The relentless pursuit of knowledge sometimes turns long-held assumptions on their head: didn’t you assume that the 1961 – 1963 Falcon van and Econoline offered the Fordomatic like the Falcon sedans and Ranchero did? I sure did. But no…
I was looking through Econoline brochures at oldcarbrochures to see if possibly the Dagenham four-speed manual had been offered in the vans. I was pretty sure not, but someone had once suggested they were. But what I did find is that there is no reference to an optional automatic, until 1964, when the three-speed CruiseOmatic shows up on the option list.
Now that’s rather odd, especially since the Powerglide was quite popular in the Corvair Greenbrier and Corvans/Rampsides. In fact, the original idea was to only offer the Corvair with an automatic. Maybe the Fordomatic wasn’t rugged enough for light-truck use?
Don’t you feel more knowledgeable now?
The Econoline seems like the Thames 800 which was an out growth of the Zephyr Consul range thankfully replaced by the much better Transit here.
Actually, my mind which has been unusually cluttered lately seems about to explode. I had assumed that Vans had the same transmissions as trucks and thought Powerglide, Fordomatic, and whatever Mopar had been available from the Getgo.
I think I feel the need to purge now.
I wonder if the 2 speed Ford-O-Matic was not considered to be a heavy-duty enough unit for the van. This was a completely different transmission from the Ford-O-Matic offered in the 1950s, which had been a 3 speed unit which (like the Studebaker Flight-O-Matic, also designed/built by Borg Warner) started by default in second gear. Talk about useless recently-gained knowledge.
The 2-speeder was an inexpensive and light duty tranny designed for the Falcon (I believe) and which was replaced by the C-4 a few years later. I would imagine that it was not designed for commercial service. Although the Ranchero would be expected to haul some occasional loads, the Econoline probably would have worked a transmission a lot harder.
I might add that when PN considers a Falcon Fact to be obscure, then the rest of us know that it is really, really obscure! 🙂
That’s what I have to assume.
Did you know that the 1961 Falcon front seat sliding mechanism was improved over the 1960’s?
“I’ll take The Ford Falcon for $1,000, Alex.”
Very funny stuff, fellas.
“Did you know that the 1961 Falcon front seat sliding mechanism was improved over the 1960′s?”
This has completely upended my worldview. I think I have to go back to bed now.
One possible explanation could be how they engineered the set up to support the 3sp. Rather than the typical crossmember running under the transmission tail shaft and a rubber isolator between them the 3sp was hung from above. The little 3sp sans bell and ouput housings wasn’t much bigger than a loaf of bread. The short tail shaft housing had a hole in the top with a rubber bushing in it and it sat between two L shaped brackets attached to the bottom of the floor with a single bolt going through all 3. The transmission was also quite close to the bottom of the floor. So I’m guessing the automatics they had available just wouldn’t fit w/o making significant changes.
Maybe like Holdens did Automatics had different floors with bigger tunnels to house the hydramatic they also had a 3sp manual like a loaf o bread and damn near as robust too .
Wow Ford was right about that Custom Equipment Package, it’s loaded with goodies. Who knew the cigarette lighter could also be used for cigars???
The Falcon automatic transmission may, or may not, have been judged rugged enough. Having later experience with Borg-Warner automatics in Jeep mail trucks, I’d say Ford engineers were spot-on.
But it was irrelevant in any case – trucks in those days weren’t EXPECTED to have automatics. An automatic transmission was for the WIFE – a real man was expected to know how to work a gearbox.
Certainly a man hired to jockey your Econoline around, doing whatever it was your business did.
COST was the watchword in those days – not convenience; not equipment a minimum-wage kid could drive. Cost of operation.
Automatics didn’t really take off on trucks until the Camper Special trend in the late 1960s; and with it consumer purchases of vans as family cars and sin-bins.
That was ten years away.
The Deluxe Falcon Van was very much marketed to families as a practical alternative to a wagon, and I knew several families that had them where the Moms drove, including our Cub Scout Den Mother.
I really was surprised to find this out. And all the pickups had autos available going back well into the fifties.
Guess you are correct . . . . as a kid, Pacific Telephone had a shitload of these . . . and so did many commercial business back then in the S.F. Bay Area had these and to my recollection, they were all sticks (as were any of the similar Chevy/Jimmies).
Infsofar as pickups, Ford/Chevy/Dodge/GMC started offering automatics as early as ’53 and ’54. Interestingly, in the case of Chevy/GMC, the mid-50’s trucks were Hydra Matic.
.
Pickups apparently were hit-and-miss, insofar as automatic transmissions go. I don’t have facts or options sheets; but I’ve seen an automatic in a 1959 Chevrolet and in a 1961 International cab-and-chassis. Not in a Ford; but old Ford pickups were a bit scarce where I was. Commercial trucks, yes; but not owner-driven pickups.
But the automatic has slowly crept through the industry. I remember the new 1973 Chevrolet trucks; with a molded-in-the-dashboard window for the PRND2L quadrant. As if they expected most trucks would have automatics!
And, automatic school buses. I see the yellow monsters riding up and down the streets, puking out rug-rats…and I hear the clattering of the diesels, straining against torque converters. Lame!…when I was a kid, our school district hired various mothers of students to drive the buses – which was a challenge, since not all of them could work through a 1958 International Harvester five-speed.
Now, automatics are just expected and supplied as standard. Even some trucking companies order road tractors with automatic gearboxes…
New torque converters are somewhat more efficient than clutches, especially in the hands of inexperienced (=cheap) drivers. In India, driving heavy trucks pays much more than pickups because of the skill needed to get good mileage out of underpowered engines. Modern heavy-duty autos take the guesswork out, but they’re not very popular due to the huge upfront cost.
A torque converter is not more efficient that a clutch, but lock up versions are almost as efficient. Where they shine is in their torque multiplication when they are slipping where they can multiply their input torque by up to near 2x and by allowing that slippage it puts the engine where it makes even more torque. Therefor you can have a higher first gear ratio and have better breakaway power.
Given that I actually purchased a 1961 Econoline Pickup, brand new, in 1961, I must have “known”.
Or, to put it another way, at the time it would have been a stretch to even think about an automatic on a vehicle like this.
My Econoline pickup had the 144 cubic inch six. I believe that was the only engine used in the early years and may have had some bearing on what transmissions were available.
No slower than a 145 inch Powerglide equipped Corvan/Greenbrier. In a comparison test, a 1961 40 hp VW bus was just as fast to 60 as the 80 hp Greenbrier with PG.
And the 170 inch six was optional on the Ford van.
My wife thoroughly enjoyed this tidbit of information about the Econoline.
She learned to drive on a 1962 Econoline with three speed transmission that belonged to her families Coast to Coast Hardware Store
She also mentioned that navigating said Econoline through icy Minnesota streets was always a treat!
Ford of England was based in Dagenham, not “Dagenheim”.