(first posted 8/10/2012) From the late 1950s to the mid-1960s, Ford showed a lot of new product moxie, upstaging GM with two iconic, trend-setting vehicles: the 1958 T-Bird, and the 1965 Mustang. But one trend that Ford missed the leading edge of, and had to play catch-up to Chevy with, was a widespread shift toward “sportiness” in the lower-price segments. To make up for time, Ford started introducing new cars in the spring, like this 1962½ Futura. They got so good at it, by the spring of 1964, they leapfrogged Chevrolet with the Mustang. Consider the Futura the warm-up act.
In January 1960, Chevy invented the domestic compact sporty car, with the 1960½ Corvair Monza Club Coupe; it would prove to be among the most influential new cars of the decade.
Instead of playing up the Corvair’s original attributes as a spartan, VW-fighting economy car, the Monza instead emphasized sporty luxury. This new direction was key to keeping the Corvair afloat, as the Falcon and Valiant became the bread and butter economy cars of choice. By 1961, the Monza coupe became the best-selling Corvair model, and remained so for the rest of its lifespan.
This rendering from the 1960½ Monza brochure doesn’t do it full justice, but the Monza’s interior was nicely trimmed, with bucket seats–a huge first for any American car excepting a couple of very expensive models. In fact, Chevrolet wouldn’t expand the use buckets again until 1962, in the Impala SS. The 1960½ Monza Coupe paved the way for every Chevy SS to come, not to mention the Mustang.
The 1960½ Monza’s other pioneering feature was an optional four-speed stick, something almost unheard of in anything but the most serious V8-powered big cars, and unheard of in the smaller and lower-priced domestic segment.
Ford saw the suddenly changed future, and wasted no time responding to the Monza: the new Falcon Futura arrived for the 1961 model year. It was identifiable by wearing less chrome than the Falcon DeLuxe (below), but it did sport three ventiports on the rear fenders. Less is more!
That trend was beginning to work its way through Detroit, where less chrome (in the right places) suddenly conferred a greater degree of sophistication and sportiness. The 1963 Grand Prix was the poster boy of that.
On the inside , the Futura bragged about being the “Compact Cousin of the Thunderbird” with its bucket seats and console. Well, it couldn’t exactly say it was “Ford’s Answer to the Corvair Monza”. That interior was quite a change too from the typical Falcon interior of the time. Both Chevrolet and Ford learned a huge lesson from these cars: sporty luxury sells, and is highly profitable. Bucket seats? Uses less material than a full bench, and sells for a hefty mark-up; a bean-counter’s delight.
The Futura returned for the 1962 MY with only very minor changes: a new “electric razor” grille, and…a new chrome molding on the sides. Oh well. Otherwise, it was essentially identical to the 1961.
In February 1962, Ford took another big step into the sporty future by having a major mid-year introduction of several new models, all of them with sporty attributes (styling cliches?), under the banner of “The Lively Ones”. This included the 1962½ Galaxie 500XL, Fairlane 500 Sports Coupe and the new Falcon Futura Sports Sedan. All featured bucket seats and other trim differentiation. And they were all part of a more concerted response to Chevrolet, which beat Ford to the punch with its 1962 Impala SS.
The biggest exterior change for the 1962½ Futura was its “Thunderbird” roof line, which all the Fords now wore proudly.
Sadly, there was nothing very lively under the hood; just the same 85 hp 144 inch (2.3 L) six, or the optional 101 horse 170 inch (2.8 L) version. But there was one other response to the Monza: now a four-speed stick was available in the Futura. Its origin? Dagenham, England. Ford reached out to its UK subsidiary for a fully-synchronized four-speed to team up behind the little sixes. Now that did perk up the 170 inch six a wee bit, as the three-speed had a miserable hole between second and third.
How I wished my father’s 170 inch ’68 Dart had a four-speed; these little sixes just didn’t have the torque that three-speeds depend on. In my 240 inch F100, I use second gear overdrive (same as a third gear, ratio-wise, in a four speed box) incessantly on city streets; second is too buzzy, third a bit too luggy. The venerable three-speed was adequate in the days of slow-running flatheads, but the smaller, higher revving modern engines deserved better.
This particular 1962½ Futura has the more typical column-mounted three-speed. The four-speeds were rare, but there was a youngish woman who drove one here for several years a while back. She drove it briskly, and it was a pleasure to hear a Falcon six be worked through the narrowly-spaced gears properly, emitting a nice little rasp from its exhaust instead of wheezing nasally through a two-speed Fordomatic. Am I in England?
There’s lots of old Falcons around, but none sporting this white-over-black paint scheme. Maybe a cop bought it initially?
This one also sports some minor non-stock flourishes. Nice touch of green in the hood scoop.
Was the Futura badge really held on by a rivet originally?
The 1963 Futura only merited another revision of the grille, and some more side-trim revision. But this Futura must be a 1963½, because it has the 260 V8, which arrived with Ford’s next mid-year onslaught of new fastback models, including the Falcon Sprint.
Once the Sprint arrived, the Futura soon became second-rung, just the higher-trim level of the Falcon sedans, and by 1964, it even lost its bucket seats (except Futura Sport). The usual upward-ratcheting was in effect, once again. The Sprint was the final step in the Falcon’s evolution from cheap-skate family-mobile to the Mustang, which totally eclipsed it one year later. But the Futura and Sprint had served their purpose, before quietly slipping away into obscurity.
Growing up in england in the 70s/80s, the whole concept of “three on the tree” was totally alien. The only time I ever drove a vehicle with a colmn change was a tractor, in about 1989. But i Drove plenty of 4 speed “four on the floors” with tinny little under-powered engines that were desperate for an extra gear.
Have to say that the Japanese really showed the way forward. My brother bought a Nissan Micra in the mid 80s that had a 5 speed with a teeny little 1 litre aluminium engine, that somehow managed to be nippy around town and long-legged on the motorway. It was a pretty characterless little car in most aspects, but I totally respected the way they matched an engine and a gearbox in a way that I had never come across before.
Plenty of 50s British motors had column shifts – especially Austin saloons. A friend has an A40 Somerset. There were even a few four on the trees I believe.
I had a Micra was while. Mine was a 1.2L with the 5spd – what a fun car.
Hillmans were four on the tree as were MK3 & MK4 Zephyrs unless you optioned bucket seats and floor shift that where this Falcon box came from. Austin A40s were four speed cars including your friends Sommerset
A perfect finish to Futura week here at CC!
This has been quite an education for me. I always kind of liked the little Falcon, but always from a distance. I never spent any time in one of these, and consequently never paid attention to the many little variations in the 1960-63 Falcons. Three different coupe rooflines over a 4 year lifespan is pretty impressive. No wonder AMC and Studebaker were also-rans in these years.
The only place these Falcons were really outgunned was in the powertrains. The Valiant offered a lot more engine (up to the big 225 cid 6) and the 3 speed Torqueflite was a huge leap beyond the 2 speed FordOMatic (or the Powerglide, for that matter). But the V8/stick available by 1963 closed the gap. I wonder what percentage of these cars came equipped with the 4 speed. Until today, I guess I had never been aware of the 6/4 speed combo before 1963.
I always loved the white steering wheels in these Falcons.
I had never noticed before, how the later fenders came to a peak to match the bulge-out grille.
With them side-by-side, I think the concave grille and the smooth forward ended fenders are much more appealing.
That was new for ’62. Aussie Falcons kept the old fenders and hood, with new chrome trim and a local grille, but got the new roofline.
The white steering wheels, and corresponding white control knobs on the dash, would fill up with mung after a couple of months of use. No one ever cleaned them. They looked like crap for the rest of their crappy little lives.
Mung is a great word – totally descriptive!
i love the aluminum console with the corduroy surface between the bucket seats. i hate that in most modern cars the center console blocks sliding across the front seats.
Had Ford OZ bothered to offer the whole Falcon range here it may have had a chance but no it was totally eclipsed by the more robust better built and performing Zephyr
Yeah, you probably wouldn’t have wanted it anyway. A soggy chassis, floaty suspension, and a choice of two wheezy inline 6’s meant the Falcon wasn’t exactly a sports coupe.
I don’t run across that many Falcons or Valiants when I’m out kicking around. Do see a surprising amount of Corvairs. Ran across this junkyard last weekend. If you stick a top on this Corvair it could be my drivers education car from high school in 1961.
I think if I could take a time machine back I think I would go with Corvair but I’m having problems figuring out why. Probably think different tomorrow.
Vic Damone had a Ford tie-in TV show called “The Lively Ones” in the summers of ’62 and ’63. My parents were jazz fans so we always watched it, top names like Dave Brubeck were on. I have a faint memory of a road trip in our ’61 Sunliner the summer of ’62, swimming at a Holiday Inn and then watching The Lively Ones.
1962½ Galaxie 500XL, Fairlane 500 Sports Coupe and this Falcon Futura in all the commercials. Pretty cool at the time. Space Age, a bright future.
My father, much to my chagrin, bought a new 61 Futura. Other than the bucket seats, I never found a single redeeming feature. He also bought me a new 63 Dart. The Dart was superior in every way, except possibly the build quality and the price was comparable. The Falcon was so primitive, Ford must have made a lot of money on them.
Motor Trend enlisted the assistance of a group of stylists to critique the 1961 models for their December 1960 issue. One noted of the Falcon that “it definitely looks better without chrome side moldings…” Someone at Ford obviously agreed and as Paul notes, joined the less chrome is more school with the 61 Futura.
My folks bought two new Falcons in 61, one the overchromed deluxe 4-door sedan (with a white steering wheel), the other a plain 2-door sedan without chrome and without a horn rim or much padding in the seats; neither had carpeted floors. Neither did anything for me. They were just basic cars, roomy and good on fuel but underpowered with the 144 or the 170.
Hence, when the first Futura appeared in our small town in late 61 – white with the red buckets – I was very taken with its rather perfect blending of unique trim (loved the polka dot rimmed wheel covers) and sportier, more luxe interior. My recollection also is that the Futura – as with other late model entries for 61, including the Impala SS – was one of the first to sport narrow band whitewall tires, that were introduced throughout in 62. I thought they were great, very trendy and modern.
When we attended the Seattle World’s Fair in 62, I noted that in the Ford exhibit – a sort of ride into space – we sat in Futura bucket seats. They were a nice design for the time and the chrome-ribbed mini-console was clever. Later my Dad factory ordered a new 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe, which sported a very nice bucket seat/console interior, a design that Ford had really perfected by that time.
61 was a great year for cars, the new Lincoln Continental and Thunderbird, the Oldsmobile Starfire, Impala SS, the new Cadillac we discussed earlier. The Futura really was a small part of the new trend, at least in interior design and in the concept of a small, inexpensive car with sport and luxury accents; the Mustang would soon bring that concept to fruition.
This article points something I have always said, people seem to think that Chevrolet created the Camaro to compete against the Mustang, which is true, but everyone seems to forget that the Mustang was created to compete with the Corvair Monza.
No the Mustang was an entirely new niche. The Futura and Sprint were responses to the Monza.
I rather disagree. The Monza was a revolutionary car: it single-highhandedly created the compact domestic sporty coupe market, and was a surprisingly big hit in 1961, with almost 150k sold. There is no doubt that Ford was caught off guard by it, having thought that its Falcon had crushed the Corvair in the Plain-Jane part of the compact market in 1960.
The Futura was the short-term solution, but I refuse to believe there ever would have been a Mustang but for the success of the Monza, regardless of how technically different they were. The Mustang was developed and green-lighted in 1962-1963, right after the Monza’s surprising 1961 sales success.
And the Mustang’s sales projections were more along the lines of the Monza’s; its sales explosion was not anticipated. It was essentially a better Monza; with the preferred classic long-hood proportions and a greater choice of engines including a V8.
Although I would add that even if the Monza hadn’t existed, it’s likely the Futura (or something like it) probably would have. The reason was the Comet, sold by Lincoln-Mercury dealers (though it wasn’t technically a Mercury until ’62). The Comet was basically a plusher long-wheelbase Falcon for not a lot more money, and it was basically keeping L-M alive in 1960-61. Ford dealers pretty quickly started feeling like they were missing out.
And any good thing the Mercury dealers had, the Ford dealers had to have too. R.I.P. Mercury.
Well, in Iacocca’s memoir, he talked about how the original Falcon was really sort of a misfire from the standpoint of the sales force. There wasn’t much to upsell other than the Deluxe model, and because the Falcon’s appeal was originally focused so much on minimum cost, buyers didn’t often take what options were offered beyond heater, radio, and maybe Fordomatic. Iacocca argued, “Look, most people finance, they don’t pay cash — if you can offer something nicer for a little more a month, buyers will take it.” The success of the Comet and Monza just proved his point.
Of course it’s impossible to say with certainty what would have happened if any one car hadn’t been built. Sooner or later, the sporty trend would have emerged, probably quite soon. The 1961 GM B-O-P compacts were already in the pipeline with sporty bucket-seat versions too. But I will point out that the 1960 Comet didn’t have a bucket-seat version.
My point is that the bucket-seat floor-shift thing was specifically pioneered by the Monza, and that aspect Ford hadn’t anticipated, and quickly imitated. The bucket seat Comet S-22 arrived in 1961, along with the Futura.
The Mustang likely would have still existed since in its basic concept it is an everyman’s T-Bird. The Monza was a performance/sporty compact not a compact “personal” car. Ford had a bit hit in the 4 seat T-bird and they were likely to look to replicate it whether the Monza had sold well or not.
We could argue about this all night, but it’s too nice an evening for that. But here’s a paragraph from a history of the Mustang:
“In 1961, Lee Iacocca, vice president and general manager of Ford Division, had a vision. His vision was a car that would seat four people, have bucket seats, a floor mounted shifter, be no more than 180 inches long, weigh less than 2500 pounds, and sell for less than $2500.00. Out of this vision, the Ford Mustang was born.”
And what car was Iacocca thinking of in 1961 when he had this vision? Or did it come to him in a vacuum?
And FWIW, the original impetus for the Mustang was the two-seat “Little Bird”, for which there was still a lot of interest. The first concepts of the T5 were two seaters, not four seaters. The unexpected success of the ’61 Monza is what shifted Iacocca’s vision to a small sporty four seater.
And both were in the same market: compact “personal” sporty cars. To try to differentiate them into two different market segments in order to support your argument doesn’t work.
“In 1961, Lee Iacocca, vice president and general manager of Ford Division, had a vision. His vision was a car that would seat four people, have bucket seats, a floor mounted shifter, be no more than 180 inches long, weigh less than 2500 pounds, and sell for less than $2500.00. Out of this vision, the Ford Mustang was born.”
In other words a compact T-bird plus a floor shift, and of course the original Mustang concepts were more along the lines of the baby Bird. The success of the Monza likely helped sell putting the project into production.
Remember that Ford was very risk averse after the Edsel, the concept of the Mustang may have existed, but popular Corvair Monza was the catalyst that probably made it a reality.
Not sure why you NEED to give the Monza so much credit. The winds that were blowing from Europe since the end of WWII were the same for Ford and Chevy. Small sporty cars, bucket seats, floor shift manual transmissions……..they were cars service men brought back with them: MGs, Jags, Triumphs, Fiats etc. Chevy copied the VW, Ford emulated the English cars which were RWD usually (theirs too).
It was the WWII baby boom that made the 60s trends happen. It was soup inspired from their parents/veterans. If anything Chevy was too early for the Boomers.
Because it was the first? That’s all I’m giving it credit for.
The interesting thing is, I sure didn’t invent the Monza “theory”; it’s been written in numerous serious history books, especially in regard to the Mustang.
The other thing is, unless you were around in 1961, it’s easy to not appreciate how “hot” or “cool” the Monza was at that time. It made a palpable ripple on the whole scene, not unlike the ’63 GP, the ’64 GTO and the ’65 Mustang. It was the first of a series of cool sporty cars that originated from Detroit. I have no need to put it on a pedestal; that’s just how it was then, and that’s its place in history.
Admittedly, its peak moment was short lived: as soon as the sporty scene took off in 1962, and especially in 1963, the Monza quickly reverted to more of an “insider’s” car.
Automotive fads often are short lived, and the Monza’s day in the sun was particularly short.
The Corvair is a copy of a VW in the same way that a cheeseburger is a copy of a t-bone because they are both made from a cow.
That’s some funny stuff the Corvair is not a copy of the VW but the Mustang is a copy of the Corvair.
If you mean a hamburger that is ground up and processed for mass production, it may be an apt comparison. Not that I think of the Beetle as “steak” GM might have been looking at the Corvair Monza as being a budget Porsche.
Rear drive? Check.
Air cooled? Check
Rear Engine? Check.
Flat Engine? Check.
6 cylinder? Nope, advantage Monza!
“Copy” may have been too strong a word…..but the Corvair was more than just “inspired” by the strong selling VW. No doubt the Bug was dissected and analyzed, and for the most part made better.
Mustang was a Falcon with cosmetic extensive , cosmetic surgery.
I have a soft spot for the first-generatoin Falcon, based on there having been a 63 Ranchero in the family for a while when I was grownig up.
I’d never realized or noticed the revised roofline in the later versions. It’s horrific. Bears no stylistic relationship whatsoever to the rest of the lines – just crammed on there to mimic the T-bird. Note to self: shop 60/61 model years if you ever go to buy a Falcon…
In my more blue-sky moments, I envision having a collection of every Falson version offered in the first-generation model line. It’s a surprisingly long list, especially when you include the vans.
Of all the cars shown here, I most like the red one in the brochure shot. I think the chrome outlining the sculpting on the flanks really looks nice. The Futuras with the arbitrary spear and chunk’o’chrome details a lot less so.
Really? I like the T-Bird inspired roof on the Falcon. My favorite though is the 63.5 Sprint with the fastback roof, just like Jay Leno’s new toy. Dare say, I liked it better than my old 64 Falcon Sprint convertible.
BTW I like Corvairs! I’ve had two. Being a Ford guy, that says a lot! Back in the late 80s/early 90s local car shows there was a 64 Corvair. Same color combo as my Sprint.
Australian falcon – 1973 with 351 Cleveland V8
Latest 2015 Falcon in Aust, with supercharged V8 or turbo 24V i6 with up to 420HP from the i6 turbo. This is the final Falcon, there will be no more.
1972 Australian falcon GT-HO – with 351 V8 was the fastest 4 door in the world at the time. These were the same as the US Falcon from 1966-1970 but with more styling from the Mustang particularly the roof and recessed rear window.
I remember seeing one of these Futuras for the 1st time in the mid 60s parked at the curb in my small, rural town. It was a 62 that was dark blue with a white top.
Strangely, I never really considered these as an “answer” to the Monza coupe. I mean, the Monza looks so “European” while the Futura looks like a gussied-up Falcon sedan. It struck me as a typical Ford move, that is, take a run-of-the-mill model, add a bit of chrome, call it a special, then in a few model years it’s already started to become the bottom rung model.
In my opinion Ford should have produced something closer to the Sprint if they wanted a Monza fighter. Yet, I realize they needed to hold off until the “companion” Galaxie fastback was ready so they could better market the new look for these cars.
To my eye, the ’62 regular (and early-year Futura) Falcons were the best lookers of the group. Still with the original bubble roofline but they finally got the grille right.
For ’63 the “Thunderbird” roof infected all Falcons bar the wagons and Ranchero, but -again, blatant opinion- it wouldn’t look right until the lower body was reskinned and squared-off for ’64. Same deal with the hardtop but with a side order of looking too small and low for the rest of the car.
The ’63 hardtop makes sense. It would get a jump on the Corvair, which wouldn’t receive a proper hardtop until 1965. But, maybe more importantly, it might be a gauge of how the upcoming Mustang would be received.
It’s worth mentioning that Chrysler had revamped the awkward first Valiant into a very clean look in 1963 (which also included a hardtop), as well. To that end, maybe GM made a strategic mistake by not giving the Corvair the stylish, new body much earlier. Imagine how differently things might have been if the 1965 Corvair hardtop had been available in 1963 to combat the new, good-looking compact hardtops from both Ford and Chrysler. I might go so far to say that 1963 was the year GM really dropped the ball with the Corvair.
In 1966 I drove a company car that was a 1964 Falcon four-dour sedan with bench seat. For two years prior to my “inheriting” it, a 300-pound guy named Bill, a real gentleman I might add, sat on that sat. I rode in a hollowed out seat that was uncomfortable. Whenever the Falcon broke down I was given a 1964 Rambler American 300. What a nice car that was! The visibility was excellent. The ride was comfortable and the bench seat was firm but comfortable. I regretted each time that the Falcon was repaired and returned to me. it was not a pleasant automobile when compared to the Rambler America, by any means. The Falcon had a cheap single green light for the turn signal indicator which was carried into the Mustang, by the way.
My current car, a 2000 Golf, also has left and right turn signal indicators on the dash, to me it isn’t expression of “deluxe” vs “cheap” but rather kind of a small example of a sell out maybe to placate publications like Consumer Reports, that seems to have certain things it thinks should be in all cars, kind of like ignition cylinders on the column, not between the seats as on Saabs, which I kind of understand a bit, in the interest of uniform controls, since some drivers only drive a car a short time (as in a rental car or borrowing a car of someone once not to be repeated).
However, even acknowledging this, I still don’t understand the preference for right and left turn signal indicators on the dash, instead of a single “reminder” light that just tells you the turn signal is active. After all, when it lights, do you also need a reminder as to which direction you (just) put the lever in? Other than having very bad short term memory, I can’t appreciate the need to be told which direction I’m signalling…just the flashing light telling me the turn signal is active is plenty for me…my prior (’78 Scirocco and ’86 GTi) only had a single indicator on the dash to alert that turn signals were on….when the 2 directional signals were on my 2000 Golf, I was annoyed…..this generation to me seemed to be a sell-out by VW, maybe to appeal to influencers like Consumer Reports, not just the turn signals but other things (like lower seating hight, radio low in center stack instead of up high (indeed the center stack itself seemed to be a compromise).
What does such a small thing matter? Well, it seems that budgets are a big deal especially for inexpensive cars like VW, and if they can eliminate the bulb for a 2nd directional signal along with wiring, they could put the money into something else that makes more of a difference. An example of this, my Dad’s 2006 Impala eliminated trunk lock cylinder (plus passenger door, but to me that’s less of a transgression). You can only open the trunk if you have at least some charge in the battery, without disassembling the rear seat (his didn’t have the fold down rear seat to have another way into the trunk). Without thinking it through, I bought him a battery booster and of course where would you want to store it? In the trunk, which you can’t easily get into if your battery is flat. I’d much rather they put in the trunk lock cylinder and give another way to get to the trunk (for other things, tools, spare tire, whatnot). Where might the money come from? Maybe by eliminating things like 2nd turn signal indicator might not be enough, but are a step in the right direction to keep the bill of materials to a target cost, without affecting function. That said, I will fully admit my bias to function vs style (or even symmetry) and of course others don’t agree to my view. But whatever makes a car less of a car function wise, I tend to object. Maybe it doesn’t happen often, but I like the idea of a car that has my back even for somewhat unusual situations, especially if I’m far from help. Don’t like the idea of being painted in a corner, so if they can save money on something that doesn’t matter (to me, at least) then they might put it into something else (yes, they can just put it in their pocket, but having the extra money at least opens up the choice and hoping they’ll spend it in the “right” way.
My parents also owned 2 Rambler wagons…a ’61 and a ’63……the ’63 was totalled outside our motel room in Catonsville in ’65, we had vacated our home in preparation to move to Vermont (the first time)…my Dad had to go ahead to start his job (we stayed with Grandparents) and he picked us up in a ’65 F85 Wagon…not sure why he didn’t buy another Rambler.
We have no experience with the Falcon, closest I come (not very close) is that my Brother-in-Law owed a Mercury Capri (the Mustang variant in the late 70’s and early 80’s). If it had a single turn indicator, I’d say that was in keeping with it’s mission of a low cost vehicle..admirable. Also, my Brother-in-Law has probably owned at least 10x the number of vehicles as I so chance he’s owned a certain model is much higher than for me.
The phto of the Aqua 61 Falcon looks very familiar, even the setting. A friend I haven’t seen in years had one he had restored, exactly as pictured, even the setting looks like the
Mobile Home community” in North Phoenix where he lived at the time. His falcon was a darling…Never failed to be noticed. Sold it 20 years ago or so to bring funds to his restoration of a Metropolitan. in similar colors.
Putting the four speed from the Zephyr into the early Falcon was a good move, four speed column shift was standard on the 62-65/MK3 Zephyr from the UK as was Macpherson strut front suspension and front disc brakes, they were great cars very popular in this country. This one lives next door to me.
I disliked Falcons when they were new but they’ve grown on me over the decades .
.
The ‘ T – Bird Roof ‘ in the white over black soggy one looks very appealing to me .
.
? are four speed tranny parts now available ? in the 1970’s & 1980’s Falcon Sprints were dirt cheap because they all needed tranny work and no parts .
.
-Nate
The Zephyr four speed is pretty good the case will warp from too much power and it will start popping out of gear but the next model was even stronger and V8 swap proof, your never going to hurt one with an early Falcon motor, which wasnt even available here from OZ with the four speed.
Thanx Bryce ! .
.
The deal with us Yanks is : they came mated to 260 (IIRC) V8’s and everyone
hotted them up a bit and wanted to show off by burning rubber all the time .
.
I wish I’da known it was a simple Hillman box ~ America used to be littered with unwanted Hillmans
.
-Nate
I really like the early Falcon coupe with the lighter roof design. My Dad bought a four speed Monza like the white club coupe pictured in the ad. The interior was just like the black example. I agree that the Monza was more of a European- like sporty design.
Those early Falcons had to be very basic cars. My ’70 Mustang stripper was almost too basic. I could have lived with it if the fuel economy had been better. I think that the 250 cid displacement was just too big for the motor’s intake architecture. The best I got with radials and at 55 mph. was 15 mpg. I researched contemporary articles in magazines, like the Popular Mechanics owner’s report on the ’70 Mustang, which confirmed my results.
I think that the earlier smaller 144 and 170 sixes up to the 200 cid were more efficient and delivered better fuel economy. Still for some reason the simplicity of these early Falcons is really appealing to me.
CC Effect ! .
I was driving SWMBO to – day and passed a dusty old two tone Mercury Comet…
-Nate
The promo photo of the one in motion with the lady driving and the Peanuts cartoon at the bottom right, shows to me that on a car I had thought was pretty well proportioned, that the greenhouse is a bit too – long? It’s as if there is almost room for a 4 door configuration on a two door car. The second to last photo of the white car has better proportions with the faster back roof.
I do like the dash mimicking that of the Thunderbird, but glad it did not have the centre console.
I don’t know what these cars weighed, but they certainly looked light on their feet to me. A guess would be between 2900 – 3000 lbs.
If I was going to buy one of these Falcons it would have to be the fastback. I don’t care for the droopy lines of the original. I prefer the 64-65 with crisper lines.
There’s something almost charmingly halfhearted about the early Futura with bucket seats, console and a column shift.
They weren’t committed to tooling up the Dagenham 4-speed for domestic production and could only get so many from England, they weren’t committed to a T-bar floor selector for the Fordomatic, and apparently they weren’t sure how a floor shifter for the 3-speed would go over…
Likewise, they didn’t offer a 4-door Futura (at least outside Australia) even though Chevrolet must’ve sold a fair few Corvair Monza 4-door sedans judging by their survival numbers.
All through the 70’s and 80’s one could pick up ?Sprint?s with bum trannies for dirt cheap as the tranny parts were hard to find .
Looking back I imagine some British parts place might have been able to help .
-Nate
If the Falcon hadn’t been so basically dumpy-looking in its sedan form (apologies, Falcon fans!), perhaps we never would have had the Mustang. In other words, if the Falcon had had the basic lines to allow a believable (and cheap) sporty-looking conversion à la Corvair, the expense of a totally new car might not have been seen as necessary. But it didn’t. Was that part of Lee Iacocca’s thoughts in 1961?
The 1957-58 Recession saw car sales tank 40%. Even if auto manufacturers didn’t invest hundreds of millions into new redesigned vehicles, it would have been a very hard time. But we see Ford sinking hundreds of millions into Mercury, Edsel and Lincoln, launching an entirely new engine line, and ending the Continental division to help pay for it. The Falcon design was impacted by this financial crisis. When Ford’s president saw the disaster, he had to demand a car that would be radically different. The Falcon was. You couldn’t have created a more purposeful, practical and cost-cutting car. It did not have fins, it did not have elaborate chrome, it was using mid-50s technology to save every penny. It was a radical car that sold hundred of thousands. Vans, sedans, coupes, convertibles, Ranchero – it became the new Ford.
But profitable? Not like the Thunderbird of Fairlane.
So it just makes sense to dress the Falcon up. It also just makes sense to use the newest massively successful vehicle as the basis for a new sports car. So the Mustang is a natural extension of the Falcon line, just as every other version of the Falcon. That Falcon remained in production right up to the 1978 Fox body. It was modified into dozens of models for over a decade. So – dumpy? Only in hindsight, and definately not in 1960.