Our story, “1967-73 Mercury Cougar: A classic goes to hell,” apparently took the smile off the face of (former?) reader SL. He flatly declared, “The 1971-73 Cougars are awesome cars. All this talk about them being ugly is nonsense.”
SL didn’t give a rationale for his conclusions, which to my mind is the whole point of having comment threads. So to advance the conversation, let’s see how Mercury explained its handiwork.
What Mercury said about the 1971-73 Cougar
A 1971 brochure proclaimed: “Take the best luxury car ideas. Add the best sports car ideas. And you’ll have a luxury sports car. . . . With all of the flair of the finest European sports touring machines, Cougar for 1971 is more desirable than ever. It’s dramatically new from bumper to bumper — longer, lower, wider with an increased tread for road-gripping stability.”
A year later Mercury stated that the “cat comes on beautifully for ’72 — in either shape you choose [hardtop or convertible]. Sleek, sophisticated, in the European Grand Touring manner, this one gives you — pound for pound and dollar for dollar — more to be proud of than anything else in its class.”
Also see ‘Ford did better than Chrysler in differentiating its 1970s mid-sized coupes’
Then, for 1973, a brochure announced, “When you want a luxury car that’s also a sporty car, you want a Mercury Cougar. No car lives two lives so beautifully. Better than just a sports car, better than just a luxury car. It’s a car not like anybody else’s car!”
Why did the 1971-73 Cougar sell so poorly?
Note that the above marketing schtick steers clear of talking about the Cougar’s styling aside from mentioning that it was “longer, lower, wider.” That doesn’t strike me as the kind of talking point one might have seen in ads for the “European Grand Touring” coupes Mercury was supposedly trying to emulate.
At any rate, a question lingers: Why did Cougar output fall from around 72,000 units in 1970 — which was already half of its 1967 production — to less than 63,000 in 1971? Production levels did not recover until 1974, when the Cougar was moved to a mid-sized platform.
Wasn’t styling supposed to be a major driver of pony car sales?
RE:SOURCES
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
ADVERTISEMENTS & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Mercury Cougar (1971, 1972, 1973)
Indie Auto invites your comments (see below) or letters to the editor (go here). Letters may be lightly edited for style.
Honestly, it just looks like your average American car of the era, or as I imagine them. XR7 availability notwithstanding, it effectively became a Mustang Brougham! Whereas the Mustang went full-on uber-strength sporty (if you excuse the bulk), the Cougar seems to have taken quite a distinct tack, and gone full-on formal-luxury in its looks. If you like that kind of style, as increasing numbers of Americans seemed to do, then I guess Mercury had a car for you. If formal didn’t do it for you, there was the Mustang.
Peter Wilding is spot-on ! Whereas the 1967 and 1968 Cougars were very special, the 1969-1970s less-so, the 1971-1973 Cougars were bulked-up with more sheet metal and more froo-froo. The 1971-1973 Cougars were what middle-aged Mustang owners moved into when they turned forty, if they still wanted a “sporty” two-door car and could afford the upgrade.
The Cougar and the Mustang had been platform mates until ’74. As The Mustang grew larger for ’71-’73 the Cougar did also. They shared the coupe roof with the tunneled rear window, but the Mustang also had the extreme fastback SportsRoof. The Cougar became more luxury oriented. Sales for the Mustang also fell for the Mustang. I like these Cougars,though the entire Pony Car concept was losing sales at this time. The Cougar went upmarket to compete with the Monte Carlo and Grand Prix as an intermediate. Mustang went compact as the Mustang II just a few years later. I find the luxury styling to be appealing and these are a nice size, a bit smaller than the Monte Carlo or GP.
Sorry but I haven’t a clue as to the appeal of personal luxury cars. These cars are not sporty and they aren’t luxurious either. They are more like polyester leisure suit, faux velour pimp hats, shag carpeting and grotesque caricatures. The only thing missing on these cars were gargoyles and candelabras. I guess you had to be there to appreciate a Mercury Cougar, Pontiac Gran Prix, or Oldsmobile Cutlass of that era.
Please check out the production of other sporty cars into 1971 and see how they suffered. I think you’ll find the issue of styling is a poor whipping boy if you’re gonna use that for the Cougar.
Trey, I agree that Cougar production fell in the same ballpark as the other pony cars during 1971-72. However, of that genre, the Cougar was far and away in the best position to benefit from the broughamization of the market. For example, at that point mid-sized personal coupes were booming in sales. The Cougar arguably represented an appealing alternative because it was a bit smaller, lower priced and had a somewhat sportier persona. So why then were sales so bad?
Given the importance of styling to a halo car, I don’t see why that can’t be a potential culprit. I gather that you like the car’s styling. If true, that’s fine — we all like what we like. To my eyes the Jimmy Durante nose and aircraft carrier-sized deck undercut what had been a promising car for the early-70s.
Have you seen how much Barracuda production dropped from 1970 to ’71? Challenger?
Meanwhile, the Cougar only dropped around 10k during the same period. There simply is no truth that “Cougar production feel in the same ballpark as other pony cars in 1971-72.”
So maybe you notice I had originally said “into 1971” and you changed it to “1971-72” but it still doesn’t change anything. Perhaps your premise needs work because it takes more than just styling to be major driver, especially for a vehicle that was evolving from a pony car to a personal-luxury car. And I think it’s presumptuous to suggest the Cougar was a halo car.
All sporty and performance cars started to dive after 1968, and it seems most pony cars consistently experienced a bump for 1973 (with none falling from 1972’s numbers, if I’m correct).
Troy, according to my figures, the pony car field as a whole was off 25.6 percent in 1971 compared to 1970. That’s almost twice as high as the Cougar, which fell by 13.1 percent.
That said, individual nameplates varied substantially in how well they did. The Javelin was only down 4.8 percent whereas the Challenger dropped by 64.46 percent and the Barracuda by 66.3 percent. The Camaro was off by 8.2 percent whereas the Firebird went up 9 percent. The Mustang fell by 23.2 percent although the Grande — the model that was arguably the most comparable to the Cougar — saw output increase by a healthy 28.1 percent.
So what is the most logical comparison with the Cougar? I don’t think that the Chrysler twins are the best ones because they were all new in 1970 and had only minor changes for 1971. Given the importance of fresh styling to this field, their sales would almost inevitably be at a disadvantage to the Mustang, Cougar and Javelin, all of which had a new look. Of course, the GM cars straddled the fence because they were introduced during the 1970 model year.
Interesting fact: If you exclude the Chrysler twins from total pony car output, it fell only 14 percent from 1970 to 1971. That’s pretty darn close to the Cougar’s 13.1 percent.
Let’s also ponder: Why did the Grande’s sales go up while the Cougar’s went down? The price differential was relatively little changed, so my guess is that styling was the key factor.
It would be helpful if you would explain why you think it is “presumptuous” for me to suggest that the Cougar was a halo car. It was Mercury’s only full-fledged personal coupe during that time period and the nameplate was leveraged brand-wide with the slogan, “at the sign of the cat.”