For Sale: 1971 FORD LTD 4dr Sedan - $5,500 - Saugus, MA - Not Mine

[58L-Y8]

For Sale: 1971 FORD LTD 4dr Sedan - $5,500 - Saugus, MA

1971 FORD LTD - cars & trucks - by owner - vehicle automotive sale (craigslist.org)
Seller's Description:

4 door sedan, original 400 engine with 81,000 original miles, dual exhaust. Runs and drives great, drive anywhere

Contact: Call Joe on phone (781) 8-thirteen-5-four-3-8
Copy and paste in your email: 2c2ab25afab63e4a968aee86ad044939@sale.craigslist.org

I have no personal interest or stake in the eventual sale of this: 1971 FORD LTD 4dr Sedan.

[Ed Luddy]

The killer on this is the bubbles under the ripped vinyl top. I really like these cars.

[DrumBob]

Do people really want these early 70's beasts? 

[Ed Luddy]

1 minute ago, DrumBob said:

Do people really want these early 70's beasts? 

Yes they do. As a former ( many) Studebaker owner I like so many different cars of many era's this works for me. Except for the rusty roof. 

 

[rocketraider]

Having grown up in 60s and 70s I like most 70s cars. That they looked and performed as good as they did in the face of government regulation and meddling says a lot for them.

 

I'm more concerned about that 400 engine. Not one of Ford's better engine designs. Quickly developed a reputation for carboning up, detonation, and high oil consumption at low miles.

[John_S_in_Penna]

1 hour ago, DrumBob said:

Do people really want these early '70's beasts? 

Surely.  Everyone favors different cars, or different

eras of cars.

 

I will say, however:  Collectors tend to appreciate first

the convertibles and the specialty models, such as

Thunderbirds, so those get preserved in far greater

quantities than once-common family cars.  But now,

decades later, the once-common cars have become rare,

and the glamorous models are available in quantity.

[John_S_in_Penna]

1 hour ago, rocketraider said:

I'm more concerned about that 400 engine. Not one of Ford's better engine designs. Quickly developed a reputation for carboning up, detonation, and high oil consumption at low miles.

Glenn, was the not-so-great 400 engine the same 400

that was used in some 1977-79 Lincolns--and the only

available engine in 1979 Lincolns?  

[Aaron65]

7 hours ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

Glenn, was the not-so-great 400 engine the same 400

that was used in some 1977-79 Lincolns--and the only

available engine in 1979 Lincolns?  

Yes, it is.  

[58L-Y8]

11 hours ago, DrumBob said:

Do people really want these early 70's beasts? 

To tell the truth, I'm not sure there is a great deal of interest in these full-sized sedans from 40-50+ years ago.  But the AACA membership is for car enthusiast of diverse interests and now that these once common cars have largely faded from common view, the remaining examples in reasonably good condition warrant notice.   For those of modest means and interest in a car of their youth, a full-sized Ford might just be the ticket to a lot of enjoyment.  Even if it's acquired by a collector for a occasion daily driver in lieu of a worn out used car for the same money, it can provide use and enjoyment.

[rocketraider]

11 hours ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

Glenn, was the not-so-great 400 engine the same 400

that was used in some 1977-79 Lincolns--and the only

available engine in 1979 Lincolns?  

The 400 was a victim of its times. Ford needed an engine to replace the long-toothed FE that could still make enough torque to get a 2-ton full-size Ford moving.

 

The trade-off was low compression, less-than-ideal combustion chamber design, and fairly restrictive intake and exhaust manifolding. All in the name of emissions. The combustion chamber design was highly prone to detonation even with the pitifully low compression ratios, and the continuous detonation didn't help oil consumption. Which in turn contributed to coked-up combustion chambers which provoked even more detonation. And so on to infinity.

 

I had 400s in a 1977 Thunderbird and 1979 F150 that both developed detonation problems in <25k miles, and both were guzzling a quart of oil per 600 miles by 40k miles. I had a buddy who wrenched at the Ford store and he often called the 400 a s**t engine. There were no real solutions to the 400M's inherent design problems.

 

Chevrolet and Chrysler made 400 smoggers for the same reasons, emissions and torque. But even with the limitations they had, those 400s weren't quite as bad as Ford's.

[m-mman]

13 hours ago, DrumBob said:

 

Do people really want these early 70's beasts? 

 

The cars of my youth. A child of the malaise era, these were the cars of my impressionable years.  

When they were new they were objects of desire and nobody knew what problems lurked beneath the engineering compromises that resulted from increased government requirements, the transition from a USA based world economy into a true world economy and the lack of digital infrastructure to make it all function. 
 

People forget that in the early 70s calculations and data assessment were done by pen & paper or slide rules. Engine management was done mechanically (carbs and points) no CPU existed. We were lucky that they functioned as well as they did. 
 

But they are still the cars of my youth and they maintain a strong nostalgic attraction.  
 

I have cars from the 20s and they are not “well engineered”.  I have cars from the 40s and they are crude but effective.  
My 50s & 60s cars are reliable and functional but have become boring.
 
I also have a 1971 LTD convertible that is next in line for a complete rebuild. Factory bucket seats, I am looking forward to a fun straight forward project. And when I have finished with it I’ll likely park it next to my other cars, rarely driven but fun to look at as I move on to the next project. 

 

I like this sedan and might consider it but it’s a continent away. 

[Ed Luddy]

19 hours ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

Surely.  Everyone favors different cars, or different

eras of cars.

 

I will say, however:  Collectors tend to appreciate first

the convertibles and the specialty models, such as

Thunderbirds, so those get preserved in far greater

quantities than once-common family cars.  But now,

decades later, the once-common cars have become rare,

and the glamorous models are available in quantity.

This is so true.  T Bird's and Corvette's were seldom scrapped, no matter how bad the condition. Everyday steel body sedans were crushed or finished off in the local demo derby. I remember remarking this back in the 80's, that Camaro's and Mustang's will be worth more than Corvette's and 50's T Bird's.

[DrumBob]

I realize that everyone has different taste in vintage cars, but it just seemed to me that a four door, early 70's family sedan would be one of the least desirable cars out there. That time was definitely not Detroit's high point. You were lucky if you got 100K miles out of a car. Every 70's car I owned was a POS. Personally, I have no love for that time period, but that's just me. 

[Leif in Calif]

23 minutes ago, DrumBob said:

I realize that everyone has different taste in vintage cars, but it just seemed to me that a four door, early 70's family sedan would be one of the least desirable cars out there. That time was definitely not Detroit's high point. You were lucky if you got 100K miles out of a car. Every 70's car I owned was a POS. Personally, I have no love for that time period, but that's just me. 

I'm with you, DrumBob!  '71 was bad but by the mid 70's we were in an absolute low point in American cars, in my opinion. They had huge engines that got abysmal mileage, yet produced little power. MY mother's LTD II had what looked like part of a small steel drum under the hood between the engine and the radiator, who's sole purpose was to make the hood (and the car) longer. Inside, the back seat was certainly not spacious. That said, there is the "so bad it's good" effect. I wouldn't mind a Cadillac Cimarron or AMC Gremlin, with an Aztec for road trips.  

[John_S_in_Penna]

5 hours ago, DrumBob said:

...early 70's family sedan... You were lucky if you got 100K miles out of a car. 

We've come a long way in longevity without extensive maintenance.

But if you go back farther, you'll see many cars from the 1910's with

only 10,000 or 20,000 miles, because people didn't travel long distance.

And those cars took a lot of maintenance to get to that point--such as

these requirements, just a few of many, from the manual of my 1916 car:

 

---The steering tie rod and steering pivots should be lubricated EVERY DAY.

---Certain grease cups should be given a full turn EVERY DAY.  (Some others every 2 days.)

---Once a season, pack the oil pump gear with grease.

---The spark and throttle levers should be oiled every 1000 MILES.

---Every 2000 MILES, put 5 or 6 drops of oil in the magneto.

---The steering worm gear case should be filled with grease every 2000 MILES.

---The springs should be removed and taken apart to grease them every 3000 MILES.

 

I guess it's all relative.  Now don't those 1970's cars seem a little easier to handle?  

From a collector's standpoint, every 1970's car I have owned is a pleasure!

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by John_S_in_Penna (see edit history)

[58L-Y8]

15 minutes ago, John_S_in_Penna said:

We've come a long way in longevity without extensive maintenance.

But if you go back farther, you'll see many cars from the 1910's with

only 10,000 or 20,000 miles, because people didn't travel long distance.

And those cars took a lot of maintenance to get to that point--such as

these requirements, just a few of many, from the manual of my 1916 car:

 

---The steering tie rod and steering pivots should be lubricated EVERY DAY.

---Certain grease cups should be given a full turn EVERY DAY.  (Some others every 2 days.)

---Once a season, pack the oil pump gear with grease.

---The spark and throttle levers should be oiled every 1000 MILES.

---Every 2000 MILES, put 5 or 6 drops of oil in the magneto.

---The steering worm gear case should be filled with grease every 2000 MILES.

---The springs should be removed and taken apart to grease them every 3000 MILES.

 

I guess it's all relative.  Now don't those 1970's cars seem a little easier to handle?  

From a collector's standpoint, every 1970's car I have owned is a pleasure!

 

John:

Now we know why every Locomobile owner has a chauffeur to drive and maintain their Model 48...it wasn't just because they could afford it!

 

My outlook on 1970's cars is the current survivors may simply be the best of the production of those times, cars that proved to be reliable and relatively trouble-free.  It may not be true in every case, but troublesome cars tended to be traded early, run through the used car market cycle and go to the junkyards early.

Steve

Edited June 21, 2023 by 58L-Y8
syntax corrected (see edit history)

[DrumBob]

8 hours ago, Leif in Calif said:

I'm with you, DrumBob!  '71 was bad but by the mid 70's we were in an absolute low point in American cars, in my opinion. They had huge engines that got abysmal mileage, yet produced little power. MY mother's LTD II had what looked like part of a small steel drum under the hood between the engine and the radiator, who's sole purpose was to make the hood (and the car) longer. Inside, the back seat was certainly not spacious. That said, there is the "so bad it's good" effect. I wouldn't mind a Cadillac Cimarron or AMC Gremlin, with an Aztec for road trips.  

I could understand that a '71 Caddy or Lincoln four door might be very desirable, but it amazes me still that anyone would want a '71 Ford sedan. Again, that's just my opinion. Different strokes for different folks. 

[jframe]

11 hours ago, DrumBob said:

I could understand that a '71 Caddy or Lincoln four door might be very desirable, but it amazes me still that anyone would want a '71 Ford sedan. Again, that's just my opinion. Different strokes for different folks. 

I wouldn't mind one, simply for the "Gator McCluskey" factor of these cars. If any of y'all ever watched Burt Reynolds and Jerry Reed in "White Lightning" and "Gator", you'll know what I'm talking about. 😁

[Gearheadengineer]

Yes, it’s a plain four door from the malaise era. But it’s listed with a $5,500 asking price. These days that’s small money for a car. You can maybe pick up a 15 year old clapped out Camry for that kind of money. I’d rather have the Ford. 

[DrumBob]

4 hours ago, Gearheadengineer said:

Yes, it’s a plain four door from the malaise era. But it’s listed with a $5,500 asking price. These days that’s small money for a car. You can maybe pick up a 15 year old clapped out Camry for that kind of money. I’d rather have the Ford. 

I'd rather have the Camry! 😉