We're sorry, the page you were looking for does not exist.Ford LTD For Sale Find Ford LTD for sale By Year View All Years of Ford LTD For Sale Be notified when a new vehicle is added to Carsforsale that matches your criteria. 14 city / 22 hwy 15 city / 22 hwy Salvage & damage disclosures 2.8 Liter V6 V8 It appears that you are located approximately [X] miles away from this vehicle. Are you certain that you are still interested? If so, click Send to contact the seller. 2 Door Utility 4x4 4 Door Pillared Hardtop 4 Door Ranch Wagon 1/2 Ton Cargo Van 1/2 Ton Chateau Club Wagon 1/2 Ton Club Wagon 1/2 Ton Custom Club Wagon 1/2 Ton Display Van 1/2 Ton Window Van 3/4 Ton Club Wagon 3/4 Ton Cargo Van 3/4 Ton Display Van 3/4 Ton Window Van 1 Ton Cargo Van 1 Ton Display Van 1 Ton Window Van 1/2 Ton Flareside LWB 1/2 Ton Flareside Shortbed 1/2 Ton Styleside LWB

1/2 Ton Styleside Shortbed 1/2 Ton Styleside Supercab 1/2 Ton Styleside Supercab LWB 3/4 Ton Crew Cab 1 Ton Crew Cab Country 4 Door Sedan 4 Door Station Wagon 4 Door Squire Wagon 4 Door Station Wagon 6 Passenger 4 Door Station Wagon 9 Passenger 2 Door Hardtop Coupe 2 Door Coupe (*) 2 Door Fastback (*) 2 Door Station Wagon 3 Door Runabout Hatchbackgarage door pretoria east More years and modelssliding glass doors cork Don't see your year or model? automatic garage doors pooleMore Street Rods For Sale Classic Car For SaleAdvertise Your Car Here - It's Freegarage door repair south pasadena ca

Show all trims ↓ Show fewer trims ↑ No Frame Damage Reported No Salvage Title Reported Hide vehicles without photos Only show recent price drops Listings for these models will be added to the listings you are currently viewing. great car with its 400/351m v8, c6 tranny, and 9inch rear . it was a tank. plenty of room and great for long road trips but bad for around town driving due to gas mileage. bifold closet doors barnother wise great car and head turner.car window crack repair san diego Find Ford LTD listings in your areashower doors dublin ca Oldest first (by car year) Newest first (by car year) Certified Pre-Owned:Transmission: Color: Description:

Location: Pensacola, FL 32505 Location: Palm Springs, CA 92264 Location: Mc Murray, PA 15317 Location: Merrill, WI 54452 Location: Aberdeen, MD 21001 Location: Canton, GA 30115 Location: Henderson, NV 89011 Location: Ontario, CA 91762 Location: Riverside, NJ 08075 Location: Mokena, IL 60448 Location: Marysville, OH 43040 Location: Wickliffe, OH 44092 Filter your search criteria! A large number of listings matched your criteria. You are seeing the top 2,000 listings.Today, our subject is Bloat.  Please turn your attention to the photograph above.  We are going to examine this poor, unfortunate swollen subject in some detail.  This is the sad result when a handsome but large American car simply lets itself go. Sure, the 1971-72 Ford LTD had been a piece of crap.  But it had at least been an attractive and appealing piece of crap, one that made its (first) owner feel handsome and successful, at least until the rust started bubbling up through the paint after its third winter. 

But the ’73 model, ugh! I vividly recall this car’s debut.  My Mopar fandom was still developing, and my automotive heart was still with the big Fords.  From my earliest consciousness, I worked hard at identifying every year and following the new models when they came out.  I suppose it was my way of rebellion in a family dominated by GM vehicles.  Finally, my Uncle Bob got a used ’64 Galaxie 500, and then Dad got a new ’66 Country Squire, followed by a ’69 LTD.  Each of these cars seemed better and more appealing than the last.  I still remember the first ’71 LTD I ever saw – I was stunned at how beautiful the car was.  Yessir, Ford was on a roll.  Then came this one. “My,” I thought of my old flame in late 1972, “haven’t you put on weight?”  Actually, my dear Ford LTD had gotten outright fat.  This was bloat of the highest order.  Sure, Chevy and Plymouth had usually been better performers, but Fords had at least looked trim and athletic from the curb. 

The ’71-72 LTD always made me think of Burt Reynolds.  Maybe this is because I remember him driving them in the movie White Lightning.  More like John Candy.  Only not as funny.  Middle age spread had taken hold. I wanted to like the car.  But every feature of the thing seemed designed to look less appealing than last year’s model.  Every detail on the car was dull and puffy compared to the prior version.  I knew that the fat bumpers were not Ford’s fault, but everything else certainly was.  To tell you how bad it was, the ’73 Caprice started looking good to me, which in my Chevy-phobic youth was a serious matter indeed. Let’s be truthful for a moment.  Does anyone really like the ’73 big Ford?  I don’t mean do you like the way it rides, or how much you can put into its cavernous trunk.  I mean does anyone think that this is an attractive car?  I suspect that we will get two or three contrarians out there who will disagree with me, but on this one, I claim to be in the comfortable majority. 

I ask you:  even aside from its all-too-obvious weight problem, is there an original (or even interesting)  line anywhere on it? I can hear those two or three apologists now:  “But JP, maybe you have not actually spent enough time with one of these.”  To which I shall reply “you sir, are wrong.”  A close family friend traded a black ’68 Mercury Montclair fastback (which I dearly loved) on one.  Six of us rode in that car on a vacation that summer.  It was certainly comfortable, and as a top-line LTD Brougham 2 door painted a reddish-copper, it was about as good looking as these got.  But attractive on its own?  I also remember from a few years later the rust, the hollow-sounding doors and the duct-taped upholstery.  A school-friend’s dad bought one too, in that ungodly metallic pinkish-red, no less.  My father got them as rentals (usually Galaxie 500s) more than once on family trips.  And I got to spend a whole day cleaning and detailing a lime green ’73 Country Sedan wagon, getting familiar with its every nook, crevice, squeak and rattle. 

I have firsthand experience with an impressive variety of models, trim levels and colors.  These cars, to me, are like Green Eggs and Ham–I do not like them, Sam I Am. Really, I think that this is the car that singlehandedly started the Malaise Era.  The ’73 model was not so much a new car as a new platform for hanging ever-more parts from Ford’s massive Brougham Catalog.  This car was the white pine that would be transformed into the  Christmas Tree by 1976-78 (which we will call Peak Brougham).  How many square yards of earth-toned padded vinyl and woodgrain applique swathed these things?  It may have helped them. Sometimes, we can be surprised when we find that a reviled broughamified chariot can look quite trim and appealing once all of the gingerbread is stripped away.  But as we see with rather basic version here, it doesn’t help one bit.  Just like some people don’t look good in a Speedo, some cars just don’t look good wearing nothing but metal.  Quick, somebody get this poor swollen thing into a trim shop.  

It’s gonna take their broughamliest vinyls, and lots of them, to cover this automotive hippo.  And if anyone ever wondered whether a finer grille texture would have helped this car’s look, we can now give you a definitive no. It has been quite awhile since I have heaped such hate onto a car, but to tell you the truth, it feels kinda good, in a soul-cleansing kind of way.   Am I being unfair to the poor, helpless thing?  I am man enough to admit that the 1973-74 generation of this car was probably a better quality package than Ford offered in 1971-72.  But not by a lot, and truthfully, this was not a particularly high standard from the outset.  No matter what Paul Niedermeyer says (here).  Although it depends on which day you ask (here).   I can also concede that the car was one of the smoothest and quietest interstate cruisers of its day, capable of devouring miles (and gallons) in great quantities. If pressed, I can also acknowledge that there is a sort of cohesiveness to the design. 

We can debate about how good of a thing this cohesiveness actually is, but it is at least there compared with the muddled hash that followed as 1975 models.  I have reviewed Paul’s rant (here) about the odd two-door greenhouse on the 1975-78 version, and see his point.  But is the 1975-78 version of this car an overall improvement over this one?  Fodder for the commentariat indeed, because I just can’t decide.  It’s like having to choose between a splitting headache or uncontrollable itching. In anticipation of at least one comment, I will freely acknowledge that I have walked past hundreds of well-kept versions of this car, just waiting for a picture of a real shit-box in order to support my bile-filled diatribe.  Who am I kidding?  It is amazing that even one of these lived long enough to get this worn out.  Most of them rusted to powder, at least until their 400 cid engine blocks cracked or until they were totalled after slipping into reverse and backing into something or another.