Here’s more than you ever wanted to know, possibly, about the Monarch, Mercury’s new “precision-size” car for 1975, in a detailed factory film.
Cynics may scoff at the notion, but it’s true: The Mercedes-Benz 280 series served as the benchmark for the 1975 Ford Granada and its badge-engineered clone, the Mercury Monarch. Back in the summer of 1971, Ford’s product team decided that the expensive German luxury car’s size and packaging were ideal for the company’s new “precision-size” offerings, and by mid-1973, the intermediate-class product was ready for introduction in the 1975 model year. Props to the Ford executives for being on top of the trends, as the OPEC oil embargo and resulting gasoline shortages of 1973 hastened American car buyers’ migration into smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.
In this classy factory-to-dealer film for the 1975 Monarch, the pitch is heavy on luxury, even though the Mercury was priced at only slightly more than its Ford Granada counterpart ($3,832 vs. $3,756). While the Monarch was no Mercedes, realistically, it was nicely trimmed for a mid-sized American car of the time, with all the power accessories one could want—albeit as extra-cost options. The ride was soft and quiet, and if anything, the precision-size concept and messaging were a better fit at Lincoln-Mercury than at Ford, one could argue.
Although the Mercury product line was crowded at the time with the Bobcat, Comet, Cougar, Montego, and Marquis, the Monarch emerged as a solid seller, generating around a quarter of he division’s sales, and it remained in production through 1980. Here’s a deep dive into all the product details in the video below.
Now that I look at the Monarch and think about it, the nose of the Plymouth Volare had more than a passing resemblance to that of the Monarch.
There was a lot of cross-pollination at that time. I think it was because of the square bumpers of that time, and I don’t think that rectangular headlamps were legal yet. The Monarch also has resemblances to the Chevelle and Monte Carlo.
I was thinking that Ford didn’t make much use of the design talents at Ghia, which they had purchased around this time. Cars of the 70’s were very boxy and formal. Fords looked much the same from the Fairmont to the Continental.
Between styling, emissions, gas prices and quality issues, it’s not surprising that interest in automobiles began to wane from the days when people lined up for the annual unveiling of new cars. The new-found popularity of Toyota officially turned cars into appliances.
The smaller size was a good idea, but the “precision” was lacking, as it was in all American cars at the time.
It’s a nice video – they took the trouble to sell the car properly and present it in a good light. I think it shows genuine pride in the product. I was a bit surprised that so many things were optional, but one forgets how well equipped cars are these days.
Three things struck me; it’s a nicely proportioned car, especially in 4-door form; secondly, the wheel arch lips really are quite big, especially at the rear, which looks slightly odd, to me; and finally the spare tire – there must have been better places to put it. They very often just seemed to be placed almost randomly in the trunk.
The ride, handling, and fit are clearly basic American fare. The style was nice… somewhat European, but the instrumentation couldn’t be more Spartan. It’d be another decade before OEMs began designing rockers, wheel openings, and track width for a tighter tire-to-sheetmetal fit… enabled by a change in snow chain design from steel to composite.
It’s actually surprising that the otherwise arm’s-length options list didn’t include a gauge package.
Much more formal and beefier, even richer looking than GM offerings of the time and the back windows roll down. GM A body interiors looked and felt cheap. Ford’s seats were much better trimmed but egress was tight. Sad how the Mercury hood call-out letters on the first car in film are misaligned.