Talk:Ford LTD (Americas)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LTD abbreviation[edit]

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)
OK people, I have owned many LTD's, and I own one now. If you look through the Owners manual and read everything you will find these small words written on a page in that manual. "LUXURY THROUGH DESIGN" I seriously can't believe that not one Fordnatic has ever read this posting and given this information. MaxxLarge (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden lights[edit]

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)

Square Headlights?[edit]

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

ewww, what's this[edit]

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)[reply]

LTD vs LTD CV[edit]

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)[reply]

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

disambiguation page[edit]

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)[reply]

Petition for Name Change[edit]

Ford LTD (Americas) → Ford LTD (North America)[edit]

This is the “North American” version built in the USA and Canada simultaneously, Ford LTDs where also built in Argentina, Brazil and Australia with different platforms and/or models! — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed "Americas" is too broad of a description (it's basically saying "Western Hemisphere"). Not only is this an issue for the article name itself, but could create bigger problems in terms of editors trying to write article links when writing about the Ford LTD; there shouldn't be a format that creates a bunch of redlinks. Changing it to Ford LTD (North America) might also make better use of the Ford LTD disambiugation page. -SteveCof00 (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ford LTD (Americas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford LTD (Americas). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1969-1978 Assembly Plants[edit]

I’m here asking if I could add an assembly plant to the list of assembly plants, I own a 71 LTD and it was (according to the vin number) built in Chicago Illinois with the vin code/digit G like 1G (the first two digits) and I wanted to confirm if anyone can back this up before I go adding information. Thanks Dlindsey19 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help Fixing the Section 3 Page[edit]

Hello. I was trying to add a link to the Oakville Plant for the 3rd gen of the LTD. I screwed it up by mistake.


RipWixomAssembly (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to revert the entirety of your edits as there were many grammatical issues, manual of style-related problems, and you deleted the engines from the infobox.

What exactly is it you're trying to do? --Sable232 (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RipWixomAssembly: FWIW, I added a link to Oakville Assembly. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is a cited source considered "reliable" if their info hasn't been verified?[edit]

Conversation moved from User talk:Sable232

An online magazine article @ Hemmings.com included a production figure for Ford LTD LX that is incorrect. FoxChassis (talk) 13:01, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FoxChassis: Short answer: read WP:RS. I will be happy to help you format references if you find an acceptable one. WP is a depository of published information, so truth may take a backseat to what has been published in a reliable source. Of course, we aren't looking to spread disinformation either, but you will have to find a decent source (forum posts are not reliable). I quoted a Marti Report in that very section if you need an example.
Secondly, you can always contact Hemmings and have them correct their article. I once had the New York Times correct a factual error in one of their car articles, and all it took was a single email and six weeks of them double checking.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But why is a source, in this example an article published at Hemmings, automatically considered "reliable"? I could ask the same about the book cited for production numbers at the bottom of that page, and the same book is cited as a source of production numbers on the Ford Mustang (third generation) page. Those numbers are waaay off. FoxChassis (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry Sable232 for hijacking your talk page) - Hemmings is published, generally respected, and accepted by most editors as reliable. They aren't frauds or scammers or self-published nutjobs. If this number is wrong it may be due to some other difference of thought, or because someone else published something and they are quoting that, or it's a genuine mistake. Not sure which book you are referring to.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Accepted by most editors as reliable" ... except most editors are not experts on Fox production numbers like I am. I changed the citation which included a letter from Ford with the correct number(s), and it was reverted again. This 3260 number has been regurgitated on the Internet for quite a while. And it's wrong. That Hemmings article just repeated it. And the LX owner in that article that they featured (Scott Chamberlain) refers to *me* for production numbers. There were more made than that in 1985 alone. 3,367 to be exact. Plus another 1,920 in 1984. The book I'm referring to is the 'Standard Catalog of American Cars.' It was cited as a source on the LTD page & 3rd gen Mustang page and some of those numbers are way off. FoxChassis (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FoxChassis: Ford themselves are a primary source, WP:RS gives more credence to secondary sources. Again, please read the article on referencing and citing. I don't doubt your number - the seemingly fictional 3260 seems to have been floating around for so long that all sources refer to it. It's like Karl Rove said, if you tell a lie enough times it becomes truth. However, having looked into it a bit more I think we are justified in including both numbers for now. I commented on the Hemmings article and included the letter, I recommend emailing them about it as well because I agree that it is time to straighten that record. Getting one reputable source to change the record is all it will take. And remember, we have all the time in the world.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:12, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have sent a note to Hemmings and am awaiting a reply. FoxChassis (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FoxChassis: Meanwhile, in an attempt to respect actual, cold hard facts as well as WP:RS, I have included both figures. Please discuss if anyone thinks it should be otherwise. For the record, one Ford message board commenter suggested that Ford's larger number may simply be because they included all V8-engined LTDs; this seems unlikely to me as many of those would have been police/fleet cars and would presumably be painted white, or other non-LX colors. Ford's production numbers only include the three shades offered on the LX.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 5,287 number is only for the LX total for 1984 and 1985. The Police Package number is an additional 10,127 total for 1984 and 1985, and not all of those were v8. There were 111 in 1985 that were 2.3L, and an unknown number in 1984. I have seen Marti reports to back up all these numbers. FoxChassis (talk) 02:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Choppers, thanks for answering FoxChassis' question. To add, WP:Verifiability, not truth has more detail on why Wikipedia works this way. I think it's reasonable to include both numbers and both sources; while a photograph of a letter from Ford is unconventional as a source, I don't think it's out of line - at least the information is presented. Hopefully Hemmings can publish the correct figure, whatever it may be. Maybe they'll do additional research and confirm it with Ford (or Marti). It would be interesting to know where the 3,260 figure came from. --Sable232 (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I did read that there was an LTD LX Police Package, too - I wonder if that number makes up part of the 5,287?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either LX or Police Package but not both. They could not be ordered together. There were 10,127 total produced with the Police Package. 4,892 for model year 1984 and 5,234 for model year 1985. FoxChassis (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, 5235 for MY 1985 FoxChassis (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_LTD_(Americas)&oldid=1214823526"