The MKlV range brought out in 1966 inherited only model names from its predecessor. It broke new ground for Ford of Britain with all round independent suspension; their familiar MacPherson struts at the front, semi – trailing arms with coil springs (ingeniously mounted to accommodate fixed length drive shafts) at the rear. We said in our road test of the Zodiac that the suspension had short comings when driving quickly because the nose-heavy weight distribution and a high roll centre gave too much weight transfer at the back and produced a jacking effect, characteristic of swing axle geometry.
In October 1967 a MK two version was announced incorporating, along with a number of other detail improvements, larger wheels and modified suspension geometry with more negative camber at the rear. Certainly the Zephyr V6 we tested in 1968 had much improved handling but with the 2.5 litre V6 instead of the Zodiacs 3 litres, we thought it rather gutless.
At the bottom of the range the MKlV is virtually unrivalled in terms of metal – for – money, the 2 litre V4 Zephyr selling for 1071 pounds. At the top the Executive faces direct competition from the Austin 3 litre, Vauxhall Viscount and several continental imports. Rootes have not had a car in this sector of the market since the demise of the larger Humber’s and we wonder whether the MklV’s replacement will be such a large car. Perhaps Ford’s product planners are too strongly influenced by the parent company when the MKlV was conceived. Its size makes it rather unwieldy on our crowded roads – the BLMC 1800 manages to package similar interior dimensions into a smaller and more manageable car.
Never the less, Executive looks imposing (or perhaps pretentious) with spacious accommodation; leather upholstery; genuine wood cappings on the doors and instrument panel; and impressive array of instruments and switches; a radio; sliding roof; heated rear window; and wing mirrors- all in the standard specification.
The car behaves quite well but it still has limitations when extended. Performance is a bit disappointing with a maximum speed of only 95.4mph and 0-50mph in 9.3 s; the manual Zodiac recorded 102.5 mph and 7.5s respectively. Smooth automatic transmission is standard in the Executive.
PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMY
The engine started promptly when cold. Flooring the throttle and releasing it gently sets the automatic choke which makes the engine idle at around 1200 rpm until normal running temperature has been reached. The choke was reluctant to cut out on one of the two cars we tried- the heater delivered warm air some time before the engine idle returned to it’s normal 600-700rpm. However, a quick dab on the throttle after two or three miles usually reduced the idling speed, suggesting some stickiness in the linkage – a common problem.
The engine pulled without hesitation from cold, but the first idle caused the car to creep rather quickly. With an 8.9:1 compression ratio we used four star fuel and could detect no pinking, though the engine developed a curious "tinkle" when accelerating through 1500rpm. This was also apparent on the second Executive at 2000 rpm.
The 3 litre 60° V6 Essex engine is not very highly stressed, producing 136bhp DIN at 4750 rpm and maximum torque of 181.5lb. at 3000 rpm. Above 500 rpm the engine becomes rough and obtrusively noisy but as the automatic changes up at 4500-4900 on full throttle, you don’t often notice this shortcoming. Using the selector to hold first and intermediate gears at 5100 did not improve the acceleration times, so presumably the engines breathing is none to efficient. Our maximum speed, timed over a lap of the MIRA banked track, of 9505 is not very fast. Even downhill the car would not exceed 100mph. (The MklV range suffers from a rather high drag coefficient of 0.47, probably due to its slab front.) In compensation, the maximum is reached fairly rapidly-witness our best maximile of 94.8 mph.
Acceleration from low speed is fairly brisk, with a 0-50 mph time of 9.3s but, on the road, where acceleration from 50mph is useful for getting past a stream of traffic, the car has little in reserve even when using the kickdown. Our 50-70 mph time of 9.4s compares poorly with the 6.5s of the manual Zodiac in third gear. Most people, however, will probably find the performance quite adequate and should obtain a fuel consumption of 18-21 mpg.
TRANSMISSION.
The Executive uses the Borg Warner 35 three-speed gearbox and a torque converter, which allows an easy start on the 1 in 3 test hill. The stiff but well placed tunnel-mounted selector works in a gate marked PRND 2 and 1. We would have preferred a more positive indication of the selector position, particularly at night. Engaging D from the rest should produce a barely discernible jolt, though the first Executive we tried gave a pronounced lurch, particularly when the engine was cold and idling above it’s normal speed. Smooth take- offs were also easier to achieve in the second car-the throttle of the first was very sensitive in its initial movement, which made creeping in traffic rather tricky. Once away, however, changes up the box, even on full throttle, were commendably smooth on both cars. On part throttle the changes came at around 25 and 35 mph, with foot floored at 37 and 62 mph (4500 rpm). Some thought the kickdown too fierce-at any speed over 40 mph the downward change into intermediate produced a jolt and the resulting roar from the engine as the revs rose discouraged use of the kickdown. Around town, part throttle downchanges were unpredictable; this was particularly noticeable on right-angle turns when the gearbox would sometimes change in the middle of the turn, at others as the car accelerated away. Using the manual over ride to select a lower gear when, say, entering a round about, the downward change is very smooth.
Most owners will probably be content to leave the selector in D and let the automatic do the work smoothly and unobtrusively on it’s own. The gearbox and the back axle were both quiet. An optional 4 – speed manual transmission with overdrive costs 45 pounds less.
HANDLING AND BRAKES
Power steering ensures that the Executive is light to manoeuvre but the gearing (4.2 turns from lock to lock) is too low. One-and-a-half turns of the safety wheel are required to scribe a 50ft, circle and this means a lot of wheel whirling around town. Even so, the steering is fairly accurate and some resistance gives an impression of road feel. The steering of one car had more resistance than the other, neither gave much increase in effect as the cornering speed increased; this is usually a fair indication of degree of feel given by a power steering system.
Wet or dry the Executive clings on remarkably well, helped no doubt by it’s fat 185 x 15 Goodyear G800 tyres. Unfortunately they squeal too readily and the body rolls a lot so brisk cornering is discouraged. The car wallows on entering a tight corner, which is rather uncomfortable for the passengers, but then stays on line with initial understeer changing to a gentle tail slide on the limit. Lifting off in mid corner had no dramatic effect on the car’s line so evidently the earlier jacking effect has been eliminated by the revised rear suspension and larger wheels. The noise-heavy weight distribution, 57/43 front/rear, still exaggerates understeer but on main roads deceptively high average speeds are easily maintained, with the car holding the chosen line through fast open bends. Not the best of cars for quick town journeys, though, as its size and ponderous behaviour are not conductive to quick lane changes. Pedal pressure for the servo-assisted disc brakes (on all four wheels) rose from the 20 to 26lb. in our fade test. The servo is very sensitive so only a slight increase in pressure can lock the wheels. With a delicate touch, though, the brakes are very reassuring and we achieved 0.98 g with a pedal pressure of 80lb. The under-facia pull-out handbrake would not hold the car on the 1 in 3 hill-possibly with the handbrake better adjusted it would, since one wheel locked and slid down the concrete surface of the hill, while the other rolled. The handbrakes 0.3-g could also probably be improved. A really good soaking in the water splash had little effect on the brakes.
COMFORT AND CONTROLS. Continued on next page (part 2).
