Paul Selby Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Wow, the Granada made this list but the Vega didn't? The Vega is the definition of a car that was as bad as it's engine. No soup for you Richard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goingincirclez Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Wow, the Granada made this list but the Vega didn't? The Vega is the definition of a car that was as bad as it's engine. No soup for you Richard! Yeah, what's up with that? The Granada wasn't necessarily a car to be proud of, but I've never before anywhere heard it grudged as one to be ashamed of either. Should be the 77 Lincoln Versailles for the idiots who paid double for the same car with a grafted tire hump on the trunk...but then Ford itself had more universally despised turds in the contemporary LTD-II and the 80-82 Thunderbird. Agree that the Vega is definite oversight. Hot-potato aluminum block in a tin-foil body? The very definition of Fail, and arguably the poster-child for "70's Bad Detroit" had the Pinto not been scapegoated instead. The Mopar Aspen/Volare rusted away just as quickly but at east the motors were decent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BORG Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Detroit is still paying for the 70s, I would say every car made in that era was garbage and hideous . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Just about anything by Fiat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Yeah, what's up with that? The Granada wasn't necessarily a car to be proud of, but I've never before anywhere heard it grudged as one to be ashamed of either. Should be the 77 Lincoln Versailles for the idiots who paid double for the same car with a grafted tire hump on the trunk...but then Ford itself had more universally despised turds in the contemporary LTD-II and the 80-82 Thunderbird. Agree that the Vega is definite oversight. Hot-potato aluminum block in a tin-foil body? The very definition of Fail, and arguably the poster-child for "70's Bad Detroit" had the Pinto not been scapegoated instead. The Mopar Aspen/Volare rusted away just as quickly but at east the motors were decent. 1) Why the Granada? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Maverick, yet the Maverick was sold right up until the Fairmont came out. Then the Granada was sold alongside the Fairmont, and finally, was turned into a bastardized version of the Fairmont. That car, especially with a grotesquely under powered 200cid 6, has no conceivable reason for existing. 2) I must plead: a ) a certain degree of ignorance about the true crappiness of the Vega b ) I didn't want 4 GMs on the list, and the V8-6-4 and diesels were horribly awful--especially the 4.3L V8 diesel. Certainly, I could've put the Vega in instead of the Eldorado, but to me the Eldorado exemplifies a very particular kind of 70s crappiness-------wasted space. In terms of engine displacement as well as pavement square footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 "Enthusiasts" and 'experts' rip on the 70's Granada. But, it was a huge seller, and it wasn't ONLY powered by the I6, most of them has 302 V8's. 351's were optional. Was re-positioned as a 'luxury compact' at the right time, and buyers snapped them up. Maverick stayed due to the fuel crisis, isn't that a good reason to still exist? Granada was based on the proven Falcon platform, which the Aussies used forever. Also, why only select 76-79, when the same car was offered from '75-'80? [Author is being arbitrary] As one post says, car was 'indestructable'. I saw many still running in the 80's when Pintos, M II's, and big LTD's were all crushed. Also, imports of the 70's weren't sliced bread either. The sainted Honda Accords of the time rusted to nothing faster then bare steel. Next, why JUST the 1976 Eldo? The 500 ci was standard on 1971-76 Eldos, and the 76 had HEI and Catalysts, so wouldn't it be better than the hoggy points/condesor run 73-74 ones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Detroit is still paying for the 70s, I would say every car made in that era was garbage and hideous . Well you may say that. But at least those cars that are still around will start up and run. Not like some of these new cars nowadays! :slap: Garbage and hideous? Look at all the shit that these car companies (including foreign, which I might add are the biggest offenders). design and produce now. NOTHING BUT OVERPRICED SHIT! THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME. LACK OF STYLE IN THEM. EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. Hey, that's what these so -called educated consumers like yourself in this country wanted... WELL YOU GOT IT FOLKS! DEEP, WIDE AND CONTINUOUS UP YOUR COLLECTIVE ASSES! :titanic: :fan: :banmolest: :kissass: :whipped: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemiman Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) 1) Why the Granada? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Maverick, yet the Maverick was sold right up until the Fairmont came out. Then the Granada was sold alongside the Fairmont, and finally, was turned into a bastardized version of the Fairmont. That car, especially with a grotesquely under powered 200cid 6, has no conceivable reason for existing. Hmmmm, 1) Why the Edge? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Freestyle, yet the Freestyle was sold right up until the Flex came out. Then the Edge was sold alongside the Flex, and finally, was ....... Just kidding, as you all know I'm not a fan of SUV's/CUV's with only 2 nanometers separating them. I have to defend the Granada. It was a sensation when introduced. Ford had a hit with the right car at the right time. And it was attractive in it's era. I can remmber the TIME magazine ad for a GT? version. Dark red coupe, 4 wheel disc brakes, Track-loc, 4 speed stick, 351 cid. Even to a gear-head teen it looked good. Overall, it was one of the few 70's examples of a good car. Edited January 3, 2009 by Hemiman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 Hmmmm, 1) Why the Edge? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Freesyle, yet the Freesyle was sold right up until the Flex came out. Then the Edge was sold alongside the Flex, and finally, was ....... Just kidding, as you all know I'm not a fan of SUV's/CUV's with only 2 nanometers separating them. I have to defend the Granada. It was a sensation when introduced. Ford had a hit with the right car at the right time. And it was attractive in it's era. I can remmber the TIME magazine ad for a GT? version. Dark red coupe, 4 wheel disc brakes, Track-loc, 4 speed stick, 351 cid. Even to a gear-head teen it looked good. Overall, it was one of the few 70's examples of a good car. But Obama said it was the worst car he ever owned! Well what do you expect from a guy who never had a real job in his life, let alone turned a wrench or a screwdriver either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) "Enthusiasts" and 'experts' rip on the 70's Granada. But, it was a huge seller, and it wasn't ONLY powered by the I6, most of them has 302 V8's. 351's were optional. Was re-positioned as a 'luxury compact' at the right time, and buyers snapped them up. Maverick stayed due to the fuel crisis, isn't that a good reason to still exist? Granada was based on the proven Falcon platform, which the Aussies used forever. Also, why only select 76-79, when the same car was offered from '75-'80? [Author is being arbitrary] As one post says, car was 'indestructable'. I saw many still running in the 80's when Pintos, M II's, and big LTD's were all crushed. Also, imports of the 70's weren't sliced bread either. The sainted Honda Accords of the time rusted to nothing faster then bare steel. Next, why JUST the 1976 Eldo? The 500 ci was standard on 1971-76 Eldos, and the 76 had HEI and Catalysts, so wouldn't it be better than the hoggy points/condesor run 73-74 ones? 1) I don't think the 3-speed 200 cid 6 was offered in the Granada after the '79 model year. The Granada is, to me, the ultimate example of how Ford's left hand didn't know what its right hand was doing in the 70s. Ford never did get around to phasing out the Maverick, and then they sold the Granada right alongside the Fairmont for three more years. The 1st gen. Granada spent its entire life wallowing in superfluity. 2) The '76 Eldorado had the lowest hp of any of the 500cid models--190. It was also the longest of that generation of Eldos. Edited January 2, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 But Obama said it was the worst car he ever owned! I forgot about that. Seriously, did not even cross my mind. What made me think the Granada belonged on the list was the rather bizarre ad Ford ran which featured a real life honest to goodness parking ticket where the meter maid had confused the Granada with a Mercedes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Selby Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 1) Why the Granada? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Maverick, yet the Maverick was sold right up until the Fairmont came out. Then the Granada was sold alongside the Fairmont, and finally, was turned into a bastardized version of the Fairmont. How does that make the Granada a bad car? Ford only kept the Maverick around due to the oil crisis. I think Ford was smart to keep both as they both sold well during this time. The Granada was more upscale than the Maverick and were after 2 different buyers. I remember shopping with my dad for a new car in 1975. He was interested in a 4 door Maverick with a 250 I-6 but the room in the back seat was a joke. We checked out a Granada, it had more room, was quieter and was overall much more appealing than the Maverick but my dad didn't want to pay the extra money for the Granada. He wound up getting a Buick Apollo, that was a turd. A year later my mom wound up getting a '76 Granada with the 250 I-6 to replace the Buick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) The other problem with the Granada, and what started me thinking about it (see previous post) was the 'imitation' luxury in that car. I suppose I could've gone with the Versailles, except the dang thing never got fitted with the 255cid V8. If the '80 Versailles got the 255cid V8, it would be on there instead of the Granada. Instead, the Granada is not only there because of its general pointlessness, it's also there as an illustration of Lee Iacocca's ingenious idea (aped by the other Detroit mfrs) of supplying ersatz luxury instead of real luxury--forget about premium materials--we're slapping a padded vinyl roof on it, a pair of coach lights, and we're covering the seats in buttons. Consider my dilemma: The Lincolns were altogether too elegantly designed to be awful (except for the Versailles). The early 70s Ford 'personal cars' didn't have atrocious motors. While the Mercuries certainly did it up right when it comes to cheesy fake luxury (including vinyl padding on the headlight covers---!!!!), you couldn't get a Monarch with a 3 on the tree (I don't think--if you could, that'll replace the Monarch). Basically this is what I needed to find: A car with lots of faux luxury (which the Granada sought by relentless comparisons with Cadillacs and Mercedes), and a woefully inadequate powertrain. From the company that gave us faux luxury. Sadly, the Versailles didn't cut it. But it was definitely under consideration. Edited January 2, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goingincirclez Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 1) Why the Granada? Because it had absolutely no reason to exist. It was ostensibly a replacement for the Maverick, yet the Maverick was sold right up until the Fairmont came out. Then the Granada was sold alongside the Fairmont, and finally, was turned into a bastardized version of the Fairmont. That car, especially with a grotesquely under powered 200cid 6, has no conceivable reason for existing. Grotesquely underpowered? You want grotesquely underpowered? That's not even the worst example from Ford. Instead try the Lincoln Mark IV... a whopping 190-220hp from a bigblock 460cid choked by a crappy Motorcraft 2bbl carb, gets out of its own way in 17 seconds. Then get back to me about underpowered. As for the Granada's raison d'ete... Others already summarized. It had a purpose when developed but the market kept up demand for the smaller, cheaper Maverick. I mean jeez, aren't you one of the ones who says a B-car would've allowed Ford to keep the Focus somewhat upmarket? In fact, didn't Ford do just that be keeping the Escort around for a year or two? Actually, by your rationale the Contour could be almost as bad. Came in priced like a Taurus but was smaller than the cheaper Escort. I don't think ANY of Fords limbs were on the same path there. At least the engines did not suck. Granada came mostly with the vaunted I-6, or the optional 302 and/or 351 V8's. Nobody will say those were bad motors. I'll agree though, the Mercedes-comparo ads were embarrassing. And the 4-doors have generally not aged well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Grotesquely underpowered? You want grotesquely underpowered? That's not even the worst example from Ford. Instead try the Lincoln Mark IV... a whopping 190-220hp from a bigblock 460cid choked by a crappy Motorcraft 2bbl carb, gets out of its own way in 17 seconds. Then get back to me about underpowered. As for the Granada's raison d'ete... Others already summarized. It had a purpose when developed but the market kept up demand for the smaller, cheaper Maverick. I mean jeez, aren't you one of the ones who says a B-car would've allowed Ford to keep the Focus somewhat upmarket? In fact, didn't Ford do just that be keeping the Escort around for a year or two? Actually, by your rationale the Contour could be almost as bad. Came in priced like a Taurus but was smaller than the cheaper Escort. I don't think ANY of Fords limbs were on the same path there. At least the engines did not suck. Granada came mostly with the vaunted I-6, or the optional 302 and/or 351 V8's. Nobody will say those were bad motors. I'll agree though, the Mercedes-comparo ads were embarrassing. And the 4-doors have generally not aged well. 1) Mk IV 190hp from 460 cid pales in comparison to the longer, lower, wider Eldorado that only got 190hp from 500 cid. The Eldorado is the reason why the Mk IV isn't on the list. 2) Contour wasn't as all around bad as the Granada. In part because of the engine. The Zetec wasn't great, but it wasn't awful either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 Also in the running from Ford was the '82-'84 Conti--except the engines weren't awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazda626 Posted January 2, 2009 Share Posted January 2, 2009 (edited) I'll never forget my first car, a 1970 AMC Gremlin. Check out the 70mph panic braking test in this old video: 1971 AMC Gremlin - road test http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EiTMss4xOk Edited January 2, 2009 by mazda626 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 2, 2009 Author Share Posted January 2, 2009 W O W See, I couldn't pick on AMC for any of their stuff---I mean I could've, but it's like making fun of a kid with Downs Syndrome. It just leaves you feeling guilty and ashamed afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) You got a mistake on that list. The Seville you are referring to as 'Nova based' was the '75 to '79 RWD version, which only came with a fuel injected Oldsmobile based V-8 or the 350 diesel. The V-8-6-4 was based on the Cadillac 368 V-8 and was only offered in full size RWD Cadillacs such as the DeVilles and Fleetwoods. The 1980 'Stagecoach' pictured was the first FWD Seville and it too used Oldsmobile gas or diesel 350's. The 1st. gen. Seville was really a great car, Nova based or not, and was worlds better than the Maverick based Versallis. Edited January 3, 2009 by 7Mary3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 You got a mistake on that list. The Seville you are referring to as 'Nova based' was the '75 to '79 RWD version, which only came with a fuel injected Oldsmobile based V-8 or the 350 diesel. The V-8-6-4 was based on the Cadillac 368 V-8 and was only offered in full size RWD Cadillacs such as the DeVilles and Fleetwoods. The 1980 'Stagecoach' pictured was the first FWD Seville and it too used Oldsmobile gas or diesel 350's. The 1st. gen. Seville was really a great car, Nova based or not, and was worlds better than the Maverick based Versallis. It was a nice looking car too - as were the Novas of that period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 The Granada is, to me, the ultimate example of how Ford's left hand didn't know what its right hand was doing in the 70s. Ford never did get around to phasing out the Maverick, and then they sold the Granada right alongside the Fairmont for three more years. The 1st gen. Granada spent its entire life wallowing in superfluity. Just to jump on the "Why Granada?" bandwagon - Then, by the same reasoning, the 1989-1992 Ford Probe non-turbo 2.2 should also be on this list. The Probe was intended to replace the Mustang, but was sold alongside it it's entire life. The base 4 was seriously underpowered for a sporty coupe, and the non-GT versions had mediocre handling. And Ford ganged up on the poor 120HP engine with power everything. Remember that you could get a 302 in the Granada, and many aftermarket suspension parts could be made to fit. And real leather seats were an option (Full leather, not just the seating surfaces like today). As was already pointed out, the Granada was supposed to replace the Maverick, but, due to the 1974 gas crunch, proved that the Mustang II was a sheer stroke of luck. So Ford moved it upmarket (see: Five Hundred), and, again, both it and the Maverick did quite well in that environment. (And comparing it to the Mercedes was the theme of its entire ad campaign) OTOH, as for the ersatz lux on the Granada, you forgot to mention the cheaply plated plastic trim that started peeling after about 5 years. And to the Gremlin - you guys shoulda seen the ones with a 304 V8. With only minor mods, they were good for sub-14's. With tender care and parts-swapping, you could scare a Vette. Just don't expect them to handle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) You can't talk about ersatz lux on the Granada without mentioning the Versailles! Edited January 3, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Project-Fairmont Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 (edited) The Granada was a huge success for Ford. I remember the ads comparing it to the Cadillac Seville (for quietness), looked like a Mercedes 300E yet it cost about the same as a VW Rabbit. Cheesy yes, but who doesn't aspire to something better? It certainly worked! Iaccoca knew how to sell cars... One of my brothers had a '76 Ghia with the 302 at the time and I thought it was the bomb! Moderate demensions, gutsy 302 and luxury that still holds up today- I don't think you can get carpet that thick anymore... In retrospect, it had an antiquited Fairlane chassis (leaf rear springs - complicated and fussy front suspension and terrible steering), however it was also still built like a car from the sixites - thick glass, steel and hinges, very well built cars with not so good rust protection... Those were the days when you shut a Ford car door it made the most satisfying sound; a combination of whoosh and click that was as good as it got and better then most anything nowdays. GM had an unsatisfying slam! (most people would try and shut them again as you didn't think it was shut proporly), GM designers loved frameless glass, but also the latches sucked. Chryler's would emit a putrid rattle, total crap! Edited January 3, 2009 by Project-Fairmont Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7Mary3 Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 The Granada was the right car for the times. Ford sold a mess of them, and Chevy's Nova Concours never equalled the Granada's popularity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Ummmm.... How about the Mustang II? In particular, the Ghia? Some cars squeeked through the energy crisis with some dignity intact... The Mustang did not. Even the legendary 5 liter struggled to make much more than 120 hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.