Was the decontented Ford LTD ‘essentially like an Impala’?

(EXPANDED FROM 8/29/2023)

A few years ago Curbside Classic’s Paul Niedermeyer stopped by to critique our story, “1969 Ford LTD attacked GM’s hierarchy of brands in multiple ways.” He repeated the following quote from the article: “By 1973 the LTD was outselling the Caprice by almost two-to-one.” Then he wrote:

“Apples-to-oranges, because Ford drastically reduced the content of the basic LTD, making it essentially like an Impala. One had to buy an LTD Brougham to get the features that the original LTD once had.

You need to compare all of the big Fords vs Chevys to get a proper reading. Yes, the big Chevys had a drop in ’69-’70; clearly Ford’s all-new styling was better received than Chevy’s warmed over styling. And in 1971, Chevy lost several months of production due to the UAW strike. But by 1972, big Chevys outsold big Fords, and by 1973, big Chevys outsold big Fords by a very healthy margin. And that widened again in 1974.”

Is this take more accurate than Indie Auto’s, which described the LTD as a brilliant move that undercut Chevrolet’s traditional dominance of the full-sized, low-priced field while putting pressure on GM’s premium-priced brands? Let’s see if we can find out by doing a data dive.

To keep the research manageable, this post focuses on the years 1970-73. I begin with the 1970 model year because that’s when Ford formalized a two-tiered LTD lineup. I end with 1973 because this was the last full model year before the first oil embargo, which threw the full-sized, low-priced field into a new era. From 1974 onward deserves a separate conversation.

Big-car lineups shifted as buyer preferences changed

The full-sized, low-priced field dominated the U.S. auto industry in the mid-1960s. Yet only a decade later big cars had become something of a niche product. A pivotal moment was 1970, when intermediates eclipsed full-sized cars in output for the first time — and two years later would permanently take the lead.

The Big Three encouraged this trend by making its full-sized cars larger and more luxurious. Each automaker put more emphasis on top-of-the-line models, but Ford was the most aggressive.

As you can see from the graph below, Ford’s LTD snuck past Chevrolet’s Caprice in 1968 and in 1969 jumped to a commanding lead.

From 1966-73 the LTD’s output topped 2 million units whereas under 1.2 million Caprices were produced. That was an unusual level of success for a full-sized Ford nameplate. During the 1960s the Impala had utterly dominated Ford’s direct competitor, the Galaxie.

Yes, but are we comparing apples and oranges?

It’s true that Ford’s two-tiered LTD lineup stretched downmarket. Prices for the LTD Brougham series closely aligned with the Caprice’s while base LTD models listed for around a few hundred dollars less.

That said, the base LTD did not replace the mid-level Galaxie 500, which continued to complete against the Impala. Indeed, the base LTD’s prices were closer to the Brougham’s than the Galaxie’s.

In competitive terms, the base LTD essentially targeted a price gap between the Caprice and the Impala. This is easier to talk about visually. The graph below shows list prices of four-door sedans for the Impala and Galaxie 500 (when offered) and hardtops for the Caprice and LTD.

Prices for 1970 give a general sense of Ford’s strategy for the next three model years. The LTD Brougham four-door hardtop sedan listed for $3,579, which was $52 higher than a Caprice, whereas a base LTD went for $3,385. This was $289 more than a Galaxie 500 four-door hardtop sedan, which listed for $3,096.

Part of the price differential was that all LTDs had a V8 engine as standard whereas the Galaxie came with a six up through 1971, whereupon the 351 cubic inch V8 became the base engine (Langworth, 1987).

The 1970 Chevrolet Impala body styles offered with a six-cylinder engine were close in price to their Galaxie equivalent. For example, an Impala four-door sedan was $3,021 — $5 less than a Galaxie.

Meanwhile, an Impala four-door hardtop with a V8 listed for $3,203, which was $182 less than a base LTD. This was a meaningful price gap for that time period.

The paradox of the 1970 Chevrolet lineup was that even though the Impala and Caprice had a greater price spread than the base LTD and the Galaxie 500, their exterior styling looked more similar. The main differences were on the inside. And that didn’t prove as compelling to a goodly number of car buyers.

Base LTD was still a step up from Galaxie and Impala

Increasing the number of LTD models may have been inspired by Mercury’s success in 1969 with its new, two-tiered Marquis lineup. As with the LTD, the high-end Marquis Brougham was emphasized in advertising, but the majority of sales came from base models.

Also much like the Marquis, the base LTD had exterior styling that clearly distinguished it from junior series such as the Galaxie 500. Even buyers who didn’t opt for the base LTD’s more luxurious interior options could be seen driving what, at least from the outside, looked like a top-of-line car.

In light of escalating inflation, it made sense for Ford to try to cushion sticker-price shock for one of its hottest — and most expensive — nameplates.

This was also a clever way to outflank Chevrolet. While the Impala continued to pummel the Galaxie, Ford’s total big-car production stayed closer to Chevrolet’s during the LTD’s peak years of 1969-73 than it had previously.

As a case in point, in 1965 Chevrolet’s full-sized lineup outproduced Ford’s by more than 669,000 units. As late as 1969 Chevy still overshadowed Ford by almost 213,000 units. However, in 1970 the GM division’s lead shrank to under 126,000 units and in 1973 slipped further to roughly 124,000.

Perhaps more importantly, full-sized Chevrolet production fell in 1965-73 by almost 43 percent whereas Ford declined by only 13 percent.

That translated into Chevy’s share of the full-sized, low-price market dropping from almost 56 percent to 46 percent. Meanwhile, Ford’s market share went up from roughly 33 percent to 40 percent.

In other words, between 1965 and 1973 the big Chevrolet lost 10 percent of its market share — and Ford captured most of it. Plymouth only won over an extra 1 percent and AMC 2 percent.

The LTD’s growing popularity was the primary reason Ford did so well. You can see that from the graph below, where the LTD’s proportion of Ford’s total big-car output increased from 28 percent in 1969 to 48 percent in 1973.

The LTD almost hit 290,000 units in 1969, before the advent of the two-tiered lineup (although, as commentator Mike Witas noted below, a mid-year decontenting of the LTD could have helped to goose sales). So I don’t think that expanding downmarket was the sole reason for the nameplate’s success in 1970-73. But it clearly helped.

Note that Chevrolet could have easily matched the LTD’s two-tiered lineup but did not. Was this because management was worried about undercutting the Impala, its perennial golden goose?

Which context does one consider most important?

Let’s go back to Niedermeyer’s comment. Is it true that I am making an “apples-to-oranges” comparison between a two-tiered LTD lineup and the Caprice?

I agree this is not an exact match price-wise but consider the comparison fair because the base LTD was not “essentially like an Impala.” Both in terms of pricing and features, the base LTD attacked a hole in Chevrolet’s lineup between the Impala and Caprice. Some buyers clearly wanted a higher-status car at a slightly lower price even if it didn’t have all of the features of top-end models.

I would also question Niedermeyer’s contention that “by 1973, big Chevys outsold big Fords by a very healthy margin.” As we have discussed above, Chevrolet’s sales margin was much smaller in 1973 than in the second half of the 1960s. That strikes me as a more important comparison than with 1970-71.

Also see ‘The 1965-73 Ford LTD may not have impacted Mercury very much’

It’s easy to get into the weeds on any number of sub-issues, so I want to reiterate my core argument, which is that Ford outmaneuvered GM in the first half of the 1970s in the full-sized, low-priced field. It did so with a product line — and marketing — that was arguably better suited to a shifting marketplace.

NOTES:

This story was originally posted on August 29, 2023 and expanded on May 21, 2025. Prices are from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), which may vary from those listed in Gunnell (2002). Specifications and production data come from both sources as well as Flory (2004, 2013).

Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.

---

RE:SOURCES

• Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
• Flory, J. “Kelly” Jr.; 2004. American Cars, 1960-1972. McFarland & Co., Inc.
• ——; 2013. American Cars, 1973-1980. McFarland & Co., Inc.
• Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
• Langworth, Richard M.; 1987. The Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Publications International, Skokie, IL.

ADVERTISING & BROCHURES:

• oldcarbrochures.org: Chevrolet (1965, 1970, 1973); Ford (1970, 1971, 1972, 1973)