From Grace to Grilles: The Design Evolution of the 1967-73 Mercury Cougar

The 1967-73 Mercury Cougar stands as a testament to both dazzling design brilliance and baffling aesthetic missteps in the automotive world. The first-generation models, gracing the roads from 1967 to 1968, secured their place among the most visually captivating pony cars of the late 1960s. These Cougars were not just cars; they were automotive icons, etching themselves into the history of Mercury.

But the story of the Cougar isn’t a simple tale of enduring triumph. It’s a narrative of a meteoric rise followed by a perplexing fall from grace. With a swiftness that surprised many, the Cougar’s design underwent a drastic transformation. By 1971, what was once a symbol of sleek sophistication had become, in the eyes of many, an example of questionable styling choices. Let’s delve into this captivating evolution, focusing primarily on the dramatic shifts in the Cougar’s front-end design.

1967-68 Cougar: A Classic Blend of Borrowed Brilliance

The allure of the original Cougar’s styling was undeniable, even if some elements felt familiar. This captivating design bore a resemblance to the iconic 1968-70 Dodge Charger, another classic whose aesthetics hinted at a “paint-by-numbers” approach, as explored further in automotive discussions.

Reflecting the trends of the time, the 1967 Cougar, like many personal coupes of its era, featured hidden headlights and full-width taillights. Its side profile, however, drew noticeable parallels to the striking 1966 AMX and AMX II show cars, particularly the robust wheel cutouts and the flowing contours of the rounded side sheetmetal. As noted by automotive historian Daniel Strohl, the AMX II even sported a V-shaped front fender, a design cue that resonated in the broader automotive landscape.

Yet, it was the Cougar’s front end that truly set it apart. The sharply pointed edges of the fenders contrasted intriguingly with the upright grille, creating a dynamic tension that drew the eye. This unique design element played a pivotal role in establishing the Cougar’s distinct visual identity.

See also  Was the 1977 Chevrolet Malibu Classic Wagon Really the "Top Hauler"?

A Designer’s Challenge: Rescuing a ‘Nightmare’

Richard Schierloh, a retired Ford designer, offered a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Cougar’s creation in an interview with Collectible Automobile. He revealed that the production model was born from a challenging situation: Ford management’s decision to merge two separate designs. Schierloh was tasked with harmonizing these disparate elements, and the front end, in his own words, presented the most formidable hurdle.

He recounted, “It was a nightmare for me trying to put that squared architectural over-and-under design together with the pointy nose of the ’67 Cougar. I always thought it was terrible. There was a big hole in the corner and I didn’t know what to stuff in it.” (Farrell, 2019, p. 82)

Contrary to Schierloh’s self-proclaimed “nightmare,” the final product told a different story. The interplay between the vertical grille and the pointed fender corners, rather than clashing, created a captivating visual tension. This contrast was amplified by the gap above the sharp vertical grille, mirroring the corner “holes” and giving the illusion of a floating grille.

1969 Cougar: The Descent Begins

The 1969 Cougar is often regarded as the second most attractive iteration, though it marked the beginning of the model’s departure from its classic roots. While it retained the essence of its predecessors, certain design choices signaled a shift in direction.

One of the most noticeable changes was the adoption of a wrap-around grille, eliminating the distinctive corner “holes” of the first generation. This resulted in a cleaner look but sacrificed some of the visual intrigue.

The nose, too, underwent a significant transformation, and not necessarily for the better. The full-width grille, while visually connecting the elements, diminished the prominence of the Cougar’s once-assertive nose. The inset horizontal grille further detracted from the car’s former animalistic persona. The front end now evoked comparisons to an electric shaver rather than a prowling feline.

1970 Cougar: A Year of Contradictions

As if in response to critiques of the 1969 model, the 1970 Cougar attempted to recapture some of the original’s magic. The waterfall grille made a return, accompanied by a sheetmetal nose. However, the pointed fender corners were smoothed out, removing the corner holes in the process. The result was a mixed bag.

See also  Did 5-MPH Bumpers Doom the 1974 AMC Ambassador?

The thin-lined grille pattern flanking the nose served as a subtle homage to the first generation while introducing a fresh visual element. However, the nose grille itself was less successful. Its excessive width, height, and square shape drew unfavorable comparisons to a waffle iron. Only the Eliminator model, with its strategically placed hood stripe flowing into the grille, managed to integrate this design element more cohesively.

1971 Cougar: A Descent into Design Purgatory

The 1971 Cougar marked a low point for the model’s aesthetic appeal. The oddly shaped radiator grille was jarringly reminiscent of the ill-fated Edsel. This design choice was likely influenced by Ford President Semon “Bunkie” Knudsen’s penchant for prominent noses, a stylistic preference that manifested in other Ford models of the era.

Fortunately, the Cougar avoided the extremes of the 1970-71 Ford Thunderbird and the Mercury Cyclone, which fully embraced the large-nosed trend with less-than-graceful results. However, the 1971 Cougar’s front end suffered from an excessive tallness and boxiness, exacerbated by the low-mounted bumpers typically found on family cars. This design choice made the Cougar the only pony car of its time to not feature thin, high-mounted bumpers before federal regulations mandated them in 1973-74.

The Cougar’s design woes extended beyond the front end. The rear, characterized by one of the tallest and most squared-off decks in the industry, drew criticism for its awkward proportions. Automotive journalist Richard M. Langworth famously quipped that it was “large enough to land a helicopter” (1987, p. 290). While this design choice might have been intended to highlight the Cougar’s practicality and trunk space, it ultimately detracted from the car’s overall aesthetic.

See also  Was Hudson Really the Best Merger Partner for Packard in the 1950s?

1973 Cougar: A Glimmer of Hope Amidst the Ashes?

In 1973, the Cougar’s design team seemed to acknowledge the missteps of previous years, attempting to steer the model back towards its original design language. The front end saw the return of an all-vertical grille with a more intricate and arguably more luxurious look.

Perhaps the most significant change was the introduction of a hefty new bumper designed to comply with emerging safety regulations. This made the Cougar possibly the only car of its time to actually benefit from the mandated safety additions. While the bumper added to the car’s already substantial front end, it paradoxically helped to visually shrink the oversized nose.

The rear also saw some improvements. The horizontal taillights were replaced with more elegantly shaped lights arranged in a vertical pattern. This subtle change made the rear appear less massive while echoing the design cues of the original Cougar.

The Cougar’s transformation culminated in 1974 when it transitioned into the mid-size car segment, competing directly with models like the Chevrolet Monte Carlo. This marked the end of an era, with the Cougar fully embracing the “brougham” aesthetic. While sales soared, the Cougar had lost its distinct identity, leaving many to wonder if a graceful retirement might have been a more fitting end.

A Legacy of Design Extremes

The 1967-73 Mercury Cougar’s journey serves as a cautionary tale in the annals of automotive design. What began as a masterpiece of style and innovation ultimately succumbed to a series of questionable decisions, transforming a legend into a cautionary tale within a remarkably short span of time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *