I’m continuing my series of original, low-mileage eBay/Craigslist finds which should be documented and preserved on Curbside. Today we present another first for CC, a 1960 Ford Fairlane 500 Town Sedan. This is another example of the kind of car that once was so familiar, and then one day, they all seemed to disappear at once. Well, here’s one that didn’t disappear. And it’s looking for a new home . . .
When these 1960 Fords were announced in late 1959, I think the public reaction must have been “Wow!!!” They were so big and sleek and low–and wide, and looked totally unlike previous Fords that people were all familiar with. Slogans like “A Wonderful New World of Fords” and “Finest Fords of a Lifetime” were actually believable. This is the height of “Populuxe”: cars (and other products) with luxury features and prestige, but offered at low “popular prices”. The epitome of the “More car for your money” concept, i.e. “A big, cheap car!”
According to Ford copywriters, “The lines are beautifully new but not extreme in any way.” That’s true, but for me, the most polarizing aspect is the front grille design–yes, it works, but I’m thinking the ’60 Edsel grille might have been a better choice.
This is a Fairlane 500–the “middle” line: above a plain Fairlane, but below a Galaxie. It somehow manages to be radical and conservative at the same time. It strikes me as the kind of car Dennis the Menace’s dad, or Hi from Hi & Lois would drive.
This is the view that is most familiar to me–cars of this period all have distinctive rear styling. When I was little, out riding with Mom and Dad, it was easier to notice cars ahead of you in traffic. So I had all these favorite shapes in my head–the 59-60 Fords and Chevys, the ’65 Ford, ’60 Olds, the 60-61 Comets–lots of others. But I never knew what these cars actually were (year, make, model) until years later.
“See the way the hood slopes? Really graceful!” said Tennessee Ernie Ford in a Ford TV commercial.
“. . . and no more knee knockin’!” beamed Ernie. “The windshield post slants forward, as it should!” That’s right. First the industry sells us the wrap-around windshield as a bold new “advance”, then congratulates itself by taking it away! Advertising copywriters can get away with anything.
“Fairlane 500”. I love “automobile script”. These emblems always seem to perfectly exemplify the era in which they were produced.
“500” on the gas filler door. Neat!
There are five wing-shaped ornaments on the rear fender in place of last year’s four. “How many board meetings do you think there were to settle the question of how many to put on?” commented my high school history teacher, Mr. Shoemaker, as we pored over Tad Burness’s American Car Spotter’s Guide in the school cafeteria, circa 1984.
COLOR: code C = solid “Skymist Blue”.
Silver and gray interior (which you might expect to be boring) looks jazzy and sharp to me. A good complement to the Skymist Blue. Across the wheel in big letters:
P O W E R S T E E R I N G
This car has POWER BRAKES too.
I would call this dash design “Space Age Lite”. It’s got that futuristic flair, but it’s far less elaborate than the 1960 Mercury and Lincoln dashboards. I like the way it echoes the smiley mouth/half moon bumper-taillight motif.
If you didn’t order an electric clock, you got a brushed aluminum delete plate: FORD (with a crowned shield) to remind you what kind of car you’re driving.
One knob = the cheap heater, not “Magic Aire” with its two levers and a blower switch.
Yep–41,883 miles. Fordomatic–2 speeds !
And “Mark IV” air conditioning. Look at those chrome knobs. See how nicely everything was made in those days?
I consider these door panels and handles to be a Space Age work of art. It looks as though we’re approaching light speed. Wooosh!
These seats look all-original, and they’re in great shape! Lots of room in here, but compared to previous Fords, you sit pretty low.
This appears to be the smaller 292 cubic inch V-8. I would choose the smooth, quiet, and powerful 352 Interceptor V-8. Even so, the small V-8, power steering and brakes, A/C–this would make a nice cruiser.
Unlike most collectors, I have an admiration for the small, standard hub caps. I like the sparkly full wheel covers too, but there’s something honest and authentic about the standard caps that many people despise. (I hate the names “poverty caps”, “dog dishes”, etc.) These plain hubcaps show care in design too: note the FORD lettering and little stars picked out against flat black. They also show off the rims painted in matching body color. And blackwall tires–more cars from the ’50s and ’60s were on the road with blackwalls instead of whitewalls than you might expect.
___________________________________________________________
So I’m glad I found this well-preserved 1960 Ford. 900,000+ full-size ’60 Fords were produced, but finding an original, unmolested example in the early 21st century is not so easy. When they came out, Consumer Reports panned them: “large and cumbersome”; “workmanship not up to the level of the ’59 Fords.” Like contemporary Mopars, they tended to rust out early, so by 1970 most ended up like this Beechwood Brown victim in the middle of the pile, unloved and ultimately doomed:
I’d love to bring so many of these back to life. But once they’re gone, they’re gone! (Photo courtesy Hemmings Motor News.)
That’s my take on the ’60 Ford. If anyone is interested in 1960 Fords, Falcons, Thunderbirds, or trucks, I recommend picking up a copy the Buyer’s Digest of NEW CAR FACTS for ’60, published by Ford. Try looking online for a used copy. There are a lot of fascinating pictures, articles, and charts inside. There’s even a coupon with Lee Iacocca’s signature on it! (1959 and 1961 editions were also made).
The right color, the right angle, the right background; these can look really sharp! (Starliner and Galaxie models shown)
Negative on the power brakes
Looking at the photos on the seller’s webpage, the POWER BRAKES are confirmed, and the V8 engine, even though the EBay page says it has a Six!
There’s no power brake booster visible under the hood. It had manual brakes.
As mentioned the ad shot itself in the foot with the engine selection. Advertising a six when the V8 is clearly visible is counter productive.
The ad also promotes leather seats but I don’t think leather was available in a Ford, and those seats look like vinyl.
The power brake booster would’ve been “concertina” type, located under dash.
I’m no expert on 1960 Ford power brakes so I’m intrigued at such a ‘ concertina’ device but I can’t find anything on line about them. Everything points to conventional boosters. Do you have a link for the under dash booster?
No link, but I’ve owned and worked on the era’s Ford with PB, including ’60.
It’s a “pleated” accordion-like cylinder shape, located under the dash. Direct-acting on the brake pedal.
I can find reference (image below) to a Kelsey Hayes accordion-style PB booster for ’58-’60 Thunderbirds, but not in reference to the regular big ’60 Fords.
Update: I see a listing for it that also applies to ’56-’59 Ford full size.
https://www.hemmings.com/stories/article/1953-67-ford-power-brake-boosters
I’m fairly certain of my recollection.
Now, would I bet the farm? No.
I didn’t mess with Birds much, so I’m fairly sure big Ford.
I actually may still own an “accordion” booster that was pulled for a swap that never happened.
But, also vaguely percolating out of the deep is a Sunliner with a “can” type booster problems.
My thought right now is that there were both in ’60. Maybe one type was dealer installed? Maybe booster type was determined by some other option? Clearance for clutch pedal linkage or “big” engine?
The featured car shows a power brake pedal. Assuming it hasn’t been altered it’d seem this car has under-dash booster. Maybe a vacuum hose could be spotted?
Real car
Lovely car. I’ve always been intrigued by the use of teardrop- shaped wheel openings in the body. This car has one of the more extreme examples. It adds an elegant directional flair to the body without the clutter of extra body lines. Nicely done.
I agree with the author’s observation on the importance of styling for the back of the car. Imho grille styling appeals to the car’s owner, tail styling appeals to other people.
As a little kid, I enjoyed such tail styling; some being particularly memorable like the 69 Impala (even 5 year old me noticed the upmarket Impala received six lights while the base Biscayne received only four. ).
Mercurys had fascinating styling, and my favorite, from a very young age was the 65 Ford, the prettiest tail ever made.
$12k? Maybe it’s just me, but are these old cars that seem to be in terrific survivor shape, but are otherwise nothing special, always overpriced by at least twice what one would normally expect?
Agreed. This is not a $12,000 car. $5K, maybe $6k on a really good day.
Even that might be a tad optimistic.
They really want to keep it as a showroom display/boss’s summer toy but have to list it for sale for tax/legal reasons?
Some one could give you for free a clean fixer upper, and by the time you did the paint, chrome, engine, mechanicals, interior, you’d have $45,000 in the car. This price is a bargain
Maybe they want to keep it out of the hands of flippers who just want the profit and don’t care about the actual car so much.
What a fabulous car! The 1960 Ford has always been, to me, an intriguing combination of groundbreaking style and stick-in-the-mud conservatism. The main body shape is wonderful, but then the greenhouse on the lower-end sedans like this one makes the car terribly awkward. The Galaxie, the Starliner, convertible and wagon were great.
Then there is the inside. The basic dash concept is great, but the execution (especially the exposed shift tube) makes the car stodgy – like something Studebaker might have built. Actually, I think the dashes in the 60 Lark and Hawk were nicer than this.
That taillight treatment has been a mystery to me as long as I have been alive. These were around when I was a little kid and I remember occasionally seeing one with the reflector kit in the rear bumper. I have never seen a photo of the rear of any prototypes or drawings, but I wonder if someone envisioned a big round light bisected by a thin bumper. That stamped form in the bumper is weird. Was the lower reflector supposed to be there all along but nixed by cost cutting? I have seen cars with the lower reflector plus a little bumper guard, and those make the rear of these cars come alive. Why wouldn’t Ford make those items standard on high-trim cars, at least? I think we all know the answer – McNamara.
J.P., we had these in driver’s training class as well as the corresponding Chevrolet, and Dodge Dart models. By every criteria, the Dart exceeded the others, The Ford was dead last
Not to mention that round back-up light just shmucked into the horizontal chrome trim. You’d have thought they could have at least ‘tried’ to get it to match the shape of the taillight.
While I’m not a big fan of the ’60, I don’t have the same issues with the sedan green house that you do. Sure, it’s not as good as the hardtop, but it’s a whole lot better than the very old-fashioned sedan roofs on the ’59-’60 GM cars, with the six windows on the four doors. It was basically just an update on what they were doing in the early-mid ’50s.
The Ford’s roof is actually fairly similar to the ’60 Chrysler cars, and reflects the time and styling trends well enough. But yes, the bubble-top look was mostly past its expiration date.
I couldn’t agree with you more about the dash and steering column. Embarrassing. I was really stumped by that at the time. Especially so since the ’60 Falcon had a perfectly up-to date steering column.
My dad’s boss bought a new ’60 falcon wagon for the missus, and then a new low-end ’61 sedan for himself. The Falcon was so much more attractive in every way!
I know the Ford column gets slammed a lot around here…
Wait, speaking of “slammed” lol
That was one tough column, that could really take a slam into second gear. Unlike the shallow aesthetics of a weak and cheaper diecast bowl, as used by competitors, and later Fords.
Ford’s all steel separate shift mechanism, a simple elegant rugged form-follows-function design.
Versus the shallow cosmetics of a flimsy diecast bowl and a weak hidden tube, all done for appearance sake. Myself, I see beauty in the former.
Same here, the column thing must be a “you had to be there” ding on these big Ford’s, because I think it’s neat compared to Chevy, I love seeing stylized mechanical components and given the expressive dash designs of the era I think it’s fitting. Just like today I’d much rather pop the hood and see nice looking valve covers than a tidy plastic engine cover over the engine when I check the oil or fill the washer fluid.
I’m with Paul on the roofline though, I actually prefer it to the hardtop(I really dislike that little triangle on the rear door). Non hardtop 59-60 Chevys are a bit odd looking, they not only resemble the tri-five pillared greenhouses they are taller (or appear to be), throwing the proportions off from certain angles
Yeah, it does seem odd. And with that accessory reflector and bumper guard in place, you can see how it ‘ought’ to look.
Fortunately we can remedy that sort of thing. Much easier to do in plastic than in metal, for sure!
I have always wondered the same thing. Surely someone at some point has done a little rear bumper surgery and put an actual tail light housing with bulb (flipped upside down of course) into that spot where the optional reflector would go. That would be great to see. I’m thinking too how a few years later, Oldsmobile did something similar with their Delta 88 lineup, and totally got it right—having an extra tail light mirrored in the bumper for the higher end Custom models. Love this look.
Cheapest heater known to man, not the 3-lever control type. Magic Air, was it?
My hunch is the AC was an upgrade made recently.
PS possibly also a late upgrade. Appears to have GM pump and modern integral gear PS, although it does have PS horn ring.
One note on the transmission, I think the FordOMatic offered in 1960 was indeed a real 2 speed unit that was a cheap alternative to the 3 speed Cruise OMatic. If memory serves, the 2 speed FOM came out in 1959 and hung around until the C4 replaced it. That Ford used the FOM name on two different transmissions has confused many.
That was my bad, as I added that about Low, having forgotten that of course, in 1960 the big cars got the lovely new 2-speed Fordomatic too.
Thanks for the sympathetic writeup, Poindexter. My irrational allegiance to these goes back to fall 1959, when our whole family went to the Ford dealer to pick up our Ranch Wagon. For my FoMoCo-management father with five children, it was his first new car at age 36, and it sure seemed space-age to me! Everything about the dashboard and embossed vinyl door panels is like seeing an old friend, and you’ve brightened my day.
The color photos, I now realize, are likely the snazziest new executive homes in Dearborn–always fun to see these.
The $12K price? If this was a wagon, and I had garage space, and could drive it home from Omaha without trouble, I might indeed have a weak moment and write the check—–meaning I’m the hoped-for kind of buyer. My guess: it’ll sit for a while, and then get a solid offer around $8000 which will be accepted.
Thanks for the time-travel find today—-here’s something in return:
“Totally unlike a Ford” wasn’t much of a selling point. It was totally like a ’59 Chevy, and real Fordiacs knew it. The Falcon was much more like a Ford. The ’61 big Fords returned to Fordness, but the apostolic succession had been broken.
Interesting to note then Ford Australia continued the 1959 styling with their 1960 Fairlane/Galaxie in company of the Anglia, Consul, Zodiac and Zephyr.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1960%20Ford%20Fairlane/index.html
Interesting.
Of course with a drawing it could be artistic license, but it looks like a Mercury windshield was used.
Now then you mention it, Mercury keeped the 1959 body one more year for its full-size line-up while they inherited the Comet originally planned to be an Edsel in mid-year.
And as Paul mentionned earlier, the 1960 Chryslers mainly the Dodge and Plymouth got a roof design similar to Ford.
The Tank Fairlane, as the ’59 was somewhat affectionately called here, was continued for several reasons I can think of.
Firstly, and mostly, size. The early-mid fifties design really was as big as practical for Australia, and it was popular. So much so that we skipped the ’57 and ’58 models, and kept retrimming the ’56 with various combinations of Canadian Meteor leftovers. And Ford truck V8 badges. As a kid, Fords of this era seemed far and away the most popular American car – all Customlines or Fordomatics (sold as a separate model). Four door sedan only, of course; this is Australia we’re talking about 🙂 When the ’59 came along it was called the Tank because of its immense size coming after the comparatively-trim ’56 body. Fine for long distance travel, not so good when it came time to park. Or fill it up; remember, you guys had cheap gas by world standards. And the ’60 was even bigger? I’m not sure of the legalities of vehicle size in my country, but Ford Australia must have seen that a bigger car than the Tank would have, well, tanked. No matter how pretty it was. So they gritted their teeth and kept churning out the Tank until ’62 when the Compact Fairlane replaced the Tank in local showrooms, and we had no more big Fords until the ’65 model – though there were a few ’64s running around, but I don’t think they were officially marketed by Ford. Probably one or two dealers in each state capital brought them in. Oh, and the Compact Fairlane? Big success!
Real alternative-universe stuff, eh?
The other reason that comes to mind is economics. Yeah, that subject that always comes along to shoot down our dreams. Our economy seemed to be in a bit of a down through this period. You guys had the ’58 recession; as in the thirties Depression, it took longer for us to bounce back. Dad went bankrupt; he wasn’t alone. Given the small number of Tanks sold, why would they want to produce a new model, ANY new model, in that climate? So following precedent, they called up Canada for some ’59 Meteor bits. Stokes in Melbourne could do a run of badges and small trim items if they wanted something different. And the rest is history.
Ford’s volume seller through those years was never the big US Ford, but the Mark 2 Zephyr. It had all the style of the ’52-’56 Customlines cars in a more manageable and economical size. Just what we Aussies needed. More expensive than a Holden, true, but more modern-looking, and faster, quieter, probably more economical – but dearer. Held together better than the Falcon too, but that’s another story.
Interesting points you bring Peter. We could wonder what if Ford Australia decided to soldier with the Customline/Fairlane ’56 body for 1959 and the early 1960s like Chrysler Australia did with the Royal?
I love CC but ENOUGH with the BONER pill ads!
The 1960 Ford shows us the impact that losing hundreds of millions of dollars can do to an auto maker. When this car was evolving, the Edsel debacle was unfolding, the Continental division closing up shop, and the “Big M” Mercuries weren’t returning their heavy investments. McNamara showed that marketing was a pipe dream Ford couldn’t afford. Henry Ford II probably wished he never gave a green light to the idea that Ford needed to match GM division for division. Going public might have brought in a lot of cash, but Ford management didn’t know what to do with it.
Ford was euthanizing two divisions when the 1960 Ford design was finalized.
McNamara might have proven that Ford didn’t have to put on a dog and pony show to sell cars, with his Falcon, yet McNamara didn’t appreciate how much loot could be made to tart up a car and sell it for only a $15 a month increase in car payments either. Iacocca understood how to make Ford money, and McNamara understood how to spend Ford’s money without wasting it. No way Ford could have kept those two from coming to blows eventually, had McNamara not leave for Washington DC.
That Ford didn’t go into meltdown, as Chrysler had, during these years is due to Henry Ford II’s determination and power. Ford could still put on a show, while stripping Mercury of premium cars, burying Edsel, and doing a 180 with Lincoln. The 1960 Ford shows what its expectations were in 1957, how the Recession blew up those expectations in 1958, and not copy their competition in 1959. The Falcon showed that selling high was a risk, building a value kept the lights on, that buyers weren’t lusting for chrome crapulence.
A good, but not great car, in my opinion.
I love it. I don’t know what it is but Ford’s of this era I prefer in this lower specification than the more ritzy specs with hardtops and lots more trim. If you squint and take a few(dozen) steps back to force perspective you can even see the 60 Falcon in its design.
Here’s a lower spec wagon for you, caught on the streets of Santa Monica. The two-door must have been rare even when new.
We had that Buyer’s Guide. I sent in the coupon and got this friction-powered promo from Ford. Not sure why I picked the full-sized Ford as I’ve never particularly liked it. I liked four-door hardtops at the time so maybe that was the draw. Back in the day most people were happy when the 61 came out: “Now that’s a Ford.” Though as a kid I thought: “Suddenly it’s 1957,” at least from the rear.
The “Wonderful New World of Fords” ad touts Wide Set Wheels that are a full five feet apart. How does this compare to Pontiac’s famous Wide Track?
I love the 1960 Fords. I’d take a Ranch Wagon with the Thunderbird Special V-8, overdrive, the Equa-Lock, electric wipers, rear view mirror and nothing more. I’d also like a Starliner or Sunliner with all the goods, except the Sport Spare Wheel Carrier.
I love that wagon with the single year rear end design. I wonder what prompted the drastic redesign which almost had to be in the works even before these hit the market.
Looks aside, though, that tailgate setup must have been terrible for cargo. Tall stuff had to slide mighty far forward to allow the rear to be buttoned up.
Make mine a black Country Squire with red interior and loaded to the gills except for a 3 spd OD.
I think you answered your own question in noting the limitations on the cargo area this design created. I’m thinking more people bought entry level wagons for their practicality than there were those that bought it for style.
Something about many or most Fords of the 50s through the 80s to me screams ‘Cheap’. May be different things for different cars. For this car, it’s most obviously the tail lights that are mirrored with impressed depressions in the bumpers. And the flat dash. I can almost smell the raw gas from a leaking fuel system.
Another big fan of Tad Burness, though I had his “Auto Album” and close to 20 years earlier. Didn’t have all the models, in place of the ’60 Ford it had a ’60 Edsel, which was pointed out as “RARE” (which I take as the ’60 Ford NOT being RARE).
I’m not too familiar with the ’60 Ford, for some reason they never stuck in my mind, though I likely saw lots (in my younger years) I think they predate my interest in cars, which probably started 2 years later in 1962. Between Tad Burness’ book (which I wore the covers off, before giving it to my Nephews, which they promptly lost) and JC Whitney Catalog (say what you will about the gimmicky stuff they sold, but the drawings of the cars, especially the import catalog for me was a treat, which my Father got regularly (not sure what he ever bought from JC Whitney, though he did have a ’59 Beetle, it was bone stock other than the copious rust on it).
Later on one of our neighbors must have had a ’62 Ford Wagon, which had a well rusted wagon area, we used to think it was cool lying back there and looking through the holes to the road passing underneath..carbon monoxide?…what’s that?…who cares when you have such a cool view..kind of like a version of a glass-bottomed boat.