My uncle had a new Versailles. He had traded the worlds most unreliable vehicle in on it. He liked to be different so he bought a new 1973 Jaguar XJ-6. He lived approximately 200 miles away from the nearest dealer and as he once told me “It made the trip to the dealership more often on a flatbed than it did under it’s own power. The Versailles was totally reliable and he could get it serviced at a Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealer in his hometown.
@@MisterMikeTexas I think that it’s called a glutton for punishment. My uncle lived in Moses Lake, Washington and the nearest Jaguar dealer was somewhere in the Seattle area. I asked him why he didn’t just buy a Cadillac if he wanted a luxury car. He replied that he didn’t want to appear as a show off. He thought that the Jaguar was more understated. It probably was because he ended up driving his Ford Pickup when the Jaguar was broken down which seemed to be all the time.
My dad had the same Jaguar. It was a LEMON! He got rid of his for a 1976 Seville. At least the Seville, looked unique and one would never know they used the Nova platform. The Versailles used the same body panels as the Granda and Monarch! They didn't even bother to conceal the wipers. American Sunroof was called in to give the car a different back window roof line for 1980. Ford really should have done more to alter the exterior. It wasn't a bad car!
@@dave1956 I think if I were your uncle, I would have gone for a mid-level (for a Lincoln) Continental sedan or coupé, below the Town Car level (not the Mark). I think that would be the perfect or near-perfect show of elegance without "showing off".
Having turned wrenches on a lot of Granadas, Monarchs, and Versailles, I found them to be reliable, but uninspiring. The Versailles was very comfortable and quiet, and the 5.8l gave it more performance than most of it's competitors, but the styling... disappointingly Granada-like. The double isolated shock mounts were such a good idea, Cadillac plagiarized them for the Cimarron, flattery at it's sincerest! Great series, love your videos
I own a 1977 Versailles that was my mom's. My mom fell in love with the wedgewood blue lincoln when her and my dad went to the Mercury-Lincoln dealer to look at a Monarch, so
I'm old enough to remember seeing the Lincoln Versailles when it was new. Preteen me didn't know a lot about cars, but I could tell it was basically a Granada with a Continental kit (at least in appearance).
Back in the fall of 1983 I purchased a gently used (29K miles) 1978 LTD Country Squire from a Ford/Lincoln/Mercury dealer to replace my 1968 Caprice Estate that had been totaled by a woman who ran a red light (fortunately, I wasn't hurt, unlike the woman and her two children who hit me). The same dealer who I purchased the Country Squire from also had a 1980 Versailles with only 4K miles that had been traded in by the same widow who had traded in the Country Squire. I gave it some serious thought - the price was right - but my wife liked her 1979 Bonneville sedan that we had bought new so I said no. A co-worker of mine bought it instead and his wife drove it over 250K miles without any problems.
My mom had a triple black 1970 Mark III which she traded in on a triple black 1979 Mark V. I was there when the salesperson asked her if she would be interested in the Versailles and my mom said ‘that looks just like a Granada, no thank you’. I learned to drive in the Mark V and I took my driving test in it in 1979. Big car to navigate in LA traffic! 😄
I also owned a '70 triple black Mark III. It sure was swanky. I had couple of people follow me just so they could talk about the car. They either had one or knew someone who did. Mine had some electrical issues that prevented starting and drained the battery. The Sure Track braking started to pulsate, so it was disconnected. I ended up selling it for what I paid for it (minus repairs...this was 1990) to help fund purchase of my first home.
Reminds me of a doctor's wife I knew who got a new 1970 Eldorado for her birthday. She loved getting a new car but, there was something about the car that she just didn't like. Her husband traded it in on new Mark III Lincoln Continental. She was very happy with that car and kept it.
Mom sort of said the same. She said there was really no difference to her between the Monarch and the Versailles besides the outside thermometer. She ended up buying a Seville.
Perhaps ford would have better luck with the Versailles had they pushed the wheels out to the body line like the Seville. I think that is why the Seville looks so good. Especially the front wheels.
I love the look of my 79 Versailles , turns heads everywhere , I see it no different than comparing a Yukon to a Escalade as far as engineering .. it was just first
I learned how to drive in a Granada. I remember wanting a Versailles. I’ll always have a soft spot for all three models as the classic luxury car styling of all three was spot on for the 1970s era.
I've ridden in both the Versailles and the SeVille. Both were quiet but, strangely when both cars hit a sandy patch of road, the Lincoln allowed more noise of the sand hitting the lower part of the doors to enter the cabin than the SeVille. Seat comfort was about the same, in my opinion. Also, and again, this is my opinion, I thought the SeVille was the better riding of the two. I think Cadillac's use of coating the rear leaf springs with Teflon made the difference. Normally, I don't like leaf springs either. Cadillac has a wider stance on the road which made it a better handling car than the Lincoln too. Today, if I had to choose between the two, I'd choose the SeVille. Another thing, parts for the SeVille are still available today whereas those for the Lincoln, in many cases, are not.
I remember these Lincolns when I was a teen in the mid 80's. They got no respect just like the Cimarron. I also remember people flocking to get the last rwd 84 DeVille, Park Avenue and 98's.
Having lived through the era the Versailles looked like an upscale trim package/Seville wannabe. When the Seville debuted it was something no one had seen before.
My dad leased a 1977 Granada Ghia 4 door. The sticker price was just shy of $8,000 as the car had every option except for moonroof, four wheel disc brakes and remote trunk release. For about $3,000 more, he could have had the Versailles. After the lease expired, he bought the Granada and gave it to my mom. It suffered from frequent mechanical failures and was in the shop for repairs often. The 302 engine is a good one but the variable venturi carburetor was garbage.
Those garbage VV carburetors were often replaced with regular Motorcraft 2bbl carbs and that fixed the problem. I'm sure Ford came up with the VV carb to satisfy the EPA but, in the field they were replaced with the old reliable 2150 carb.
I had a 78 ess every option cheapest maintenance reliable car ever owned bought it with 46000 miles for 1850 drive it to 120000 traded for new GT mustang. Still ran perfect 302 pretty gutless .
@@juliewest9645 1978 was deep inside the darkness of the EPA smog motor era. The standard 250 inline six could barely remove the peel from a banana, it was so weak. Contrast that to the Torino my uncle had (he bought it new). It was a 1970 base model and it had the 250 six and three speed on the column. It was surprisingly peppy for around town driving and that's because it was a pre-smog car.
@@BlackPill-pu4vi I remember being four years old and my Aunt and Uncle bought a new '71 Torino for my cousin Rhonda's graduation gift. White Sportsroof with brown interior. Not sure what was under the hood but it was 3-on-the-tree. It had really nice wheel covers and didn't look stripped out, so I'm guessing some "exterior decor group" was ordered. No power steering, but Rhonda's stout Ukrainian frame was a fair match. She drove it for years before replacing it with a 78 or 79 Buick Regal Turbo.
My steady girlfriend in the mid 80's mother had a mint loaded 1979 Mercury Monarch. She loved that car, so did I. Had every option you could obtain. Rode real nice and trouble-free. Great cars!
My father had one of these Versailles and was in the shop more than on the road. The Venturi carburetor was the main issue, and half a dozen mechanics gave up. He got it to run far enough to get to a nearby Toyota dealer and traded it for a Cressida that he owned for the next fifteen years.
I bought one from a lady who owned a Seville too. Mine had really good gold paint that Ford bought from GM. The carpet was so thick it was kind of tacky looking .We sold it because my wife got really offended when someone called it "La Bamba Mobile" . It was really a tank because it was under powered . It kind of was but we were fools to sell it because I only paid 850 dollars for a car that looked showroom new. The Lady I bought it from bought it from Avis I think or what ever company Ford owned.
Thanks for the video showing why the Versailles appealed to its buyers. What hurt the Versailles sales, is that Seville came first and set the standard for how to build a smaller luxury car off a cheaper car platform. Because car for car, the Versailles had some advantages over the Seville, such as better build quality IMO - but Lincoln skipped the most important part - which was restyling the sheet metal and dash to give Versailles its own look and personality. The 1976 Seville was a beautiful, dramatically styled car. It made Mercedes and other imports look frumpy, while making fender-skirted domestic luxury cars look bloated.
I agree with you entirely. The Seville was as stunning for its time as the 1961 Continental was for its. There was nothing else like them. Seville had "packaging" problems, though. Cadillac put too much car into too small a space, giving the interior a tight, claustrophobic vibe. Adam has noted this on several occasions.
Yep - and designer / executive arrogance led to destroying Seville brand equity with the 1980……they didn’t learn from the Cutlass Salon…..a 4-door 1979 Eldorado as a 1980 Seville might have changed history at GM
My very 1st Car at 17 in 1987 was a 1979 Granada Coupe. My Dad bought it New. It was 2 Tone Black over Silver. The Dealer Dressed it up with Chrome wheels with Locking Chrome Spokes & Dad Bought it off the Showroom Floor. After 2 Years Mom got the Granada & Dad Bought a 1981 2 Door Marquis Brougham. Them in 1987 Dad bought the all New F150 XLT LARIAT, Mom got the Marquis & the Granada with 70.000 miles went to me. Dad took it to Ford to get it Fully Serviced & then to Goodyear for all new tires. In 3 years i put 90.000 miles on the Granada with only regular maintenance. Then in 1990 i took it back to the Ford/Lincoln/Mercury where my Dad bought all his Vehicle's & Traded the Granada in for a Pre-owned 1986 Chevrolet Monte Carlo with 27.000 miles. The Ford Dealership gave me $1.500 for the Granada as they had Serviced the Granada since New. As with most, i wish i kept my 1st Car, a 1979 Granada !!
The Versailles and the Seville were absolutely beautiful cars. I didn't like the roofline change in 1979. The interiors were extremely plush and when equipped with bucket seats you would get a hand stiched leather console that gatlve the Versailles a rich look. It also had a leather stitched dash pad. The exterior was done in my opinion in a most tasteful way and it holds up very well to this day. Another entry in this was the Chrysler LeBaron amd Dodge Diplomat. These were about halfbthe price of a Versailles but the base model was on par with the Aspen and Volare that they were built on. If you got the Medallion model, you really stepped up with a beautiful velor interior or for $254.00 more could get the leather. They also employed some of the best plastic wood trim on the dash than anyone else in the automobile business. Chrysler cars usually had some of the worst fake woodgrained dashes, but not in the LeBaron/Diplomat. Ford probably did the fake woodgrain overall better then other car manufacturers.
There was a wonderful radio commercial for the "Lincoln Vea-size", narrated by a woman with a snooty "English" accent. She was "driving down Laurel Canyon..." and stated that "this car has "spawting blood". Veddy, teddy sophisticated, just like the cah.
It was better than the Granada, those little changes add up. Also the hot rod world is happy they were made, that narrow 9 inch rear axle with disc brakes was used in all kinds of street rods.
The Versailles was one of the first cars with halogen headlights. BFD you may think but in the early 80's it was the brightest headlights on the road. It had a built in garage door opener. Also the roof change in the later model was fiberglassed in. So the vinyl top years down the road didn't rot out any metal. It was a goofy car to be sure but my family got it on model year clearence new but drove it to over 300k, reliably.
Another marvelous video. For folks who love cars, Adam’s open-minded approach when discussing ignored/ dismissed cars makes for engaging videos. I loved learning about the shock absorber isolation as an example of what Lincoln did to set the Versailles apart. I wish I would have ridden in a Versailles to experience the difference with a Granada (which I owned and found to be incredibly solid and reliable). Unrelated, the Granada was the last Ford I experienced that had the satisfying door closure sound feel that was so common in big Ford/Mercury/Lincoln in the 60s/70s. Thanks Adam.
6:30 One of the reasons the tops of the shock towers were so high on these cars was that Ford had designed the 1960 Falcon, from which these cars had descended, so that it could accommodate a FWD powertrain if Ford chose to employ one at some point, though they never did. So, Earl McPherson (the guy after whom the McPherson strut was named) put the shocks within the springs and located the whole coil-over unit above the upper control arm. Mcpherson had not used his struts on these cars because the friction they introduced had been blamed for the ride harshness of the Ford Consul (the car model in which Eddie Chochran famously died). When Honda went to a double-wishbone design for the same reason in 1986, they cleverly snaked the steering knuckle around the coil-over assembly to a control arm that was located above it, thus giving the Accord the low hood that was fashionable at the time. Since then, with improved gasket materials, friction has become less of a problem with McPhereson strut suspensions and they have become the dominant choice to suspend the front wheels of most cars.
GM holden designed wet struts for the commodore in the 70s to make them last in the harsh desert of Australia. The falcon design continued until the xf falcon in 1994 in Australia.
@Low760 You might not be entirely correct..." pcno" above seems to know a great deal about the history of Ford's front end suspension systems.....and I can testify that Ford North America seriously DID consider a front-wheel-drive, V-4 powertrain for the upcoming 1960 Falcon. That engineering project was written about in detail at the beginning of an article that covered the Oldsmobile Toronado's 1966 debut. The article named the Ford engineer, and described that the design was almost exactly what the Olds engineers settled on: a longitudinal engine with torque converter aft, ( like a regular rwd system ), but then a chain-driven gearbox slung under the passenger side cylinder bank. Ford of course dropped that initiative for North America, but Olds happened to use that configuration in a case of, "great engineers sometimes think alike", I guess. If I can find the article I will happily send you the link.
Brings back memories of that downsizing era and my friend's dad's '78 Versailles, in that same burgundy exterior and interior combo. Finally a "luxury" car I have actually experienced riding in quite a few times. I agree their Versailles had an impressive ride for the car's size, and was noticeably quiet and its interior indeed heavily padded (leather - a material my seat never got to experience before!). Even sported a factory 8-track that friend touted was "Quadraphonic" although they had only a demo tape that came with the car to prove that audio feature was included! But I still wasn't convinced this was anything but a Lincolnized Granada (never thought about the Monarch).
I wanted a Versailles in 1979 and/or 1980, but I could not afford one. I was recently looking for one and again can't afford one in mint condition. I bought a 1983 Mark VI instead. I enjoyed this presentation. Thank you,
Antique cars tend to be much more affordable than they look. Far too many dealers price them ludicrously--even double their actual value, and double what they just paid. My rule of thumb is DEALER PRICE /2 = REALISTIC PRICE. Buy from a club member or other private party.
Another great review, Adam. One of the main reasons Lincoln decided to go with the Versailles name is that the name was second in surveys conducted when deciding what to name the Mark III. I've always wanted one of these but never found the right one. They were beautifully finished smaller luxury cars, even if they did have an unfortunately close resemblance to the Granada and Monarch (which I also like).
Okay now you are cooking with gas and doing some obscure, weird and fun. I want a Versailles. Anyone can get a Seville. Whoops! You mention the Mark IV when you meant the Mark V. The Versailles debuted in 77 with the Mark V.
This video was quite interesting. I recall all three: Granada, Monarch, and Versailles. You could see it was based on the other two. As you said they did not have time to invest to make it more different. They tried. I hope you will do a video on the interior. I wonder of all the car makers lost their way because they did not do enough to make models different from other models from the various brands. Just imagine if it was a success. I had heard and read somewhere the 1982-1987 Lincoln Continental was supposed to be the next Versailles. Oh well... it is nice to see this and enjoy the information. Thank you Adam.
Appreciate this level of detail Adam. I would prefer the Seville vs. the Versailles. I always better educated from viewing your You Tube channel! Thanks for your efforts as they are appreciated!
These pictures bring back memories of me working on these cars in the 70s as a professional mechanic no all the technology of the time is gone kind of a weird feeling for a mechanic like me Just goes to show time marches on, and things are changing all the time
There is a reason (almost) all Versailles' in the junk yard have had their spindles/brakes and rear end removed. The parts used for the driveline/suspension are perfect for 64 1/2 - 68 Mustangs. If you wanted a "cheap" Ford 9" rear end and disk brakes, your first stop was the junkyard to find a Versailles.
That's why you'll almost never find a Versailles now. Back in the day using a Versailles as a donor was the ONLY way to get rear disc on a 65-68 Mustang. These days you'd be wasting your time since the parts for Versailles rear ends are no longer made by Ford...or anyone else. It's much easier/cheaper to run a 8.8 inch rear out of an Exploder if you want rear disc on an early Mustang. Funny thing, because people canabalized these cars for rear ends and front spindles, a running Versailles is a rare bird and kinda collectible.
@@kevincampbell1395 When Ford changed the body style of the North American Falcon in 1964, they shipped the tooling for the first gen Falcon to Argentina. Ford Falcons with the first gen body styles were made by Ford Argentina until 1991. Yup, you read that correctly. Ford made Falcons with the original body style for 31 years. CSB: The Ford Falcon became notorious in South America. People would panic if they saw a dark green Falcon pull up in front of their residence. The right wing government of Argentina purchased large numbers of Ford Falcons painted dark green. These cars were commonly used by government agents to 'disappear' people. A dark green Ford Falcon was a 'death car', and not because the brakes were bad.
@@kevincampbell1395 The other way around, people were taking the newer Disk Brake parts and putting them on the older Mustangs as an upgrade. And having parts bin stuff is nothing new across all of the American brands. Fox platform stuff ran across multiple vehicles from 78-82 (Not just Mustang). Chevy's modern Camaro is the Holden Zeta platform (that is also used in Caddy CTSVs). Doing that is what keeps production costs down and, in theory, keeps sale prices down.
@@MrSloika The 8.8 is a decent swap now, but didn't exist in the 70's until the end of the decade when the Fox platform started using it. But the 8.8 isn't quite a 9 inch when it comes to durability under large amounts of HP. The Versailles was unique because it was the first "mid-size" platform to use rear disks instead of drums for Ford. You could get rear disks on the larger platforms, but the rear ends wouldn't fit underneath the earlier Mustang bodies (rear track too wide).
The GM Harrison A/C compressor was a "swash plate" piston design as opposed to the earlier crankshaft- piston design. Five pistons were connected to a swash plate that "wobbled" (connected at an angle) on its shaft--like a dish being spun on a stick by an acrobat. These were more compact, and with more pistons, smoother in operation. On earlier GM designs, when the A/C was running, the clutch didn't cycle on and off as they do today; rather a bypass valve would open when additional cooling was not needed, sending coolant back to the pump rather than into the car. Saved on clutch repairs but burned more gas, since the compressor was always on.
Another thing that the Versailles had over the Ford/Mercury counter parts was clear coated paint. It was even standard equipment and not an up charge paint.
"tarted up Grenada", love it! Wonder if that double isolated setup could be upfitted to the Grenada/Monarch? But yes, the Versailles surely looked like just a tarted up Grenada/Monarch, which probably prevented many from spending the big bucks for it.
Which alone made it a better car than a tarted-up Nova. I remember the press at the time....the Seville was NOT well received except by committed Cadillac customers. Most people saw right through it as a Nova and saved their money for real luxury cars with established reliability.
Since there are so few Granadas or Monarchs left, Rolling up in a Versailles TODAY would make an Impression! (Although one COULD just "rock" a newer Chrysler "Fifth Avenue" for the same effect, for less dough!)
When you first said "double-isolated shocks," I envisioned cushioning on both ends of the shock. What I see there, is a shock which is isolated for both the jounce and rebound dynamics via its upper mount bracket, where it connects to the body. That would be double isolation too. The Versailles' main shock isolator looks a lot like the 'onion hat' isolators used in early four-eye Fox Mustangs.
We had a 1977 Versailles and it was every inch a Lincoln. Comfortable leather seats, super quiet, cushy ride and all the bells and whistles you'd expect.
I think the Versailles at least looked the part with the very Lincoln-esque trunk lid and grille / front end. The Versailles looked a lot more like a Lincoln than the Seville looked like a Cadillac, which was to say barely, it looked like a very upscale Chevy. Which, you know, it was.
Thanks (as always) for another great, informative video. I worked at a car dealership on summers home from college in 1980 and 1981. One day a orange-ish cinnamon colored one showed up on the lot. I used to take it to get lunch sometimes, and that's why this video was so particularly interesting to me - because it was indeed A LOT quieter and overall, just smoother than its lesser siblings. Fascinating stuff about the shocks.
Having owned a Monarch with the chance to compare the Versailles, the latter was phenomenally more quiet & smoother riding. The trunk was just as inviting as the interior using the same style carpeting, really fuzzy & plush. Can't wait to see that in the next video!!
I am a bit puzzled. Why was the Versailles' shock absorber isolation so much more expensive, as you say? I see no extra labour cost and maybe 1 dollar of material extra. So, I thought about your remark for a minute and no, no answer. So could you explain what is more expensive to produce?
Thanks! I have been subscribed and watching Adam’s videos for I don’t know maybe nine months now . His presentation and knowledge in his videos is absolutely incredible. The one thing I remember about these Lincolns was they had jag like rear disc brakes set up, maybe it was just an option but if you were building a Ford you look for an old varsilis because they had an excellent rear brake system. Sorry, I’m too lazy to look up the correct spelling of that Lincoln cars name..😳
This was Great! Cant wait for later videos on the difference between the two. I believe the more formal roof line coupled with a TRUE rear end redesign ( mainly taillights) from day one would have made enough difference to warrant the purchase for some who passed on the -monarch- Versailles no monarch...wait I mean the -vers- 🙇♂️ shit I cant tell the difference... Nevermind
I want a Lincoln Versailles sedan. I would use it as a daily driver. Imagine replacing the old 351 V8 engine with a 5.0 liter Coyote V8 and a 10-speed automatic. That would be perfect for me.
I own 2 Versailles, a 1977 amd a 1979. I didn't know about the double isolation. There are other things about the Versailles worth mentioning: It was the first to use clear coat paint. The use of the legendary 9" for rear end with LSD , and 4 wheel disc brakes. The 351W was standard on the 1977 except in California which had to make do with the 302W, The variable venturi carb was used in the 1979 and 1980 model year.
I loved the later 5.0 liter fuel consumption improvement technology..Ford kept the car Falcon Maverick style 56 inch narrow track, for 78, went Cadillac style Thermactor Port heads, the mentioned Variable Venturi carb, the L code 4.1 liter Mazda-Jatco sourced 3 speed automatic, the GM Olds 350 Cadilac style ignition system, EEC II crank triggered On board computer (1979) with the Duraspark III Brown module ignition. First use of the GM devised four eyed headlamps,.but in Halogen form. A6 Air con was very effective. A lot of GM technology in that ,ahem,.Lincoln.
I think Lincoln got the front of the Versailles right, but the rear and roofline is where they dropped the ball. It just looked too much like a Granada to be believable as a Lincoln. They should have done what they did to the rear roofline in 78 from the start, and they should have gone with something different for the tail lights. I find it interesting that the redesign of the Town Car ended up using some of the cues from the Versailles, and that turned out to be one of the better looking Town Car designs. It's almost as if Lincoln was trying things out on the Versailles before making them part of the Town Car design.
What Ford did to the Lincoln Versailles was called ReBadging! The car also came with a Ford 9 inch rear end with disc brakes! The Hot Rodders use to take them right out in the junk yards!
I wish for the Versailles they would have used front wheel drive like they had patented in the late 50's or had used a four speed auto that was still in works
I remember these cars well. At the point that they were made, I couldn't afford either one. Having said that, today I would like to have either one with an edge going to the Caddy.
Another fun fact about the Monarch, and I assume the Versailles since it is an even further upgraded Granada, and of course all of the drag racers knew this, but the nicer Monarchs and again assume Versailles were equipped with heavy duty 9” Ford rearends, and the piece de resistance rear disc brakes. I’m sure nearly every one of them have been stripped for that highly prized gem by now, but back in the day if you could find a nice salvage Monarch or Versailles it could very well have a very nice nearly ready made set up for drag racing and could be had very cheap. 👍🏻
Thanks for the video! The first car I owned was a 1975 Granada Ghia, from 1982-1985. Not a great car, not a horrible car. Good replacement for the Maverick. Used the same style suspension established on the 1960 Falcon, including the crappy power steering system that Ford's used forever and had a control valve attached to the pitman arm with a plug instead of a grease zerk so it was usually forgotten to be serviced until the ball end was worn out and all steering was lost. I will admit, with the suspension isolation, sound deadening, and better quality materials used in the interior, the Versailles felt and rode nicer than a Granada. Same can be said with the Panther chassis Crown Victoria/Grand Marquis/Town Car. All the same essentially under the skin, but the feel was entirely different on the road. Even the Cartier Edition leather was nicer than the other two Town Cars.
I had a 77 Versailles exactly like the one at 4:29. I wasn't looking for one but a relative had it and it was cheap. I never had a car that girls would swoon over like that Versailles. To me it looked like a tarted up Granada but to those who didn't know a lot about cars, it was very expensive looking in that deep maroon.
GM's better effort was the first gen Seville...though Nova based, it had enough technical advancements like the fuel injection on the Olds based V8. Plus the unique sheetmetal and cowl that concealed the wipers. The Lincoln Versailles, was based on the Granada/Monarch...which was based on the Maverick..which was based on the Falcon...and riding on an almost 20 year old platform and offering no real engineering advancements, other than some extra power options and vinyl roofs....though they did revise the rear doors and roofline. I think Ford did a better job with the Fox platform and model differentiation by giving us the Fairmont/Zephyr and Mustang/Capri..and the Lincoln Mark VII.
And growing up in the upper midwest...with potholes and roadsalt...the joke was you could hear a Maverick driving down the street before seeing it due to the amount of suspension squeak....they all seemed to have that issue...and I heard that from a Maverick owner!
@@325xitgrocgetter When Ford introduced the Falcon in Australia, they went through hell toughening up the suspension to handle the rough conditions over there and having accomplished that, made most of their later offerings Falcon-based. So, squeaks or no squeaks, the Falcon-based Maverick was probably as up to handling those potholes as any of its competitors. Meanwhile, the Nova's claim to fame (along with all of its siblings, including the Seville) was the tendency of the rear axle to slide on the leaf springs and launch the car down the road at a diagonal angle. Hardly a fatal flaw, but kind of a bad look until the thing got tightened up.
@@stephendavidbailey2743 As soon I clicked reply, that thought crossed my mind...I wasn't sure when the subframe/unit body architecture was used on the x-body and that was also shared with the first and second gen F body Camaro and Firebirds....So you are right....looks like GM and Ford got some mileage out of their compact rear drive platforms.
I'm trying to remember if Bill of Curious Cars shared a Lincoln Versailles with us out here in RU-vid land. Mulling this over, did Iacocca just put lipstick on a pig, or did this Lincoln with Falcon origins bring some "better ideas" to the table? "Better ideas" that found their way to the rest of the corporate product line?
@@MisterMikeTexas It held up pretty well. That clear coat was high VOC solvent based. The clear coats of the 90s were low VOC (gov mandated) and those early low VOC paints didn't hold up very well.
A friend had one in the late '80s. Unbelievable ride - the car was so softly sprung it was very smooth going forward, but take a corner, and the thing tossed around like a lifeboat in a hurricane. It felt like it was floating with nothing to to keep it stable. It was kind of hilarious to ride in.
I always thought that it should have had the formal roof from the git-go. It should have been a full vinyl roof instead of the half vinyl, and the tail lights should have been the same as the Mark V, with concealed headlights and a totally different dashboard than the Granada.
Adam, The choice between the glorified Nova and glorified Maverick would be tough. 🤣We are left with one nagging question, why didn't Imperial compete for compact 'luxury' dollars with a glorified Valiant or Volare? 🤔
@@stephendavidbailey2743 As a former Dodge Diploma Special Edition owner, my omission of the glorified Volare aka LeBaron was inexcusable. In my own defense, that LeBaron was a Chrysler not an Imperial. 😉
The Seville was not a glorified Nova. The Nova and Seville shared the same 'hard points' which greatly held down manufacturing costs, but the Seville did NOT look like a Nova and a really handsome design by 70s standards.
You can see this car in certain short scenes of the movie Red Dragon of the Hannibal movie series, driven by the reporter Freddie Lounds who was played by the late Seymour Hoffman.
Thank you Adam for yet another excellent video with an interesting look at what made these cars different from their lower priced sister units. I very much appreciate the unique details that you showcase and share.
my eighth grade teacher, Mr. Quante, drove me to SeaWorld in San Jose because i couldn't be trusted with the girls in the bus. an Officer's daughter, Carmen Chapman, had arrived from Iran after the Shaw was expatriated to France, and we often held hands. the girls resented her, because she shone like a star in comparison. and never liked me or my braces. Monarch Ghia was so neat to sit in. Versailles was rare, and almost never seen
I loved the Lincoln Versailles!! Unfortunately, I could never get one. By the time i learned to drive(17) and into my early 20's(mid 80's-early 90's), I couldn't find a Versailles. They seemed to just disappear.🤷🏾♂🤷🏾♂
I had a first gen Seville with the fuel injection. A lot of owners paid to have them converted to a carb. The prob with the injection is that it required special maintenance The rest of the motor was a dependable Rocket 350 V8 Olds engine. These sevilles looked great and the ride was good.
I loved my 78 Seville, but the open loop analog fuel injection system was indeed troublesome if you didn't know what you were doing. Luckily, a Cadillac dealership in Orange County California would still service them in 1992.
Remember the "Nova" platform was also the basis of the Camaro/Firebird of the same era, So Decent "bones" and was more than a half decade NEWER than the platform that the Versailles used (Ultimately a 1960 Falcon) On the UPSIDE for the Versailles, The 1960 Falcon platform was a GREAT one. Remember that the Original MUSTANG shared it's roots, and (more importantly for the "sporto-luxe" market, the original Mercury Cougar (To me the PEAK of the platform!). Given that all of the famous "FOX" Mustangs and the Lincoln Mark VII were actually Ford Fairmonts underneath, there is NO problem with building a luxury (or sporting) car with a "low end" platform. The biggest problem with the Versailles was sharing too much outside sheet-metal with the Ford/Mercury versions. Cadillac did a hell of a great job hiding the Seville's Nova/Camaro, roots. The ONLY part of Versailles they got "right" was the front clip. The side and rear sheet metal is what give's it's humble roots away. A shame really, Because there's a LOT of potential underneath the "skin".
My father bought me upon graduating high school a low mileage used 1978 Lincoln Versailles from Lynch Lincoln Mercury. Beautiful car navy blue with light blue leather interior. Incredibly smooth ride, quiet, and isolated road noise to a whisper. Workmanship and materials were top quality. Only con was the carburetor, on cold mornings hard to start and if you accelerated too much the engine stalled. Dad had a new Cadillac Seville, compared to the Versailles the Lincoln ride quality and interior was superior.
I saw one of these in a junkyard once and my first thought was 'some pysicho really wanted his Granada to be a Mercedes ' but then I looked closer and remembered that the Versailles was a thing and about fell over laughing. Stylish cars in a junkyard make me sad but this was just ridiculous.
@@stephendavidbailey2743 Sad. Rover thought they could build a better Honda but after they were on the road their was little to no service support and Honda dealers would not touch them. The ultimate orphan.
Around 1989 we had a Versailles traded in at the Honda dealership where I worked. Four of us techs went out to the back lot to sit in it and try the Ford Quadraphonic 8 track stereo. There was a shoebox full of Quadraphonic tapes in the trunk. We were not impressed lol.
Another critical chassis distinction for the Versailles was a unique two piece driveshaft. Instead of a single driveshaft extending from the transmission to the rear differential, the Versailles driveshaft was split in halfway about midway front to rear. I do not recall the reason for this, but I recall it had something to do with increased smoothness and isolation.
Absolutely incorrect. The Seville was a no-go Nova, barely glorified and ridiculed when it came out, I was around and remember the bad press very well. The Versaille had better interiors than standard Cadillacs.....and everyone is afraid to admit it.
@@67marlins Only those of us who KNEW what it was ridiculed it as a glorified nova. We knew it was a glorified nova. But Cadillac hid it pretty well. And the public buying LOVED them as evidenced by the great sales. The Versailles simply did NOTHING to hide the Granada. Even the untrained eye who knew NOTHING about cars could see the lipstick on a Granada. The side profile was identical. The rear looked like they simply added a continental kit on the trunk. I agree that MECHANICALLY it was probably a better car. They did a good job on the front grille. And fords interior was better. But people simply couldn’t get past the BARELY hidden Granada/Monarch side and rear.
It would be interesting to find low mileage original examples of a 1979 Seville and Versailles at the peaks of their respective development and do an unbiased, factual comparison. At its core the Granada was still based on a early 60’s Ford Falcon, so it’s roots are very humble also. The fact Ford did so little to visually differentiate the Versailles from a Granada/Monarch at first certainly doomed it from a sales perspective.
@@nathanexplosion5478 I think that’s the #1 factor causing it’s failure. The general public doesn’t know or care what’s underneath. Most didn’t know or care that the Falcon, Maverick, Gen 1 Mustang, Granada, Fairlane, early Torino, and their Mercury counterparts were basically the same underneath. Some were stretched or shortened a bit. But They LOOKED different. Visual Effects are the FIRST impression. And with the Versailles the visual effect was a Granada with a hump on its back. 😅. The interior and driving dynamics matter too. But if the customer can’t get past the visual, it doesn’t matter.
Hey Adam, thanks for the review of the Lincoln Versailles. I never drove a Versailles, but I did study them closely. Being the Ford man that I've always been, I will say it was no secret that the Versailles was a dressed up Granada/Monarch, which I did drive several times, and always thought they handled well, and also had very comfortable ride characteristics. However, when compared to the Cadillac Sevilles, I think the Sevilles felt like full-size Cadillacs of the 70s. They barely felt like a small car. I actually had to be told the Sevilles were built on the Nova platform. I always thought the Sevilles were a better-looking car overall than the Versailles. I liked the front grill and headlights of the Versailles very much, but the taillights, not so much. They just didn't look like they belonged on the car. I always thought Lincoln could have done a much better job with them. That was surprising to me because I always felt Lincoln, and all Fords for that matter always had great taillights. My favorite Ford taillights go to the 59s, both the sedans and the wagons. From when I first saw them back in 59, to today, they are bold and beautiful. In any event, between the Versailles and the Seville, I say the Seville wins first place for the best-looking "smaller" attempt at a Cadillac and Lincoln in the 70s.. But the Cadillac Catera more than makes up for any bad looking small Cadillacs. In fact, after 1973, all the big Cadillacs were just plain and ugly, all they were was big. When compared to the Lincoln Town Cars, the Lincoln Continentals were just beautiful inside and out. They somehow kept the Lincoln look alive from the 60s. Everyone knows the place they hold.
Of course it was a Granada and obviously. It was no Seville, a gorgeous car. Addendum: the Versailles became a used car pariah, while the Seville didn't fall into the "used car" steep depreciation until relatively recently. As I've mentioned before, I would find MINT Versailles in wrecking yards, untouched except for the front spindles/ calipers and entire disk brake rear end always gone. These were bolted into early Mustangs.
The Seville was based on the Nova, it used the same 'hard points' which really cut down on tooling costs. Fortunately the Seville only shared part of one exterior body panel (I believe part of the roof) with the Nova. The Seville looked nothing like a Nova, I always thought they were beautiful cars, especially by mid-70s standards. The Versailles, on the other hand, looked like a Granada that had been puked on by an ill JC Whitney catalog.
Thanks for the engineering details on the Versailles, Adam. Who knew that Fomoco went that extra mile with a car that in every other aspect was really just a deluxe Granada. I've always found it interesting that car people are STILL bashing Cadillac for the Cimmaron: "A Cavalier with a leather interior", while Lincoln seems to get a pass for doing the same thing with the Versailles.
But didn't Ford have to act fast to remain in compliance with CAFE? Also, wasn't the Cimarron originally powered by one of GM's farm implement 4-holers, while the Versailles and Seville had V8s and were rear-wheel-drive? I'd take a Versailles over an early Cimarron any day!
It was hard to hide the fact that both cars were very closely related to their downmarket siblings, but I'd say Ford did a much better job of giving buyers a reason to pay more for the upgrades. The Versailles had the suspension and driveline improvements described here, 4 wheel disc brakes, plus both clearcoat paint and halogen headlights, both first-time automotive innovations that were eventually adopted all over the world. The Versailles also never came with the embarrassing 72HP 6 cylinder engines that had marred the introductions of the Granada and Monarch, while the 1982 Cimarron had no alternative to the Cavalier's poky 1.8L four. The early Cimarrons even had the same tacky open-bin in the rear seats because the Cavalier's drum brakes couldn't handle 3 in the back. Of course, much of this was due to the 2 years Lincoln had to iron out the Granada's flaws, and Cadillac did eventually do more to differentiate the Cimarron. But more damage was done by the first couple of years of the Cimarron than by the Versailles, even with its Granada sheet metal and the ugly roof-toupe they later added to disguise it.
