(originally posted 7/31/2011)
Follow your own path.
Have the courage of your convictions.
Haste makes waste.
Ford would prove each of these adages with its 1960 full-size cars, although not in a way the company would have liked.
“The roots of the 1960 Ford stretch back to that watershed year in American automobile history, 1957. That year, Ford outflanked its old rival with two Fords–the Custom series on the 116-inch wheelbase, and the swank Fairlane on a two-inch longer span. The 1957 Chevrolet so revered today looked stodgy by comparison, so for the first time since the 1930s, Ford beat Chevrolet in the sales race.
During this time, Ford was planning its 1959 and 1960 models. By now, Robert McNamara was in charge, and he couldn’t see the point of having Fords on two wheelbases. So for 1959, they would all ride on a 118-inch wheelbase. Ford bucked the trend towards soaring tail fins and even sleek rooflines, and the midyear Galaxie series was set to feature a boxy, square roofline lifted from the four-seat Thunderbird.
Then Ford obtained the tooling plans for Chevrolet’s 1959 models. Ford officials initially couldn’t believe that GM was planning to build a Chevrolet with such wild, radical styling. Meanwhile, Chrysler’s 1957 models were still selling as fast as the corporation could–or more accurately, couldn’t–build them.
When Ford management realized that GM was serious, the proposed 1959 Ford suddenly looked as stodgy as the 1957 Chevrolet did against those flashy, low-slung 1957 Fords and Plymouths. What to do? It was too late to junk the planned 1959 Ford.
While all of this was happening, several Ford stylists were working on an advanced styling study dubbed Quicksilver (above). When top Ford executives, including Robert McNamara saw it, they thought it could be used for the 1960 Ford, as it looked sleeker than the planned model, which was a facelift of the 1959 model. Henry Ford II enthusiastically agreed, and since his name was on the building, the planned 1960 Ford was junked.
The Quicksilver was adapted as quickly as possible for production. Unfortunately, this meant altering the dimensions of the styling prototype, as Ford still needed to use the 1959 frame. The Quicksilver had to be raised two inches, altering its proportions. The final car was very wide–so wide, in fact, that it was over the legal limit for a vehicle to be classified as a passenger car in some states. Those states agreed to look the other way for one year.
An unforeseen problem was that the 1959 Ford turned out to be far more successful than even its creators had anticipated. Ford closed much of the gap that Chevrolet had opened up in 1958, and if the Galaxie series had been available at the beginning of the model year, Ford may very well made it a dead heat. Chrysler Corporation sales, meanwhile, plummeted for 1958, and only inched up for 1959, as buyers rejected the finned styling and were still nervous about Chrysler’s build quality. GM’s wild 1959 models met with a mixed reaction, and the corporation was already preparing to backpedal with its 1960 models.
Unfortunately, the wheels had already been set in motion, and the 1960 Ford appeared, looking very much like a warmed-over 1959 Chevrolet.
The roofline of the Starliner series appears to be directly cribbed from the 1959 Chevrolet, which, in turn, stole it from the 1957 Plymouth. Even the deluxe wheel covers of the Starliner looked like copies of those featured on the 1957 and 1959 Plymouths. In the back, the traditional Ford pie-plate taillights were gone, replaced with odd-looking half-moon units.
This Starliner hardtop coupe, along with the Sunliner convertible, took best to the new styling.
The sedans look like taxicabs…
…while the four-door Galaxie hardtop mated the square, Thunderbird-inspired roofline with the swoopy lower body. Ford had called the 1959 Galaxie “married in style to the Thunderbird.” For 1960, the Thunderbird roofline should have asked for a divorce.
While Ford suffered a big decline in full-size cars sales for 1960, the upshot was that buyers didn’t have an aversion to Ford products–the Falcon outsold the Corvair and Valiant combined, and the Thunderbird scored a nice increase in the final and third year of its styling cycle.
The standard excuse is that the Falcon stole sales from its big brother, while the Corvair was so radically different from the standard Chevrolet that it appealed to a completely different buyer. Only problem with that theory is that standard Chevrolet sales remained strong when Chevrolet rolled out its own Falcon in 1962 (the Chevy II).
The rushed development didn’t help assembly, even though Ford ambitiously promoted these as the Finest Fords of a Lifetime. A Popular Mechanics Owners Report on the car noted that only 50.8 percent rated it as excellent, the lowest excellent rating ever recorded for a car at that time. Over 15 percent listed their chief complaint as poor workmanship. Ironically, 87 percent of owners of the all-new Falcon rated it as excellent, the highest recorded by the magazine for any American car!
The Finest Fords of a Lifetime still didn’t completely enclose the shift linkage in the steering column, even though Chevrolet, Plymouth and Rambler did. Ford prospects would have to wait until 1963 for that to happen.
What was under that wide, flat hood? The engines were carryovers from 1959: a 223 six, and the 292 and 352 V-8s. They were reliable, solid engines, but no one was going to borrow Dad’s Galaxie to take on Impalas or even Furys in the stoplight grand prix.
For 1961, Ford revised the lower body, giving the front a more traditional Ford look, and returning the pie-plate taillights to the rear. This 1961 Starliner shows the effect, which I find to be much more attractive. Ford continued to improve workmanship and build quality, while cleaning up styling, but still lost ground to Chevrolet until the Mustang and the “quiet as a Rolls-Royce” LTD helped the division find its groove.
Reacting to Chevrolet hadn’t gone well for Ford in 1960. Henry Ford II, however, remained obsessed with GM. He had poached talent from GM to lead Ford’s rebirth, most notably Ernie Breech of GM and Bendix Aviation Corporation and Harold Youngren of Oldsmobile. His GM obsession would reach a peak in the late 1960s, when he hired Bunkie Knudsen away from GM. One wonders if he ever appreciated that Ford’s greatest successes after the mid-1950s were largely the work of two men (Robert McNamara and Lee Iacocca) who had never worked for the General, and were the result of Ford blazing a new path instead of following its rival’s tire tracks. The 1960 Ford, unfortunately, didn’t blaze its own trail, and paid the price.
You know what these cars should have been sold as? Edsels and nothing but Edsels. Too bad Ford didn’t have the opportunity to offer tarted up 1959 Fords for 1960.
I always liked the look of these Fords except the grille (either as a Ford or as an Edsel). Something about the grille is unabashedly non-descript. But it also didn’t scream “Ford” in identity like the preceding and following models did. But they weren’t alone in all of a sudden dropping brand identity. The 1959-60 Buicks didn’t really have any design continuity, or the 1959 Chevrolet for that matter.
Laurence, you’re definitely right about the lack of continuity re the 1959 Buicks. The first ones I saw were a load of them on a convoy truck. Even the series names were new to me, I hadn’t yet seen any other 1959 GM cars, and I had to look for the Buick emblems to finally id them as Buicks.
Just yesterday correctly predicting the future — see a truckload of cars today, and you damn sure have to look for badging to determine what they are.
The thing was (is still) that GM’s ’61 range of the so-called ‘bubble top’ Bel-Airs and Impalas are amongst the prettiest most attractive most beautiful looking cars of all time.. .. ..
.. .. ..not to mention the world class ‘409’ with ‘4 on the floor’ and ‘positraction’ (with each)
Enough said ! (The General had this one sown up ..end of story)
And so the ‘muscle car’ was born ..and the race down to 1969 was “ON”!!!
“Sewn up?” Bull. You may need to back check some history my friend.
“Too bad Ford didn’t have the opportunity to offer tarted up 1959 Fords for 1960.”
Interesting supposition, but I doubt the wraparound-windshield fad would have sustained sales for a fourth year. The T-bird being a specialty niche model was one thing, but getting a fourth year out of the full-sized shell probably wouldn’t have flown. Look at the ’60 Mercury, which DID utilize it.
Few things are more fleeting than automotive fads, and few people are more savage than a critic who knows how to turn a phrase. Alice Roosevelt Longworth (TR’s daughter) supposedly torpedoed Tom Dewey’s 1944 presidential campaign with one remark – “He looks like the little man on the wedding cake.” One automotive critic played on Chrysler’s 1957 ad campaign (“Suddenly, it’s 1960!”) in 1960, when Mopar tried stretching their unibody design into a fourth year, with a magazine headline: “Chrysler – suddenly, it’s 1957!” And we all remember how Ronald Reagan cut Walter Mondale’s legs off with the age question and his promise not to use Mondale’s youth as a campaign issue. Had Ford facelifted the 1959 design for 1960, sales would have tanked.
If the 1960 full-sized Fords had only had the ’63 rear-end treatment, they’d probably have blown Chevy out of the water.
I agree with you, though, even if only as a single-year oddity this Ford was a nice design. It took talent to make all those disparate elements blend together. Just get rid of the fender skirts, though. Yuck.
“One wonders if he ever appreciated that Ford’s greatest successes after the mid-1950s were largely the work of two men –Robert McNamara and Lee Iacocca –who had never worked for the General, and were the result of Ford blazing a new path instead of following its rival’s tire tracks. The 1960 Ford, unfortunately, didn’t blaze its own trail, and paid the price.”
There’s a metric shit ton of insight in this paragraph, seriously.
Somewhere within CC’s pages is the real, best way to run a car company, if only we could string it all together. It sure would be quite the project!
“Somewhere within CC’s pages is the real, best way to run a car company, if only we could string it all together. It sure would be quite the project!”
I’ve had that thought for a very long time. Especially with GM under Rick Wagoner. He made it very easy for any three year old to do a better job, it was frustrating beyond belief watching it all happen.
I’ve thought that too Mr. Tactful but sometimes I think it’s just the massive scale of the screwups that have happened at both big and small automakers that give us the hubris to think we could make it happen. I still assert that AMC would have been better off it George Romney had never gotten into politics.
It’s off on a tangent…but if AMC had kept Romney; had avoided the disastrous Abernathy strategy…they’d have almost certainly finished the 1960s fat and happy. With the money rolling in, would Romney have been tempted to take on the Big Boys more head-on? No one can know now.
Would he have gone for the, first, proposed merger of, later purchase of, Kaiser Jeep? It was Romney who queered the handshake proposal of merger with the combined Studebaker/Packard companies – which was George Mason’s plan. “Love without marriage” (Romney’s term) turned into bitter hatred that left Rambler temporarily without a V8 or automatic transmission. If, a decade later, they had succeeded as The Compact Car Store, would Romney have wanted to trifle with Jeep?
And would AMC have survived into the 1980s if it hadn’t? I would say, probably no, and not.
It’s interesting to speculate what would have happened if Romney had stayed at AMC. It’s worth noting, however, that AMC’s sales growth had already slowed by 1962, as Ford introduced the intermediate Fairlane, which was the first of the Big Three cars to compete directly with the “standard” Rambler and Ambassador. (The 1960 Big Three compacts really competed more with the American.)
AMC claimed third place for 1961 (some results show it holding down third place for 1960), but then fell in the rankings for 1962, even as company sales increased. Total sales were still good by AMC standards, but they were no longer keeping pace with a recovering market.
Romney had always claimed that the trouble began when his successor diverged from his product plan of three lines of vehicles on two wheelbases (American, and Classic-Ambassador) in 1965. It’s worth noting that sales fell in 1964, when the company was still following the Romney plan. And car sales boomed in 1964, so AMC couldn’t claim that it was a victim of a down market.
American sales were up – the car was all-new that year – but Classic and Ambassador sales fell, even though the cars were still attractive and only one-year-old. That year GM rolled out its new intermediates that were targeted directly at the Fairlane and Classic-Ambassador, all of which suffered sales declines that year.
Romney probably would have avoided the costly 1965 Classics and Ambassadors on different wheelbases, which never sold well enough to recoup their tooling costs. Same with the all-new 1967 Classics and Ambassadors. But while he would have saved the company money, there is no indication that his path would have ensured the company’s long-term success.
AMC’s problem was that Romney forgot why the original Nash Rambler sold reasonably well – it was promoted as a small car, but not a cheap car. It was sold in well-trimmed versions. By the late 1950s, Romney was pushing Ramblers as the cheap, economical alternative to the Big Three’s monsters, which seemed to be the correct path at that time. But Ramblers acquired an image as plain-jane cars for tightwads and everybody’s grandmother, which worked during the recession of 1958 and when the Big Three didn’t offer any competition.
By 1965, the economy was again booming. The Corvair Monza and Ford Mustang, meanwhile, were proving that “small” didn’t have to mean “cheap” or “dowdy.” Even Oldsmobile and Buick were offering cars with Rambler’s more manageable dimensions, not to mention the prestige of the Oldsmobile and Buick nameplates, and sleeker Bill Mitchell styling.
Realistically, if all of us were around in 1965 and looking at a brand-new car, would we have chosen the Rambler American hardtop coupe with the ancient flathead six… or a Mustang with a six or snappy 289 V-8? The Classic four-door sedan…or an Olds F-85 sedan? It was easy for Romney to criticize how his successors reacted to that challenge, but I’ve never seen what, exactly, he proposed as a solution, except for AMC to keep doing what it had been doing. Only problem is that that path was pretty much at the end of its road by 1962.
By not tooling up for major changes in 1965 and 1967, Romney probably would have saved the company money, and avoided the near-bankruptcy of 1967. Sales would have still fallen, however, demoralizing the dealer network and the company as a whole.
I would add to Geeber’s comment that Romney was in the right place at the right time with Rambler in 1958-62. Small, economical and inexpensive always sells well in a lousy economy. But as the economy boomed in the mid 60s, the money was in bigger and more luxurious stuff. VW was the only player that got beyond niche-lever then, and that segment did not take off again until the 1973 oil embargo.
My parents bought two brand new Ramblers in a row, 1960 Classic 6 sedan and then a ’64 Classic wagon. But, when it was time to get a 3 seat wagon in 1969, they were ‘sick of Ramblers’ and got a big Plymouth wagon.
Most families probably felt the same way and went to the flashier Big 3 for sedans/wagons, which is why the Matadors failed.
JustPassinThru – Your comment needs correction, I am afraid. Nash, then AMC had had I-8 then V8 engines of their own design for years. That was the rational for their Ambassador and Statesman model names! The Statesman was a six, the Ambassador an eight-cylinder engine.
Secondly, it wasn’t really Romney’s fault that Mason’s grand merger never took place. Jim Nance of Packard (later, Studebaker-Packard) hated the idea of playing second banana to Mason in the proposed eventual merger; and when Mason died, leaving Romney in control of AMC Nance said that snot-nosed little kid (Romney) was going to learn something about business. Nance reneged on the deal he had made with Mason to sell the Ultramatic transmission to AMC at a nice price, jacking the price up considerably. Romney cut a deal with Borg-Warner to buy THEIR automatic transmissions, and stopped buying from Packard altogether. It’s thought in some circles that just that little bit of sales loss hurt Packard considerably, and Nance broke off any further action on the AMC/S-P merger.
Remember, the 1957 Rebel was the fastest production vehicle in the USA when tested – even beating out the Corvette by a few hairs. It used the then-new 327cu.in. undersquare Nash V8 which produced gobs of torque and was a perfect fit for that body. To conclude – AMC were NEVER without an automatic tranny or a V8 engine.
For the future of AMC, Dan, you may very well be right…but I can’t help but think that having Roy Abernethy at the helm, giving Dick Teague full rein to style the cars he did – AMC may have become a shooting star, destined to hit ground, but the cars from 1963 to 1969 were some of the best-looking American cars ever built. Understated, functional and handsome all at the same time. I still think the 1965 Ambassador 990 4DR sedan was one hell of a car for the money; roomy, fast, practical, economical and good-looking too. That car was a home run in anyone’s book. (keep in mind, this car’s overall length was only 200″ but looks like a junior Lincoln – and feels like one, inside.)
Great write-up Greg! I’ve always liked the 1960 Starliner best of the late 50s/early 60s Fords. Why? Because the front and rear ends have a distinct identity – they don’t look like other Fords (except maybe a hint of ’60 Falcon at the grille and the rear window), and they don’t look like anything much the opposition was doing. The ’61 front looks like a Chev, and the ’61 rear just looks outdated. I realise I’m probably a lone voice in the wilderness though!
Starliners are pretty rare here in New Zealand, though I pass a ’60 coupe on my way to work 2-3 times per week, it’s always heading the other way on the motorway. It’s LHD, so is a more recent import from the US, but there was a right-hand-drive NZ-new ’60 Starliner sedan for sale here recently. The same gorgeous light blue as the coupe shown above. I was seriously tempted, but it was seriously rusty… One day… But thanks for all the background info I didn’t know!
Oh, I agree with you 100% on the first paragraph. Thanks for sparing me the typing.
Hi, I am Rick from Lombard, Illinois (USA). I am the same way about the 1960 full-sized Fords – especially the Starliner and Sunliner convertibles – also my favorite of all the late 1950’s through early 1960 Fords!
I have never owned or even driven one (yet), but I have ridden in 3 of them. In 1962 (when I was 5 years old and stayed with a family for a few weeks in Florida when my parents were divorcing). The father of this family bought his teenage daughter a used red with red & black interior 1960 Sunliner Convertible and took his whole family and I to visit friends of theirs in it.
What a beautiful car!! Then in 1966 when my family and I were living in Maryland, a neighbor who owned a 2-door “plain Jane” white with blue interior 1960 Ford Fairlane sedan. He pulled out and overhauled the engine, but also found an exact identical Ford from a junk yard and day by day overhauled his engine, then placed it in the Ford from the junk yard. When he finally had the engine re-installed and running, I went for a ride with him while he was testing the brakes and suspension in the car from the junk yard.
Most recently, a Ford dealership parts manager who I met at a local car show a few years ago had a red all original 1960 Starliner with the tri-carb engine setup. It still had the standard manual transmission gear selector on the column and the manual choke on the dashboard and still looked and ran great – a lot of power for such a large, heavy vehicle!!
I so hope to own my own some day myself!!!
Rick
The 3 deuce setup didn’t arrive until 1961. The most powerful engine available in 1960 was the 360 HP 352.
We’ve got a pair of 60 Fairlanes a NZ new four door and a two door that was probably imported before 1964.
Great summary of a car that has largely been forgotten. The ’60 was daring , but maybe too much so. Even here in my part of the south ,where salt is not used on the roads , they are tough to find in any kind of driveable condition. Even when I was just learning to drive and these cars were hand me down , first car beaters , they were quite rare.
I’m amazed at the resemblance between a 1960 Ford and a 1962 Buick Skylark… the design cribbing that goes on…
…always aping each other. That’s how it goes in a competitive market…any competitive market. McDonalds drops the price of its hamburger, and the Burger King across the street follows suit two hours later.
Chevrolet comes out with a radical new design; and Ford will be making plans to copy it even before they know how it’s received…based on THEIR OWN reactions to it.
What amazes me in this saga, is that the planned 1960 model wasn’t just put on ice for a year, once the “unexpected” strong sales of the 1959 became apparent. Just tart up the existing model for another year’s run…see how it goes. Sales fall, bring out the “1961” a few months early…man, THAT would tweak GM.
Edsel couldn’t have sold this model…because Edsel was Dead Marque Rolling right from its rollout. McNamera hated the concept; hated the people behind it; and was making plans to kill it before it was even launched to the public. That the car had a pudenda-grill that almost invited mockery, the way a drunk party-girl will as she strips in the crowd…damaged the brand; damaged it beyond repair.
The Edsel was ludicrous styling, backed up by vaporware and recycled Ford hardware. It was damaged from Day 1. Not even a good replacement could undo that.
The Edsel didn’t need a protective car bra it needed protective car panties.
’60 Edsel:
http://www.edsel.com/gallery/60e-001.jpg
Looks like the featured car mated with a Pontiac.
The main thing (and only thing) I distinctly remember about these cars is that the depth of the package shelf has to be one of the largest in history! I don’t know how it would compare to a Chrysler of the same period, but my aunt had one of those Dodges with the square steering wheel, and her dog would always lay on the shelf in the back. Loved it, too.
In that age of the long, sleek car, I was always most impressed with the Chryslers, until my dad bought his first Chevy since the 1930’s – a 1960 Chevy Impala sports sedan in early 1965, just after I turned 14. Now that car turned me on and made me the car nut I am! I learned to drive in that, too.
Sorry, but I’ve never been much of a Ford fan until lately with the Fusion and Flex and what should be the Galaxie 500 – the, ahem, “Taurus”. That name just doesn’t fit.
I’ll bet it’s not as deep as a Lumina APV/TranSport/Silhouette dashboard 😀
Package shelves have gotten longer and deeper since 2011 (followed in short order by the death throes of the sedan but I digress…) I wonder if the record still stands.
There was an option of red reflective half-moons to fill the outlines in the rear bumper below the taillights. With those, it gave the appearance of the big round taillights. Haven’t seen many 1960 Fords & only saw the reflectors in catalogues.
Yes, I remember these too. Not uncommon either.
They were fairly common when the cars were new.
I always thought the 1960 Fords were for people who couldn’t afford better. At least that was my opinion in 1966 about them.
A neighbor had had their 61 gold Olds totaled by a 56 Ford Which plowed through their front yard, The resulting insurance replacement was a 60 Ford, Which my Dad explained was State Farm’s idea of a “make good as before” settlement.
Everyday when I walked past that car, I thought, that old couple got screwed, no way is that put together as well as a 61 Olds 98 … No my future brother in law, the Ford’s driver, had rendered their last car moot, and sentenced them to a golden age in a dated sagging Ford Galaxie that had no sparkle.
Can never see the name of that insurance company without mentally editing to to “Snake Farm.” That could just have been the agent I had to deal with three times in one year.
“Haven’t I seen you before?”
“Yes. Don’t you insure anyone who can drive?”
Now that’s funny. Trying to recall another car that would qualify.
I think I’ve seen at least one example of just about every main-line, postwar US car model on the road over the years, but I don’t recall ever seeing a 1960 Ford. I would definitely have remembered those “ears” on the rear deck if I had.
(Oops, this was supposed to be a reply to educatordan’s post and his assessment of the Edsel’s need for underthings. :p)
Here’s a somewhat odd “for sale” video from a few years ago featuring a ’60 Fairlane sedan, a 52,000 mile survivor.
Part 1 – walkaround:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-anex1-XkZg
Part 2 – interior:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6zNEQPiay4
Part 3 – test drive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_AvgX78xA
The guy doing this sounds like Mister Rogers on ecstasy, and he alternates between raving about how “perfect” the car is and showing rust spots, dents, etc. Wonder if he sold it…
Thanks for the kind words, everyone! And, thank you, Paul, for adding the brochure shots to fill out the article.
I really enjoyed writing this article. The 1960 Ford is a rare bird even at Ford shows – these photos were taken at the Carlisle All-Ford Nationals in June. A few years ago there was an all-original 1960 Galaxie four-door hardtop in light metallic purple at the show – THAT is a rare car today! It looked even more awkward in real life than it does in the brochure photos.
This is an odd car in many ways – even among Fords. It isn’t a natural progression from the 1959 model, nor does it relate all that much to the 1961 and later Fords. Paul and I have different views on the 1959 model – I like it, he doesn’t – but I think we would probably be in agreement regarding the 1960 model. It was not one of Ford’s better ideas.
The 1960 model year is an interesting one in many ways – the all-new compacts were where the action was. Ford and Plymouth had drastically changed their standard-size cars, and the results were less than successful. Ford probably would have been better off selling a facelifted version of the 1959 car. And Plymouth…
Chevrolet featured a toned-down version of its batwing 1959 model, and left everyone else in the dust. But even that one isn’t one of Chevrolet’s better efforts, in my opinion (sorry, Zackman!).
If I had been around in 1960, and been looking at a new car, I probably would have held off for a year. Both the 1961 Chevrolet and Ford were much better-looking cars, and, judging by contemporary road tests and the Popular Mechanics Owners Reports, much better built, too. The 1961 Plymouth, on the other hand…what a strange car!
If I were car shopping in 1961, I probably would have bought a 1961 Starliner with the “starburst” full-wheel covers and the white-wall tires.
geeber, apology accepted my friend! Oh, yes – fantastic article and a great job! This website just keeps on getting better every day.
Paul, you really started something here!
My pleasure, and thank you for this fine piece.
As a kid, I had a hard time figuring out the ’60 Ford. It was just too wide and inorganic, clearly the result of trying a too hard to turn an adventuresome concept into reality. While almost all US big cars from the 1957-1960 era made for some amusing results, these cars themselves just exuded their compromised nature: they hung out past their wheels too far, and their structural/build deficiencies were too obvious the moment you opened (or tried to close) a door. An amusing period to look back on, but pretty junky cars they almost all were.
This one makes a ’59 Galaxie coupe look pretty appealing!
They lost a lot from the Quicksilver concept, but it wasn’t all that great anyway – kind of like Exner’s S-Type. On these Fords, I’ve always found the juncture of the grille and the front fenders to be particularly egregious, along with the folded over fins and the resulting narrow trunk opening – I wonder how many people that turned off.
The grille itself has always reminded me of an elongated version of the Ford crest used at that time – it also bears a strong resemblance to the shape of the ’59 Ford F-Series truck grille and headlight combination. Clearly they were desperate to find something new – and didn’t realize it was right in front of them all the time.
I actually liked the 60 as a kid, particularly these Starliners and convertibles. Actually, the wagons too. The rest of the bodies looked kind of “off”. I always wondered why they stamped the “reflections” of the taillights in the bumpers. I also remember the reflectors, but wondered why they were not in all the cars or just use a flat bumper. Oh well. Both the taillights and the lowered center section of the hood on my 93 Crown Victoria have always reminded me of the 60 Ford.
I also always considered that steering wheel as one of the least attractive steering wheels ever. It was 1960 only, I believe. Finally, I never understood that Ford thing with the ignition key on the left side of the dash. It worked out, though, when it freed your right hand up to hold the shift lever up to trip the neutral safety switch so the car would start.
An enjoyable article about a car that is (and was) very seldom seen.
Oh man, I had forgotten about that! I had a ’62 500, and almost without fail, I had to hold the shifter up to get that pig started.
The other tidbit I remember about Fords of that era was the sloppy shift linkage. Worst of the era, including AMC products.
I’m another guy who really liked the 1960 Fords – at least the convertibles, two-door hardtops, and station wagons. It’s true that the more squarish top lines of the two-door and four-door sedans and four-door hardtops didn’t go so well with the rest of the body.
My own suspicion is that the shape of the two-door hardtop roof and rear window was a direct descendant of the 1956 Lincoln. But on the other hand the 1957 Plymouth 2-door hardtop tops were shaped the same way, and they came out too soon after the Lincolns to have been swiped from them. Here’s a side view of the 1956 Lincoln.
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars120.htm
“I…really liked the 1960 Fords – at least the convertibles, two-door hardtops, and station wagons.”
Me too, always loved those odd fins with the half-moon tail lamps. The front grille is a little funny, but that sweeping line starting at the front that becomes the fin just gets me.
The design itself does look far more like something from GM than from Ford at that time though.
The “’57-reprise” tail of the ’61 fairly screamed “we’re all out of ideas”, but fortunately the ’57 theme was handsome enough it worked.
I agree the HT, convertible, and wagon versions of the ’60 looked better. It was a rather sophisticated look for Ford.
But — had I been around in 1960 shopping for a new car surely the Rambler Ambassador would have been my choice. 🙂
Does anyone else think “Batmobile” sedan?
The Batmobile (from the 1960s TV series) was based off the Lincoln Futura concept car of 1955. Some fiberglass versions were built on 1966 Galaxies but it’s logical that the 1960 Fords would be at least slightly influenced by the Lincoln Futura http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Futura
I agree. I also have thought about the “batmobile” that a 1960 Starliner could be basically made to look like!! The overall squared, long body with those flat tail fins seem perfect for that.
Rick
A nice overview of these cars. Well done.
Interesting note about the Falcon’s cannibalization. One of Ford’s problems from the fifties well into the seventies is that while they kept trumping Chevy (and to some extent all of GM, except perhaps Pontiac) in product development and merchandizing, their actual market share never seemed to increase. Ford’s total sales from 1959 to 1962 changed very, very little — they were down a bit in 1961, when the economy took another brief stumble, but even then, it wasn’t dramatic. That meant that when the Falcon arrived, there was at the same time a more or less Falcon-sized hole in the sales of the big Fords, so it’s hard not to wonder if the Falcon was partly responsible. (It’s entirely possible that the Falcon allowed Ford to keep some of its volume that it would otherwise have lost due to dissatisfaction with the new styling, but 35% seems like a stretch.) I dunno..I think I’d need to look at some detailed figures for both total sales and market share for those years to make a good assessment.
Thanks for the kind words!
Regarding the effect of the Falcon on sales of the full-size Ford – it just didn’t seem as though full-size Chevy sales were affected by the introduction of the Chevy II in 1962, or even the 1964 Chevelle. If I recall correctly, full-size Chevy sales set a record in 1965, even with all of additional internal competition.
Competition from the Falcon sounds like an excuse for the fact that the 1960 Ford simply wasn’t a very attractive car, particularly since Chevy didn’t experience the same phenomenon when it expanded its line-up. But, if the sales figures show evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears!
It’s true that despite the addition of the Falcon, Ford’s total sales were actually down slightly for 1960 from 1959, by fewer than 12,000 units; they lost a little bit of market share. However, if the unpopular styling was causing buyers to defect to other makes, the question is, where did they go, if not into Falcons (and later Comets)?
If we separate full-size Chevy sales from the Corvair and Corvette, Chevrolet was actually up only about 6,400 units from 1959. Dodge was up 211,000, but it appears that a lot of those came from Plymouth, as a consequence of Chrysler’s decision to separate Plymouth from Dodge dealers and add the Plymouth-priced Dodge Dart in its place. Discounting the Valiant (which was not technically a Plymouth in 1960, anyway), Plymouth was down more than 168,000 units from 1959. Pontiac was up, but again only about 13,000 units.
There seems to be little doubt that the compacts cannibalized some sales from full-size cars. The total first-year sales of the Falcon, Corvair, Valiant, and Comet were around 950,000 units, but the increase in total U.S. car sales from 1959 to 1960 was roughly half that. And that’s not even counting Rambler, which was up by more than 20%. I suppose it’s possible that a lot of ex-Ford customers ended up in Corvairs or Ramblers, but brand loyalty (and dealer loyalty) being what they were in that era, its easier for me to believe that the lion’s share ended up in Falcons and Comets.
Where they would have ended up had the Falcon and Comet not existed, of course, is an open question. Still, I could see a 10-15% drop in Ford’s big car sales in that case, but 35%?
Perhaps buyers held off another year, instead of buying a competing make? That would explain where many buyers of full-size cars went.
During an era when the Big Three in general, and Ford and Chevrolet in particular, were restyling their standard-size cars annually, perhaps it made sense to wait for next year’s offering, if the current year’s offering wasn’t appealing?
Well, obviously, comparing year-to-year sales figures can be misleading, because except in the upper income brackets, people didn’t generally trade in every year, even then. That period is particularly tricky because the recession was worst during the 1958 and 1959 model years. Total new car sales dropped about 1.9 million units between 1957 and 1958, and a lot of people undoubtedly did decide to hold off for a while. Things recovered somewhat in 1959 and 1960, then dipped again in 1961, improved dramatically in 1962, and started an upward trend that continued pretty steadily for the rest of the decade.
Overall sales WERE up in 1960 compared to the previous two years, so it seems like people who’d held off during the worst part of the recession were buying cars again. Again, that supports the idea that a lot of that business went into the new compacts, most likely the Falcon, perhaps the Rambler.
Good question, and if the full-size Plymouth hadn’t got a weird front end and a design who look a lot like the 1957 model (some joked saying “suddenly it’s 1957”) in a universe where Ford didn’t launched its Falcon, could it had helped Plymouth in sales races?
As for no Comet, Mercury would had been in company of Edsel and DeSoto more sooner.
I saw one of these for the first time at a show this spring. I actually found it charming, with a light touch on the details – much nicer than the ham-handed square t-birds/lincs/mercs of this era.
Ford’s total volume was flat between 1959 and 1960 (1.45 million vs. 1.44 million units). The base Custom 300 series sold nearly 604,000 units alone (!) in 1959 (including the Ranch Wagon), sales that do appear to have moved to the Falcon (436,000) in 1960 when the Custom 300 was dropped. The Fairlane and Fairlane 500, both moved down a level in the trim hierarchy picked up most of the difference. The cannibalization argument is pretty strong.
Where I’ve always felt Ford really erred was in dropping the square roofed two-door hardtop in the Galaxie series (122,000 in 1959) for the Starliner (68,000 in 1960). They rectified this for ’61 by offering both roofs.
Interesting to read about these cars, as Ford Australia did not import the 57, 58, 60, 61 or 62 models, but ran updates of the 55-56 until the 59 (known as the Tank Fairlane to differentiate from the later Compact Fairlane), which then ran until the 63 model came in.
I noticed that in Oz no 57Fords NZ got the annual updates thru the 50s and our Chevs had V8 motors in Aussie only the 6 was on offer untill 1960 Aus Fords were the Star model from Canada usually badged Customline and mainline for utes and were good durable cars
Great article. I hardly ever seen any of these 1960 Fords around. Seems they didn’t sell well and not many people care to preserve or restore them. The Canadian Meteor version came with a different grill – not sure if it improves it or not but they are really rare.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/3841638524/
I’m not that fond of the styling of 58,59 or 61 fullsize Fords, but I like these 1960s at least in the 2-door roofline. Maybe it’s because this car looks the least like other Fords of the era and more like a GM product, either a Buick or an Olds.
I enjoy when an article in CC illustrates one of our family cars. This ’60 Ford is one in particular that stokes my memories as I recall at age 5 climbing into what seemed like a banquet hall-sized car. My dad was proud of his vehicle as it was the first one that he bought with an odometer that read as low as 00000.2 miles. He kept it well maintained and clean for the 5 years of ownership, save the time he tried to squeak out of a tight parallel parking space only to crease the chrome portion of the right rear wing on a utility pole.
All in all, a great story, Geeber. The history behind this style has been a good read.
Interesting article. I’d noted but never thought about the strange segues from the 1959 to ’60 to ’61 full-size Fords.
Has anyone seen any photos of sketches or clay mock-ups of the earlier designs for the 1960 model?
Nice article on a nice year for Ford. My Dad worked for the local Ford dealer so we always had Fords. I remember my Mom’s 1959 Galaxie 4 door hardtop, my Dad’s 1960 4 door Fairlane which was passed on to me when I learned to drive. He then took my Mom’s 1959 and she got a 1961 Galaxie 4 door hardtop. The 1960 had the 292 Y block and the 59 & 61 had the 352 FE. The 61 had a 4 barrel carb and factory dual exhaust and when I could borrow it, I sure didn’t back down from any Impala. It would hold it’s own most of the time. I, too, liked the 60’s styling best, only wished mine was a Galaxie instead of the plain jane Fairlane model.
I can’t believe how bloody PLAIN those interiors were!!!! The insides are like taxis, not just the outside, like you said the sedan looked.
Back in those days having an AM radio was a big deal! Interiors were plain as day.
I too liked the design of the ’60. Two of my uncles bought them and I was very impressed at how futureistic these cars were. So low and wide. Very interesting to read that they were TOO wide. That must have resulted in a few tense meetings.
Since finding CC on the web (and especially since that amazing article on the Corvair’s design influence), I’ve tried to be a little more observant about car design! I just happened to notice the reverse slope at the bottom of the Galaxie hardtop’s rear side window, which suddenly looked BMW-ish to me.
Paul showed brilliantly how BMW absorbed design language from the Corvair. Does anyone have an opinion of the origin of the famous BMW C-pillar?
Let’s just say BMW (“Hofmeister kink”) certainly wasn’t the start of it. There numerous examples of it much earlier, but I can’t put my finger on where it might have been done first. But it would be a fun article, the origin of that. Maybe one of these days.
Wikipedia suggests it goes back at least to the 1951 Kaiser. Aber naturlich!
It’s interesting to see what adult buyers thought of cars that as a kid I loved, just from their looks. Watching cars drive by was like TV cartoons for me in mid 60’s, and the 60 Ford was one of many favorites. Like a Jetson’s spaceship. And I would say that the Lincoln Futura was an influence on the 60, especially the tailfins. I’d say for sure the 1960 was a ‘Batmobile’!
Ok good read on the 1960 Ford. Learned to drive in a 1961 Falcon. Always wondered about the design continuity of the 1958/59/60/61 full-size Fords……this explains the lack of the evolution we normally saw for automotive styling. Thanks, guess I can sleep nights now.
I never disliked the 1960 Fords. In fact I found them sort of good looking. They had a styling look that gave them a distinct personality of their own, My favorite Ford of all the 57’s to 64’s was the 63″s. I restored a 63 500 XL convertible 23 years ago and it’s my all time favorite car. Here’s a picture of it taken in 91.
A beautiful car. Is that white interior?
Wow, that Galaxie is amazing. Love it!
As a kid I absolutely LOVED the 59 and 60 Fords. We had both, a 59 Ranchero and later a 60 wagon. The 61 and 62 Fords never did a thing for me looks wise.
One thing that did turn me off about all of them was that exposed shift rod, it just screamed cheap.
I’d love to see a picture of the proposed facelifted 59 sometime.
Thanks for this dissection of the ’60 Fords! I have been driving a 1960 Ford Fairlane 500 since 1997 as a daily driver. Recently got mangled in a side impact, which it did not perform well in.
Great article, Greg. I do have to agree with a small minority that the ’60 Ford is a pretty good looking car. Clean lines, kind of classic. I had a 64 Park Lane convert., so you can see my fondness for that smooth chrome line running up the front and back along the length of the car. (Too rounded on the front of the 61-63 T-Bird though.) And the back of the Ford doesn’t seem like a ripped off 59 Chevy; more like Ford decided to one-up Chevy in a way that wouldn’t frighten children.
A woman I knew in Palo Alto ca.1969 got a divorce, went on an Independence binge and bought a ’60 Ford convertible. Yellow. I showed up one day in jeans and a white T-shirt, and she said, “You look like you need to be driving my car – take it for a spin.” So I tucked my cigarette pack into my shirt sleeve, started it up, found a good Top-Forty station and went tooling around all those narrow streets Maude tore around in “Harold and Maude.” Funny thing was I’d been driving nothing bigger than a ’58 Volvo for several years, but got cool with that barge right away. Felt tougher’n hell, better not mess with ME, bro.
Twenty-five years later I finally got a ’60. Nope, not the barge, but the Falcon I had so despised for its “safe” engineering and “bland” style. The combination of dash and delicacy shown in some of the big car’s renderings actually came to life in the small one. It was a very nice and still very useful car, too. At least they got one right!
My father had a 1960 Ford Fairlane 2 door sedan when I turned 16 and that was what I (mostly) learned to drive in. It had the 223 6 and Fordomatic. It was better than walking but far from being a hot rod. About three months after I got my license I wrecked the car on my way to work. As it happened one of my father’s co-workers owned a garage/repair shop where he worked on his days off. I ended up buying a barely mobile 1961 Ford and my father’s friend swapped out the motor and trans from the wrecked 1960. He did an excellent job, once he worked thru all the bugs, and I drove this car thru my senior year in high school. Out of the dozens of cars I’ve owned since then the 1960/61 Fords are the ones I would least like to revisit. They weren’t bad cars or anything, they just didn’t have the power that my 16 year old self desired.
The 3 deuce 401 hp 390 for 1961 wasn’t powerful enough for you?
I love that Quicksilver. And the 60 was the best looking thing out of Ford since the single spinner, Conty II and Merc sleds aside. Wagon with woodness please.
I’m one of the few fans of the 60 Starliner and it’s gorgeous Edsel sibling.I like the 61 better with it’s”afterburner” tailights.
I like Edsels and the ’60 Ford too! My grandpa Fred had one new, a Galaxie 500 four-door sedan in metallic aqua with aqua interior. My mom got a promotional 1/24-scale ’60 Ford station wagon when he bought it (a turquoise ’58 Edsel too, when Fred test drove one), but sadly they was long gone by the time I came along…my mom and her sister really weren’t into cars, and all the promos probably got tossed by the time she was in high school 🙁
It is interesting how many panicked reactions we saw to the competiton in the late 1950s. First, GM panicked in late 1956 when the new Forward Look Mopars started coming out of the gate. They killed off the 58 models after only a year.
Ford had no need to panic in 1956, but did so a year or two later. The 59 Ford had an all new body as well (even if recycled from the 57-58 Mercury) which was also killed after a 1 year life in order to get this car into showrooms. It is interesting to contemplate what a cleaned-up and toned down version of the 59 Ford would have looked like for 1960.
Given the 59’s success, that woulda coulda shoulda bears much merit. Interesting part of the story is the reactionary response by the big two all stemming from the 57 mopars. It seems NIH protocols did not always apply.
Posts like this are essential to my development as an enthusiast. I grew up liking import cars only, and in an era where model changes every year were considered bizarre.
It’s interesting, though. What did this Ford offer that the others didn’t? I know them as the company which made the softest, quietest cars in the ’60s and ’70s, but before that happened, what did they do best?
I hope many answer that question. For my two cents, what Ford did best was the T and its continued legacy of goodwill despite that fact that they held onto it for too long. I think that a residual effect was in force, so long as they didn’t put out a bad product. This site speculates and postulates with the benefit of hindsight – which is part of the fun – but the fact is for that market and that time, these were not a bad product.
“what did they do best?” Rust? 🙂 Kidding.
I may be stepping into Jason Shafer’s territory here, but I will say that the 1960-64 Ford’s legacy is brute toughness, especially after they got some things sorted out for 1961. These were simple cars, without a whole lot of power equipment, normally. They were a continued refinement of the 1949 Ford. and not much else. The bodies were much better than the 50s models, and by 1963 the Y block was gone. One of these with an FE engine and a Cruise-O-Matic (or even a 3 speed overdrive) was a relatively basic car that used good materials and would run for a good long time with minimal care. Mopars did performance and handling, GM did style, image and build quality. Chevrolet really pulled out ahead during the 1960-64 period, and Ford was never really close in sales then. Other than for loyal Ford buyers, I don’t think they were that compelling. They were, however, a good compromise of style, quality, performance and value, but not a real standout in any single one of those criteria.
My uncle Bob had a 64 Galaxie that lived a life without much care, and stood up to 3 teenagers who dished a lot of crap that car’s way. It never lived inside, yet the burgundy paint shined until the end. It lived in the salt, but beyond the rear quarters, didn’t rust badly. It had high miles, but the interior stood up pretty well. By 1972, it was a real beater, but one that always started and ran when asked.
I wonder if Chevrolet’s sales surge in the early 1960s had more to do with the weakness of Plymouth as oppose to any failings of Ford. Based on what I saw growing up, it seemed that, among full-size cars, Chrysler owners were most likely to defect to GM.
For 1960, full-size Plymouth sales were down to about 253,000 units, which was a terrible showing. Granted, a lot of Plymouth owners switched to the new Dodge Dart that year, which racked up about 260,000 sales.
But even if we add the Dodge Dart sales to those of the full-size Plymouth, the total is 510,000, which isn’t much better than Plymouth alone had done throughout most of the 1950s.
The figures for both the Dodge Dart and the full-size Plymouth would get worse…much worse…in 1961 and 1962. Chevrolet’s total market share, meanwhile, peaked in 1962, or when Plymouth and Dodge hit their lowest ebb.
Chrysler began bouncing back in 1963. It would steal market share from AMC at the low end (with the more sober 1963 and later Plymouth Valiant and Dodge Dart).
I’m sure that more than a few Chevrolet buyers “graduated” to a Pontiac in those years. GM’s TOTAL market share, however, declined throughout the 1960s, while Ford’s remained fairly steady, if I recall correctly. Chrysler’s share increased every year from 1963 through 1968, when it hit another peak (18.9 percent).
I agree with your premise. GM market share soared to 52% in 1962, and Chevy’s hit an all-time peak that year of 32%! Hard to imagine that anymore.
That growth in market share clearly came out of Chrysler’s hide, and apparently Ford didn’t get as much of a boost as GM did.
Interesting thought. I recall seeing figures that broke out big Fords vs. big Chevy, and the numbers just were not that close. What you say about Plymouth’s implosion could be right, but from what I recall, Ford started gaining ground on Chevy (even among full-sized offerings) in 1965, which is when the Plymouth Fury made a strong showing too. For some reason, those “McNamara-era” Fords just never had the kind of showroom draw that the Chevys did. Even in the 63-64 models when the 289/Cruise-O-Matic was a much nicer powertrain than the 283/Glide. The Chevys of those years were uncommonly attractive every year, no doubt.
A big problem Ford had during this era was cannibalization. The 1962-64 Fairlane, in particular, probably captured a fair number of buyers who would have bought a low-line full-size Ford.
If you aren’t buying cars by the pound, a deluxe Fairlane 500 is a more attractive proposition than a basic full-size Ford for roughly the same money.
That’s quite a prescient observation. The 1962, 52% market share figure is often trumpeted as the high point in GM’s history, but it’s rarely mentioned that it’s also the year of the Chrysler downsizing debacle. Sure, GM was on a roll with some great products that year, but the Chrysler fiasco surely was a primary reason for GM’s gains.
As proof, one need only look at how market share was divided in subsequent years as Chrysler began getting back on track.
Chevrolet wasn’t the only one who got a sale surge. Pontiac too by reaching #3 rank for 1962. It’s clear then Dodge moving to the low-price field with the full-size Dart, Mercury full-size line being for 1961 a tarted-up Ford (the Comet saved Mercury’s bacon during these years) and the death of Edsel and DeSoto leaved a field wide open for a wide-track Pontiac.
JP, you’ve hit the nail pretty much on the head.
Perry, these cars are, in a sense, the automotive version of an anvil given their durability and they look good doing their thing. The sheer amount of torture they can withstand is amazing and maintenance can be a complete afterthought.
Take a look at my two articles on my ’63 Galaxie; the first one better explains its history and the second part what I had to overcome due to time. Now, bear in mind this car has only minor rattles and the abuse heaped upon it far surpasses what I have described.
Our tastes as children were quite counter to each other; I did not like imports given their high maintenance needs and more delicate disposition whereas cars like the full-sized Fords just kept going.
I have always loved the ’60 Ford front end. The “back to Ford basics” restyle they did in ’61 was, in my mind, a step in the wrong direction. There’s no reason that a bread-and-butter Ford couldn’t have a little styling zip and I think Ford should have stuck to the 1960 guns.
If the rear end was cribbed from the ’59 Chevy, Ford managed to take wild and flashy and turn it into sad and droopy.
I’ve always liked the ’60 as well, at least in the starliner/sunliner/wagon versions. I especially like the 2-door ranch wagons; I belive these were the last full-size 2-door Ford wagon. The styling is a little “out there”, but it’s refereshingly different from the ’59 model (handsome in its own right). The grille is clean and looks like no other car, and while the tail may borrow a few ’59 chevy cues, it’s by no means a copy. The ’59/’61 “afterburner” tails were better looking but this is a cool one-year diversion. Far better in my opinion than the ’60 Chevy which is just a dumbed-down version of the daring ’59. Ford took a step backwards with the ’61, which has always looked a little awkward to me, and the bland ’62. (It got right again by ’64…)
The Galaxie hardtop design does look awkward on this long, low body. Too upright and makes the greenhouse look over-tall. Even the Fairlane sedan could have used more slope to the c-pillar.
My mother learned to drive on a ’60 Fairlane sedan, white with red interior. It was traded in on a ’68 Impala hardtop, turquoise with black vinyl roof. Definitely a level up in spec (and broughaminess, even if it wasn’t the top-line Caprice!)
I was 8 when the 59 models were introduced and I still think the 59 Ford is the best looking car ever made.
The observation about the ’60 still having an exposed shift rod on the steering column is telling. When the ’60 big Ford came out, its “sprawl” wasn’t the only impressive part. I was struck even more by the cheapness of the car. It wasn’t just the shift rod; the interior door panels, decorative trim, seat construction and dash all shouted cost-cutting”. McNamara’s distaste for fancy vehicles may have been a factor, but there was also Henry the Deuce’s overarching concern for profitability.
McNamara was soon off to the Pentagon, and Henry’s tastes evolved. In late 1960 Lee Iacocca was named general manager of the Ford Division. With the 1965 LTD it was finally possible to say Ford was offering interior design with style and quality comparable to Chevrolet.
By 1962, Ford at least started using some really high quality stuff for the carpets, cloths and vinyls used in the interiors. While the 62-64 cars still lacked the interior style of Chevrolets, the interiors were at least durable (except for the “chrome” that wore off of all of the plastic dash parts and radio buttons.
+1. My dad’s 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe had an amazing interior for the price – very high quality vinyl on the bucket seats and trim, thick carpet. Looked spectacular when new. We didn’t own it long enough for the “chrome” to wear off. And quality of assembly was another matter – not the best as I remember the driver’s seat track was not installed perfectly straight. There was a tri-color (red-white-blue) trim piece on the C-pillar on which the colors faded out within two years in the weather as the car was not garaged.
Friends’ big Fords of 62-64 had great interiors, too. I especially remember a 63 Galaxie convertible that took a lot of wear and looked great for years.
A Ford LTD doesn’t compare with a Chevrolet. As far as cutting cost and cheap appearance, look at the Chevrolet bumpers, only half the mass on Ford.
It looks like the runt in the litter of 1960 Chevys that the mother rolled on top of.
I always found the ’60 Ford an attractive car. I found the cheaper Fairlanes more attractive (and the Sunliners/Starliners); not so much the Galaxies which had too much gingerbread on them.
When I was working in Alameda in the 1985-1990 timeframe, across from Coast Guard Island on Kennedy Drive near the bread factory was a sky-blue, cherry ’60 Fairlane 2 door sedan someone drove. I liked the lines and the looks of the car and although it was the plain-Jane, price leader for ’60, it looked like a “Detective’s Space Ship.”
Taking up the ’60 look a notch, the Canadian Meteor for 1960 did away with the half-moon taillights preceding the ’61 Mercury. The 1960 Meteor’s grille was nicer than the Ford’s as well.
Wow, lots and lots of comments on liking the Starliner, Sunliner and wagons, but no love for the four-door?
I for one love the four-door hardtop. Make mine aqua/aqua or that lilac metallic with a white top!
Did u know that in some states the 1960 Fords,at 81.5 inches wide were too wide be legally driven..At the time some states had laws that banned cars over 80.5 inches wide
mm..so did they put them thru a ‘crusher’ just to slightly thin them down a bit??? ..wouldn’t have taken too much to reduce them by just half an inch on either side (heeh) 🙂
Greg, with respect, I beg to differ. To me this was the best looking big Ford ever (well, perhaps not the sedan but the h/top coupe and the wagon for sure. The 61 was a retrograde step and although the 63 and the 64 had a ruffian’s charm about them, they were not elegant. The same applies to the 3rd gen Thunderbird. But perhaps I see this car through the eyes of someone who did not grow up in the US – Israel always had a mixture of US, European and later Japanese cars on the streets and my ideal of what a car should look like combines all those styles… Good article in any case – thanks!
Here’s one which has turned into ferrous oxide or bridge parts many years ago. I remember seeing it in that scrap yard not too far from my parents’ home as a kid – there must have been some issue with the papers for it to have ended up there in the late 60s early 70s – cars like this usually lived for 20 or more years in Israel back then. Not much an 11 year old could have done about it but sigh and wish…
I liked ’60 Ford Sunliners when they came out and knew two people who owned them as used cars. One of those guys put a warmed up 390 under the hood of his. I was, however, unaware of quality control issues. From a styling standpoint, the grille was obviously too conservative for the body and I always thought Ford should have had round taillights with the bumper sculpted to go under them, or repeated the taillights they did have, but turned upside down in the existing indentations in the stock 1960 bumper.
As a kid, I recall seeing a couple of these with what must have been accessory red reflectors which attached in the bumper indentations under the taillights. Really changed the look of the back.
I liked the 1960 because it looked sleek and modern. Seemed to have a flair that spoke of a new decade. My dad bought one new. And we were thrilled to have it.
I like the ’60 Ford. It’s sleek look seemed to announce the beginning of a new decade. I t does’nt look like a Chevrolet but like a new Ford. Ford’s don’t have to have round tail lights. They can look good with a new sleek design.
To me the ’60 Ford is iconic – like nothing before or since – EXCEPT for the 1961-63 Thunderbirds, which I find somehow informed by the same design idea.
Well, I was pubescent at the time (I know – you DIDN’T ask), and lots of things made impressions on me that endure to this day.
I have a ’66 Chevrolet Corvair, and while it has LOTS to offer that NOTHING else has (and is beautiful, to boot), what I like best about it is its (small) size. Even my admired Fords (above) don’t have that.
Always liked the 1960 Starliner HT Along with the 1958 Chev. Bel Air HT
Two of my favorites. Both were only one year body styles. The 1960 Starliner is a super rare car to see anywhere, I have only seen a few at the many many car shows that I have attended over the last 35 years.
One of the finest SLs I have ever seen was beautifully customized and was born and lived in Joliet,IL.
The name on it was BREATHLESS. It was !!
McNamara then went to Washington and kept America in VietNam 10 years too long.
I’ve read all of the posts following the original article about the 1960 Starliner, but I didn’t see any that listed the version of it that I owned back in 1964. I worked with the guy I bought it from, and he had just taken delivery of the first HPO ’64 Mustang Convertible in town ( Albuquerque). He admitted that the ’60 was far faster and had much longer legs, but the Mustang was quicker for about the first two-thirds of a quarter mile drag.
The Starliner was factory-delivered with a 360 HP 352 V8, and had a three-speed OVERDRIVE transmission and a 3.50 rear end. It would run 90 MPH at 2400 RPM; Ford ran one like it on their proving grounds clocked at 165 MPH. I’ve never had a car since that was more comfortable at high speed. It was bright red, and there was a second one like it in town, light blue, that ran the factory-offered 3-2bbl carbs set up, supposed to deliver 375 HP.
Ford put out a similar car for 1961, but not for 1962. For 1963, they delivered a Galaxie 500-“T” version, with a 425 HP 427 V8, a 4-spd, and 3.70 gears. There was a white one, owned by another guy I worked with at the time, and it was the first car that would outrun my 1960 for a mile. Ford built strong stuff in the ’60’s and there’s still a few of them around at shows.
By the way, mine is long gone…the idiot I sold it to piled it into the back of a parked Pontiac station wagon. My best friend bought the salvage, and we put the motor, trans, and rear end in a 1932 Ford and he ran it in B-Gas for two more years!
How can you not love those folded over horizontal fins and half moon taillights? This car is very pleasing to my eyes. And the ’60’s engines weren’t identical to the ’59, as the ’60 offered a 360 HP 352 4V which was by all accounts, a screamer.
It’s nice to see the Starliner pictured with the ‘Historic’ plate on the back. I like that interior.
I wonder if those front seat belts were factory-issued from Ford or aftermarket additions? They look right and proper; like the car originally came that way, but I just don’t know.
One advantage Ford had over Chevrolet in this era was the Cruise-o-matic transmission. For a tad over $20 more than Fordomatic you had a reliable three speed transmission, while most Chevrolet’s had the Powerglide with its two-speeds. Turboglide didn’t catch on due to early reliability problems. Torqueflite with the 318 V-8 was the best engine/ transmission combination of the day as the base level 318 had more power than the 292 Ford or 283 Chevy, and the Torqueflite was a great transmission. Plymouth styling in the early 1960’s, however was not good. My parent’s had a 1959 Chevrolet with the 283/ powerglide combination, which was okay. But, by 1964 he was ready to move on, and tried a Chrysler Newport. The torsion-bar suspension, and smooth shifting Torqueflite were a real eye opener to him. It didn’t cost much more than an Impala, and it served dependably for over 10 years.
the ’60 Galaxie was the first car I drove. It was a four door, with 352 V8. It did have rather poor build quality. I remember you always had to slam the doors as hard as possible, and then often have to try again to get them to stay closed.
The car was crazy wide. I think about 6 feet across on the bench seat. Also low to the ground. The seats were low to the floorboards, and your legs stretched in front of you. Almost like in an MG. We lived in CT, so the salt rotted the car out in a few years. My dad drove it to work one day, and as he pulled into his parking space, the gas tank fell to the ground. It was attached to the floor of the trunk, which had rusted away. My dad had some rope, so he tied it to the chassis, and drove it home. We later removed what was left of the trunk floor, and used some angle iron to suspend the gas tank from the frame. I would love to have one of these cars today. Preferably one without any rust.
Well I fanally found a ’60 Galaxie Town Sedan (4 door) locally in 2018. It is amazing because it spent its whoe life in Connecticut and was not a rust bucket. The color is “Adriatic Green” Here’s a picture:
I like these Fords all except sedans. Even the Country Squire looked sleek. I read somewhere that much like the ’71 Riviera, no one stakes claim for the ’60 big Ford’s styling. That’s a shame because time has proven them to be quite beautiful in hindsight.
I found the ‘60 Ford’s ugly stepsister.
One aspect of the transition from the Quicksilver to the 60 Ford as built is the roofline. The stylists combined a fairly upright C pillar with a big wrapped back window. It comes off pretty well in the prototype but was just awful in the production cars.
The production cars looked horribly unbalanced with that roof on sub-Galaxie models, too upright at the back and too elongated behind the front doors (that somehow looked not long enough in overall proportion to the car). Even the Galaxie roofline was compromised by too thin of a C pillar, so you really need to get a wagon, a convertible or a Starliner to have an attractive car.
As built – much was lost in the translation.
The 4 door was no better, making the front end look too short and the back end look too long.
Early in 1962, my father traded in our ’54 Ford Mainline six Tudor which had been brush painted seafoam green for a small town police department ex-patrol car ’60 Fairlane sedan, black, white top, cheap gray nylon interior. It was a six, stick with overdrive which he liked for its good gas mileage. While the styling was a major leap over the ’54, and its width was impressive, it sounded and felt like the ’54. Us three kids appreciated the uncrowded three abreast seats. It became more appealing when he had the black repainted dark emerald green. He kept it for four years, replacing it with a ’63 Galaxie 500 four door hardtop, also black and white but far more upscale. I was delighted we finally had a four door hardtop, had envied those who did when we still were in our dowdy sedan.
Clearly I am in the minority here. I always thought these 1960 Fords ,particularly the 2 Dr. Hardtops were a bold , handsome vehicles.
As a kid I liked these Fords well enough to send in the coupon from the Buyer’s Guide for the Galaxie promotional model – still in my collection. Today I don’t care for them at all. I recall that back in the day in our area of northern Indiana the 1960 full-sized Fords did not sell well, unlike the 1959 and 1961 models that were thick on the ground. Some 1960 big Ford sales clearly were lost to the very popular, and conventionally styled and engineered Falcon that came out that year.
Boy, This one lit up the lines………Beautiful car no matter what. Ahead of its time.
I can imagine how this probably happened—somebody quietly and handsomely paid somebody at a tooling shop—but I’d surely like to learn the details. Anyone?
What do we reckon was the ranking of these reasons? I wasn’t there, but my impression is that the halfaѕѕеd build quality of the ’57s just about singlehandedly tanked ChryCo’s passenger car sales for ’58 and ’59. Were people really rejecting the finned styling, d’you think? Seems to me there were some pretty popular and highly-regarded non-Mopar finned cars in the ’59-’60-’61 timeframe (Cadillac in all three of those years, ’59-’60 Chevrolets…).
As to the ’60 Fords…I can’t get onside with the design. I don’t care for the boxed look up front, which somehow makes the face look awkwardly pinched-up and narrow. And I really don’t like the frowny taillights.
The article mentions the cars being over width limits in some states. A commenter from 2014 says they were 81.5 inches wide. Yoiks! Yeah, we still have an 80-inch demarcation in the regs (which are Federal, now). Vehicles over 80 inches wide have to have clearance and identification lights front and rear, larger brake and turn signal lights, and a variety of other safety equipment not required on vehicles less than 80″ wide.
Daniel Stern, regarding your first question – I believe that Ford had a “mole” at a GM supplier. This sort of industrial espionage was quite common in Detroit at that time. John Z. DeLorean wrote about this practice in this book, which was published in 1979.
As for your second question – the “extreme fin” styling had a relatively short shelf life.
GM’s 1959 cars – except for the Cadillac and Pontiac – didn’t really sell as well as GM management had hoped. The 1958 Chevrolet had opened up a considerable lead over that year’s Ford, but the boxy Ford closed a fair amount of the gap in 1959, even though the Chevrolet boasted all-new styling.
Bill Mitchell said that the stylists almost immediately realized that they had gone too far with the 1959s, which is why the fins were considerably toned down for 1960, and basically gone by 1961, except over at the Cadillac. At Cadillac, the fins were still an important part of the brand’s identity.
By 1959, the Chrysler Corporation cars looked somewhat tired to new-car buyers, who recognized the basic 1957 body under the facelifted 1959 skin.
The 1959 Mopars were good-looking cars in the context of their time, although I prefer the more “pure” 1957-58 models.
Thanks, Geeber. I’m guessing the DeLorean book you refer to is “On a Clear Day…”. I don’t recall discussion of espionage, but it’s been at least 15 years since I read it. Maybe time again!
It’s on the back-burner but I’m writing the ’60 up sometime soon. My readings tell me Ford got the dimensions and visual cues of the 59 Chev from someone who built the tooling, and then Ford built their own interpretation of those inputs for themselves.
So somewhere within Fomoco styling was a mock-up of what they thought the 59 Chev was going to look like. IIRC this is covered in the most esteemingly excellent book ‘Ford Design Department 1932-1961’;
http://www.jandcfarrell.com
These were nice looking cars, but even with an attractive interior like the 4 door hardtop sedan, that steering column with the exposed shifter linkage just screams ‘CHEAP’. What took Ford so long to cover it up in one piece?
Call me weird, but I always liked the 60 Ford. One of my uncles had one, a Galaxie 4 door sedan. It’s interior didn’t seem cheap, and was quite nice, and had the red reflectors on the bumper. But then again, I always liked the Edsel. All three years.
Mercurys had a concentric shifter like everyone else. Ford just had to decide to spend a couple bucks for the nicer version they were already making, which they finally did for 1963.
Didn’t take a lot of searching to find a car with the reflectors in the bumper.
https://cdn.barrett-jackson.com/staging/carlist/items/Fullsize/Cars/91126/91126_Rear_3-4_Web.jpg
I found this photo on flickr. I haven’t seen one of these Country Sedan wagons on the road in 40+ years. I never realized how “AMC Pacer” the ’60 Ford wagons look in the rear.
Without the modern cars in the background (and the vanity plate), it seems this picture could have been taken in the early ’60s. “Picking up kids from church school.”
https://www.flickr.com/photos/76619182@N07/27216985322/in/photolist-Ht5avC-RppEJi-eN83qi-fuvj2p-VSMaXm-9fyAuf-2aLgi5m-az3gxi-9koEC9-oUdRMj-8cpJmW-2aAjA7f-ikTtmr-8cmo6F-EXH8QQ-7g4cxM-4BrNC-f4Qmxq-g38oJf-qryELe-own6sJ-24mTF-9rggmd-g9avoQ-8cmnTF-27ZbKFW-8v8jQR-8H9y91-86kZA1-Vu88Nj-77x97b-bCVTDb-2d3Kh9g-5SHYPM-5DkGPC-8GYvrk-8d7KdC-8cmCRa-XmYPCB-8cpHHE-EPxchd-biZGBX-fMvGVy-Ro7PfA-ikTwou-7usenD-5Nrkak-26yWYFW-fMkiZn-Tx64Rt
You reminded me that I found one as a CC here in Santa Monica a while back:
That thing looks like it’s been through hell. But at least it survives and is running, unlike 99.9% of them.
Below, another unlikely survivor. Was this taken recently or decades ago?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/carphotosbyrichard/8290467673/in/album-72157623301273782/
Tthats what the wagon should look like, we had one as a tow car in a wrecking I worked in Saturdays while at school but it had no tailgate after a major shunt and all the rear end was rearranged, it still ran ok and with mudgrip tyres on the back would tow other cars around the yard ok, it replaced a 48 Chrysler sedan that finally expired.
Wow, I had either never noticed or completely forgotten the one-year-only rear setup on the 60 Ford wagons. There has to be a great story behind tha massive retooling of the rear roof and tailgate area for 1961 that brought the familiar curved rear side glass and tailgate with the retracting back window.
And had there been a 1960 Skyliner – if at all possible.
Too bad there was not a face lift of the 1959 for 1960, so that we would have had one more year of the Skyliner, although I really like the clean smooth integrated and modern look of the 1960 Fords.
I prefer the two or three round taillights (depending on the model) of the Canadian Meteor version. And a nicer grille as well.
Interestingly, Ford of Australia kept the 1959 body in productions until 1961.
Oh, hey, yeah, that Canadian taillight setup is much nicer than the frowny US lights.
Is It For SALE?
I have always loved the Quicksiler concept. So much so, I have restored a 60 Ford Starliner…..but have customized it using FoMoCo oem parts. I feel that the Meteor grille match with the Edsel bumpers, gives the car has a more substantial appearance. The 60 production Ford has more “gingerbread” chrome features, which seem to just be add-ons with no real purpose. My customized Ford has been dechromed, leaving only the beltline chrome, like the Quicksilver. Here it is.
I don’t believe anyone here mentioned the rare 352 Hipo? 360 HP, was the beginning of high HP. Was barely advertised, but definitely available. It worked it’s way up to the 406 and 427 engines, running basically the same parts . .sorta 🙂