AGuyInVancouver spotted this Mercury Monarch sitting on the street in very clean shape. Actually, with all its trim intact, its condition is rather remarkable as it apparently is subjected to the hazards daily use like scrapes, tree sap, etc. and the paint and vinyl show it to be a thirty-seven year old survivor.
As far as I can see, the C in “Monarch” is the only piece of trim missing. I recently saw a battered, daily driver Granada coupe, and saw far more of these than any Pintos or full-size LTDs as a kid in the ’80s, so perhaps these were robust cars. And unlike the butterfly which shares its name, this particular Mercury is far from extinct. How much longer do you expect it will last?
Monarch butterfly extinct? er no they aren’t, true they only go for a few days unlike their namesake mercury which seem to last quite well given gentle treatment.
Perry must have been thinking of the Mercury Passenger Pigeon.
This Monarch did outlive Mercury, though.
That car looks familiar – I have seen it driving around town. And I have a feeling that picture was taken in East Vancouver – I can’t quite make out what the ‘No Parking Except for Residents’ sign is across the street.
You’re right. It’s visible in StreetView as well – and with a nice little RHD Delica van just opposite.
Which brings up the question – what is the etiquette / responsibility issue about showing license plate numbers, or revealing locations of posted cars? I don’t think this Monarch is in danger of disappearing one dark night, but there’s a possibility that some CC’s might be.
Thoughts by the commentariat?
It’s a non-issue. Photographers have been shooting street scenes and cars for as long as they’ve existed. These are public streets, and keeping a licensed car on the street means there is no issue about photographing it and posting it.
I have a real hard time understanding why some folks think this is an issue. Undue paranoia? Who’s going to see a Monarch in Vancouver and think “that’s nice; I’m going to go steal that!”.
One could use Google Street view and find millions of cars……
As I said, a non-issue.
Yeah, I’ve always thought people covering their license plates in photos on ebay and craigslist is beyond silly. “Ooh, someone will find out who I am and stalk me!!” As if someone will enter the number on Google and it will spit out “Bob Smith, 123 Paranoia Circle, Anytown USA. Likes bacon cheeseburgers and paying the minimum balance on his Visa.” Yeah, that’s right up there with getting struck by lightning…
I had a coupe that was otherwise remarkably similar to this. The engine outlived the rest of the car.
I’ll resist the temptation to go through my list of rants against this car yet again. Suffice it to say my 75 Monarch Ghia 302 was the Worst. Effing. Car. Ever.
The Monarch approves!
The Monarch Mobile….or maybe just a nice Stanza.
There was an attempt to sell them in the UK in the late 70s/early 80s but sales were poor. LHD,V8 and a big jump in price above the European Granada didn’t help.The only one I saw was a gold 4 door sedan in Fleetwood near Blackpool.
Indeed there was . They even converted a few to RHD along with the Mustang 11 and some early Fox body mustangs. Sales were worse than dismal.
The European Granada was superior in every way and substantially cheaper.
I assume it was an attempt by Ford to replace the Australian Fords that were sold in small numbers from the late 60s to Ca ’76. The Australian cars were good but due to high pricing and V8 thirst sold in small numbers so it was hardly suprising that the notably rubbish Detroit offerings bombed. Ford persevered until 1982 IIRC , only because they had a lot of left over unsold ’79 / ’80 models.
I found a very rough Fox Mustang shell with a crude bike chain and sprocket RHD conversion at an autojumble a few years ago.Not sure if it was done by the importers or a home brewed effort,I didn’t much like the look of it even if the rest of the car had been OK
I’ve seen short teaser ads recently on British TV for the new Mustang, but apparently with LHD. It seems odd that Ford considers it worth doing TV ads, but not making a RHD version?
Mustang with RHD due next year.
Love it or hate it, it’s good to see it up and running still…and in the hands of someone who really enjoys it. I think I can make out ‘collector’ on the front plate?
Yes, those are BC collector plates. There’s a lot of restrictions on what you can do with a collector plated car here so it wouldn’t be a daily driver anymore. Not my cup of tea but it’s nice to see someone making the effort to preserve it.
Looks like a long ago repaint on that right front fender, otherwise it’s remarkably solid.
Then it should last as long as the present owner wishes to keep it up….
Previously on The Americans………..
Ha!
Canada’s unofficial motto 🙂
For 1981, with Ford having brought out its new Fox-body Granada, this car in the Mercury lineup was replaced by the Cougar (!).
In 1982, the Mercury Zephyr lost its wagon to the Cougar line, resulting in the second time a Cougar wagon was made available (the first one was available in 1977, during which time the model series posed as Mercury’s version of the Ford LTD II).
Finally, for 1983, Ford cleaned up again and renamed their “Fox” Granada the LTD (becoming the first small LTD since the 1979 LTD II); Mercury’s version was renamed Marquis. Thus, for the same year, the full-size LTD/Marquis (this design, on the Panther chassis, having been introduced for 1979) was renamed as LTD Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis.
~Ben
Good to see a survivor, but I always thought these were dull and dowdy – strangely though, I thought the lincoln Versailles wore the body, different roof line and faux-continental tire sufficiently well – as for the rest – the most malaise-y of the malaise era uninspired automobilies.
I drove these, and Granadas, when new or close to new – including a Hertz owned Monarch from Denver to Toledo. They were a pleasure to drive when the alternative was Colonnade GMs, Torino/Montego, anything Chrysler.
They were almost European in design but whatever, they were much superior to their competition at the time.
A nice car then and probably unknown to someone now under 50 or so how refreshing they were in the mid-70s. Ford, like they do now, had it right back then. They were very successful cars for the company back then.
Mercifully unknown!
Granada and Monarch were rebodied US Falcons.
And they were crap. Sure they made a huge splash initially, but then the reality hit them. The tried to mimic Mercedes styling but as overwrought and overweight Falcons they got worst in class economy.
The Valiant and Dart compacts were vastly superior, even in their dotage. Iacocca knew that and couldn’t understand why Chrysler stopped producing them in favor of their rushed replacements.
I’ve always found the Mercury Monarch to be more attractive than its twin, the Ford Granada.
Granada/Monarch were successful cars for Ford in the mid-70’s. They were unapologeticly designed to mimic Mercedes styling, yet were tried and true Ford underhood with a 250-I6 or the 302-V8. Good cars for the times, not so much now. My maternal grandfather was stuck on Ford compacts; the 1st car of his I remember was a ’65 Falcon 4 door sedan, next was the ’71 Maverick 4 door with a factory checkered vinyl roof. After his youngest girl left came the ’75 Granada coupe. Granny didn’t like it because it was too ‘sporty’, so he really riled her when he brought home the ’79 Futura coupe. That was his last car, he passed in ’85. All were bought about 2 years old and with straight 6’s.
Up until at least 1976 you could also get a 200 I6 and a 351 V8 too.
We actually sold a 1976 white basic 2 door coupe with a 200 six at our old dealership back in the 90’s. It ran okay but was sloth slow.
So, if the Granada compares favorably to Mercedes Benz, what does the Monarch compete with? Rolls Royce?
Daimler.
Maybach
The Mercury Monarch and Ford Granada were originally intended to replace the Mercury Comet and Ford Maverick respectively when introduced for 1975, but after realizing the financial effects caused by the 1973 oil crisis, Ford instead kept the Maverick and Comet and touted the Granada and Monarch as more upscale… they even rode on the same platform, despite the differing bodyshells.
The true successors to the Maverick and Comet were the first in a line of “Fox” platformers: the Fairmont and Zephyr, introduced for 1978.
It always seemed odd to have both the Maverick/Comet and Granada/Monarch in production at the same time. Even GM’s B-O-P divisions that had a variation of the Nova still kept the same basic body.
It might have been different if the Maverick/Comet had something particular going for them, but other than pricing them slightly lower, there didn’t seem to be much reason to keep them around. Was anyone really fooled that a Granada/Monarch was that much better than a similarly equipped Maverick/Comet?
I guess Ford must have felt that a Maverick/Comet/Granada/Monarch line-up was necessary to be equivalent to the Nova/Ventura/Omega/Apollo.
It’s also interesting to note that each had a high end spin off of the (very changed) Seville and the (not so changed) Versailles.
Not exactly, the Maverick and Comet were kept around for two reasons. One was that they had a strong uptick in sales due to the energy crisis and that allowed them to position the Granada and Monarch as upscale/Broughamified compacts and Broughamified compact and intermediate cars were also taking off. So by keeping both they milked a few more dollars our of the segment. The Maverick/Comet tooling was fully amortized so if was very profitable. The lack of lower end Granada/Monarchs made them more convincing as a premium compact increasing their profitability.
Looking at 4-door sedan base list prices in “World Cars 1975”:
Ford Maverick: $3061
Chevy Nova: $3222
Plymouth Valiant: $3247
Olds Omega: $3463
Chevy Chevelle: $3415
Ford Granada: $3756
Mercury Comet: $3270
Mercury Monarch:$3822
So you could have a midsize car with a good chunk of money left for options for the price of a base Granada, and a Monarch cost a payment or so more for which you were literally buying the name.
Yet in 1975 the Granada outsold the Chevelle/Malibu which proves what a good idea it was for Ford to sell it as a premium compact. They could undercut the rest of the compacts with the Maverick for the really frugal buyer and get healthy profits on the Granada. Had they offered a low priced Granada they likely would have had a hard time selling large numbers of the better equipped more profitable versions. The recent post on Chevy’s attempt as selling an upscale Nova showed that they couldn’t move many of them when they were tied to the image of the low end versions of the car.
People were still in shock over gas prices so they were tending to smaller cars but they did not want to move down to a “penalty box”. The fact that emissions regulations and insurance prices had killed the muscle car also meant that buyers who were looking for a special car moved to better appointed cars and ones that had at least an air of luxury. The fact that the Cutlass took the #1 spot in 1975 is a reflection of that. I believe that marks the first time that one of GM’s middle priced models outsold it’s Chevy twin.
Wow, that’s some price spread between the Maverick and the Granada and certainly puts it in better perspective as to why Ford kept the former around. It wouldn’t be so bad if the latter came with standard equipment like an automatic and A/C to help justify the much higher price, but I don’t think it did.
Still, the Granada/Monarch did sell okay. I guess that Mercedes-esqe styling and marketing was enough to carry the day.
While AT and AC weren’t standard on the Granada there were a few features that were standard on it and not on the Maverick. Disc brakes, reclining vinyl bucket seats and full wheel covers are a couple of the big ones that cost extra on the Maverick. A couple of things you couldn’t get with the Maverick that were standard on the Granada were “luxury” touches like a burled walnut applique on the dash and door panels and a hood ornament. So you definitely got a higher level of equipment standard on the Granada and you had the option of one thing you couldn’t get in any compact car from a low price brand leather seating surfaces.
Yeah, but could disc brakes, reclining vinyl bucket seats, full wheel covers, burled walnut dash and door panel appliques, and a hood ornament justify a 25% price increase? One wouldn’t think so but, again, the Granada was generally considered a sales success. It’s a good example of how competent, clean styling and packaging can overcome the same drivetrain and chassis that you could get on another product from the same company for much less.
In other words, Ford just pulled another Mustang-type rabbit out of a rebodied Maverick hat. It also answers the question of why Ford didn’t use the Maverick as the basis for the next generation Mustang – they wisely went with the seventies ‘brougham’ era and made the Granada, instead.
Well to the almost 300K buyers who chose a Granada over the Maverick sitting next to it in the showroom it apparently did. The Granada certainly was a sales success landing in the #2 position in its first model year. I’m betting it had one of the highest profit margins, next to the Thunderbird, and probably put more total dollars in Fords pocket than of any car carrying the Ford badge at the time. Disc brakes $50, Hood ornament $2, full wheel covers $20, Walnut look trim $2. Full wheel covers $20. So an extra $100 in cost of production to get to charge an extra $700.
Extensive experience with 3, my ’75 Monarch 2 door Drivers Ed car, a ’76 Granada 351 2 door that was a loaner while my dad’s near totaled Elite was being repaired, and a ’77 4dr 302 that replaced the ’76 when the dealer called one day to say he sold the 2-door (after I hooned it real good, heh heh) . The 302 in these was a 12 mpg slug, our 72 Comet LDO 4 door with same engine could have spanked either 302 and kept up with the 351, I’m sure. At least the 351 could lay rubber a bit.
A 351 Granada with a heavy duty suspension in a coupe could be an interesting car. You could get a floor shift console too, from what I recall. Checking off the right boxes, even during the “bad times” could still net you an interesting vehicle.
It never ceases to amaze me why people/dealers ordered certain cars the way they did back in the day. Most were ordered the poverty way with basic bench seats, 6 cylinder engines, poverty caps, AM radio, no limited slip/sure grip, std axle ratio and you were lucky to find PS or PB. If I ordered any one of these compacts back then it would have the biggest engine, the best suspension, sport wheels, bucket seats and an Am/Fm radio for starters. But then again after the oil crisis many folks were looking for basic transportation and could care a less about any sort of sporty driving dynamics.
This one is a Ghia, no less. This looks a lot like my father’s 76 Monarch Ghia, though not as well optioned. Dad’s had leather and alloy wheels and, I believe, everything offered except the sunroof. All dark green outside, tan interior. With the 351, I recall it as one of the fastest cars I had access to back then, Way faster than my mother’s 74 Luxury LeMans with the 2 bbl 350.
That dark brown enamel that Ford used back then had to be one of the most durable paints ever made. I do not believe I have ever seen one that didn’t shine like crazy, even ones in the junkyard.
The front fascia and passenger side fender match each other, but not the rest of the car so at some point this Mercury was involved in a collision. Nice enough looking vehicle, the circular headlights are interesting.
The headlight bezels are usually fully chromed, not painted. So, the headlights looked better integrated on original models.
As I was looking to buy a late 70′s american car only 6 months ago, I test drove a 1978 318 ci Lebaron, a 1979 350 ci Caprice and a 1976 302 ci Monarch.
The Lebaron was a slug. But I guess it’s engine needed a full tune-up. And maybe more.
The Caprice was great.
So when I tried the Monarch, I was bit afraid to be disappointed because I knew that it had a far less powerful engine than the Caprice’s.
Moreover, I read here and there that Granadas and Monarchs with the 302 were slugs.
It was actually a good surprise. I thought the 302 was a peppy engine, with far enough acceleration and power to use it everyday and everywhere in modern day traffic.
I reckon that scraping every smog system or any antipollution thingamajig, like the owner, was very healthy for that 302, which had no trouble to breath.
I also liked the steering a lot. It was very light at slow speeds, under 10-20 mph, and stiffened when the speed increased. I was a bit surprised to find such a feature on a 70′s car.
Overall, I thought that it was fine car.
Well, I still chose the Caprice over it.
I wish I could have had both…
It’s amazing that it still has it’s fuel filler door!
OMG! We owned monarch just like this except it was black. What a POS that car was, something always kept breaking on it. And by always I mean all the time it was something new. The thing only had 80K miles on it.