Wouldn’t you have been tempted by a new Falcon with a hot 166hp 3.6 L (221 cubic inch) six, a four speed on the floor and some nice wheels instead of a dull Taurus or such in the mid-late 1980s? Well, in Argentina, the choices were much more limited, which explains why the 1962 Falcon was kept in production until 1991, although with a number of changes to make it more appealing as the upper class car that it was there at the time.
Rivera Notario found two of them on the streets in Mendoza, Argentina; this ’80s version as well as one from the mid ’60s.
Here’s its back end, which shows how it got new taillights and such. I might be wrong; it might be from the late ’70s; I’ve never found a definitive guide, although I did make an effort to note the major restyles in my Argentine Falcon history. The last major restyle came in 1982, when the rear end got wide horizontal taillights. This is obviously from before that.
I can’t pin down the year of the older one either, as their grilles changed in minor detail several times. But I’m pretty confident it’s from the m-d-late ’60s. What’s fascinating is that already in 1963 the Argentine Falcon got a 187 cubic inch version of the six, with the larger bore from the 200 CID six. And some five years later, the Australian 188 and 221 cubic inch versions were essentially adopted in Argentina.
And that included a cylinder head that had a proper intake manifold instead of the integrally cast log manifold on all US-market Falcon sixes. This is the high-output SP version with 166hp.
It’s not likely that this grizzled old veteran is sporting one of those mills backed by a four-speed, but they’re out there. Not surprisingly, the near-immortal Falcon became an icon in Argentina, and has an enthusiastic following.
My more detailed article on the Argentine Falcon:
A dark green Falcon pulling up in front of your house in Argentina meant somebody was going bye bye.
Their President recruited the washed up “Zorro” from Hollywood and gave him a bayfront apartment to hold rallys where he stirred up the crowd with patriotic hoopla in support for the President’s policies.
These things actually work better than the way the US has managed its cities.
Maybe we need Falcons and Zorro
Seems like you’re already half way there, just need more Falcons.
I spent a couple of months in Argentina in the mid 90’s. There were a lot of problems at that time, just 10 years from the Falkland war and junta rule with the economy in decline. The nervousness was palpable, but the Falcons and Torinos just kept on going.
😂😂😂😂 It is very strange here
The first generation of the Falcon in Argentina, especially from 1960 to 1963, was exactly the same as the american and australian version.
Then it was modified over the years, but basically it was the same chassis from ’60 to ’91. It is true that Argentina came from several decades of stagnation but it was not a Soviet or communist economy. There was a variety of cars in that country, so if the Falcon was the best seller for years it is because it was a very good car.
Australian early Falcons were a dog of a car they fell apart, Ford Australia spent a fortune re-engineering them from the drawing board mess they got from the US.
A true compliment in Argentina is ” Like a Falcon”. I’ve heard it a few times.
I saw a lot of these in Argentina & Brazil in 1981. I chuckled at how the manufacturer (Ford? a subsidiary?) tacked modern details onto an old body, pretending to be updating.
But I did see a new individualizing trend among them — loud coffee-can, attention-drawing tailpipes. A premonition of the “ricers” that showed up later on.
The first one is a ‘72-‘74 in DeLuxe trim which dos not incluye the special wheels. If I’m wrong about the year, would be because in 75 the trunk changed a very little bit. In that case could be a 75-77. As there are no callouts on the engine it’s probably a 188/3.0 liter, with a theee on the tree. Of course, given the condition, any of those clues could have fallen off.
Shopping with my Dad we looked into a brand new 81 Futura 221, fully loaded for the time. Dad decided against the old guzzler.
Wow, ill take that 166hp six in my anemic 101hp 63 comet convertble…!!! Bring it..
A very informative story about the Ford Falcon ! I was really surprised , that Argentina still produced the Falcon until 1991. The last ones were made in the U.S. in 1969 . I believe the new Ford Maverick , introduced for 1970 , was the replacement for the old Ford Falcon ..Even so , the Falcon proved very popular with strong sales as it was economical and affordable to many buyers .
There was technically a 1970 U.S. Falcon, but it was an intermediate — a stripped-down Torino, basically — offered only briefly as a placeholder. The Australian Falcon, meanwhile, continued through 2016!
And by 2016, there’d been, thank the lord, a bunch of minor mods, such as twin-cam VVt ohc 24-valve 75% larger version of the engine, IRS, rack steering, a/c, modern crashworthiness, multi-speed ZF autos, every other thing that’s happened to cars since 1960, but otherwise, they were essentially the ’60 car.
Jokes aside, it’s actually true that the bore spacing on that six stayed the same from then to the end, but Aaron, you’re the person who’ll know how to find this: are there any structural pressings that really are that 1960 model’s that were still essentially there in 2016?
My guess is no. Keep in mind that the 1966 Falcon (XR in Oz) had an essentially totally new body (shared largely with the Fairlane) with no hard points shared with the 1960-1965 version. I seriously doubt there were any “structural pressings” shared between them. But plenty of other parts.
Still, I’m a bit surprised that no one down under has pursued this question, as the steady evolution/remodeling of the Australian Falcon is one of the most fascinating car stories ever. I didn’t tumble to this fact until pretty late in the game, and it wasn’t from anyone telling me; I had to extrapolate it for myself.
In the structure of the cars themselves, I can’t imagine there are. It was redesigned many times, and Australia did eventually have safety standards that didn’t exist with the original XK Falcon was conceived. For the engines, I suppose there might be some vague Ship of Theseus tooling relationship between the late Falcon six and the early Falcon engine, but that I think becomes more of a philosophical question than a technical one.
I believe the reason for the Torino stripper placeholder was because the Falcon couldn’t meet new safety requirements that were mandated for the 1970 model year, including the new locking steering column with the ignition located there instead of the dashboard…?
The more logical reason is that Ford needed to create lots of production capacity for the Maverick, which arrived in the spring of 1969, by which time the slow-selling Falcon’s production was already shut down (according to one source). I can’t confirm that, but it would be interesting to do so.
1972 Ford Falcon ‘XY-series’ 4WD from Australia with factory fitted steering lock! XY was the third and final facelift of the 1966-intro Falcon design. The lock’s original plastic nacelle cover is missing from this example.
Surprised and delighted to see the Aussie Falcon still offered a horn ring in 1972 while US Maverick, Pinto, Torino, Mustang and Galaxie/LTD dropped them but it was still available on the Bronco and Ecolonine for the 1972 model year.
Stephane you’d probably be even more surprised and delighted to learn that Aussie Falcons were blessed by the miracle of a hydraulic clutch, visible here. This contrasts to Mustang or other Falcons etc elsewhere. BTW keen eyes might also detect the inclined engine of this example, another idiosyncrasy unique to certain Oz Falcons.
A clearer view, inclined 7 degrees from vertical iirc?
Ford Falcons were still being built in n Australia in 2015…
There was a 1970 Falcon in the US. 69 wasn’t the last year.
Interestingly, the Maverick also lived a longer production life in Brazil, going out of production in the ’80s, if I remember correctly.
This is my 2010 Aussie Falcon Ute. Fitted with a factory std 4 litre turbo straight 6 developing 270kw 529nm
Make sure your image is reduced to no more than 1200 pixels width in order to attach.
I had no idea the Falcon was in production that long in Argentina. I guess it’s similar to the Mexican Beetle or something. A 160HP six and four on the floor would make for a fun Falcon though. I’ve always been a little disappointed that Ford US never did anything interesting with the Falcon six. I suppose the idea was you either bought the grocery-getter six, or if you wanted some sport, you got the V8. But the “SP” version would have been a tempting in-between. It’s also too bad Ford’s given up on the straight-six. They did persist in the F-series through the mid-90s (and are regarded as one of the best light truck motors of all time), but it would really have been nice to have a simple but modern straight-six, and while I’m at it, a competent mid-size RWD platform. Anyway, a bare-bones Falcon would be the kind of car you’d expect to be a survivor; maybe even more likely than the Toyotas and Hondas everybody says last forever. At some point, rugged simplicity wins out – although in either case, most rusted out or hit a major mechanical problem that cost more to fix than the car was worth at some point.
I had a 1970 1/2 Falcon wagon, 302, c4 trans.
The body style was more like the Torino with minimal trim.
I owned a Ford Falcon.
The worst 6 weeks of my life
I have a 1963 Ford Falcon Stationwagon that I installed a General Motors’ PONTIAC IRON DUKE 2.5 liter four cylinder engine with factory GM throttle body electronic fuel injection and GM automatic transmission. It has a Vintage-Air A/C and Heat system which fits neatly under the dash and is much nicer than anything that was ever available on pre 1967 Fords.
It gets 30 Miles Per Gallon and you can drive it effortlessly, all day long on the Interstate at 75 to 80 mph. The engine gets buzzy like an angry hive of bumble bees if you push it beyond 82 mph. Top speed is about 91, maybe you can get it to 93 but you’ll really be pushing your luck as GM got its well deserved reputation as Garbage Motors because for so long, it only had to compete with, the awful Found On Roadside Dead, and Crapsler/Dodgy/Pukey, and tiny American Mototrash.
That PONTIAC IRON DUKE engine was caveman simple, old fashioned basic but extremely durable and supremely reliable. Pontiac engineers can largely thank GM do Brasil engineers for redesigning the awful Chevy II/Nova four cylinder engine of 1962 to 1970 which shaked and vibrated so badly in normal operation but otherwise was not unreliable as was the ’71-’75 2300cc aluminum Vega piece of s— engine.
The Brazilians (GM do Brasil) redesign eliminated most all of the shaking and vibrating after 1970. Pontiac engineers then took the Brazilian redesign and used that as a starting point for what became the underappreciated, if not quite legendary Pontiac Iron Duke. Pontiac engineers made significant engineering improvements and the IRON DUKE was born. Pontiac engineers would again improve the Duke in around 1979 when it adopted a cross-flow cylinder head.
The IRON DUKE did do what it’s intended goal was, to provide Detroit GM with an immediately reliable 4 cylinder that got good MPG that didn’t come from OPEL engineering(GM Europe). Yall will be amazed that that original horrible Chevy 4 from ’62-’70, stayed in production at OMC (the boat engine makers…)in the horrible original design that could shake worse than if you were in a 7.3 richter scale earthquake. A boat application isn’t as critical as a roadgoing motorcar.
Anyway, your saying to yourself, but Why put a 2.5 liter EFI crossflow Pontiac IRON DUKE into an early Falcon??? BECAUSE THE FORD 144 six and the 170 six were so underpowered that it is almost suicidal to ever drive a stock Falcon on an expressway or Interstate on ramp. The later 200 Ford six is extremely anemic and weak too, without major modifications.
THE IRON DUKE four with GM throttlebody TBI electronic fuel injection produces close to 100 legitimate peak horsepower at a much lower RPM band, and that big 2.5 liter IRON DUKE four is one little torquey son of a peach. Torque gets you moving. You ain’t got to be Mario Frikken Andretti but you gotta move faster than a 1962 VW Microbus when you are trying to merge with traffic when entering an expressway or interstate. The piece of sheez Ford 170 six will only give you 19 MPG , and while the Ford 144 six will deliver 23MPG but you risk death every time you enter an Expressway/Interstate on ramp and have to merge with 65mph to 75mph traffic.
Again Why The IRON DUKE and not say a TOYOTA 22RE efi engine/trans combo or a efi engine from a 1981-1991 Volvo 240 series, or even the Ford Lima 2.3 pinto engine in carb form or later EFI versions from late eighties to early nineties.
Heck, the 1975 to 1980 Toyota 20R carburetted engine would be great in a early Falcon, or even the 1977 on Buick V6 once GM revised the firing order and eliminated its shaking nature and made it the Buick V6 relatively smooth and refined.
——Answer: V-8 Ford or V-8 Chevy WOULD HAVE HORRIBLE MPG (13mpg to 15mpg) so there was zero desire to have a vee-ate in my Falcon. The Buick V6 would not yield decent enough MPG for what I wanted in my Falcon. The Ford V-6, cologne piece of trash as seen in Capri/Mustang II isn’t as good as the Buick V6 and it yields worse MPG than the Buick V6 too. The 2.3 liter LIMA pinto engine is halfway decent, and durable but MPG is not as good as that of the IRON DUKE 2.5 efi. The IRON DUKE is inexpensive to acquire, it is easy and inexpensive to build, and GM’s TBI electronic fuel injection is the simplest system on the planet. You can get everything and it is incredibly inexpensive, you can get parts at any OReillly’s, Auto Zone, Napa, Advance, Rock Auto, Car Quest, because GM used that simple TBI system for so many years on so many cars and pickups.
A GM alternator and gm ignition/distributor or distributorless depending upon the year model of your Iron Duke…… My opinion is that you do want to choose a Sanden airconditiioning compressor such as the type that was oem equipment on VW Rabbit Carbriolet/VW Golf of the 1986 to late nineties and beyond for the simple reason of it being a much more efficient AC compressor, being smaller and more compact but still more efficient power, and lighter, and much more durable than the GM or Ford ac compressors………………more efficient means that it requires far less engine horsepower drain to run the A/C……………….much smaller size package too and weighs less…
Obviously, you’ll need to size your A/C condenser to be about 1/3 LARGER (33% larger) than what cars of the same size engine had in the 20th century when FREON (R-12) was the refrigerant. R-134a and other modern refrigerants aren’t as effective, thus they need a much greater surface area of condenser coils to provide the same amount of cooling as ancient FREON (R-12) did back in the eighties.
You don’t want a compressor from an ’80’s or ’90’s volkswagen, you simply want a modern SANDEN style compressor that is small and efficient A/C compressor set up for modern R-134a refridgerant. GM, FORD,and nearly every car manufacturer uses these highly efficient modern Sanden style compressors on at least several modern 21st century cars. It doesn’t matter too much from where it is sourced as long as it is small, highly efficient and it fits and mounts perfectly. You will be best served to consult a qualified reputable Automotive A/C Service Shop for exactly what you’d need to install the best airconditioning system into any ancient sixties era car such as a Falcon.
Personally, I would love to buy the grill and front headlights package from several of those Seventies era, Eighties era ARGENTINIAN Ford Falcons. Most importantly I would pay big bucks for the well laid out modern dash design and gauges and steering wheel, etc, rather than the horrible sheeyet that was what Ford had in 1960 thru 1963. Needless to say that I am impressed with what the Argentinians did with the early Falcon platform and the 1964-1965 Rambler American platform that was the IKA Torino in Argentina for nearly the same length of time as the early Falcon was alive down there. Their Rambler(IKA Torino) looked better than the Falcon. Its just so cool. The crazy Brazilians built a luxury car on the US 1966 FORD GALAXIE platform that remained in production from 1967-1983 down there. They did a great job of styling that Brazillian Galaxie especially from 1976 thru 1983 in my opinion.
The early Falcon in the US was a POS, as was nearly every American Car of that time. The Corvair, and Studebaker were totally awful, worse than a POS, and Ramblers and Valiants were better than Corvairs or Studebakers but overall they were inferior to Ford Falcons. Still some attributes of Rambler, Valiant and Corvair were better in some ways than Falcon, but other shortcomings of those cars were significantly worse than Falcon.
Why not hot-rod the ancient peez of sheet? Because its a POS and braking & handling aren’t up to par for anything with V8 power.
You’d be much better served to find a late seventies early eighties Mercedes 240D sedan or stationwagon, and removing the Mercedes diesel engine/trans, and building a hot-rod with a 302/5.0 Ford v8 or Chevy 350 small block.
You’d have a much better car than a piece of shee Chevy II/nova , Falcon, etc.
The same is true if you were to choose a 1981 to 1993 Volvo 240 sedan or 245 wagon as the platform for your Ford 302/5.0 or Chevy small block.
Yes, those of you in areas where you must pass annual emissions , then it is obviously a no go for you, and for those of you that build such a Frankenstein, it does limit you in re-sale since there are states and areas where such a Frankenstein would not be registerable
I enjoy the challenge of building old cars but I can tell you that dollar for dollar it is foolish but what the hell, it is a hobby, and hobbies are fun and you’re not supposed to think of your financial expenditures like an extremely frugal CPA might.
“Australian early Falcons were a dog of a car they fell apart,”
Having owned both the 1960 Ford Zephyr and its immediate replacement the XK Falcon, I take exception with your ‘dog’ description. Certainly, neither car ‘fell apart’ during my ownership. Having already gone into detail in another post, suffice to say in a number of ways the Falcon improved on the Zephyr and obviously felt and looked far more modern – and handled much better!
Both cars had their good points, however. Our Falcon nor Zephyr never suffered from ball joint failure though as I didn’t drive them like a 4WD at top speed on unmade roads! Like the Holden and Valiant, rust in the plenum chamber was the real killer, as it would be for many models in the years to come.