Eastwood’s Gran Torino, the movie, opened this weekend with major success grossing 29 million in box office sales, reported the LA Times. Great news. However, the same media source ran this story adjacent to the positive box office report which cited that the 1972 Gran Torino is partly responsible for Detroit’s undoing. Here are a list of tasty morsels from LA Times writer and self-proclaimed “car guy” Dan Niel’s article “The Gran Torino, a perfect symbol for the movie”. Enjoy.
- So to say Walt Kowalski’s (Eastwood) Gran Torino is a cinematic metaphor doesn’t really do it justice. The car — to whatever extent it is fractionally responsible for Detroit’s undoing.
- One day in 1972 Walt is wrenching away on a Ford assembly line, stuffing a steering box into a shiny Gran Torino before going home to a comfortable middle-class home on a quiet street in Highland Park. Thirty-six years later, he raises the blinds of that same house to discover the world he knew is gone. The jobs have vanished, the factories closed, the prosperity replaced with desperation. How did he get here? The answer is in the garage.
- The title character in Clint Eastwood’s Motor City morality tale is, by the reaching light of history, a fairly negligible hunk of machinery: a green 1972 Ford Gran Torino Sport.
- You could prowl vintage car shows for years and not find an automobile that, in its malign typicality, better summarizes Detroit’s fall than the 1972 Gran Torino.
- Let’s begin with the thing itself: The car was tubby and it was awkward. It handled like a block of ice with a steering wheel. It lacked even minimum corrosion proofing and so rusted with relish in northern climates. That this oaf of a car should be given the sporty-sounding but nonsensical Italian name Gran Torino — meaning “great Turin” — is a bleak joke.
- The previous model-year car was built on a unitized steel chassis, or monocoque, like modern cars. For 1972, the Torino returned to a virtually obsolete and inferior body-on-frame design, which lowered the costs of putting multiple body styles on the chassis.
- You could blame Ford’s penny-chiseling management for the Torino’s mediocrity.
I had one of those with the highest Hp motor and factory Hurst + 4 speed - It made a lot of noise Burned the tires up really wasn’t that fast because it was way to heavy and I called it a land barge that galoped sideways in the corners, that almost made it a death trap… BUT I would love to have it back today……
By Art van. March 3rd, 2009 at 12:30 pmEver wonder why Ford hasn’t asked for any bail out $ $ in the last few months? ? Think they doing just enough to get buy - - - > WRONG
The reason is, Ford just before the credit freeze Hocked every single thing they own in the world with a large group of banks… When I say HOCKED I mean every building , every piece of property it owns even corporate head quarters , every bit of tooling they did own, every bit of furniture, I don’t care what you name, if Ford owned it, Ford hocked it - Even down to the biggest thing of all - - - > The FORD Name, that’s right Ford doesn’t even own the rights to the name Ford anymore. Everything was used as collateral for the biggest loan they could get I think it was 30 billion or more - - So see they don’t even have a drinking fountain to use as collateral now. There waiting for GM to file bankruptcy so they too can jump on the band wagon and get out of there bone crushing UAW contract also……
Bankruptcy will come and none to soon to suit me. As an X Union Stewart I have watched the UAW choke the golden goose almost to death.
Ever wonder why Ford hasn’t asked for any bail out $ $ in the last few months? ? Think they doing just enough to get buy - - - > WRONG
By Art van. March 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pmThe reason is, Ford just before the credit freeze Hocked every single thing they own in the world with a large group of banks… When I say HOCKED I mean every building , every piece of property it owns even corporate head quarters , every bit of tooling they did own, every bit of furniture, I don’t care what you name, if Ford owned it, Ford hocked it - Even down to the biggest thing of all - - - > The FORD Name, that’s right Ford doesn’t even own the rights to the name Ford anymore. Everything was used as collateral for the biggest loan they could get I think it was 30 billion or more - - So see they don’t even have a drinking fountain to use as collateral now. There waiting for GM to file bankruptcy so they too can jump on the band wagon and get out of there bone crushing UAW contract also……
Bankruptcy will come and none to soon to suit me. As an X Union Stewart I have watched the UAW choke the golden goose almost to death. (it’s coming for sure)
If other unionized people knew what totally ridicules benefits packages and to get paid free money for ” years ” buy the company even when they are laid off. Folks it is insane - all these ridicules benefits drive the cost of every car up 2000 dollars more then all the other car manufactures that are not UAW - All of these ridicules benefits the UAW has extracted from the big 3 when times were very good - and guess what the times haven’t been good for a long time now - If everyone vaguely knew of just some of these ridicules benefits, NO one would be standing on there side…….. Now the UAW standing pat not giving hardly anything back and these business haven’t got a chance to make it in these bad times… The real reason the UAW is not giving anything back there waiting around for Obama to give out more of everybody’s tax money to put the big 3 deeper in debt and the UAW could care less, just so long as they can keep sucking the same business choking benefits out of the big 3 for as long as they can…. When the Bankruptcy comes and it will, the Billons in tax money will be lost too…… And the taxpayer will pick up the check for letting the UAW screw the Big 3 for maybe 6 or 8 more months…..
Lets see … what’s worth a higher dollar amount, the 72 Gran Torino or Niel’s annual salary? I say the Torino wins hands down. Niel - a bit of advice, attend a few car shows or spend some time at a classic car auction, then see how much sense your spewed statements make.
By PDJ. January 27th, 2009 at 7:16 pmObviously written by someone born post 1970’s this article was. The Torino started out as a go fast car and like every other machine of the early 70’s grew fat and lazy. It was still smaller than many, but still looked good. I like how there are idiots who think if you don’t ride around in the most economical, small mediocrity box, a glorified moped that it is not a true car. Ya, 1976 Civic’s rule!!!!! The 74 Mustang got pulled into this economy push and now look, the only thing worth anything to most is the front end and that’s about it. I will say though, Detroit took sales for granted and let alot of quality and consumer driven products slide. Probably what made the 1986 Taurus such a revolation, whereas before, there were more models and every year or half year, something changed.
By 64GALAXIE514. January 26th, 2009 at 6:52 amI owned a 1973 grand torino sport, 351 clev. four barrel. when you say tough. I up-rooted a outdoor toilet , showing off on damp pavement. my wife ran over a usps mail container, no damage either time. and like you said, it was very fast for the weight.
By doug burrill. January 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pmThe problem of the beginning of the end for the American manufacturers was government regulation. The compression ratio had to be reduced to comply with emissions and lower octane unleaded gasoine being forced on the market. In 1973 the government required 5mph bumpers which added weight and ruined the cars looks. Remember what the 1974 Mustang ll was….a dressed up Pinto. Now if Clint would have made a movie with that as the title, the writers opinion would have had some validity. Fast forward to present time, and look at the Shelby GT 500. Detroit is building some very fun cars to drive now. The CEOs of American car companies agreed to expensive retirement benefits knowing they wouldn’t still be in charge or accountable for the day of reconning that is now here. You can’t blame the workers for asking and getting. The CEOs at that time just didn’t care….it wouldn’t affect their multi million dollar paycheck.
By Hyper. January 19th, 2009 at 6:33 pmThis is what happens when you have idiots who know nothing about cars writes an article.
There is nothing wrong w/ body-on-frame platforms. Though the handling may not be as crisp, it is cheaper but more importantly, stronger. In addition, it means that body rust doesn’t affect the cars strength. As for handling, when did Americans ever care for it? We want grunt, not finesse. If Americans wanted handling, we wouldn’t be driving SUVs now would we. Plus, in 72, the only cars that did have good handling were European cars, which didn’t make a dent for US car markers anyway. That car did not symbolize Detroit’s demise. What did it more than anything was the cheapness of Japanese vehicles and the fact that American auto makers didn’t switch back to fuel economy as a designing factor quick enough.
By bassman97. January 19th, 2009 at 6:54 amWhats happening here is what has been for years, subliminal suggestion. Of course the Torino is not a handler. It was made to be a cruiser. long lasting in a wet climate? Lets face it, All of Detroit’s attitude was that the american buyer wants a new one in 5 years anyways so who cares? This has nothing to do with the Torino. Hes obviously a Import lover. For no other reason than everyone else is doing it. He, just like millions of others would have you believe that only imports make good cars, soo you must be stupid to buy american. People like this should be removed from public writing.
By 71hotrodpinto. January 17th, 2009 at 10:29 amTo blame the Gran Torino for the fall of the auto industry is like blaming a little kid for for breaking his parents up. I mean honestly. Does he not know the Gran Torino was possibly the best selling car at the time? If you want you car t handle on rails, go dump some money into a Porsche. If you want a car with a geat ride, plenty of go, and drop-dead gorgeous looks, get the Gran Torino!
Having a separate frame rather than unibody actually makes it stronger. A car guy knows that. But, instead, we get some elitist a-hole, possibly sipping tea with a foreign film in the background, writing that the car was crap. From what I understand, it got around pretty well for a 4000+lb car!
By nitrorustlerpro15. January 15th, 2009 at 10:24 amI see this got a few people upset. Well having had a 72 Torino sedan w/302 I can say it was a decent car. There were problems with some 72’s w/ 302 running a bit warm because as I remember the blocks still had core sand in them. It did rust some after 5 years in the north, but the frame was a pretty solid piece.
By ranchero67. January 14th, 2009 at 3:54 pmHowever if you lived in Detroit many look back at the 70’s as the start of the road down. Detroit as a city and as an area of industrial might had hit it’s peak. The gas crunch of 73-74 and the new smog laws made life difficult for Detroit. A lot of people complained Detroit was still trying to revive the glory of the 50’s. The gas crunch gave the little foreign cars a place too shine, and in the minds of many in Detroit it was the opening shot.
The city of Detroit like many northern cities started too look pretty old. A person did not wander around town at night, one always was warned to stay with a group of friends. More robberies, more shootings, and the place was looking rather sad.
Today I still will go into downtown Detroit when visiting, BUT it makes me sad to see how run down the place is.
For Detroit it was the cars. Everybody had family or friends that worked in the industry. Everybody knew when the new models were coming out and you knew your friends at Ford or GM would be driving the latest model in the next couple of months. For a young kid, you became “car crazy” it was natural. Today …..well
I read it, got pissed. I could not resist firing off a letter.
RE: comments on Gran Torino movie.
Dear Sir:
While you are simply just another movie critic, some “car guy” you really are.
Please research before you start mind numbing conjecture.
A novel concept of “Think! It might be a new experience!” might help you, so when properly writing an article, and save the mindless bashing one praticular vehicle or company. While I’d like to hope the people of the great state of California would honestly have good judgement, it seems quite the opposite for most of the media.
The 1972 Ford lineup had a completly re-engineered lineup in the intermediate class; they went away from the unibody design at that time, and went to body-on-frame construction, and the benifits were many-fold.
The body-on-frame construction enabled the engineers to better isolate any road noise, it was a good HD chassis that served many civic and government service positions.
The 1972 Ford Intermediate class line up, offer some things so many new cars can’t even pretend to offer.
The choices in options, drivetrain selection, and comfort seems to quite exceed most new cars.
If you bothered to do proper research on the matter, the Torino out sold the closest competitors by a fairly large amount, the feedback at the time was noted in many of the magazines, I suggest also looking back to Car and Driver, September 1971. The press seems pretty happy with it.
Braking performance was one of the best out of comparable vehicles. Compared to newer vehicles with ABS, for such a “outmoded relic” as you like to infer, the performance is pretty damn good for a car weighing what it does, equipt with manual front disc brakes and rear drum brakes.
As far as the handling, if these cars were optioned correctly with the maximum handling package, with the correct gearing, a 4 speed, and the quicker ration steering, these cars are quite able to handle any road…it’s not going to be like driving a Porsche from the same era, but compare apples to apples.
Also, take a good look at the local Police next time you are out…most of our nation’s finest depend on Crown Victoria’s day in and day out and they seem to still be using the descendant of the Torino’s full frame chassis.
I wonder why that is? Maybe because they are a durable platform that handles real service duty that most unibody cars seem to fold up under extreme use?
Then again, one could surmise, you probably prefer to wrapped up in a newer-model vehicle that seals out any possible experience of actually enjoying the drive in a car that does not look just the same vehicle next to you at the light.
Any way, have fun with the belly-button-bore-us-to death ‘69 Camaro, Toyota Prius, or other non-descript vehicle that you drive.
Andrew ****
Omaha, Nebraska
Member of Fairlane Club Of America
Torinocobra.com
Fordmuscle.com
GranTorinoSport.org
eliteman76@****
By Eliteman76. January 14th, 2009 at 10:24 amA movie critic is just that a critic, and the old saying is just as valid as ever:
Everyone has and opinion, and an a-hole, and sometimes they both stink rather badly.
I don’t give a flying F{bomb} what that guy says.
By Eliteman76. January 14th, 2009 at 9:36 amI guess the fact the ‘72 Torino intermediate was one of the best selling cars for 1972?
The car did what it needed at that time, fit the market, and people could order it how they wanted.
Guy must own a prius.
Have a 1973 Ranchero and - yes the handling is really astonishing bad compared to modern cars so I guess the Torino handels about the same. But at these days gas was cheap and speed limit was 55 mph….so what the heck.
By Mugel. January 13th, 2009 at 11:21 amBut the cars were robust and you could drive while parts were half broke. For example when I bought the Ranchero in 2001 the drive shaft u-joints were very loose…but the car drove…all bushings were worn after 28 years but she drove comfortable. Try this with a european or asian car: something will snap and the car stops (or worse). Nowadays I can drive my Ranchero 130 mph on the highway for a couple of minutes or leave some modern sportscars behind yeees only on a straight line of course and yes: Thats my most fascinating car I ever had.
Time goes by and change is the sign of Life. The british car industry got struck even worse than the american and 10 years earlier…..
I had a friend in high school who had the exact car. At the time (1979) I was only interested in foreign cars (I had a 1974 Fiat Spider) and thought the Torino was a piece of crap. Now that a few years have rolled by, my tastes have changed. I think the Torino looks very good. I no longer have my Fiat and do not yearn for another. I do have a 1965 Mustang fastback and a 1966 Fairlane hardtop that I still peek at and admire just before I go to bed at night!
To blame the auto industry solely is unfair. The safety nannies in Washington share much of the burden with them. Now the American auto industry is having real difficulty building cars that people want at a competitive price. Perhaps this recent upset will really turn out to be a great opportunity for Detroit to experience a renaissance and show the world what America is capable of doing!
F**k Nancy Pelosi and all the other liberal enemies of America.
David W. Allison
By David W. Allison. January 13th, 2009 at 7:47 amThe way I see it any Muscle Car would have represented the theme of the movie, but Gran Torino gave the movie a great name. I am glad it was a Ford that Clint Eastwood used in the movie, maybe he is a Ford guy! To me, the movie represents the fact, that in the past 35 years everything that the veterans of WWII and Korea and etc. have fought and died for, our elected “officials” have turned their backs too. In many respects, those veterans (fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, grandfathers, great grandfathers) fought and died in “vain”. As far as Dan Niel goes ( the LA times writer) I would guess that he is not a person of “substance” so to speak. Doesn’t really matter to me what he thinks or to be more explicit “who give a f___” what he thinks.
By Dennis. January 12th, 2009 at 7:46 pmI love the movie and can’t beleive they didn’t win best picture. I wish they would have shown more of the car in the movie. I think the government is the undoing of the auto industry. Requireing all the air bags, emissions, and unfair trade with foreign countries. Just my opinion. I was a retail auto salesman fron 1985 until 1996 and attended two seminars by the legendary auto salesperson Jacki Cooper, He made the point that “Nothing happens until someone sells an automobile”, I believe this will show to be true. The automobile is the most important invention in history,
By Bill Bailey. January 12th, 2009 at 6:59 pmBill Bailey
Back then, I drove a Saab 96, and I felt the same way as the idiot who wrote the article. I thought my four-cylinder unibody car was far superior to all those body-on-frame V8 American cars.
Now, GM owns Saab (at least for the moment), and I drive a 2001 Crown Victoria Police Interceptor: body-on-frame, V8, and my favorite car among all I’ve owned (and that list includes an ‘85 F41 Cutlass Supreme).
Our tastes evolve, and we learn to appreciate the classics… or we don’t.
By Willie Horton. January 12th, 2009 at 5:47 pmWow, so the fact that underneath the skin of my Torino lies a perimeter frame as strong as my 74 F250’s is a bad thing?
By 72GTS_GA. January 12th, 2009 at 12:15 pmThat is the most mindless drivel I’ve heard yet! Blaming the car?? What killed our auto industry was asian cultures that accept incredibly low standards of living so their cars could be cheaper. I had a 1972 Ford Ranchero and it was the most reliable car I’ve ever owned’ Ok it rusted to death but provided transportation for 32 years!!! let’s see honda do that! Now I drive a 1974 Ranchero Squire and I love it. By the way,gran torino the movie sucked not the car!
By squireboy. January 12th, 2009 at 11:06 am- The previous model-year car was built on a unitized steel chassis, or monocoque, like modern cars. For 1972, the Torino returned to a virtually obsolete and inferior body-on-frame design, which lowered the costs of putting multiple body styles on the chassis.
So tell me o’ wise one why is it that the “Modern” Crown Victoria rides on a chassis, that is almost 80% identical to the one under the Gran Torino.
Obsolete my ass.
Ford bashing at its worst.
Oh and
By 75 Squire. January 12th, 2009 at 8:18 amSorry folks, but I have to agree also. It was the beginning of the end. I owned one of those, ordered it from the factory. At first site, I was in love, but like most relationships the beauty soon fades. After a few months the newness started to wear off and I realized the disappointment. I kept the car two years and finally dumped it. Never looked back.
By retyler. January 12th, 2009 at 6:00 amAs someone who loves the design of this car and owned more than 1 of them, I must be honest and say I have to support some of this auto critics message. Detroits biggest problem is that as an industry for a very long time now, they have not done a good job of offering enough cars that Americans want to own. Even the attempts to bring back classic designs over the past few years are all bloated, shapeless resemblances of what they once were, much like the once lean and mean high school quarterback showing up at his 30 year high school renunion looking like John Goodman. Anyone driven behind a new Challenger? I rolled by one in my 65 Mustang and the thing looked like an SUV compared to my car. There was a point somewhere around the time this Torino was released that the downslide began. I cannot say it is the 72 Torino specifically which was the apex of the change in direction, but its a pretty good poster child for it when you consider the significantly lower value of these cars versus their earlier models from 1968-1971. If you have owned a 1972 model and tried to sell it, you know its value in the market (what people PAY not what they ask) does not measure up to the earlier models. Certainly we think it worth as much, we love the design. We are worng when we look at what the market tells us is reality. This auto critic recognizes the change that has occurred among the Detroit designed and produced cars and the community that built them. He has found this car in the exact place on the timeline as the begining of that shifts. With the uniqueness that is the design of the 1972 Torino and the drastic change it was from its former self, he points out a ‘change in direction’ that is undeniable.
By Guts. January 11th, 2009 at 7:49 pmThis writer is an ass and clearly has a bias against Ford.
By trikar. January 11th, 2009 at 7:17 pmWhen I was in high school, I owned the exact same Torino with a 4-barrel 351 Cleveland and stock dual exhaust, except mine was sky blue with a white vinal top. That was the coolest car I ever owned. I’d do just about anything to have it back…
By Hamp Dawson. January 11th, 2009 at 6:19 pm