if you add up all the others you’re not even close:
7,103 – 1969 Mercury Monterey Custom Series Sedan
2,898 – 1969 Mercury Monterey Custom Series Formal Hardtop
2,827 – 1969 Mercury Monterey Custom Series Hardtop
951 – 1969 Mercury Monterey Custom Series Station Wagon 2-seat
969 – 1969 Mercury Monterey Custom Series Station Wagon 3-seat
http://www.classiccardatabase.com/specs.php?series=6091&year=1969&model=32798
That’s 14,748 total Monterey Customs in 1969. 440 is not even close to possible if 99.7% were autos, it’s more like 44 would be manuals.
For your numbers to work there would have had to have been close to 150,000 Mercury Customs made in 1969. .3% of 150,000 is 450.
“This Monterey appears to have influenced the Australian ZH series Fairlane that would come along in the mid-1970s”
and the Mark 3 Cortina, though after a tumble dry cycle.
No doubt there was shrinkage!
As a child, I had no concept there was such a vast difference in street and road sizes around the world. When I was seven or eight, my dad’s best friend moved to Brindisi, Italy to teach at a nearby US Air Force Base. As part of the deal, he was able to ship his car over. It was hard for me to comprehend that a mid-70s Ford Mustang II could be a large car, but he said that car was a challenge to navigate around the streets in that area.
I commented this on the YouTube video, too, but will say it here as well… And yes, I suffer from Mercury poisoning as well. I’ve got essentially the same car except in original gold paint with a vinyl top, and the standard 390 FE. Love the old girl! Someone initially bought her from the original owner with intention of pulling the 390 and scrapping the rest, but they couldn’t do it because she was in too good of shape. Glad they didn’t! “Lucy” (as we call her) has become a part of the family and is a great car! There’s always some small things under the hood in need of repair, but I expect that with a 40+ year old car. I’d love to remove the vinyl top at some point (even though it’s in good shape) and have the top sanded and painted. Maybe. Big maybe… Interior is equally as immaculate as this old gal in the video! Great cars! Glad to see another ’69 Monterey out there getting love, too!
Boy, how I wish I had somewhere to keep that beautiful ride… sigh.
I’m a little late to the game here, but here’s my contribution to the thread. I’ve become a Mercury guy halfway by accident, but I love my old gal. (The car, not the lady.)
I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the “69 Monterey..Back in Oct “68 my father ordered a nw “69 colony park wagon with the 429 option. He had his reservations at the time..as the std engine was the 390 ci engine. However, onve the car arrived and he drove it he was glad to have the 429. One thing i do remember about the car, as he had his choice of two different interiors. He could order it with the base “Monterey custom” interior (identical in pattern to the interior in your car) or opt for the more expensive Marquis interior (with split bench frnt seats and a different “pleated pattern” on those seats). He went with the monterey custom interior..However, he did opt for the “cruise control” (with finger tip control buttons on the edge of the steering wheel…..but no tilt!). Anyway we kept the car for almost 20 years (as it got passed down the line among us kids.) I finally sold it with 150k miles toa guy who just wanted it for the engine. that was around 1989 of 1990. I loved the “hide away ” head lamps.
Enjoyed all the stories about those old Mercs. I know all us older fellows look back on cars we wish we’d never sold. In the mid-70s, I taught a boy in Missouri whose grandfather was a sargeant in the MO SHP. His assigned car was a green 1969 Mercury with a 428 and civilian badging. He retired with his car, which had been well-maintained and managed to get the engine overhauled just before he retired; but within about a year, it threw the timing chain one cold morning while cranking. He got it towed to a shop but was disheartened by the estimate, so offered it for sale. We negotiated a price of $300 and I dragged it home early one morning by myself, using a chain threaded through a pipe and a 6-cyl pickup. (Don’t try it.) I found a timing chain and gears locally, spent parts of two weekends on what should’ve been maybe a 2-hr job. It fired up immediately. It’d chirp the tires shifting into 2d even at part throttle. More torque than I’d ever handled. (Also the stiffest suspension I’d ever had under me.) Drove it as a family car, cross-country a couple of times. Averaged about 11 mpg on the highway, but only if I stayed out of the secondaries. I still miss it.