Ah, the Falcon. Has Detroit produced anything blander in the blessed decade of the ‘60s? Maybe AMC, but they were the underdog. Ford, on the other hand, should have been able to devise a compact with a little spice like the Corvair, or a little character like the Valiant. But no, they did this.
The only redeeming feature, externally, are the afterburner taillights – those are a ‘50s/’60s Ford staple and objectively awesome. But man, is the rest of that poor car dumpy and boring.
At least, it is in this four-door guise. The two-door is a bit better, the convertible is better still and I guess the wagons look decent as well. Not to mention the myriad derivatives that the Falcon begat: the Ranchero, the Comet, the Econoline, the Mustang, as well as the foreign Falcons, especially the long-lived Argentinian and Ozzie cousins. For an unexciting econobox, this Ford sure had a lot of alter egos.
It rather puts me in mind of certain very good actors who actually “disappear” in their roles. The Falcon is like Peter Sellers, who claimed he had his personality “surgically removed” and could therefore take on the role of a dim trade unionist, a creepy Nazi scientist, a bumbling French policeman, a faux James Bond, an incompetent Indian actor or an idiot-savant gardener seemingly with equal ease.
The thing about Sellers is that, in real life, he was apparently impossible to deal with. He was mercurial, narcissistic, mean and self-destructive – but the comedic talent he displayed was outstanding. His triple role in Dr Strangelove (perhaps my favourite of his films) as the American President, a British officer and the eponymous German mad scientist has to be seen to be believed. Yet the man himself was a mess.
The Falcon was not a mess, but it was a blank slate, a tidy placeholder of a car. I may be mixing my metaphors a bit, but Ford managed to use, re-use and this bland bird’s meat, skin and bones in the next couple of decades with tremendous skill.
So compliments to the chef. Turning this dull dodo into a multi-faceted Falcon à la king was the ultimate conjuring trick. Or, as Peter Sellers would have said back in 1968, “Birdie num-num.”
Related posts:
Curbside Classic: 1962½ Ford Falcon Sports Futura – Ford Sees The Future; At Chevrolet, by PN
Curtis Perry Outtake: 1962 Falcon – Gothmobile, by PN
Curbside Capsule: 1962 Ford Falcon + Teardrop Camper – Drivin’ The Dream, by Ed Stembridge
1962 Ford Falcon Sports Futura Hipster Found Hiding In Alley 15 Years After Its CC Debut, by PN
COAL #4: The ’62 Falcon – The First Ford in Our Future, by Stephen Hansen
You’re not the first to think of a cooking metaphor, for years I’ve been saying the Falcon was the bechamel sauce Chef Lido Iacocca used in most of the dishes he cooked in the first half of his career, and the K-Car took on that role for the rest.
Sometimes plain cooking just hits the spot, and there’s no denying that the Falcon did exactly that in 1960, a welcome change after the increasingly overegged, overdone concoctions that came from the Big 3 kitchens in the late 50s.
As the *UGLY AMERICAN * (not the AMC car) whose preference for the GREAT AMERICAN LAND YACHT is well documented, IMO the FALCON was far more desirable than ANY import. Growing up in a family where Dad spent over 45 years at Inland Steel, anything not manufactured in the USA was considered a POS. And to this day that still is my opinion, with the exception of ROLLS-ROYCE, which is beyond my reach. To the point, the early Nash Rambler was a cute smaller version of the Magnificent Ambassador. The Studebaker Lark ( we had one as a second car) had a somewhat Stately presence. Valiant was a valiant effort with a preview of the disastrous 62 Dodge and Plymouth. Corvair? IMO, Another POS. A friend of my parents traded his 56 DeSoto for a 60 Corvair and drove nothing else but Corvairs until his passing. I never understood THAT, but do think other than black walls and bare wheels, FALCON (as shown here) was successful because of its traditional Ford design and interior. Giving buyers a taste of the big Fords at a somewhat smaller size and price. FALCON survived all the other compacts. Same applies to Comet, Meteor, Fairlane and later, Granada and Monarch. Americans still wanted a Luxury feel, styling and a bit of Panache. So now that I’ve labeled most of the compacts as REVOLTING, I’m on to VERSAILLES in my Town Car.
My brother had a white 60 2dr post, 144, 3 on the tree. painted it royal blue, tinted the windows blue. That was spray on tint back then, big messy fun. He put spacers in the front coils, shackles in the rear.. Baby moons, it was so slow but looked so cool. We used to cruise to the dairy queen in that.. The good ole days. After that he had the real deal, a 62 Dodge polara 500 hardtop, 361 with a torqueflite… Good times
Actually I quite like this Falcon, they are packed full of interesting details in a reasonably small package. The side sculpting, the way the bumper goes around the taillights, the electric shaver grille. All great stuff.
Then again I like AMC cars too, so there is no accounting for taste.
Don’t forget the faux hood scoop.
Lee Iacocca once said that Robert MacNamara wore granny glasses, and in the Falcon he’d built a granny car.
In my family the Grannies have the experience to make the best decisions and the best food.
One of the lousiest cars that I have ever driven. It was a gutless wonder with a poor seat. Uncomfortable.
Forgive me. As an ’80’s teenager, I probably would have considered this the ultimate sh*tbox, if I was driving this at the time. Likely would have driven it hard, especially in Winter. I would have maintained it of course, but it comes across as such traditional, basic disposable transportation. A lot of teenagers a generation or three later, would not have shown it much respect. Wide rear tires, a shackle lift kit for the leaf springs, Thrush muffler, etc. I would have been at Canadian Tire every Saturday, pampering and accessorizing it, with cheap Motomaster NuGold oil, and a Pulser tape deck. Playing artists like April Wine.
When new I thought the first Falcons drab and cheap looking .
I think the full size base model 1962 Ford sedan is even plainer than this , in spite of that (possibly because) I love them .
Time has taught us the Falcon was in fact not just the right car for it’s time but a very good low price automobile to boot .
-Nate
Today I found out I have bland taste!
The Econoline was not a derivative of the Falcon, the only thing they shared were the engine, transmission and possibly some of the badges on the passenger version. My bet is they used the Falcon Station Bus moniker because of GM actually deriving a van from their compact car and to share the goodwill the Falcon name quickly acquired as the best selling compact from the “low priced three”.
I’m guessing the brakes were the same? Rear axle? Steering wheel?
because of GM actually deriving a van from their compact car
The Corvair van/pickup was no more derived from the Corvair than the Econoline was from the Falcon. It too shared about the same number of components. The Corvair van/pu used a front suspension borrowed mostly from the full size cars. So the amount shared was almost exactly the same.
Bland was popular in 1960, and I believe Falcon outsold the other compacts until the equally bland Chevy II came along.
I don’t think the Falcon as a design is all that bland, it’s certainly less attractive than the Corvair or Mustang that replaced it, sure, but I’d also say it looks better than the early Chevy II and the Engalized 63 Valiants, even though the Falcon by the time those came out was on a more aged body.
The original 1960 was the blandest in terms of adornment but it actually shares a lot of styling details with the 1960 full size Fords, basically looking like a junior companion model to them, so I imagine as the styling of the big Fords drastically changed in 61-62-63 the Falcon looked stale.
Ford, on the other hand, should have been able to devise a compact with a little spice like the Corvair, or a little character like the Valiant.
And forgo outselling them both combined? The Falcon is exactly what folks were looking for in a compact in 1960. And at the time, it looked the height of modernity and chic, given all the rolling finned monstrosities of the late ’50s.
Falcons looked fine; it was the driving experience that was bland.
Those of you who have driven these Falcons really aren’t selling me the driving experience. On the other side of the coin though a Falcon like this would give me what I like about American cars in a practical sized package for where I live. It’s as well the back of the car looks good, with the overtaking opportunities as they are in this neck of the woods other motorists will be looking at it for a while.
The warranty repair experience came thru 5×5 though, somebody got their sums wrong in the design department, they looked ok especially the rear lights.
Weirdly enough, talking to various females of my age, an early 1960’s Falcon is their “dream car”. It actually looks good, and doesn’t have the “muscle-car” overtones of a Mustang. It appeals to the same demographic as a Beetle (esp. a Beetle convertible), or later a Rabbit/Golf convertible, or perhaps a Celica or Honda Prelude.