> I wanted a 1968 Mercury Cougar. These days, I'd have to take that Cougar body and make it a hybrid or convert it to electric in order to afford to drive it. Heresy, maybe?
> I think Cougar's were around from '66 to '70 (or '71) in the form that I like.
The magnificent styling of the first (1967) was only slightly marred by side-marker lights on the 1968 (actually this was a mid-year change but I don't know which year).
The elegance is, IMHO, lost in the 1969 re-styling. Now it is just another Bunkiemobile, though less bloated than later jobs.
The Falcon "chassis" is cheap junk. We are talking brakes and balljoints every 20K miles. And the original A-arms were designed to fatigue and crack; eventually (6 part-number chain) they were subbed with a part that weighed three times as much.
'71, Mustang and Cougar grew significantly onto the 1g-Torino floorboards (really over-stretching the poor Falcon "structure"). The side of a 71-73 Cougar is less exciting-looking than the better Ramblers. And you lose the flip-headlights (boo) and the electro-mechanical tail-lights (yay?).
The 1974 got off the Falcon tinwork onto the 2g-Torino "Elite" frame.
I once saw a large boring wagon, and noticed a cat hood ornament. By golly, there was a fuuuull-size "Cougar" station wagon, 1977 only. Except for the cat, it would have been an Elite or LTD Wagon.
77-79 "Cougars" (and T-Burds) were big cars on a beefed-up 1966 Galaxie frame. Very lush speedway cruisers, mechanically robust, poor performance. I stepped out of my 79 Bird when gas hit $2.
1980 was Fox-based, a very different machine. There are people who like these rides. It has its points. I think many of the things Ford was doing wrong, they "perfected" in this period, and it was the mid-1990s before they could do something half-right again.
> make it a hybrid or convert it to electric
By today's standards, even the sweet '67 is a heavy yet fragile "frame". It will not survive long with enough battery-weight to go anywhere interesting. Me, woman, dog, and suitcases tore the rear shock out on the long bumpy shoulderless run down to the Tappen Zee. I think when you have enough battery to peel-out half as good as the '79 Burd (never spilled my coffee) with more range than a Corgi, it's gonna crumple quick.
"Afford"? I think a very-very lame conversion would cost $4,000, and a practical conversion 2X or 3X that much.
But take $4,000 and gasoline at $4/gal... that's 1,000 gallons you could put in the existing engine. My '68 302 would do 18MPH easy; a '67 Mustang with a 170 Falcon Six routinely did 22MPG in the day when $1/gallon was a shock. So NOT converting it gives you 20,000 miles "free fuel", and more likely 40K-60K free miles, and "infinite" range.
While the first Cougar is a fine round-town car, what you REALLY want to be able to do is get a full tank of gas, a full pack of Camels, and head on out Route 66 at 66MPH "forever". That long-long hood, and the 3 extra inches behind the seat, make the Cat a verrry fun long-run car.
Some guy put a non-USA Diesel in a '67 Cat:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/20/craigslist-find-of-the-day-67-mercury-cougar-with-mercedes-die/
Note that the gearshift conflicted with the iconic Cougar center console, so that's gone and he got a bench-seat to cover the gap. But the Falcon bench was awful and the '67 Mustang/Cougar buckets are the best $3 seats ever made, really very comfortable. Considering the cost of cleaning-up a German Turbo-banger, I tend to wonder if you could ever pay-back the Diesel conversion, even before repressive taxation on "truck fuel".
> I have a 67! ... new sheet metal.
You are a man of taste. And, I hope, wealth. Mustang parts are cheap, but there is SOOOO much bad structure in the Falcon platform, zero to spare for wear and tear. Look for cracks running up from where the A-arms bolt to the inner fender. If it has ever seen dew, the trunk "frame rails" (really the whole trunk fooor) should be torn-out (wear gloves, but you may not need even a hammer) and replaced.
Dream car? If I could lock-in gasoline at $2/gal, a '67 Cougar with a frame!!
The 66 Galaxie/79 T-burd frame is one of the finer heavy-car frames ever made; but it must be shortened and I don't think it would readily channel under a '67 Cougar's floors without narrowing. And when you ponder all that, the best path becomes a 1966 Avanti. Similarly elegant styling on an honest small-wagon frame. The Galaxie had better rear suspension but even the Avanti's long-leafs beat the junk-leaf and tin-floor of the Falcon rear "suspension". The early Avanti has other problems: Studebaker was thinking about quitting the business and the Avanti was a rush/slap job, also there's a rocker-box which collapses. Still, even if you re-engine, less radical work than a full-frame Cougar.