CJ and Geeber recently commented that the 1975 Dodge Charger would have worked better if it had been given the more distinctive design of the 1978 Magnum XE. That’s a good point. The Magnum’s side and rear styling still looked like a Chrysler Cordoba, but at least the car had a more plausible rationale for its existence. Behold, a sportier interpretation of the brougham look!
Since we’re speculating, I would go one step further and say it’s too bad that Chrysler boxed itself into a corner by giving the Cordoba such distinctive styling on its body sides. To see what I mean, let’s take a look at Ford’s 1977 redesigned mid-sized cars.
Thunderbird and Cougar: Similar yet very different
For 1977 the Ford Motor Company gave its mid-sized cars a makeover. The most important decision was to replace the sluggishly selling Ford Elite with a downsized Thunderbird. Meanwhile, the Cougar nameplate, which had been used on only a top-of-line “personal coupe,” was extended to Mercury’s entire mid-sized lineup.
All of the automaker’s mid-sized cars were given what might be described as a partial reskinning. Whereas the 1973-76 Fords and Mercurys had distinctive sheetmetal, for 1977 the more plebeian models had few differences. The Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 were given an extra helping of unique touches, but they still appear to have shared body parts such as doors, hood and bumpers.
The front ends of the Thunderbird and Cougar were more similar than the Cordoba and Magnum, but the rest of the cars had admirably different personalities.
The Cougar offered a more traditional brougham look, replete with an opera window in the C-pillar and a faux spare-tire hump in the rear. In contrast, the Thunderbird was given an unusually thick B-pillar and full-width taillights.
Also see ‘Lee Iacocca got lucky with the 1964-66 Ford Mustang’
The fascias of the two cars shared the most body parts, so designers had a bigger challenge in distinguishing them. The Cougar was given its traditional vertical grille pattern and exposed headlights whereas the T-Bird got hidden headlights and a checkerboard grille. Not a bad effort, particularly given the times. The arrival of rectangular headlights and the popularity of radiator grilles in the late-70s tended to result in heightened design conformity.
Ford was able to give the Thunderbird and Cougar more individuality than Chrysler’s personal coupes by using different sheetmetal from the B-pillar back. However, that approach would not have worked if the shared parts — particularly the doors — were not fairly generic.
So how did Ford’s approach do in the marketplace?
In 1977 Ford’s mid-sized lineup sold quite well. Output was up almost 58 percent, hitting an all-time record of more than 746,000 units. Market share increased almost five points to 23 percent of the mid-sized field. The Thunderbird and Cougar XR-7 significantly drove this growth — their combined production almost reached 443,000 units.
Chrysler did okay in 1977 but not nearly as well as Ford. Cordoba production jumped to more than 183,000 units, but the Charger declined to under 43,000 units. Total production was only half that of Ford’s personal coupes. This was quite a change from 1975-76, when Ford and Chrysler ran neck and neck.
For 1977 General Motors lost five points of market share in the mid-sized field, but it still held a formidable 63 percent. As with Ford and Chrysler, the sales of its personal coupes represented the majority of GM’s output. Production of the Chevrolet Monte Carlo, Pontiac Grand Prix, Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme and Buick Regal together almost reached 1.3 million units.
GM cost cutting doesn’t appear to have hurt sales
One could argue that a big reason why GM had historically done so well in the mid-sized field was because it had given each of its four brands unique sheetmetal (go here for further discussion). At least that had been the case until 1976, when reskinned Oldsmobile and Buick coupes appear to have shared door sheetmetal. That meant Buick had to ditch its most significant styling cue, the sweepspear.
The relative lack of sheetmetal differentiation between the Regal and Cutlass Supreme doesn’t appear to have hurt the sales of either entry. Perhaps this was because both cars already had established market niches. That wasn’t the case with the 1975-78 Charger, whose personality radically changed once it became a Cordoba clone.
Also see ‘1965-68 GM big cars: The end of different strokes‘
The strong sales of the Regal and Cutlass in 1976-77 may have helped to encourage GM management to engage in further cost cutting. A 1978 downsizing of the automaker’s mid-sized lineup was accompanied by increased interchangeability of sheetmetal between brands.
The Cordoba and Charger were a harbinger of an era when Detroit became too dependent upon badge-engineering schemes to keep alive brands that had outlived their viability.
NOTES:
Production and market share figures were calculated from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (1993, 2006) and Flammang and Kowalke (1999).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1993, 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, IL.
- Flammang, James M. and Ron Kowalke; 1999. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1976-1999. Third Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES
- wildaboutcarsonline.com (Automotive History Preservation Society): Ford Thunderbird (1977)
- oldcarbrochures.org: Buick Regal (1977); Chrysler Cordoba (1975); Dodge Magnum (1978); Ford Thunderbird (1977); Mercury Cougar (1977); Oldsmobile Cutlass (1977)
What is amazing to me is that most of Ford’s cars after 1972 through 1977 were terrible to drive. The cars drove like heavy boats with over-boosted power steering and awful fuel economy. Chrysler’s mid-size cars weren’t economical, either, but they handled better. G.M.’s mid-sizers all handled well, especially after 1973. I guess most sales were made on looks rather than actual feel-of-the-road.
My parents had a mid-sized Ford — a top-of-line model with a six, oddly enough. It was a slow and cumbersome boat but also pretty quiet, well appointed and admirably reliable for that era. I once made the mistake of sitting on the hood . . . only to discover that the sheetmetal was much thinner than on our previous car.
My parents weren’t that styling focused so I assume that a prime reason why they bought the car was because it ranked well in Consumer Reports.
The mid-size Fords and Mercurys scored well in the Consumer Reports reliability surveys during the mid- and late-1970s. They were generally dinged for their nautical handling qualities. GM, meanwhile, worked to improve the handling of its intermediates, beginning with the 1973 models.
There are a fair number of original GM and Ford intermediates that pop up at the various Carlisle car shows. The Fords do look better finished (particularly their interiors) than the GM competition. The GM intermediates, however, were “good enough” in that regard, and, based on contemporary reviews, did handle better.
My dad owned a new 73 Chevelle (colonnade) wagon, base model. The interior said “cheap” in a way no car-maker would dare in 2021. The worst component? The horrible molded, hard plastic door panels that were used in nearly all the GM colonnade models. They looked awful, no matter how they were dressed up in fancier models, and combined with the frameless door glass, they could rattle badly. There was no ‘sound’ of quality when you closed the doors on these cars. Dad’s Chevelle also suffered premature rocker panel rusting. I drove this car a lot and was mostly fond of it but a good drivetrain (350 2bbl & THM), good AC, and great hauling capacity couldn’t overcome a pretty austere driving environment and experience.
You can see from the photos how similar the T-Bird and Cougar are yet also how easily and economically they were able to be differentiated from one another. Unfortunately, with all mid-size Mercurys branded ‘Cougar’ for 1977, the XR-7 was not that special anymore and was no match for the T-Bird mystique at a Monte Carlo price. This is where I believe Chrysler made a serious mistake… had they branded and marketed the Cordoba as a Plymouth (as originally planned), then the Monte Carlo was the appropriate target. But as a Chrysler, they should have aimed much higher, offering the Cordoba as a rival for Riviera, Toronado & (pre-downsized) Thunderbird. A Magnum-esque restyled Charger could have more specifically taken aim at Monte Carlo & Grand Prix. Chrysler Corp would have had a premium coupe with a higher profit margin and coverage of two key luxury car markets. Only a short time after the Cordoba was introduced, Cadillac’s ‘small’ Seville, became their most expensive non-limo model and undoubtedly one of its most profitable. Chrysler could have followed this example (if not originated it) and who knows, the ’81-83 Imperial might actually have sold better and lasted longer if it had been branded as a Cordoba.
That’s an intriguing scenario. Plymouth could have become more viable with a luxury personal coupe, particularly if the Dodge variant was, like you say, better differentiated.
Where I get cognitive dissonance is if they had kept the Cordoba’s styling. Even though the car heavily mimicked the Monte Carlo, it worked reasonably well because the Chrysler brand had already trafficked in the brougham look, such as with the 1974 New Yorker’s radiator grille. In contrast, Plymouth had little in its past to build upon stylistically. I wonder how they would have squared that circle?
It could be interesting to wonder what if Mercury had followed Dodge by calling its mid-size 4-door and wagon line-up as Montego and all mid-size 2-door models as Cougar?
As for Ford mid-size sales going up for 1976, I wonder if the influence of the TV show Starsky & Hutch might played a role? I guess Ford might have regretted renaming the Torino as LTD II. An interesting trivia is Ford Venezuela still used the Fairlane monicker for Torino and LTD II. https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/6834066719 https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/6834068675
Restricting the Cougar to two-door models would have made a lot of sense. A four-door sedan Cougar was questionable, but a wagon was just plain silly.
I only had time to take a quick look at Ford production figures, but I’m not seeing a clear direction for the Torino two-door coupe circa 1976. Part of the problem is that Ford apparently discontinued the Gran Torino Sport series at the end of the 1973 model year, so thereafter I can’t find a specific breakout for sporty coupe production. The LTD II did offer an “S” trim version and in 1978-79 it had an optional “Sports Appearance Package” that included rather loud stripes. However, the Standard Catalog lists only 9,004 units produced for all S coupes in 1978 and 834 for 1979.
In 1975 and 1976 the Elite made up around 43 percent of total mid-sized output. In 1977 the T-Bird sold more than twice as well as the Elite and made up 58 percent of mid-sized sales. That’s despite the regular coupes, sedans and wagons seeing a meaningful bump in sales. Now, might that have had to do more with their partial reskinning than the name change to LTD II? I don’t know, but it’s an interesting theory that ditching the Torino was a bad idea.
My general sense is that U.S. automakers tended to overdo name changes with their mid-sized cars in the 1960s and 1970s. Ford was the biggest offender.
Wondering if Ford contemplated or even mocked up prototypes of a restyled Monte-Bird in lieu of the horrible Fairmont-based T-Bird of 1980-82? I have a feeling they would have sold better regardless of their size & weight at the time. The Fairbird nearly killed the brand.
I wondered the same thing, the Fairmont Futura should have been the 1980 T-bird since it continued the theme of the 1977-79 T-bird. Then I wondered what if Ford had introduced the Aerobird one or 2 model years earlier?
Speaking of the Aerobird, one guy imagined an Aerobird based on a Mustang. https://www.autoevolution.com/news/1980s-ford-thunderbird-gets-shelby-mustang-rendering-makeover-160743.html