Bored of Pisteon Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Maybe the 200 I-6 was underpowered for the Granada but I don't see how that makes it a crappy engine. Fords I-6's were tough. I drove a '75 model with the 200 and a manual trans but I don't remember it being that bad for power, but I do remember not liking the clutch at all. The Granada I had along with most I've seen had a 250. Any late 70's Ford I have driven with the 351M-400 was a gas swilling, spark knocking dog. IMHO out of all the engines Ford had in the late 70's these engines were the worst. Give me the 351W or 302 during this time frame. Not all of those 351M's are bad now. It all depends on how well you made the adjustments on carbs, changed over spark plugs, etc... They would run fine with C4 trannys. But when it came to the FMX's and C6's. Then you're using gas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goingincirclez Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Congrats Richard, I don't know if I've seen you self-correct before. This sheepishly stubborn Granada fan thanks you. :happy feet: I am after all partially responsible for the recenlty-released HO and 1/64 models. I see where you're going for the Iacocca fauxlux tack. So Aspen/Volare it is. The 318 was a good motor at its core and still has a following but I never appreciated how putrid the smog editions were. Personally, I think the TC should stay on the list. But if you must replace it, skip the New Yorker and go with the Cimmarron. GM deserves it. Yeah, upon further review the Cimmaron was an even more egregious oversight than the Vega. I mean, it could be argued (and has been quite successfully by people more knowledgeable than I) that the Cimarron was single-handedly responsible for the near-destruction of an entire division, and brought the company down with it. Coming right on the heels of the V8-6-4 disaster, which may have been "forgivable" as a one-time screwup, the Cimmarron fully cratered the "Standard of the World" up the asses of an unsuspecting populace. Badge engineering was finally and fully exposed for the travesty it is; Cimarron-wronged Cadillac newbies vowed never to return, longtime owners abandoned the brand thanks to guilt by association, and GM itself was faced with a painful reckoning in the form of a distracting, meandering, expensive, two-decades long atonement whose success is to this day debatable. The infamous Versailles, by comparison, may as well been forged from platinum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Not all of those 351M's are bad now. It all depends on how well you made the adjustments on carbs, changed over spark plugs, etc... They would run fine with C4 trannys. But when it came to the FMX's and C6's. Then you're using gas... If you sheallc and polish a turd it may look nice and shiny and not smell but it is still a turd. The 351M Was a fuel pig regardless what tranny it had behind compared to other engines of similar displacement. In fact the Milage was not much better than and equvelent to the 460 in some apllications with way less power. The had over heating issues. Bottom end issues thanks to the destroking. Oil consumption issues. Were woefully under powered and over weight for the engine displcement. They were with out a doubt the worst engine ford made in the modern era. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Congrats Richard, I don't know if I've seen you self-correct before. This sheepishly stubborn Granada fan thanks you. :happy feet: I am after all partially responsible for the recenlty-released HO and 1/64 models. I see where you're going for the Iacocca fauxlux tack. So Aspen/Volare it is. The 318 was a good motor at its core and still has a following but I never appreciated how putrid the smog editions were. Personally, I think the TC should stay on the list. But if you must replace it, skip the New Yorker and go with the Cimmarron. GM deserves it. Yeah, upon further review the Cimmaron was an even more egregious oversight than the Vega. I mean, it could be argued (and has been quite successfully by people more knowledgeable than I) that the Cimarron was single-handedly responsible for the near-destruction of an entire division, and brought the company down with it. Coming right on the heels of the V8-6-4 disaster, which may have been "forgivable" as a one-time screwup, the Cimmarron fully cratered the "Standard of the World" up the asses of an unsuspecting populace. Badge engineering was finally and fully exposed for the travesty it is; Cimarron-wronged Cadillac newbies vowed never to return, longtime owners abandoned the brand thanks to guilt by association, and GM itself was faced with a painful reckoning in the form of a distracting, meandering, expensive, two-decades long atonement whose success is to this day debatable. The infamous Versailles, by comparison, may as well been forged from platinum. I have to agree completly. If the TC Maserati is going to go it has to be replaced with the Cimmaron. And yes it was the Cimmaron that was most directly reponsible for Cadillacs near obliteration. That one car pushed the gold standard of NA automobiles in to the crapper. And it really was the begining of the end of GM's dominance. The Cimmaron more than any other vehicle currently on the list deserves to be on that list. A lot of the other cars you could make excuses for them. Cimmaron has no excuses for the POS it was It was not new technolgy nor from an upstart car company nor a transplant. There are no excuses for explaining away why it was the POS it is. And that this was GMC's awnswer to BMW, that fact alone earns it a spot on the list. Matthew Edited January 6, 2009 by matthewq4b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefstang Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 That's two votes for the 351M. Like matthewq4b was saying about the era, below is an example of why the decade was known as the long, lame, dark 70's. The Ghia! Horrible, horrible car. The mullet, and leather Robin Hood vest don't help either! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The Ghia! Horrible, horrible car. The mullet, and leather Robin Hood vest don't help either! Actually, that's a skeet shooters vest. Notice the guns on rack in the background. Agree on the car and mullet though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Selby Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Yeah, upon further review the Cimmaron was an even more egregious oversight than the Vega. I mean, it could be argued (and has been quite successfully by people more knowledgeable than I) that the Cimarron was single-handedly responsible for the near-destruction of an entire division, and brought the company down with it. Coming right on the heels of the V8-6-4 disaster, which may have been "forgivable" as a one-time screwup, the Cimmarron fully cratered the "Standard of the World" up the asses of an unsuspecting populace. Hey, don't forget the other fiasco; Cadillac (or any other GM product) with a diesel during this time. Thanks to this GM engine many people still think of diesels as junk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Actually, that's a skeet shooters vest. Notice the guns on rack in the background. Agree on the car and mullet though! Actually, that was a popular 70's shag cut, not a mullet (short on top and sides, long in the back). Remember, the 74 Mustang II came out during a gas crises and was called the right car at the right time (also MT COTY). That Ghia in the pic had a 302 in it, which, IIRC, wasn't a bad engine. I've always thought it best to have the top trim package of any car I own. In the case of the Mustang II, that would be the Ghia (or the Grande in previous years) or the Mach 1. I never would have owned one though. I was driving a 65 Mustang at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Selby Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The Ghia! Horrible, horrible car. The mullet, and leather Robin Hood vest don't help either! I'm digging that 70's porno mustache. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Actually, that was a popular 70's shag cut, not a mullet (short on top and sides, long in the back). Remember, the 74 Mustang II came out during a gas crises and was called the right car at the right time (also MT COTY). That Ghia in the pic had a 302 in it, which, IIRC, wasn't a bad engine. I've always thought it best to have the top trim package of any car I own. In the case of the Mustang II, that would be the Ghia (or the Grande in previous years) or the Mach 1. I never would have owned one though. I was driving a 65 Mustang at the time. A mullet by any other name.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 A mullet by any other name.... The mullet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 The mullet And? As far as I'm concerned, they're ALL mullets.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrtran Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 And? As far as I'm concerned, they're ALL mullets.... Saying a mullet equals shag is like saying a 20-year-old Silverado equals Prius. One's a good-ole-boy thang, the other's a fad fashion statement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 And? As far as I'm concerned, they're ALL mullets.... LOL, or a long-haired Mustang owner is the same as someone who drives a Camaro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Saying a mullet equals shag is like saying a 20-year-old Silverado equals Prius. One's a good-ole-boy thang, the other's a fad fashion statement LOL, or a long-haired Mustang owner is the same as someone who drives a Camaro. Geez, you guys are taking me FAR too seriously. I'm just messing with you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Geez, you guys are taking me FAR too seriously. I'm just messing with you! Hehe, I kinda figured that. As a longhaired Mustang owner, I had to speak up. I still look about the same as when this was taken. Now, back to the subject at hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Plus, unlike the Lincoln Versailles, there was a stretch New Yorker made as a presidential limo for Richard Nixon. Oh Richard! Look what I found for you!: One of 3 made. Looks like you can buy it for $12,000.00: Link You know .... all these years I have believed, nay, even taught my children that the 70s were the worst decade ever!: Worst cars, worst music, worst fashions, worst economy, worst geo-political decline...... Now I'm starting to get a soft spot for the 70s. I think it's the onset of "economic malaise" - for which living through the 70s provided valuable survival skills - plus the fact that the current decade is a serious contender for worst decade ever status. Just all makes the 70s not look so bad anymore. Edited January 6, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 So now it's what? A couple inches longer than the Eldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) So now it's what? A couple inches longer than the Eldo? I don't know if I'd go that far. We're talking about the Eldo with the 500 cu. in. engine and the aircraft carrier landing deck for a hood, right? Enjoy this rip on a 1977 JC Penny Catalog from the blogosphere: Link Edited January 6, 2009 by retro-man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Oh Richard! Look what I found for you!: You KNOW a car is bad when it leaves you quoting Shakespeare: I am afraid to think what I have done;Look on't again I dare not. ... Whence is that knocking? How is't with me, when every noise appals me? What hands are here? Ha, they pluck out mine eyes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) I don't know if I'd go that far. We're talking about the Eldo with the 500 cu. in. engine and the aircraft carrier landing deck for a hood, right? Enjoy this rip on a 1977 JC Penny Catalog from the blogosphere: Link Sears '73 was even worse.... Or maybe Lileks is funnier. Although that Penney's catalog was LOL funny. And I don't just LOL for anyone. http://lileks.com/institute/sears1973/index.html Edited January 6, 2009 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grbeck Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 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. 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. To add some fuel to the fire...can't agree with this, Richard. The Granada was originally designed to replace the Maverick. But in the wake of the first fuel crunch, and the economic recession that followed, low-priced compacts such as the Maverick proved to be more popular than expected. So Ford continued the Maverick, even after the Granada debuted. Note that Chrysler did the same thing with the Dart/Valiant after the debut of the Aspen/Volare for 1976. Virtually EVERY domestic compact with a six was underpowered in the mid-1970s. The Ford was no worse than the competition in this regard, and Ford's inline six was far smoother and much more durable than the old V-6 that GM bought back from Jeep and resurrected for various compacts in the wake of the first fuel crunch. A neighbor bought a full-size 1976 LeSabre (!) with that old V-6...the engine sounded as though it was about to explode as the car cruised down our street at 15 mph. A very sound strategy drove the Granada's introduction. An increasing number of people were tiring of the bulk that came with a domestic full-size car. But they wanted the luxuries that came with those cars. So Ford loaded up the Granada with very nice upholstery, thick carpeting, nice trim and extra sound deadening to offer big-car comfort in a more manageable size. And, it worked. People bought the car in large numbers. If you want to single out a Ford engine and vehicle worthy of scorn, I would suggest the awful 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar with the crappy 255 V-8. Those were some of the ugliest cars of the time...and considering what else was being built in 1980, that is really saying something. And the engine was a complete dog. Edited January 6, 2009 by grbeck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 If you want to single out a Ford engine and vehicle worthy of scorn, I would suggest the awful 1980 Thunderbird and Cougar with the crappy 255 V-8. Those were some of the ugliest cars of the time...and considering what else was being built in 1980, that is really saying something. And the engine was a complete dog. You may have something there. I had completely forgotten about the first Fox-body T-birds & Cougars..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 You may have something there. I had completely forgotten about the first Fox-body T-birds & Cougars..... Never owned one and don't plan on it in the near future... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bored of Pisteon Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 (edited) Oh Richard! Look what I found for you!: One of 3 made. Looks like you can buy it for $12,000.00: Link You know .... all these years I have believed, nay, even taught my children that the 70s were the worst decade ever!: Worst cars, worst music, worst fashions, worst economy, worst geo-political decline...... Now I'm starting to get a soft spot for the 70s. I think it's the onset of "economic malaise" - for which living through the 70s provided valuable survival skills - plus the fact that the current decade is a serious contender for worst decade ever status. Just all makes the 70s not look so bad anymore. Considering that I was born smack dab in the middle of the 1970's. I find that decade to be somewhat nostalgic and a lot better considerning the last 15, 16 YEARS OF BULLSHIT GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY. Seriously though... You can't slam some of these cars that still start up, run and drive now can you? Edited January 6, 2009 by Bored of Pisteon 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.