(first posted 7/1/2017) What made me decide to very belatedly share this ’63 Fairlane I shot back in 2011 or so? You may well ask. For some reason, I was randomly flipping through my notebook of all the cars I’ve shot, wallowing in the memories and noting how many never got written up. And for some reason, this one caught my eye. And that was serendipitous, as it relates to how I spent part of my afternoon.
You all probably know the basic story of the new, mid-sized Fairlane that appeared in 1962. It was essentially a stretched and widened Falcon, with a somewhat heavier suspension, some aspects of which were apparently quickly adopted in Australia on their Falcon, as the original was a bit weak-kneed. The Fairlane is considered the first of the mid-size or intermediate cars, which soon became a major segment. But realistically, the 1956-1962 Rambler Classic was in that same category, even if it did sit on a shorter 108″ wb compared to the Fairlane’s 115″ wheelbase. The Rambler’s body was more upright, which allowed a higher seating position and thus negated much of that shorter wheelbase. It’s a subject of debate, so help yourself. And the longer wheelbase (112″) 1963 Classic was certainly an intermediate size.
What’s not debatable is that the Fairlane was not a suitable for a family of six, going on seven, as were the Niedermeyers during the time a black ’62 Fairlane sedan was their only family car and the torture chamber, in which they spent three days going to New York in 1964, and three more coming back. That story has been told here once or twice, and you probably know it as well by now as the Fairlane’s story.
Anyway, as the top photo makes clear, the ’63 Fairlane sedan got a new front clip, but not really anything else except for some revised trim. The new front end closely resembled the ’63 full-size Ford’s, thus making the family ties a bit closer than they were in ’62.
Other than that, there wasn’t much new, except an optional new 200 inch version of the six that now had seven main bearings and was an all-round improvement. That should have absolutely been standard, as the 101 hp 170 inch standard Falcon six was overtaxed. And it appears this is a six cylinder car, most likely with that 170 incher, as it’s every bit the stripper our ’62 was, except ours did have the mighty 221 inch V8 and two-speed Fordomatic.
This is the shot that when I saw it in my files made me think: aha! I need to share this. That’s because I spent a bit of time with the steering wheel removed from my ’66 F100, which is of course photobombing this shot. And it’s the exact same wheel, as far as I can tell, although actually mine is almost surely bigger. I had it off to replace the turn signal return cam, a plastic doo-hickey that has already broken once before. But this time my fix did not go well; it’s not working at all now, including the turn signals. I’ll have to wait another day, as tomorrow I spend all day cleaning and sprucing up one of my rental houses. And Sunday quite likely too. Oh joy!
This Fairlane obviously has the standard three-speed manual transmission to complement its stripper status. No radio either.
Well, the front clip wasn’t the only thing new on the Fairlane 500 coupe, which got a totally new hardtop roof that made it much more stylish than the glorified two-door sedan version in ’62. A 164hp 260 cubic inch version of the small block V8 was also available, and had been since mid-year 1962.
And sometime later in the year, the legendary K-Code 289 V8, making a wicked 271 hp arrived, along with a four speed transmission. Quite the lively combination. And quite the contrast from the featured car.
The Fairlane was a pretty good seller in its first few years; 345k ’63s were sold, up some 50k over 1962. That would be the high water mark for some years, and helped Ford increase its total sales some during their doldrums in the early 60s. Oddly, there seem to be a lot more Falcon survivors than these early Fairlanes. They seem not to have ever become cool or hipster-approved, except of course the 500 hardtop coupe.
It’s a fairly clean design, although its not very compelling either. It’s the kind of car that just didn’t generate a lot of enthusiasm or passion, especially sitting on those teeny little 13″ wheels and tires. A Falcon that put on a bit of weight and size.
Related CC reading:
Vintage Car Life Comparison: 1962 Ford Fairlane V8 vs. 1962 Chevy II Six – The Old Ford V8 vs. Chevy Six Battle Updated, With Surprising Results
One of the last repairs I made to my ’69 F-100 before I sold it was the exact same plastic turn signal cam, and I remember it taking several attempts before it worked correctly.
Love the reflection of your truck in the window – looks like an eager puppy, just rarin’ to go!
One design detail on the Fairlane I always liked is the front wheel cutout. Even with the tiny wheels and tires, they have pleasing lines that actually look better on the lighter-colored cars.
The styling is so out of sync with the trends in the early 60s. Tailfins? The front of the 62 looks like it belongs on a 59 Mopar. Without the fins, the 63 would look great, like a junior size Galaxie. They whacked the fins off in 64, but then they put jet airplane air scoops on the side.. The Falcon looked more modern.
Nah Steve, gotta disagree 🙂 I myself like the 62, and 63 fins. Reminds me of my favorite 2 seater Thunderbird, the ’57. I too like the 64 with its fake side scoop. But Never liked the ’65 “Square”lane. Very unimaginative styling. Like they just changed it, to change it. But I never thought the full size 65’s looked all that great. Mustang and Thunderbird excepted. Just MHO!
One of the best tinfoil hat theories I read here was that the styling department mixed up the Comet and Fairlane designs for 1965.
Not far off. The Fairlane was t have stacked headlights very like the new 65 Galaxie. In profile, you can see it. Last minute Decisions removed the Vertical lights as the comet had them and Ford wanted both cars to look different, so the hapahazard horizontal light front was forced on to fenders lines already finalized for verticals. The body colored surrounds in the headlight bezels did not help. Odd, considering in 66 Falrlane and Comet shared much more than vertical headlights, That lookalike cousins thing getting stronger every year thereafter.
In my opinion the 63 Fairlane takes the best of two cars and combines it into 1 package. You have the glorious styling of the 63 Galaxie in a smaller package derived from the Falcon. The only other 60s Fairlane that can stand with the 63 is the 66. And as a true test of the “rightness” of a design, I would gladly “adopt” a 63 or 66 in any body style, with the 66 getting more love because of the available convertible.
These early Fairlanes never looked as big as they are. This does not look like a 115 inch wb car. My family’s 64 Cutlass (with a 1 inch shorter wb) always looked so much bigger.
The fins were a definite throwback in 1963. I guess Cadillac still had them but nobody else did. Still, I agree with others that the 63 is the best looking of the early Fairlanes.
The Buick Special, full size Buick, F-85 and full size Olds had vestiges of fins, the Comet still had them as well as the full size Mercury.
The 64 Comet even had vague fin like peaks at the rear as well.
The vestiges of fins on the Special/Skylark were almost non-existent and the ’63 restyle deleted them entirely on the Tempest as well.
Sunbeam Alpine looked great in her ’63 fins ….
https://www.google.com/search?q=sunbeam+alpine+1963&client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKl_zZ1enUAhXBdz4KHT5xBB0Q_AUICSgB&biw=360&bih=518#imgrc=-3yIouZEta8hNM:
The Fairlane really wasn’t all that big, despite the long wheelbase. The Comet had a whopping 114″ wheelbase but it didn’t make its interior any bigger than the Falcon. The best way to describe a Fairlane is as a widened Comet. I wouldn’t be surprised if the two shared a few pieces of sheet metal, at least under the exterior skin.
The Fairlane fins along with the highish round tail light were pretty obviously a reference to the 1957 Ford. Falcons in 1960 had continued the big round Ford taillight thing but without the fins, so the intermediate Fairlane was definitely a bit of a retro touch in that area.
Think about this: those Fairlanes have a wheelbase .3″ LONGER than that of a ’79-’11 Crown Vic or Grand Marquis! Which one looks bigger to the eye 😀 ???
The ’63 is better looking than the ’62. But geez, those tiny 13-inch wheels really ruin the look of the whole car, and couldn’t have done much for ride/handling either. I hope bigger tires/wheels were optional.
those tiny 13-inch wheels really ruin the look of the whole car,
Tiny wheels were the thing at the time. iirc my dad’s 64 Galaxie only had 14s. Somewhere over the years, I think I read that going to little wheels was one of the cheap and dirty ways automakers lowered the height of cars when they still had 50s underpinnings. The other thing they did was reduce headroom, a lot and lower the seats until you were nearly sitting on the floor to minimize the loss of headroom when the roof came down about 4″
Pretty much all cars went to 14 inch wheels in 1957, even though some like Fords had a new frame that allowed floor wells. It was an easy way to get them a bit lower. But the tires were far higher profile than the highest ones today.
When I wanted to put radials on my 1962 Lincoln I had to switch to 15 inch wheels (originals were 14) and put on the widest highest profile tires available, and ended up with almost exactly the circumference of the original tires on 14 inch rims.
I believe the Mercury Meteor version came with 14″ wheels. Meteors also had the superior “Cushion Link” suspension. This was back when there were actual value differences between Fords and Mercurys.
Pray tell us what exactly is the “Cushion Link” suspension, and what exactly makes it superior?
This page from the 1961 Mercury brochure (mechanically similar to the ’62s) describes this “Triumph of many years’ research.” Cushion-Link was standard on the ’62 Meteors and Montereys, and not available on Fords.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1961%20Mercury/1961_Mercury_Full_Size_Brochure/1961%20Mercury%20Full%20Size-10-11.html
Falcons and presumably Fairlanes as well also got this for 1963, albeit not under the “Cushion Link” name.
Paul, your story about the tortured drive to NY for the World’s Fair came to mind even before it showed up in your third paragraph!
If I was seeking out a Fairlane “hobby car,” a ’64 (no fins) would be my first choice–followed by the formalized, squared-off ’65, for some odd reason. (Now there’s a car that needs a CC feature!) The $$$$ premium to buy the Galaxie over this one it might not seem like much, but I’ve gotta keep reminding myself that prices have gone up about 8x since then–“only $120” for some option would be $1K today.
Old Car Brochures has the detailed ’63 Fairlane brochure—but in the Dutch Export version only. Lucky for us, the U.S.-market one is on eBay right now, with scans of nearly every page: http://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-AUTHENTIC-1963-Ford-Fairlane-Dealer-Sales-Brochure-Fairlaine-for-63-/162567672416?hash=item25d9c9d260:g:Wr4AAOSwaeRZGj62
There’s also the Australian ’63 Fairlane brochure. http://oldcarbrochures.org/index.php/Australia-2/Ford/Ford/1963-Ford-Fairlane-500-Brochure
However, the Aussie Fairlane was only available as a 4-door sedan. No Fairlane coupes or wagons was offered Down Under.
I am looking for one at the moment – in case you decide to go for it, I suggest you join the Ford Fairlane FB group, cars come up for sale all the time and it’s very useful if you have any technical question:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/fairlanes/
Wow, that is such a nice clean survivor. I hope that car is still being preserved and cared for. I agree that these are the perfect blend of Falcon and Galaxie. I like the tiny fins combined with the clean front end. I do find stripper cars to be appealing, though the actual driving experience of a low powered car with no amenities, handling or braking could get pretty old, pretty quick. I put 13” wheels (five lug) with Pinto caps on my first car, ’66 Mustang coupe, to lower it. I put 15” Ranger steelies (15×7) on my ’70 Mustang and they fit perfectly, and put more rubber down.
Over the years I’ve grown to like classic cars of the ‘base model’ variety considerably more than their better-equipped counterparts. That thinking is completely due to owning a Standard Series ’64 Falcon for so long. Having experienced driving a ’60s ‘stripper’ car I very much grew to appreciate its utter simplicity as the years went by. There’s just so little ~there~.
I like the looks of that ’63 white Fairlane far more than the ’65 model.
That poor “65, body style” sure got a bad rap!
I guess this was the car for everyone who felt that “full-size” cars had gotten too big. A quick check of numbers says the ’55 Ford had the same wheelbase, and was only 1.5″ inches longer. Here’s a graphic showing a similar comparo between the ’55 Chevy and the ’64 Chevelle:
About as large as I’d ever want to go, George. Avenger/Sebring/200 all about the same size [and height] as the 55 Chevrolet as well, to put it in current [almost] perspective.
DweezilAZ, you got me wondering, and–sure enough–my “big” Gen3 Taurus is about the same length, on a wheelbase of only 108.5 inches–“as large as I’d ever want to go” for me as well. When I see a “full size” 1960s car nowadays, they seem shockingly big…
The problem was that the Chevelle and Fairlane were so much lower that their seating was not as comfortable and roomy as in the ’55 Chevy (or Ford), which had genuine sofa-height seats. The rear leg room on the older cars was in a different league.
Love the ’63 . Great feature story Paul . Here’s my ’63 Fairlane 500 Sport Coupe 260 4spd car .
Nice! The ’63 coupe is a sweet car.
The TWA pilot that lived next door bought a ’65 Fairlane 500 in white to replace a ’50 Ford convertible. What a disappointment. He was not a car guy. The ’64-’65 version just looks too heavy, like a truncated Galaxie. The proportions are off. The ’66 is much better.
If someone told me the 1967 Dodge Dart’s styling was influenced by the Fairlane, I would likely believe them.
I was thinking more the “Coronet/Belvedere”.
Much of a Ford fan and overall classic American car enthusiast I am, these Fairlanes repel me the same way as Camcords do. I see a lot who like the 63-64 Fairlanes like them as a sort of blend between the Falcon’s size and the Galaxies looks, but for me it just ends up as neither fish nor foul. I think the styling doesn’t scale down from full size much better than the 62 Dodge/Plymouths did, and the Falcon was honest looking, if not timeless. Plus, with the exception of the 61 Continental and Bullet Tbird, Ford’s styling themes between roughly 1957 and 1964 seem overwrought, yet tinny at the same time, with a few notable exceptions or good executions within that theme(the afterburner taillights were great no matter how the rest of the car ahead of it looked). When you look at what everyone else was making in the early 60s Ford just appeared stuck in a fin era rut, and it wouldn’t be until Mustang that they broke out of it with a mainstream model.
We called these the compact Fairlane, very popular when new in NZ and sought after now, guess what no six was even offered, if you wanted a six you could buy a Zephyr or a OZ Falcon.
So were these built in Australia or imported from the US? I’m assuming imported.
They were CKD like the fullsizers. It’s been mentioned here before, but the 1959 fullsizer was assembled in oz till 61 in Fairlane guise, and subsequently became known as the ‘tank Fairlane’. The intermediate was assembled from 1962 and as Bryce states, became known as the ‘compact Fairlane.’ In 65 the Galaxie was added into the range and CKD here from 65-69, then fully imported with steering swapped here (IIRC) till end of 1972.
Thanks for the clarification. ‘Tank Fairlane’; very apt.
Locally assembled likely from Canada, NZ didnt even have Falcon assembly untill 65, Ford NZ kept pace with the US/Canada model changes Aussie skipped years now and then.
Paul, you should’ve bought that Fairlane.
At least today, you can open the windows!
Happy Motoring, Mark
Another car which was regularly imported to Israel albeit in smaller numbers than the Falcon (neither sold that well – back then, that segment was owned by the locally-assembled Studebaker Lark). My father had a Wimbledon White 64 with the small six and three on the tree; even he, the frugal man that he was, had to admit it was too weak for that body. It was however reliable and gave good service, and after a while those horrible vinyl seats got cloth seat covers (Israel has the same weather as Southern Cali, if it explains anything).
Our 64. Those are my sister and granddad…
nice find…a big Mark 1 Cortina really…well, the Cortina is a small Fairlane I guess.
As a high school car guy, I liked the Ford Fairlanes in 1963. Don’t forget the Fairlanes offered wagons beginning this year (Ranch and Squire). My dad bought a ’65 2-door Fairlane 500 new and loved the car. I owned a nice ’65 Fairlane 500 in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. A very solid, well-built car whose wheels always appeared to be recessed under the fenders too far. Great rear seat leg room. Finally: what is the fetish with large diameter wheels? I’m going on record as saying flat out 14″ and 15″ wheels look fine. I ABSOLUTELY DESPISE LARGE WHEELS. In fact one of my reasons for buying base model cars (just purchased a 2017 Honda Fit LX) is the upper trim levels all have UGLY, larger diameter wheels. Years ago, I loved wheels. (wheels made the car). But not any more.
I think large diameter wheels can work well in fully exposed round wheel openings far better than they do on cars with irregularly shaped openings that can partially skirt the wheel/tire as many pre-80s cars do. 15s tend to look big to me on compact and intermediate cars of the 60s, but 15s on anything made in the last 10 years look comically bad.
Does anyone know why there was a Fairlane Squire in 1963 but not ’64 or ’65? There was a Falcon Squire every year from ’62 through ’65; in ’66 the Squire returned to the Fairlane and was gone from the Falcon.
I had the 63 Sport coupe. It was a 260 with a three on the tree transmission. It may or may not of been a “sport” but it had bucket seats and a console and that may of sealed the deal back in the day.
All I remember was that it was a real dog. It is painful to imagine what this car would of been like with a six and a automatic. Even with the 260 and a manual zero to sixty had to have taken at least 12 seconds, likely more.
I don’t think the larger 289 was much better. Even the so-called ‘high-performance’ version’s rating of 271 horsepower was optimistic and easy meat for the Chevy 283 and Chrysler 273.
The trade-off was exterior size. I always wondered why the Ford’s engine was chosen for installation in stuff like the AC Ace and Sunbeam Alpine and the answer was width; the Ford small-block was narrower than the competition and would fit more easily in small engine bays. In those lightweight applications, the horsepower disadvantage was not nearly as apparent as in much heavier domestic cars.
If equipped with the 260 V8 engine and NOT equipped with the dreadful, 2 speed Slushbox automatic tranny, this was a peppy, pleasant car to drive.
The interior was larger than the exterior would suggest; not all that much smaller inside than a full sized Ford.
That creamy, delicate hue of Ford “Wimbledon White” paint could be compound out and buffed to a beautiful color. Not icebox white, not beige, but somewhere in-between.
Ford just kept making the same car for almost 20 years and getting away with it. The 1962-65 Fairlane, 1966-69 Falcon, 1971-77 Maverick sedan, and the 1975-80 Granada all spec out within a narrow range of each other in basic dimensions. You could also toss in the earlier Falcons and the Maverick coupes, but they were really aimed at a different market; they were not sold as intermediates or “expanded compacts.”
My dad looked at a Fairlane similar to this at the (now defunct) Kibsgard Motors in Findlay, Ohio.
For some reason, in 1968 or so he decided to work a mutli-vehicle trade with the dealer. He traded a ’36 Ford panel truck, a ’47 Packard, and a ’40 Packard (and probably money too) toward a car of his choosing from their used-car lot.
He ended up with an early ’60’s Renault Dauphine, of all things…
Here you go, Dan (June 1968 ad)–not that I doubted you :
Somehow it didn’t load–let’s try again:
Here’s their ad a week earlier (6/15/68), with–presumably–his Renault still on the lot (gone in the 6/22 ad I first posted):
Oh dear.
Something odd about where the front right fender and the front passenger door come together. Yet, everything looks correct from the wheel well to the bumper. Is this a replacement fender with no trim, from a Fairlane stripper of an even lower trim level? The pic of the Meteor above of the same vintage shows better lines of the door and fender coming together.
The front wheels on the “Merc” look too big though. Probably because the fenders are “relatively short”.
Got to love the CC effect! I just popped into the local hardware store and there was one of these parked outside, first one I’ve seen in a while. New Zealand-new RHD, original condition, dark blue, V8 with manual transmission. Nice to see, but I’ve never been a fan of the styling – especially the too-small wheels.
I can smell those gloves from here.
My dad, a former Naval aviator, just turned 87. But looking at that ’63 Fairlane … going back to 1964, when I was all of 5 years old and my parents were in their 20s, they got a ’63 Fairlane Ranch Wagon likely in early 1964. Mom had it with the Peugeot 203 sedan that dad had, because it broke down always when dad was at sea (he was flying E!B Tracers on the USS Enterprise); in Norfolk, VA there was one place that could fix a French car and it was across town. She demanded having a car that could be fixed at any gas station. It was a light beige, dark brown interior, 3-on-tree, likely a six (neither of my parents ever drove in a rush). Mom could muscle through the shifting with vigor. (After we got the Ford, dad first got a 1948 Plymouth sedan as a base beater, and later a ’59 MGA as his cool car). I can remember: mom got rammed by another military car while on the RI base (we were close to the docks, those ships were BIG) and crumped the R rear fender, which the Navy repaired; dad coming up to the car in his navy khakis; the drive from RI to FL with a stop at a Howard Johnson’s; my kitty cat had free reign in the car but mostly slept on top of the luggage in the back (MushMouse was a champion traveler), and finally when we had it in FL the rust issues became readily apparent: the rear quarter panels and the rocker panels had not just rusted but gaping holes I could stick my hand through. Mom parted ways with the Ranch Wagon after dad left the Navy, and we moved (back) to Atlanta when dad joined up with Delta Air Lines. My mom’s father was well connected enough to get a trade-in for it, and around the time my parents divorced in 1969 mom got a 1965 Dodge Dart which served us for 10 years. It was in the later years because of those vestigial fins that I could identify it as a ’63. The 1960s were a time that now seems long ago. Other than the rust, mom probably would have held onto the car for longer–both parents were notorious for hanging onto cars for long periods until the wheels were ready to fall off. I don’t remember the Ford being a problem car for mom. I don’t remember the Peugeot at all.
My dad was retired from his mil career five years by the time I came along. (1960).
We never had a “Ford” until “1971”, when my two , older brothers bought a used “Fairlane”.
Was a “67”, hardtop coupe; high miles and “well worn”.
It ran well though. In the hot weather, smelled of gasoline.
In those days though, lots a cars did. Fuel wasn’t too well refined then.
Think we had it two and a half years.Got replaced by a “70 VW fastback”.
Not far off. The Fairlane was t have stacked headlights very like the new 65 Galaxie. In profile, you can see it. Last minute Decisions removed the Vertical lights as the comet had them and Ford wanted both cars to look different, so the hapahazard horizontal light front was forced on to fenders lines already finalized for verticals. The body colored surrounds in the headlight bezels did not help. Odd, considering in 66 Falrlane and Comet shared much more than vertical headlights, That lookalike cousins thing getting stronger every year thereafter.
I have first hand knowledge of owning a ’62 Fairlane. I graduated from high school in 1966 and planned to commute 20 miles to college in the fall. My Dad thought it would be a good idea for me to buy a newer car that got decent gas mileage. So, I found a nice ’62 Fairlane two door and my trusty ’55 Ford V8 ( ironically, also a Fairlane) was sold to a friend. The Fairlane was in great shape and looked nice with its dark blue finish. The weak point, however was the 170 engine. Not a good engine for an 18 year old car guy! I treated my ’55 well, but I also ran it hard. That 272 Y block gave me zero mechanical problems in the year and a half I drove it. The Fairlane was another story. Six months later while running late to pick up my date in another town I spun a bearing and had to have the Ford dealer in the town where it broke down put it back together. This included having the crank turned along with the rebuild. A little over a year later while attending college in Indianapolis I burned a hole in a piston. I couldn’t afford a professional rebuild and hadn’t yet developed the skills to do it myself, so I took it to a trade school for repair. Unfortunately, no one bothered to check the crankshaft with a micrometer and they installed stock rod bearings. About 10 miles out on recently opened I 70 the oil pressure went away and it started hammering. I ended up hitchhiking the 100 miles home. The school took it back and fixed it for me. I quickly decided I needed something with a more durable engine. I didn’t shop around much but settled on a four year old 1964 Galaxie two door hardtop in light blue. It had a 289 and was a really pretty car. Looks can be deceiving, though. Sometime when appropriate I will recount my experience with that turd. By the way, my Grandpa had an identical ’62 Fairlane that he bought new. It was green inside and out being the only difference. He drove it mostly to church and on trips as he drove a pickup the rest of the time. As I said, it was owned by Grandpa and it lasted him 20 years with very little problems. While I still owned the Fairlane my brother bought a ’65 Fairlane with a 289. No comparison between the two cars except his was also dark blue and a two door.
My Grandfather on my Dad’s side had a ’63 Fairlane up until he replaced it with a new ’72 Chevy Biscayne. His was robin’s egg blue, 4 door, automatic.
If I’m not recalling from more than 50 years ago when he had it, it had a strip speedometer rather than circular one shown. Wonder if they had different instrument panels that year?
My Dad had the 2nd of his 2 Ramblers, a ’63, when my Grandfather bought the Fairlane. His Rambler was totalled in June 1965 in front of our motel, someone waved him to turn left into the motel on route 40 in Catonsville but the person in the other lane didn’t agree.
He replaced it with a ’65 Olds F85. By 1969, he moved over to Ford and bought a new Country Squire.
I remember my Grandfather telling me that he thought the Fairlane was “too light” in that it was susceptible to high winds or something, maybe that’s why he bought a full sized Biscayne as his next car. My Grandmother (who never learned to drive) had the idea that all small cars were sports cars, which included the ’74 Datsun 710 I had as my first car I guess.