This little-known styling proposal from 1964 had little influence on future Lincoln-Mercury products, it seems, but we’d like to ponder the what-ifs.
There’s not that much information to be had about the 1964 Mercury Montego concept. In the prevailing historical narrative of the Ford Motor Company’s styling studios in the ’60s, it’s notably absent. And with its clean, simple form, low, straight beltline, and wide-open greenhouse, it looks like a product of Turin rather than Dearborn. In its overall shape, we’d be hard pressed to find much similarity to any production Ford vehicles that would soon come along. This Montego was a dead end, apparently.
On the other hand, if we examine the entire Ford styling portfolio of the period, including, say, the 1962 Ford Allegro concept, the Bordinat Cobra, or the Cougar II, the Montego doesn’t seem like such an outlier. In the Gene Bordinat era of Ford design, 1962-1980, there was often room for expression.
While there are no specs available, the ’64 proposal appears to be around the same size as the production 1968 Montego, Mercury’s new intermediate that year. Sharing its platform and 116-in wheelbase with the Fairlane/Torino, the production Montego could be equipped with the full complement of Ford Total Performance hardware, including the 428 Cobra Jet V8. And as long as we’re dreaming, that’s how we’d equip our fantasy Montego for grand touring duty.
But as we know, the Lincoln-Mercury division had other plans for the production Montego, and they didn’t include the narrow, Italianate C-pillars or other features of the ’64 proposal. To be perfectly honest about it, the design would probably be a poor fit with American car buyers in the ’60s—dated, even.
No, the L-M folks knew what they were doing, and the ’68 Montego outsold the previous Comet by a mile. However, the ’64 proposal does appear to share one minor design idea with a number of production Mercurys that would come along: the tail lamps, as on the ’67 Marquis below.
An interesting concept that I don’t recall having seen in any of the magazines of the era. Had I seen it, I may have guessed “GM” from the greenhouse, though the rake of the windshield is more “daring”. Overall it’s attractive and, as you suggest, the styling suggests a European relationship. Fooled me.
Very nice! I love the greenhouse, it’s very Pininfarina. Ferrari 330 GTC, Alfa.
Interesting concept! From the teaser shot, I saw a 1961 Pontiac rear quarter panel and rear roofline, Studebaker vent windows and Oldsmobile grill…
Yes, much of this is simply theory of convergence. Stylists aren’t really lifting elements from each other. But they are working with the same tools and materials, addressing the same issues and solving the same problems, selling to the same customers. It’s interesting to see how the similarities arise.
The front grille is out of place compared to the rest of the car. Looks interesting from the side and rear.
Definite GM bubble-top envy here, but always a good look.
Seems unlikely that’s a 116 inch wheelbase intermediate chassis. There’s a full tire diameter from the door to the front wheel arch. The 66 Comet is about a wheel diameter from the door to the arch.
The ’67 Skylark seems to have lifted the Montego’s front fender trim.
The front end looks like the 65 Cutlass.
Another FoMoCo concept car which was not admitted to? An interesting design. Looking at the side view, it seems the body was moved rearward on the chassis. If the lh frt spark plug was placed at the centerline of the lh frt wheel, then the engine would have been forward enough to eliminate a front transmission hump. With the body moved rearward, very short front frame horns, too.
I see the ’64 Cutlass and ’62 Bonneville in the side shapes, when viewed in that 90% lh front side view. The lh rr 3/4 view makes the rear section look good, but also makes the frt section look too long. That, plus the side view, makes it look like the car is on a 120″ wheelbase chassis than the Intermediate chassis. Perhaps the “body moved rearward contributes to that look?
If the front section is shortened about 9″, moving the front wheel closer to the frt door, with the rear section being shortened about 9”, then the big-car wheelbase would be more evident? Those shorter body dimensions could have resulted in a more-normal looking concept, with a Euro flair?