Curbside Classic’s Paul Niedermeyer stopped by to offer his first-ever comment at Indie Auto. He raised some interesting points, so I am making them the focus of a data dive. He took issue with our story, “1969 Ford LTD attacked GM’s hierarchy of brands in multiple ways.”
Niedermeyer repeated the following quote from the article: “By 1973 the LTD was outselling the Caprice by almost two-to-one.” Then he wrote:
“Apples-to-oranges, because Ford drastically reduced the content of the basic LTD, making it essentially like an Impala. One had to buy an LTD Brougham to get the features that the original LTD once had.
You need to compare all of the big Fords vs Chevys to get a proper reading. Yes, the big Chevys had a drop in ’69-’70; clearly Ford’s all-new styling was better received than Chevy’s warmed over styling. And in 1971, Chevy lost several months of production due to the UAW strike. But by 1972, big Chevys outsold big Fords, and by 1973, big Chevys outsold big Fords by a very healthy margin. And that widened again in 1974.”
Is this take more accurate than the story’s, which described the LTD as a brilliant move that undercut Chevrolet’s traditional dominance of the full-sized, low-priced field while putting pressure on GM’s premium-priced brands?
In trying to answer that question, this data dive focuses on the years 1970-73. We begin in 1970 because that’s when Ford introduced a two-tiered LTD lineup and end with 1973 because this was the last model year before the first oil embargo, which threw the full-sized, low-priced field into a new era. From 1974 onward deserves a separate conversation.
Big-car lineups shifted as buyer preferences changed
The full-sized, low-priced field dominated the U.S. auto industry in the mid-1960s. Yet only a decade later big cars had become something of a niche product. A pivotal moment was 1970, when intermediates eclipsed full-sized cars in output for the first time — and two years later would permanently take the lead.
The Big Three encouraged this trend by making its full-sized cars larger and more luxurious. Each automaker put more emphasis on top-of-the-line models, but Ford was the most aggressive.
As you can see from the graph below, Ford’s LTD snuck past Chevrolet’s Caprice in 1968 and in 1969 jumped to a commanding lead.
From 1966-73 the LTD’s output topped 2 million units whereas under 1.2 million Caprices were produced. That was an unusual level of success for a full-sized Ford nameplate. During the 1960s the Impala had utterly dominated Ford’s direct competitor, the Galaxie.
Yes, but are we comparing apples and oranges?
It’s true that Ford’s two-tiered LTD lineup stretched downmarket. Prices for the LTD Brougham series closely aligned with the Caprice’s while base LTD models listed for around a few hundred dollars less.
That said, the base LTD did not replace the mid-level Galaxie 500, which continued to complete against the Impala. Indeed, the base LTD’s prices were closer to the Brougham’s than the Galaxie’s.
In competitive terms, the base LTD essentially targeted a price gap between the Caprice and the Impala. This is easier to talk about visually. The graph below shows list prices of four-door sedans for low- and mid-level models and hardtops for the Caprice and LTD.
Prices for 1970 give a general sense of Ford’s strategy for the next three model years. The LTD Brougham four-door hardtop sedan listed for $3,579, which was $52 higher than a Caprice, whereas a base LTD went for $3,385. This was $289 more than a Galaxie 500 four-door hardtop sedan, which listed for $3,096.
Part of the price differential was that all LTDs had a V8 engine as standard whereas the Galaxie came with a six. The Impala body styles offered with a six were close in price to their Galaxie equivalent. For example, an Impala four-door sedan was $3,021 — $5 less than a Galaxie.
Meanwhile, an Impala four-door hardtop with a V8 listed for $3,203, which was $182 less than a base LTD. This was a meaningful price gap for that time period.
Base LTD was still a step up from Galaxie and Impala
Increasing the number of LTD models may have been inspired by Mercury’s success in 1969 with its new, two-tiered Marquis lineup. As with the LTD, the high-end Marquis Brougham was emphasized in advertising, but the majority of sales came from base models.
Also see ‘1968 full-sized Mercury: A pioneer of brougham was overshadowed’
Also much like the Marquis, the base LTD had exterior styling that clearly distinguished it from junior series such as the Galaxie 500. Even buyers who didn’t opt for the base LTD’s more luxurious interior options could be seen driving what, at least from the outside, looked like a top-of-line car.
In light of escalating inflation, it made sense for Ford to try to cushion price-sticker shock for one of its hottest — and most expensive — nameplates.
This was also a clever way to outflank Chevrolet. While the Impala continued to pummel the Galaxie, Ford’s total big-car production stayed closer to Chevrolet’s during the LTD’s peak years of 1969-73 than it had previously.
As a case in point, in 1965 Chevrolet’s full-sized lineup outproduced Ford’s by more than 669,000 units. By 1973 Chevy’s advantage had shrunk to under 87,000.
Perhaps more importantly, full-sized Chevrolet production fell in 1965-73 by almost 43 percent whereas Ford declined by only 13 percent. That translated into Chevy’s share of the full-sized, low-price market dropping from 56 percent to 45 percent. Meanwhile, Ford’s market share went up by 7.5 percent.
Also see ‘The 1965-73 Ford LTD may not have impacted Mercury very much’
The LTD’s growing popularity was the primary reason Ford did so well. You can see that from the graph below, where the LTD’s proportion of Ford’s total big-car output increased from 28 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1973.
The LTD almost hit 290,000 units in 1969, before the advent of the two-tiered lineup. So I don’t think that expanding downmarket was the sole reason for the nameplate’s success in 1970-73. But it clearly helped.
Note that Chevrolet could have easily matched the LTD’s two-tiered lineup but did not. Was this because management was worried about undercutting the Impala, its perennial golden goose?
Which context does one consider most important?
Let’s go back to Niedermeyer’s comment. Is it true that I am making an “apples-to-oranges” comparison between a two-tiered LTD lineup and the Caprice?
I agree this is not an exact match price-wise but consider the comparison fair because the base LTD was not “essentially like an Impala.” Both in terms of pricing and features, the base LTD attacked a hole in Chevrolet’s lineup between the Impala and Caprice. Some buyers clearly wanted a higher-status car at a slightly lower price even if it didn’t have all of the features of top-end models.
I would also agree with Niedermeyer that “by 1972, big Chevys outsold big Fords, and by 1973, big Chevys outsold big Fords by a very healthy margin.”
Well, at least if you remove the phrase “very healthy margin.” As we have discussed above, Chevrolet’s sales margin was much smaller in 1972-73 than in the second half of the 1960s. That strikes me as a more important comparison than with 1970-71.
It’s easy to get into the weeds on any number of sub-issues, so I want to reiterate my core argument, which is that Ford outmaneuvered Chevrolet in the early-70s in the full-sized, low-priced field. It did so with a product line — and marketing — that was arguably better suited to a shifting marketplace.
NOTES:
Prices are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), which may vary from those listed in Gunnell (2002). Specifications and production data come from both sources.
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI
ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:
- oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1965); Ford (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973)
To add more in this puzzle, the full-size Ford line-up in Canada also offered a Custom 500 2-door hardtop in 1973 following Chevrolet who still offer a 2-door hardtop for the BelAir in Canada besides still offering the Biscayne in the Great White North. http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/Ford-Canada/Ford-Canada%20Cars/1973%20Ford%20Full%20Size%20-%20Canada/slides/1973%20Ford%20Full%20Size%20%28Cdn%29-16-17.html
http://oldcarbrochures.org/Canada/GM-Canada/Chevrolet/1973-Chevrolet-Full-Size-Brochure/index.html
I did not know they made a Bel Air coupe for our market here in Canada. I can only imagine how few were built for 1973. My dad actually had a’71. It was a dealer demo that we used to take a summer vacation in.
The Biscayne continued through 1975 in Canada, and the Bel Air series (including a two door) through 1981. 1981 was also the final year for the low trim Pontiac Laurentian, Ford LTD Custom 500 and Mercury Marquis Meteor.
I found your comparison to be fair, Steve. Ford out manoeuverd Chevy in this instance. The Caprice and later the Caprice Classic, were never as luxurious as the LTD Brougham but I suspect that other GM divisions would have frowned on a Caprice that was too close to a base-model Olds 98 or Buick Electra. When you review the amount of overlap between GM’s fullsize cars from the 60s & 70s, you have to remind yourself that dealer and brand loyalty were still factors in purchase decisions. I feel this was less a factor for Ford and that is why they felt comfortable pushing the LTD upscale even further with the Brougham and later the Crown Vic.
Ford could get away with it as they had only one mid price/premium car, the Mercury. GM had three, with 2 wheelbases on full size cars. Then Buick and Olds had 2 separate full size series, with IIRC Buick running the LeSabre and Wildcat on two different wheelbases at times. This was overlap beyond comprehension.
Indeed, I’ve long considered that the original ’65 LTD and the responses to it showed the “Low-Priced Three”s real positions in the corporate pecking orders.
Ford was the name-on-the-door division. Ford the corporation, Ford the man (HFII to be precise) and Ford the marque were intertwined in a way that gave Ford Division effectively free rein to step on Mercury’s turf.
Chevrolet’s own innovations were constrained by the need to keep room in the market for B-O-P, but their #1 sales position was important enough to the Fourteenth Floor that they had license to match Ford model-for-model. They developed the first Caprice in time for midyear, which points to the later decision not to follow the LTD/LTD Brougham split likely being a conscious choice within division management, not an omission or edict from Corporate.
Plymouth was the least and the last, without its’ own dealer network the VIP had few advocates within HQ or at the sales level and was treated as an opportunity to upsell prospects to a Chrysler Newport.
LTD was a little nicer and Galaxie 500 was a little less nice than Impala. Starting in 1968, Ford really deemphasized the Galaxie 500, making it just a deluxe Custom 500. But LTD (and big Thunderbirds) was more sensible solution to Ford’s weakness in middle range market than Edsel.
The LTD was de-contented in mid year 1969. The new LTD Luxury Group interior was essentially the same as the base LTD was at it’s introduction. The new base LTD had a less luxurious interior very similar to the Galaxie 500 after this change was made. The LTD Brougham appeared to be unchanged. I believe., but cannot confirm that electric clock and full wheel covers were optional on the base ’69 LTD after this change.