While researching for my recent piece on a 1974 Mercury Marquis, I stumbled upon quite a few pictures of the 1975 to 1978 Mercury Marquis.
Other than a nip here and a tuck there, these are all the same car. But the rear treatment of the 1975 and up Mercurys is different and that is what triggered a huge realization and/or revelation. Or maybe I’m just late to the party.
Here is the rear of the referenced Mercury Marquis. It’s stately in its big-boned way. While I do have a true affinity for these, I have found myself preferring the one year only treatment used upon the 1974 models.
Take a good gander at the rear of this Mercury before we move on.
Ready? Here we go….
Here is the rear of a 1975 Plymouth Valiant. These A-bodies have truly grown on me over the years; it’s a car that could be a lot of fun to have as a weekend cruiser. It would also not consume my downstairs garage the way my Galaxie has.
Yet we really need to get these two close together for a more critical examination. For simplicity, the Valiant you are about to see is one I pulled off the interwebs.
Look strictly at the bumper and tail light arrangement….
Is there a distinct resemblance here or is it just me? I cannot look at either of these the same again.
What other cars from different manufacturers and of identical eras have similar rear appearances?
Quite some time ago, I found a distant cousin, perhaps a predecessor. I immediately saw a Valiant in it jumping off the screen until I looked more closely. It is less refined but it has the beginnings of what you see Jason in these two. Without the driving school sign in the way a more apt comparison could be made, but this is what I saw, and I saved it for just such a day as this. See for yourself.
So, that is where the ’62 Monza from the car carrier ended up.
The Valiant certainly is similar. Quite a few cars used that horizontal theme with wrap around lights. It’s a clean design that suits American three box designs quite well.
1964 Dodge 880…..
Allow the license plate as a variable, and you’ll get another popular Mercury in the mix…..
Thanks, Jason… now I can’t unsee that. And I’m with you. The ’74 Marquis was a good looking car.
I know you asked for other REAR end similarities, but how about this Front End comparison….
I’ve said for years that Ma Mopar had more than a few cars that seemed to ape the Impala… Check out these rear end comparisons…
The little logo in the Newport grille even looks like a bowtie.
When these first came out (yes, I am that old), I had to do a double take with the Newport, as I thought the same thing… must be a new Impala.
But although I don’t really like the front of the ’73 Impala, I felt that it’s rear end treatment was one of the best Impala butts ever… (and yes, I know the one pictured below is a Caprice… same difference)
1970-72 Pontiac LeMans and 1971-72 Mercury. Both had the taillights sandwiched
between upper and lower bumper rails and both designs were extremely breakage-prone. Both of mine on my LeMans were broken at the corner, and I remember going out with my neighbor scouring junkyards one day for his ’71 Marquis. No dice. All broken. We finally found a good set, the car they came from is etched in my mind, it was a fully loaded ’71 Meteor Montcalm with the unicorn bucket seat and console option.
The Pontiac.
You did mention similar eras…..
Toooootally this.
Sometimes the resemblance is deliberate.
You could spill lots of digital ink tracking styling trends from one automaker to another – just think of the Hofmeister Kink!
Which came from the ’51 Kaiser (Dutch Darrin?) … ’bout time it, and he, get the recognition they deserve for this styling detail!
the quote-unquote “Hoffmeister kink” was found in Darrin’s ’51 Kaiser many years earlier.
These two from 1979.
That is a good one.
That resemblance was noted in the car mags when the ’79 LTD was new
Moving to a different era, I always thought the rear styling of the first generation Subaru Legacy sedan kind of resembled the first generation Acura Legend, with that reflector running the full width of the trunk between the taillights, and the name of the car printed in the middle of said reflector.
The renault alliance and Mitsubishi media looked identical as did the renault 18i and isuzu I mark/buick by opel by isuzu. The chrysler e class looked almost identical to the Fairmont/ltd
When the style starts with Elliott Engel, there’s not much room for wild variations. No way to do ’57 Mercury or ’61 Plymouth taillights. The taillights are either narrow verticals on the fin ends, or long horizontals.
I have thought of these two: One done with a big budget was the 57 Pontiac
And the other done with almost no budget – the 57 Studebaker
I had a ’57 Studebaker President years ago, more than one commented it looked like a cut-rate ’57 Pontiac in the rear! I’d tell them “that’s the best Studebaker could do, they were broke when they built the 1957’s, which was true.
1975 Buick LeSabre, 1980 Mopar M-body
I’ve noticed this one for a long time. I used to own a 75 LeSabre and I could have sworn the 80’s Chrysler Fifth Avenue used the exact same taillights. The Chrysler has additional bright lines from the Plymouth you show, however a close examination shows detail differences from the Buick. Surely Chrysler copied that, it is so similar.
Behold the Plyncoln Concclaim!
That is almost scary, definitely the best (worst?) of the three.
’71 Dodge Dart, ’72 Chev Bel Air.
‘Scuze me, I meant to say ’73 Chev Bel Air.
The Dart tail light looks almost exactly like the Vega tail light that I posted farther below, except on the Vega the lights are not set into the bumper.
A front and rear lookalike, to my eyes, anyway:
Very good — I like that comparison!
mFred, this is brilliant.
I will never be able to look at either of these cars the same after this.
Agreed…. my eyes are burning, and now I won’t ever be able to unsee this!
My favorite of the full size Chevys juxtaposed with a Dodge that looks like a rhinoceros… it’s just not right!
I never noticed this before, probably because a proper full size Chevy should have 3 taillights on each side and not two.
I could have probably found better pictures for my argument, but the new RAV4 and Escape have similarly styled tail lights.
“The Thin Blue Line” dramatizes the real-life story of a man who was sent to death row largely as a result of the similarity between the Vega and Comet:
The new Passport also borrowed the Explorer’s rear end.
Here is another pair I remember from my youth – Cadillac and Mercury, both from 1967-68.
Aargh, the exhaust tips on the Merc are all wrong.
And I was always about 56% suspicious the taillights on the ’82-’84 Dodge Rampage/Plymouth Scamp were yoinked from the ’75 Ford E-van/F-truck parts bin.
71 Oldsmobile Toronado
1969 GTO
NEED MORE FINS!!
1965 Pontiac Tempest…..
….and 1965 AMC Rambler
This as a third?
Jason, this was a great and entertaining analysis. I totally see what you’re saying.
When I had first seen the Chevy Cobalt and Pontiac G6, I thought their taillights were the exact same units until I saw them parked nose-to-tail in my neighborhood.
Not responding to the question, but that’s one nice Valiant! All the bells and whistles!
Front End: 1984 Chrysler M-Body Fifth Avenue (top), 1984 Lincoln Town Car (bottom)
Neon vs Taurus
Me too, says the Aurora
…and the Allure/LaCrosse.
Versa vs CT5
My god, I’ve been saying the Cadillac looks like an Infiniti, I aimed too high!
rear windows of ’66-67 Chevelles and ’68-70 Chargers
1967 Rebel
1969 RoadRunner
1965 Oldsmobile Starfire
2009 Jeep Grand Chicory (ECE) and Suzuki Grand Vitara:
PLEASE NOTE that the featured Valiant Custom with white vinyl roof and harmonizing cream interior was not available in the standard color combinations. There was no cream colored vinyl roof for the sedans. So, Chrysler decided that only a black vinyl roof would be available with the cream interior. Enter special code V08. This was used extensively to enable the dealers of Valiant and Dart to have this nice combination, especially nice with the bronze metallic paint. A cream vinyl roof was available on the two-door hardtops. Oh, well. Glad to see on of these preserved so nicely and in that great color combination. OOPS, this is probably the limited edition model Brougham. Finally, Chrysler offered a cream vinyl roof. (Hey, Joe, cut cream vinyl for four-doors.)
Are you sure about that? What’s your source of info? The 1974 Valiant brochure shows a sedan that gives every appearance of being equipped with a white vinyl roof.
Also, there was no model such as “Valiant Custom”—you might have the Dart Custom in mind. The Valiant Brougham was a trimmed-up version, not a limited edition.
Thanks for the pointer to the Valiant brochure – I have not read that in some time.
I came to the part on the exterior dimensions. I have known for years that the rear track was narrower than the front. However, reading it in print, 55.4 inches vs. 59.1 up front, almost 4 inches. Do you or does anyone know the reason why they went for such a differential between front and rear? It just does not make any sense to me. The standard tires on delivery with the 225 engine were 6.95-13, making it even more of a questionable ride.
I loved my Dart Sport, but this is one area that befuddles me to this day.
Oh, that’s an easy one: the front end was widened several times—in ’67 to accommodate the 383 and 440 engine options and larger tires, in ’73 to accommodate the beefier control arms and disc brakes—and it was cheaper to leave the rear axle and spring arrangement alone than to widen it.
When looking at an old Mopar (or any other American car, and plenty of other-nationality cars as well) trying to figure out why something was done a particular way, in the absence of hard info, “because it was cheaper” is frequently a sound guess.
Yes that makes sense Daniel. I found handling suffered, at least until I could get some decent sized tires on the car.
Thanks.
I meant to include some figures. The earliest FSM I have readily accessible is ’65, and it lists the ’65 Valiant track (it calls “tread”) at 55.9″ front, 55.6″ rear. Almost an exact match which definitely extends up to ’66 and back to ’62, and almost certainly back to the start in ’60.
In ’70 (that’ll be ’67-’72), the front tread is 57.4″ and the rear is 55.6″.
In ’73 (that’ll be ’73-’76), the front tread is 59.1″ and the rear is 55.6″.
What a head scratcher. I would have loved to have sat in those design review meetings. 1967 – Hey we’re making room for a bigger engine, so we are widening the front width. Head nods. What’s an inch or so right? Just a few thousand cars or thereabouts. Some kids will buy them who can afford them.
1973 – Yeah those kids really liked them, so much that we sold a lot of them. We need better control arms, and with the big block we need disc brakes. A bit wider up front please. The rear axle designer in the back row, the guy with twenty years on the same desk, meekly speaks up and says, “Um, I need a couple of inches too, I am still at 55 1/2,” but the program manager says to hush up, we did this car on twenty million, and we are not going over this year on something we haven’t needed and we don’t need now on a four year old design that works fine. Nobody seems to care that the rear wheels now tuck in so far you have to look have to find them.
Great info thanks Daniel.
Moparlee: You’re making a lot more out of this than it deserves. Lots of cars had wider front track than rear. Check out the Citroen DS!
Widening the front track improved handling, so it was a good thing. Since these cars are all intrinsic understeerers, a wider front track mitigated that to some extent.
If there were rear engine cars, you’d have a point. But with a front heavy car, the wider the better, as a general rule. And the rears aren’t as important that way.
It was a cheap way to improve them; beats not having done it.
1975 Polara vs 1975 LeSabre
’75 LeSabre
I couldn’t get the pictures to load but here are a few more. The front of the 1970 full-size Chevy and front of the 1973 full-size Dodge. 1970 Chevrolet Bel Air and Biscayne rear and 1970 Oldsmobile Cutlass rear.
Somebody in Dearborn thought everything about the Granada looked just like the S-Class…
Yeah: drugs are bad, kids, mmkay?