47 ms·

I feel like the 1974 Lincoln/Mercury brochure (http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1974_Lincoln/1974_Lincoln-Mercury_Brochure/dirindex.html http://

I feel like the 1974 Lincoln/Mercury brochure (http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1974_Lincoln/1974_Lincoln-Mercury_Brochure/dirindex.html http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Lincoln/1974_Lincol...) may represent peak '70s salesmanship... > Last year 44 out of 50 airline pilots rated a 1973 Marquis Brougham more comfortable to drive than a $31,000 European town car. > We've demonstrated the excellent ride of a 1973 Monterey Custom in a dramatic test: a vial of nitric acid was safely suspended over a $50,000 natural Russian sable coat on loan from Maximilian of New York, while traveling over rough and irregular road surfaces. > Sexy European cars with great style and superb performance have had, all too often, prices that run into five figures. Until Capri that is. ... not to mention Detroit's bizarre '70s fascination with what to the modern eye are unbelievably tacky materials: > The [Lincoln Continental] Mark IV instrument panel is simulated cashmere walnut woodgrain matina and burl walnut woodgrain applique. > For 1974, the Mark IV has new, sophisticated insulation against outside sound, thick 25-ounce shag cut-pile carpeting enhancing the luxurious interior, further hushing the ride. > Overhead rich vinyl sheathes sun visors and headlining. Super-soft, expanded vinyl covers the European-influenced bucket seats and even door panels. There are rich tones of woodgrain vinyl along the dash. Touches of European luxury everywhere. A word I was unable to find anywhere in the brochure: "mileage." A word I only came across on the last page of the brochure, down with the fine print: "safety."

userbinator 7y ago
Early to mid-70s could be considered "peak American car", for a variety of reasons --- not long afterwards, emissions and fuel economy regulations tightened greatly and cut both size and power of cars. But if you've never been in one and have the opportunity to, or even drive one, I'd definitely recommend it. There's nothing quite like the experience of being in a classic American full-size sedan, especially at highway speed. It's very different from the more common modern Japanese car, or even the big European ones. (Full disclosure: I have one of these. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1972_Chevrolet/1972_Chevrolet_Full_Size_Brochure/dirindex.html http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1972_Chev... )
- lm28469 7y ago
  > emissions and fuel economy regulations tightened greatly and cut both size and power of cars. Which greatly improved efficiency. For example the new CLA AMG's engine makes 355hp, and that's a 2.0L [0]. In comparison the to 375hp for 7.5L for the Lincoln-mercury. 177hp/L vs 50hp/L. [1] American cars of that era were literal boats on wheels. They're good if you want to drive straight lines while towing half your house and feel like you're in a sofa. [0] https://jalopnik.com/reminder-you-can-buy-a-355-hp-turbo-four-mercedes-amg-1835373347 https://jalopnik.com/reminder-you-can-buy-a-355-hp-turbo-fou... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_385_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_385_engine
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I once drove one of these old US cars on the German Autobahn. It was sort of OK going straight but as soon as the slightest turn came up it was just scary. The car was very heavy together with soft suspension so it rolled a lot. But the sound was a lot of fun. You could almost hear the gas (and lots of money) gurgling through the carburetors.
    - kevstev 7y ago
      Around the holidays this past year I was home flipping through channels and a movie from the 1970s was on with a car chase scene. It was comical to watch by today's standards... these cars were merely skidding/drifting when making turns and yeah you could see the entire chassis rolling. When you looked past the quick cuts, low angles and other hollywood magic, you could discern that they were not even going that fast. I am fairly certain that a base model civic would have left them all in the dust, at least through the corners. These were high end for the time cars, Cadillacs, Lincolns and the like. I do remember as a kid being able to hear my father's car engine as he pulled around the corner, those old 70s cars were loud beasts.
  - fromthestart 7y ago
    You're comparing a car that is almost 50 years newer. The emissions era really only served to strangle power output and destroy any classical romance in the American car market. Efficiency gains didn't really show up in American markets until some 30 years later in the late 90s at the earliest, until then everything was underpowered and anemic to satisfy EPA constraints. Look no further than the 5.7L V8 C3 Corvette from the 70s way into the mid nineties when the LT1/LT4 were finally introduced. Until then you had 5.7 liter small blocks barely making 200hp because of emissions regulations.
throwaway2048 7y ago
Fake wood grain is one of the enduring mysteries, not only is it gross, tacky and objectively uglier than real wood, its not even any cheaper!
- rypskar 7y ago
  I would guess it last longer, since it is a dead material. Wood shrinks and expands with humidity so can't be so tightly fitted
- mc32 7y ago
  I think the deal with a lot of those materials is that at the time they were seen as “new” and “modern” and “synthetic”. Kind of like when aluminum became a du jour metal and things traditionally made from other metals suddenly had to be made with aluminum —nowadays we think of aluminum as cheap and disposable (depending on application), but for s time it was the “Titanium” of its day, and the same for those other materials.
  - mikestew 7y ago
    I was a kid in the 70s, but even at that tender age I thought the synthetic substitutes looked like shit. They didn’t look “new and modern”, they looked cheap and like someone was trying to make do with the economical alternative. So don’t be fooled by the brochures. We weren’t.
    - mc32 7y ago
      They didn’t have to appeal to everyone. I don’t think it’s much different from the novelty of “clear acrylic” telephones. What I really don’t get is how anyone would want this station wagons with the fake wood paneling and obtrusive fake trim on things like the Chevy fleetmaster. But I think it’s just one of those incomprehensible fads.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Every generation has its periodic romances with novel materials. I suspect our great-grandchildren will look back on the 2010s' fondness for Alcantara with the same puzzled confusion as we look back on '70s fake wood and vinyl.
Aloha 7y ago
The carpet in those Mark's is actually fantastic.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>A word I was unable to find anywhere in the brochure: "mileage." >A word I only came across on the last page of the brochure, down with the fine print: "safety." They're optimizing to sell cars, not to have the most upvoted comment on an article posted on /r/cars. The average buyer's caring about safety and the environment is mostly limited to "can I afford to buy gas for this" and "will the other decision maker in my household consider this safe enough".
- smacktoward 7y ago
  This is just not the case, at least not in the modern world. There are quite successful auto companies who have made safety central to their marketing message. Go car shopping on Volvo.com today, for instance, and the very first thing you see is a big notice for their "Summer of Safety Sales Event." They don't do this because they're trawling for Internet virtue points, they do it because safety sells cars -- especially in the family-hauler SUV and crossover segments, which these days outsell more traditional sedans and coupes by large margins. (See https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-2017-auto-sales-overview-20171127-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-2017-auto-sa...) This notion that safety is only of concern to people who aren't directly relevant to the car-buying decision (such as, ugh, women) has flown in the face of the evidence for decades now. It's the kind of mindset that led that 1974 brochure to ignore the subject completely, which is one of the blind spots that ended up getting Detroit's clock cleaned by imports.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    >This is just not the case, at least not in the modern world. There are quite successful auto companies who have made safety central to their marketing message. Go car shopping on Volvo.com today, for instance, and the very first thing you see is a big notice for their "Summer of Safety Sales Event." There's a difference between the HN crowd and new car buyers in general. Most people here can afford any car they want (within reason) and buy whatever lines up with their priorities best. Your average car buyer does not prioritize safety or fuel economy (especially fuel economy) beyond requiring that it meet some threshold that basically everything in the class they're looking at meets. Getting in a serious crash happens zero times in most people's lives. Of course people who are cost constrained don't spend much time thinking about it. Nobody ever chose not to buy a Chevy Aveo because they didn't like the crash test rating. Seriously, 5%ers making software dev salaries don't shop for cars the way the masses do (and it shows, compare your office parking lot to the average traffic jam). >This notion that safety is only of concern to people who aren't directly relevant to the car-buying decision (such as, ugh, women) Where did I imply anyone was irrelevant to the car buying process? Most couple shop for cars as couples. Heck, many couples bring their kids and ask them if they like the rear seats (comfortable kids are quiet kids). Both members typically have non-negotiable "the vehicle must X" criteria that constrains the search space even when only one person is going to be paying. This is part of why the Jeep Wrangler sells so well (think about all the feature boxes it checks). People being people they have different priorities. Generally speaking whoever is going to be paying wants something fun and whoever isn't wants something practical. >which is one of the blind spots that ended up getting Detroit's clock cleaned by imports. You either have little memory of 70s and 80s imports and/or is looking at them through rose colored glasses because it's what you remember being dragged around in as a child. There's a reason people compared them to tin cans. Nobody liked them. Everyone bought them. Honda Civics were the Dodge Journey of their day. Detroit lost to imports because Detroit built what the US buyers wanted and they sat on the lots while the Japanese built the cars the US buyers needed. Honda built a better Chevette than Chevy did (and the organizational reasons that happened are well beyond the scope of this comment). Like most incumbents Detroit avoided change until it was basically too late.

userbinator 7y ago

Early to mid-70s could be considered "peak American car", for a variety of reasons --- not long afterwards, emissions and fuel economy regulations tightened greatly and cut both size and power of cars. But if you've never been in one and have the opportunity to, or even drive one, I'd definitely recommend it. There's nothing quite like the experience of being in a classic American full-size sedan, especially at highway speed. It's very different from the more common modern Japanese car, or even the big European ones. (Full disclosure: I have one of these. http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1972_Chevrolet/1972_Chevrolet_Full_Size_Brochure/dirindex.html http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Chevrolet/1972_Chev... )

lm28469 7y ago
> emissions and fuel economy regulations tightened greatly and cut both size and power of cars. Which greatly improved efficiency. For example the new CLA AMG's engine makes 355hp, and that's a 2.0L [0]. In comparison the to 375hp for 7.5L for the Lincoln-mercury. 177hp/L vs 50hp/L. [1] American cars of that era were literal boats on wheels. They're good if you want to drive straight lines while towing half your house and feel like you're in a sofa. [0] https://jalopnik.com/reminder-you-can-buy-a-355-hp-turbo-four-mercedes-amg-1835373347 https://jalopnik.com/reminder-you-can-buy-a-355-hp-turbo-fou... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_385_engine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_385_engine
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I once drove one of these old US cars on the German Autobahn. It was sort of OK going straight but as soon as the slightest turn came up it was just scary. The car was very heavy together with soft suspension so it rolled a lot. But the sound was a lot of fun. You could almost hear the gas (and lots of money) gurgling through the carburetors.
  - kevstev 7y ago
    Around the holidays this past year I was home flipping through channels and a movie from the 1970s was on with a car chase scene. It was comical to watch by today's standards... these cars were merely skidding/drifting when making turns and yeah you could see the entire chassis rolling. When you looked past the quick cuts, low angles and other hollywood magic, you could discern that they were not even going that fast. I am fairly certain that a base model civic would have left them all in the dust, at least through the corners. These were high end for the time cars, Cadillacs, Lincolns and the like. I do remember as a kid being able to hear my father's car engine as he pulled around the corner, those old 70s cars were loud beasts.
- fromthestart 7y ago
  You're comparing a car that is almost 50 years newer. The emissions era really only served to strangle power output and destroy any classical romance in the American car market. Efficiency gains didn't really show up in American markets until some 30 years later in the late 90s at the earliest, until then everything was underpowered and anemic to satisfy EPA constraints. Look no further than the 5.7L V8 C3 Corvette from the 70s way into the mid nineties when the LT1/LT4 were finally introduced. Until then you had 5.7 liter small blocks barely making 200hp because of emissions regulations.

throwaway2048 7y ago

Fake wood grain is one of the enduring mysteries, not only is it gross, tacky and objectively uglier than real wood, its not even any cheaper!

rypskar 7y ago
I would guess it last longer, since it is a dead material. Wood shrinks and expands with humidity so can't be so tightly fitted
mc32 7y ago
I think the deal with a lot of those materials is that at the time they were seen as “new” and “modern” and “synthetic”. Kind of like when aluminum became a du jour metal and things traditionally made from other metals suddenly had to be made with aluminum —nowadays we think of aluminum as cheap and disposable (depending on application), but for s time it was the “Titanium” of its day, and the same for those other materials.
- mikestew 7y ago
  I was a kid in the 70s, but even at that tender age I thought the synthetic substitutes looked like shit. They didn’t look “new and modern”, they looked cheap and like someone was trying to make do with the economical alternative. So don’t be fooled by the brochures. We weren’t.
  - mc32 7y ago
    They didn’t have to appeal to everyone. I don’t think it’s much different from the novelty of “clear acrylic” telephones. What I really don’t get is how anyone would want this station wagons with the fake wood paneling and obtrusive fake trim on things like the Chevy fleetmaster. But I think it’s just one of those incomprehensible fads.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Every generation has its periodic romances with novel materials. I suspect our great-grandchildren will look back on the 2010s' fondness for Alcantara with the same puzzled confusion as we look back on '70s fake wood and vinyl.

Aloha 7y ago

The carpet in those Mark's is actually fantastic.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>A word I was unable to find anywhere in the brochure: "mileage." >A word I only came across on the last page of the brochure, down with the fine print: "safety." They're optimizing to sell cars, not to have the most upvoted comment on an article posted on /r/cars. The average buyer's caring about safety and the environment is mostly limited to "can I afford to buy gas for this" and "will the other decision maker in my household consider this safe enough".

smacktoward 7y ago
This is just not the case, at least not in the modern world. There are quite successful auto companies who have made safety central to their marketing message. Go car shopping on Volvo.com today, for instance, and the very first thing you see is a big notice for their "Summer of Safety Sales Event." They don't do this because they're trawling for Internet virtue points, they do it because safety sells cars -- especially in the family-hauler SUV and crossover segments, which these days outsell more traditional sedans and coupes by large margins. (See https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-2017-auto-sales-overview-20171127-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-2017-auto-sa...) This notion that safety is only of concern to people who aren't directly relevant to the car-buying decision (such as, ugh, women) has flown in the face of the evidence for decades now. It's the kind of mindset that led that 1974 brochure to ignore the subject completely, which is one of the blind spots that ended up getting Detroit's clock cleaned by imports.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >This is just not the case, at least not in the modern world. There are quite successful auto companies who have made safety central to their marketing message. Go car shopping on Volvo.com today, for instance, and the very first thing you see is a big notice for their "Summer of Safety Sales Event." There's a difference between the HN crowd and new car buyers in general. Most people here can afford any car they want (within reason) and buy whatever lines up with their priorities best. Your average car buyer does not prioritize safety or fuel economy (especially fuel economy) beyond requiring that it meet some threshold that basically everything in the class they're looking at meets. Getting in a serious crash happens zero times in most people's lives. Of course people who are cost constrained don't spend much time thinking about it. Nobody ever chose not to buy a Chevy Aveo because they didn't like the crash test rating. Seriously, 5%ers making software dev salaries don't shop for cars the way the masses do (and it shows, compare your office parking lot to the average traffic jam). >This notion that safety is only of concern to people who aren't directly relevant to the car-buying decision (such as, ugh, women) Where did I imply anyone was irrelevant to the car buying process? Most couple shop for cars as couples. Heck, many couples bring their kids and ask them if they like the rear seats (comfortable kids are quiet kids). Both members typically have non-negotiable "the vehicle must X" criteria that constrains the search space even when only one person is going to be paying. This is part of why the Jeep Wrangler sells so well (think about all the feature boxes it checks). People being people they have different priorities. Generally speaking whoever is going to be paying wants something fun and whoever isn't wants something practical. >which is one of the blind spots that ended up getting Detroit's clock cleaned by imports. You either have little memory of 70s and 80s imports and/or is looking at them through rose colored glasses because it's what you remember being dragged around in as a child. There's a reason people compared them to tin cans. Nobody liked them. Everyone bought them. Honda Civics were the Dodge Journey of their day. Detroit lost to imports because Detroit built what the US buyers wanted and they sat on the lots while the Japanese built the cars the US buyers needed. Honda built a better Chevette than Chevy did (and the organizational reasons that happened are well beyond the scope of this comment). Like most incumbents Detroit avoided change until it was basically too late.