That grill looks more vaginal than the B9 Tribeca's.

Also, how do you get 168HP out of the Cleveland, and 256HP out of the Cobra Jet? They're the same displacement... No, really, I'm confused.

My God those cars were ugly. Except for the rear bumper/taillights.

You know, I always grew up thinking that yank tanks were a gazillion tons. Looking at the figures now with my adult eyes, it's funny to notice that even the "Fat Elvis" monster Cougar weighs only an average person more than a sporty little Audi TT or 350Z...

In high school, my friend had a '73 Cougar in 5 different shades of green. It was a beast! We were both weaklings (both 6' but under 140 pounds) and it took the two of us a LOOOONG time to take off one of the front fenders. It was easier to move a baby grand piano, for chrissakes!

@Retiree:

The regular Cleveland is tuned for low end torque, just for idling around, better fuel mileage.

The Cobra Jet is opened up for higher end horsepower, more potential, less grunt on the low end, more on the top end. open throttle driving.

FWIW, there are a ton of really nice classics in the North Berkeley hills. So I'd recommend it as a nice place to go after you're done with Alameda, Murilee. There are a ton of old Volvos: a few PV544s, a couple P1800s, vast quantities of old 240s and Amazons... Plus, there're a couple of black 840csi's and what I think is a TVR Griffith. And that's just on Grizzly Peak!

Random trivia of the day: The first Volvo dealer in the United States is in Berkeley: McKevitt Volvo on Shattuck. They've been here since, I think, 1946. That's why you see so many old Volvos in the bay area!

Large displacement engines, especially those from the 70s can be decieveing with their power outputs.

a 351ci engine putting out 168 hp can still be performing very well, for what it was designed.

If you look at the power and torque curves, its making the bulk of its power very, very low in the power band. Which let these engines propel the larger vehicles efficiently, and effectively without having to punch the gas. They could also run low fuel requirements.

Two things: First, that's one nice Cougar, although as far as whether any car had rear bodywork quite like this, the buttresses seem sort of Jag XJS-ish. The next time I see an XJS owner, I'm going to try to convince him that the styling of his car was inspired by the Fat Elvis '73 Cougar, just to piss him off.

As for the other thing...

@imoody:

Ah, the P1800! That reminds me of my own DOTS story. My route home from work passes by a Steak and Shake, and it seems an impromptu small car show occurs there every Friday evening. Last week I had to stop because I saw something I'd never seen before--a P1800 roadster. After excitedly scurrying up to the owner and complimenting him on his car (which was being ignored by kids drooling over a Vette with a friggin' automatic), I found out that it was a conversion that had been done (rather well, I might add) for the previous owner by a coachbuilder in Salt Lake City. Next time I see this car, I'll get a picture or two.

Nobody's mentioned the white vinyl top, the toupee of the 1970s.

@TPSreports: @TPSreports: Does Detroit still offer a vinyl top option on anything? Can this hallowed automotive tradition have faded away unmourned?

An old girlfriend from my Navy days used to have an orange convertible one. I fucking loved that car.

I have a friend with a '73 Cougar convertible, bright blue. He measured his garage first to make sure it fit. Then, after he bought it, he realized it couldn't make the turn from the alley into the garage, so it's been sitting out on the street the past few years. He says it's a lot more reliable than his mid-90s Grand Cherokee. I always thought it was cool in a Starsky-and-Hutch kind of way.

The one thing they got right on these cars was the sequential turn signals. Given the abilities of modern electronics, why doesn't anybody do this now?

Was the '73 Cougar really on the same platform as the Mustang or had it migrated to the T-Bird or Torino? Look at the wheelbase - its huge!

Nice style though. The detail around the headlights/grille, the rear quarterpanel shape and the taillights/bumper are outstanding. GMs of the era were even better.

@MurileeMartin:

I'm sure you can find a Buick dealer to put one on a Lucerne for you.

i had a goofy friend who owned a goat that ate his cigarettes (another story, another time) who had a 73 Cougar beast which he used to destroy everything in it's path.

woodland animals? check.
stray garbage cans? check.
other cars? check.
wayward snowmen? check.
stray old people? damn near close.

all of this while rocking the devil's horns out the window.

yes, he was a nut...but he was mighty entertaining to follow in his monster cougar.

i once watched him drag a steel garbage can under the car for over two miles. sparks and debris flying everywhere. the devil's horns in effect the whole way.

@MarionCobretti: I have to say that the Jaguar XJ-S was the first thing I thought of when I saw the Cougar's rear 'buttress' styling. Maybe there is some secret connection, seeing as how they're both cats.

And yes, we Jag owners are a snooty bunch. If someone stopped me at a gas station and compared my 1986 XJ-S to anything with the name 'Fat Elvis', it might just cause my monocle to fall out.

@MurileeMartin: Sadly, yes. I have seen a few silver Mercury Milans with a black vinyl carriage top. It just looks so painful.

@MurileeMartin: @Sanfam:

Hundreds of DEALERS in Detroit still offer vinyl tops like crazy. Only in Detroit do i see them, but Ive seen vinyl tops on just about every car imaginable over there. Just in Detroit tho...go to Ann Arbor and theyre gone.

It is amazing that my smaller 2003 Panther comes in at 600 lbs heavier than the 1973 Cougar.

Sheesh.... That make me want a 1973 Thunderbird so bad. That was the best looking Ford product of that year followed closely by the Lincoln Continental Mark II