Talk:Ford LTD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 LTD abbreviation 2 Hidden lights 3 Square Headlights? 4 ewww, what's this 5 LTD vs LTD CV 6 disambiguation page

[edit] LTD abbreviation

According to this page, Ford of Australia say LTD stands for Lincoln Type Design, not Lincoln Thunderbird Division. I'd be inclined to agree; there never was a Lincoln Thunderbird Division. Thunderbirds were often built in the same plant as Lincolns, true, and in some years the cars shared much, but Ford never made that connection so official. Comments? —Morven 06:09, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

PS. It's possible that originally it meant absolutely nothing, or short for 'Limited', and then the marketers got hold of it and invented more elaborate meanings ... —Morven 06:18, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Morven: I believe the Lincoln–Thunderbird Division did exist; if not formally then certainly in the minds of Ford's marketing people. The cars all came out of the one factory and I seem to recall this was specifically printed on the front of a hubcap on a 1960s LTD, but a Google search just now revealed nothing. What I know is that in 1958, the Wixom, Mich. factory was set up to build Thunderbirds and Lincolns and it's (probably) from there that LTD took its name. I did grow up around these cars and have never heard the Lincoln Type Design explanation, logical as it may be. (Remember that marketing at the time of the LTD's launch was anything but logical!)

Some UK publications at the time of the UK launch of the LTD (1981) claimed 'Limited' but this is clearly wrong: LTD is capitalized for a reason.

At one point in the 1950s, Ford had five divisions: Ford, Edsel, Lincoln, Mercury and Thunderbird (see here for information on the formation of Edsel as a separate division and the break-up of Lincoln and Mercury). Lincoln and Mercury were broken up around 1955 and a Specialist Products Division formed in addition; Lincoln and Mercury were reformed either in 1957 or 1959.

So I believe it actually did have a Lincoln–Thunderbird Division at one time in an era when branding did not really drive organizations.

Finally, while this isn't authoritative, these car boffins seem to feel it is Lincoln Thunderbird Division in their trivia section: http://www.gaspumpclassics.com/newsletter/030521.html. Stombs 00:29, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have to vote for "Limited" if it meant anything at all. I never heard of the other explanations until I saw them here. Remember, it started as a luxury option package, not a model, and giving the impression of a special limited edition Galaxie made sense. It was probably capitalized just because it looked better that way on the sail panel badge, which was the LTD hallmark for years. RivGuySC 02:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty damn sure there was never a Thunderbird division. —Morven 06:59, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Ford organization with the five divisions didn't last long, if the history I cited above was right. The synopsis to Standard Catalog of Ford 1903-2003, 3rd ed., seems to suggest that Thunderbird was a 'marque'. (Cf. http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=automotive&month=10272958&day=10272972 where Continental is cited as a marque—I am pretty sure I have a period book somewhere that confirms this.)

Also, I maintain that I first saw the words Lincoln Thunderbird Division on an LTD hubcap. That was over 25 years ago, but having found it in that quiz when checking facts for this talk page suggests to me that I didn't dream that. Stombs 11:59, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Guys, found this French page which is more circumstantial evidence of Continental and Thunderbird being marques, not models, for a brief time: http://weill.univ-tln.fr/dshemstr/dshemstr/edsel.htm. Also this one from McLellans books—the 1957 entry of marques lists 'Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Continental Mark II, DeSoto, Dodge, Ford, Hudson, Imperial, Lincoln, Mercury, Nash, Oldsmobile, Packard Clipper, Plymouth, Pontiac, Rambler, Studebaker and Thunderbird' as marques. A German book, Die Personenwagen von Ford—USA 1945–65: Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln, Thunderbird, suggests the same. Stombs 12:06, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Marque does not equal division. I reiterate that I have never heard of a Thunderbird Division. This doesn't mean that Thunderbird wasn't its own marque.

My '67 Thunderbird carries almost no Ford branding whatsoever. The Ford name and emblem appear in only two places: on the door kick plates, and on the keys. I believe this to be consistently the case with 1950s, 1960s and 1970s Thunderbirds.

From a quick perusal of period Thunderbird advertising, Ford is generally not mentioned. IMO, Thunderbird was, (de facto at the very least) a seperate marque as far as marketing went. However, it was not, I believe, its own division at any point. Thunderbirds were sold by Ford dealers and listed as a Ford in company publications. —Morven 20:54, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

That's why in my first sentence I said a Thunderbird division was never formalized and likely to have been an invention of the marketers, but I'd like to keep an open mind to both possibilities—and there have been some weird, obscure references out there on the web that, very circumstantially, point to a division. They are, however, by no means totally authoritative. But coming back to the subject: I think LTD does stand for Lincoln Thunderbird Division, whether it existed in reality or just the minds of some marketing guys. Stombs 13:56, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden lights

Re: the Australian model's hidden lights--if this is the same system Ford marketed in the U.S., it's not correct to say it operated by electrics and vacuum. It was a vacuum only control, as I know from many attempts to plug the leaks in a '79 Lincoln's. RivGuySC 02:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My T-bird's hidden headlights have an electrically powered vacuum valve which controls the vacuum to actuate the vacuum motors for the headlight doors. Maybe this is what is meant? This AFAIK was a '67 only option on the Thunderbird, though; '68 saw a combined electric-and-vacuum headlamp switch on the dash, rather than the electric-only switch and remote vacuum valve solution. —Morven 09:16, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

The combined switch is what my Lincoln had--nearly a foot long, and an amazing agglomeration of circuits and valves! However, as I recall, the electric parts only controled the lights themselves--auto dimming, on/off, etc. It was the sliding action of the switch that released the vacuum and let the doors bleed open. If you had a good seal everywhere, it was hard to pull out, whereas if there was a leak, it would practically come off in your hand. However, the hybrid system you have might have been in the Australian models. Unless some owner logs in here to tell us, we probably will never know. RivGuySC 18:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Morven: you're right that is what I meant. I'll rewrite that bit now. Stombs 11:48, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Square Headlights?

There was never an LTD built in the sixties with square headlights. In model year 1966 there were two different grills, one for the Galaxie/Custom series and one for the LTD/XL/ 7 litre series. The article fails to mention the build quality of the LTD which makes it the world standard for police usage, as it has been for many years 205.188.117.74

[edit] ewww, what's this

eww, what's this, somebody fix it!!

---

1975-1978 Ford LTD

This big car, which hobbled along in sales after the 1974 oil crisis, dates back to the sixties in basic design, 1973 in form. The size and feel of these cars are similar to the Buick LeSabre and Chevrolet Caprice before GM's 1977 downsizing. They're boats, big, heavy, and with appalling handling and road feel. They can fit six people inside both coupe and sedan though, nine in the wagon. Trunk space is also vast. While these cars weigh less than the earlier models, they are still far in excess of two tons, meaning that agility and fuel economy are both weak points. The most "economical" engine available was the 302cid V8, but it doesn't have enough power to motivate these behemoths, and suffers from valve guide wear because it's so overmatched. The next largest engine was Ford's 351cid V8, which was the most common, if not most powerful, choice. The 351 is well suited to LTD, and has a reputation for reliability in this car. Still larger was Ford's 400cid V8, with more power but less fuel economy, and

I'll see what I can do. --ApolloBoy 01:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LTD vs LTD CV

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what is and is not an LTD. The standard Ford LTD was built from 1965 to 1991, even though only the LTD Crown Victoria was fullsize. The LTD line ceased to exist after 1991, when the fullsize Ford became just Crown Victoria.

In 1983, the LTD and LTD Brougham models were downsized to take the place of the Granada. The RWD midsize line was killed after 1986, but the base and Brougham trim lines were not continued on the fullsize model.

Therefore, a 1988 Ford LTD Crown Victoria is still an LTD.

And, just for the record, both sedan images on this page are 1988-91 LTD CVs. --Sable232 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As is the wagon. IFCAR 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] disambiguation page

RE "Discuss suggestion that article be split into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page."

Yes, should be. The US "LTD" and AU "LTD" are two entirely different cars, (EG. different "platforms",) merely having a similar name. It was done with the linked Ford "Falcon", and likely other AU vs. US, (and UK and South American, etc.,) FoMoCo, Chrysler and GM cars (?), why not this one?

Then again maybe the whole "disambiguation page" thing should be reconsidered... just having links in each article? (Hello Jimmy?) Thanks. truthdowser 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)