(first posted 10/16/2013) In order to justify my headline, I have to make a few disclaimers and qualifications: by “compact”, I mean the Big Three’s low-end economy compacts that arrived in 1960-1962 with their little six cylinder engines. The Studebaker Lark always offered a V8, but then the Lark was more of an “intermediate” given its width, being just a shortened “regular” Studebaker. And the upscale 1961 B-O-P “compacts” were also closer to intermediate size, with their 112″ wheelbases.
That leaves the Falcon, Valiant, Chevy II, and Rambler American, designed in response to the imports and the 1958 recession, conceived as true economy cars with sixes only. But that all changed quickly, in response to the 1960½ Corvair Monza coupe, which turned the compact into a sporty car. Ford, often a market leader, had to play catch up, and in the spring of 1963, they began to offer the Windsor 260 CID V8 in the Falcon. That deft move quickly opened up a whole new category.
The ultra-compact and light Windsor V8 made its first appearance in the 1962 Fairlane, in 221 CID form, making 145 hp. By midyear 1962, the 260 inch version rated at 164 hp was introduced on the Fairlane 500 Coupe as well. Obviously, the Windsor V8 was designed initially for the Fairlane, as well as with an eye to a future larger version (289) to replace the very obsolete 292 Y-block in the full size cars and trucks. But did Ford plan for its use in the Falcon all along?
But the 1962 Corvair Spyder (CC here), with its 150 hp turbocharged engine changed the equation, and in a very profound way. Suddenly, the performance compact had truly arrived, and would herald a new age, including of course the Mustang.
Its true that the 1960 and 1961 Valiant offered a very hot HyperPak version of the 170 CID slant six, making a formidable 148 hp. But that engine was really developed for racing, which allowed the Valiants to dominate the new NASCAR compact class (full story here), with their 130 mph top speed. The HyperPak was an insider’s hot tip, but never marketed, and its take rate was undoubtedly minute.
The Falcon Sprint arrived in the spring of 1963, as part of Ford’s 1963½ Total Command Performance blitz, which included the new semi-fastback roof lines on the Falcon as well as the big Ford. The Sprint, with the 260 V8, was put to the test in the Monte Carlo Rally to burnish its performance credentials, although not with the wire wheel covers and whitewalls as shown here in this ad.
But the 260 V8 was also available across the board in the Falcon series, which really rather transformed it, given its 2300-2400 lb weight. This Futura coupe has a three-speed on the tree, much more preferable than the two-speed Fordomatic. With their light weight, these V8 falcons scooted right along, despite the 260 having only a two barrel carb.
The competition couldn’t be left behind, of course. The 283 V8 found its way (officially) in the 1964 Chevy II (CC here).
And the timing of Chrysler’s new 273 CID LA engine in 1964 was auspicious, giving the Valiant (and Dodge) some additional scoot. The Chevy II, with the available four-barrel 220 hp 283 had them all beat, since the Falcon kept the 260 into 1964, although its possible/likely that the 289 made it into Sprints later that year.
Of course, the rest is well-known history. The definition of performance cars changed very quickly within just a few short years. Prior to the 1963.5 Falcon V8, it was the big full-size cars that carried the banner. The shrunken 1962 full/mid-size Dodge and Plymoputh showed the obvious: that a smaller and lighter body had intrinsic advantages. This was of course then exploited fully by the 1964 Pontiac GTO, and then the performance versions of the pony cars.
But the V8 compacts carved out a substantial niche as the cheapest way to get big-bore performance. The Chevy II/Nova carried that banner most successfully, offering big-block 396s with up to 375 (underrated) hp. And the Dodge Dart GTS had a 383 on tap. But the big-block compact era was short lived, and just as well. The introduction of Chrysler’s 340 V8 in 1968 soon changed the balance of power (and front/rear weight ratio).
That came to its greatest success in the 1970 Duster 340 (CC here), a veritable giant killer. Of course, the V8 compact was an ephemeral construct, and as their replacements either swelled or shrunk, the original idea soon enough became mostly irrelevant. But in its time, it offered unbeatable performance for the buck, and the Falcon gets the credit for launching the genre.
The first generation Falcons with the 260 V8 were pretty quick. My cousin (actually her husband) had one of these, it was a four door, white (naturally) with 3 on the tree and a very plain interior. I never got to drive it but rode in it enough to realize that it had good performance. It seemed noticeably quicker than bigger cars with much bigger engines. Compared to the full size Ford my dad drove (223 6 with automatic), it was a veritable rocket ship. These cars are pretty easy to keep running even today, nearly all of the mechanical bits from the first Mustangs bolt right on.
Even better and I’ll show you soon later model 86/7 Falcon running gear bolts right in.
The Studebaker platform was fairly compact, e.g., the Lark’s width was 71.4 inches, which was close to the 70-inch width typical for compacts. Mid-sized cars tended toward 74 inches.
The Studebaker’s weight was on the high side for a compact: A base 1963 two-door sedan Lark weighed 2,610 pounds compared to 2,305 for the Falcon, 2,472 for an American, 2,530 for a six-cylinder Chevy II, and 2,515 for the Valiant. In contrast, the mid-sized Classic weighed 2,720 pounds and the Fairlane 2,815.
The main reason the Lark could be considered mid-sized was because 1) its high-end models played in that price range, and 2) the 113-inch wheelbase on its four-door models had unusually good leg room. Shoulder room, not so much.
The full-sized car they were cut down from must’ve been awfully narrow then.
It was. Apparently, one of the problems of the South Bend plant was its assembly lines could not accommodate ever-widening cars, so the full-size Studes of the ’50’s were relatively narrow compared to the competition.
Chopping off overhang actually improved the proportions of the standard cars.
Nice,the V8 Falcon had quite a bit of success on British race tracks and showed everyone Detroit made fast cars that went round corners as well as in a straight line.
KiwiBryce is going to have a fit when he reads that. 😉
No hes not that little V8 or more importantly the beefed up front suspension is what saved Falcon out this way finally it could cope with the local roads, all ours got 5 stud wheels if Aussie assembled but NZ still got some junky Canadian versions we didnt get the V8 engine in it though so it was still slow as a wet week but it didnt fall apart.
By 63 Ford had nearly fixed their feeble NA offering but it took till 65 and a lot of publicity and some record making to convince the public it was any good, it took a new body in 66 to fit the 289 and make them go but a Falcon won Bathurst in 66 and that put some in driveways
Sorry to correct you Bryce but I think you’ll find a Mini won Bathurst in 66. A Falcon won in 67.
Dad had to have a new front end put in his ’62 around ’65, using the later parts. The Ford dealer did a lot of those. The ’67 that replaced it had no problems.
When going over a bump with a lot of wheel travel particularly with the wheels turned (like entering or exiting the driveway) the family ’63 Falcon would make a “gronk” sound from the front suspension. I heard it on a first generation Mustang and also a Fairlane back then.
Competing in the Monte Carlo Rally in 1963 was a major milestone for the 1963 Falcon Sprint that probably did a lot to put the Falcon on the map in Europe. I noticed that the Falcon Sprint received some attention from the British classic car press back in the 1980s, and memory of the Monte Carlo Rally entry and the racing usage in the UK that Gem mentioned must account for it.
Here is a good online article about the Monte Carlo Rally entry: http://www.westcoastfalcons.com/scff/histriv/rally1.htm
Falcons can still be seen winning in classic races today.
I do wonder if it was the cars specially built for the Monte Carlo Rally that subsequently ended up in the BTCC . Certainly the race cars were very special lightweight models, and too quick for the racing Mustangs.
Alan Mann ran the Falcons on the Monte Carlo and later in touring car racing. They were homologated at very low weights, I can’t recall if the figure might have been 1900 or 2000lb, but perhaps lower than it was possible to reach.
There is a 1964 Sprint currently raced locally by Jim Richards, the class is not ‘historic’ any more which is why his 289 puts out around 550hp.
Don’t forget though, Holman and Moody also assisted with the 63 race and had 427 powered Econolines as support vehicles that were faster than the Falcon’s.
It is interesting how similar the steps in displacement were on the Windsor V8 vs. the decade older Studebaker V8. The Ford went from 221 to 260 to 289 to 302.
The Stude went from 232 to 259 to 289 to 304. It was obviously a generation older and thus quite a bit heavier, but the sizes line up quite well.
The 260 was certainly not around long, maybe 2 years (1963-64?). The Turbo Corvair was very close in power, but then (as now) there is just something about the effortless torque of an American V8 that turbocharged smaller engines cannot match.
There was also a Studebaker 224 cid V8. It showed up briefly in 1955 Commanders, but was replaced by the 259 at the same time the sedans adopted a wraparound windshield in January of 1955. It stuck around in trucks through 1957.
I had a 64 Futura convertible (non-Sprint) with the 260 V8 and the 4-speed. What a great car — wish circumstances had allowed me to keep it. Traded for a 68 Valiant with the 273 V8 and Torqueflite. It was very different in feel from the Falcon but another smooth and fast ride. They would make a nice stable if I had them both now!
When I see one of these around, a few times a year, I think “Cheapskate” or “Lunatic”.
We had a Ford loving cheapskate neighbor who had one of the first falcons, white or beige, I saw it in the garage most of the time. It was a super stripper, it had no radio when he bought it, just a heater. 3 speed on the column, my dad snickered about it all the time, saying, “I’d rather walk than drive that thing!”.
The lunatic part of it is due to one of my teachers in grade school began to suspect his wife was fooling around on him. She wasn’t, she was actually trying to get some help for him as he had begun acting even more strangely than he “normally” did. The teacher went and bought some device the printed every number called onto a calculator tape, and the principal’s direct number was called repeatedly, and he went off the deep end. He called the principal up, told him he was on his way to blow his head off. His wife tried to stop him, but she failed and he took his double barreled shotgun and jumped into his white over black Falcon and went off to murder the guy he thought was messing with his wife. The cops intercepted him just before he got to the school, and carted him off to the looney bin for a while. His wife and kid left him and he was done teaching. I wondered what happened to him after that. A few years ago, I punched his name into google and one of the mug shot pages came up, with his mugshot from 2006 from his arrest for beating the poor woman who was dopey enough to marry him.
I thought I had some strange teachers!One of my Maths teachers had a spell of living in the bus station drinking metal polish.Dad had 2 stripper Falcons,his first of 4 American cars, plain vanilla 6 cylinder white 4 door sedans.My parents would save a bit by buying cars in unpopular colours(green/brown/beige) when getting new ones.As kids we felt like film stars when dropped off at school in the Falcon.
That is the funniest damn oddball story ever conjured up from the memory of a car. Life: a black absurd comedy of errors.
We can add also to the list some more muscled compacts like the Yenko Nova done by Don Yenko who put a 427ci under the hood and AMC who let the Rambler American going out with a bang with the help of Hurst with the SC/Rambler.
A mention of Jay Leno’s Monte Carlo 63 Falcon should be mentioned. People realized a Falcon WAS collectible, if they hadn’t already. I had a 64 Sprint back in 1987. 260/2spd auto converted to a warmed over 289/4 spd manual….with the correct tranny hump and shifter.
“The Chevy II/Nova carried that banner most successfully, offering big-block 396s with up to 375 (underrated) hp. And the Dodge Dart GTS had a 383 on tap. But the big-block compact era was short lived, and just as well. The introduction of Chrysler’s 340 V8 in 1968 soon changed the balance of power (and front/rear weight ratio).”
It always puzzled me why Ford didn’t do a HiPo Falcon. A 428CJ would fit. A 4bbl 302, BOSS 302, or as the Aussies did VERY well a 351….all would have been competition for the 396/350/383/440/340s. Muscle Car Classics did find a Canadian HiPo 289 1965 2 door sedan though.
Maybe Ford didn’t want to cannibalize sales from the Mustang/Torino/Cobra. Maybe it was a reflection of the original McNamara “practicality” nature of the Falcon.
Big blocks don’t fit in the early Falcons (through ’65), after that I guess they had given up on it?
In 1969, Ford Australia boss Bill Bourke had his 1969 Falcon GT shipped to the US where a 428 Cobra Jet was installed.
When your the boss, you can do what you want.
Somewhere, this black beauty still lives.
Later cars were wider than the early Falcon. I assume the ’66 and later U.S. Falcon (which structurally was sort of a cut-down Fairlane) could take an FE engine just as the ’67 and later Mustang can, although it doesn’t do much for the handling and you need Plastic Man (or telekinesis) to change the plugs.
And you had to change the plugs a lot back in the pre-electronic ignition days. The 1966 Falcon wasn’t just sort of a cut-down Fairlane but exactly that, making it mostly redundant and leading to its demise.
I saw a ’63 Falcon Sprint (probably) V8 at a dealer back then and it if I remember correctly it had a 3 speed Cruiseomatic, not a Fordomatic. I paid particular attention because the family car was a 63 Falcon Fordomatic six.
The 383 left no room for a servo or power steering under an A body.Not a good idea with that extra weight.Any power gain on paper was almost lost as the headers had to be made to fit and that cut power.In the real world an average driver in a 340 could outrun a 383 as it was much easier to launch the car without smoking the tyres.Despite being not much bigger capacity wise the 383 was a bigger,heavier engine which put too much weight over the front wheels.
This might be splitting hairs, but, technically, there ‘was’ a 428CJ Falcon. Ford’s entire line-up of engines was available in the little known 70 1/2 Torino-based Falcon 2-door post. It was the real follow-up to the cheap 1969 Cobra that was intended to do battle with the Plymouth Roadrunner. While there was a 1970 Cobra, too, it had gotten more expensive and moved upmarket.
For the best bang-for-the-buck from Ford in 1970, the hot ticket was 428CJ Falcon.
I own a 1963 Sprint right now — they are not quick by today’s standards (I also have a 2009 Mustang GT), but those Sprints sure are fun!
I would like to learn more about the “Six Special Speed Runs” at the 1963 Monte Carlo Rally. I understand the Falcon Sprint won all six special speed runs that year, but I can not find any information on exactly what they were.
Ive had a few 63.5 and 64 – 65 falcons. The 260 was a great run forever engine . And in the 63.5 with a 4 speed and aftermarket intake and 500cfm 4 barrel the car was wicked quick to 130 mph . I then had a 64 sprint with a 289 and auto that was very quick as well. But my 65 with a transplanted 410 hp 351w \ tremec 5 speed and 3.73 geared 8.8 and 4 wheel disc with shelby drop and big sway bars, coil over’s and 60 series dunlops is the funnest car ive ever had including my 07 Shelby GT\SC
My grandma bought her Rangoon Red ’63 Falcon Futura hardtop brand-NEW with rare factory gray/or silver interior (as a whole) not just a inslet trim! also had 260 v-8 and automatic.
I couldn’t find anywhere on internet to see if OTHER ’63 Falcon has same color (gray/silver bucket seat) with console?
Thank for the help
David
From the 1963 Falcon brochure, FWIW (oldcarbrochures.com):
The Pontiac/Olds/Buick compacts had V8 power in ’61, and the Olds was turbocharged in ’62 and ’63.
Indeed the Olds was turbocharged, but the compression ratio north of 10:1 blew those engines up in pretty short order. 🙂
Their problem wasn’t blowing up from detonation, generally — Olds went to really elaborate lengths to prevent that (water injection!). The issue was more the opposite: disuse gumming up the works, leaky gaskets, and owners not paying attention to the fluid injection supply. (If the fluid reservoir dropped too low, it would trip the wastegate open, so you’d have the drag of the turbine, but no boost, leaving the engine basically breathing through a straw.) You were also starting to push your luck on the torque capacity of some of the driveline components.
I meant my comment more of an overall problem with early turbocharged systems rather than straight detonation doing the engines in, but then again, I didn’t word it as such. 🙂 Good info, though–I always enjoy your comments and knowledge. The Turbo Jetfire had such potential (as did the turbo’d Corvair), but I think that the automakers had found out that people just generally want cubic inches, and also something with less maintenance. I can only imagine how many people forgot to re-fill the injection fluid (or just straight out didn’t care) and all the retrofits to carbs (I believe at no charge?) scared people away from innovative solutions to the power/ economy concerns. Early fuel injected engines likely had the same effect on people……plagued with problems before they were really durability tested.
One minor quibble: the Nova’s 220HP 283 wasn’t the top dog for compacts. Chrysler offered the Dart (and the Valiant , at least in Canada) with the 273 V8…base was a 180HP 2bbl engine, but the top offering was the 235HP Commando–which used a 4bbl carb, more compression & cam, an unsilenced chrome air cleaner, and an unusual performance SINGLE exhaust, with chrome tip & straight-through muffler.
Interestingly, the 273s used solid lifters to 1967.
All of my sources say that the 235 hp 273 didn’t arrive until 1965. By then, the Chevy II was available with the 300hp 327.
The Car Life review of the introduction of the 273 to the Dart (April 1964), which discusses the new engine in some detail, speculates about whether Chrysler was going to add a 4V version, but describes the 180-hp 2V as the only version currently available. Since the 273 was a mid-year introduction (January 1964) and I’ve never seen any indication that the 273/235 was available on the 1964 Barracuda — which would be the logical place for it — I think Paul’s right.
The whole compact V8 musclecar evolution is fascinating. It might have began with the Corvair Monza, which begat the V8 Falcon, but while the Mustang took away the Falcon Sprint’s thunder, it also left GM and Chrysler (specifically Dodge) with little choice but to bump up the V8s in their compacts until their ponycars were ready. That’s how stuff like the 1966 Nova L79 (Corvette 327), 1967 Dart 383, 1968 Dart 340, and 1969 Dart 440 came to pass.
The real anomalies are the 1968 Nova 396 and 1970 Duster 340. I have no doubt that Chrysler looked at how GM seemed to continue to get by with hot Novas while the Camaro was in production and figured the Duster 340 would have the same, minimal impact on sales of the new 1970 E-bodies. Boy, did they call that one wrong. Ford played the hot compact versus ponycar game a whole lot better by never building another ‘hot’ compact after the Mustang hit the scene.
The origins of the Duster are kind of fascinating because it was an ultra-cheapo (tooling-wise) afterthought to try to make the Valiant more salable to people younger than middle-age schoolteachers. Nobody at Chrysler-Plymouth was expecting it to take off the way it did. It wasn’t just the 340 (since obviously they’d tried to sell that in the Dart, Valiant, and Barracuda with negligible result). A 318 Duster was quicker, more wieldy, and a bunch cheaper than a 318 E-body, which, considering that a lot of pony car buyers went for base-V8-auto-radio-p/s-p/b, ended up being a big issue.
I would be willing to wager that the Duster came about because the more powerful Dodge division didn’t want to give up their Dart hardtop to Plymouth for 1970. So, someone at Plymouth was able to come up with the Duster for very little coin to replace the quite dowdy Valiant 2-door post sedan. Who knew it would kill not only the E-body, but cannibalize more than a few Roadrunner/Charger sales, as well. The price difference between a similarly equipped Duster and Barracuda was something on the order of $600. That was nothing to sneeze at in 1970. In effect, someone could get a very nicely equipped Duster for the same price as a totally stripped Barracuda.
I would imagine the failure of the similar scheme for the obviously Valiant-based 1964 Barracuda was still fresh in some Chrysler execs’ minds and they figured, at best, Duster sales would be similarly low. But the Duster ended up coming off with much better styling than the original Barracuda, and the rest, as they say, is history. In fact, for the first couple years, the Duster 340 actually used the ’67-’69 Barracuda’s full instrument cluster (as did the same years’ Dart Swinger/Demon 340, but that was more of a carryover).
And, as stated, it’s not like the Duster with a 318 was a slouch, either. Who could forget the Duster ‘Twister’ appearance package that effectively turned a non-340 Duster into a lookalike.
The only problem was that, along with the extensive R&D costs for the new E-body, the Duster was a whole lot less profitable than the other, more expensive cars.
I think that you hit the nail on the head there, Rudiger, in that Ford wisely did not poach sales from their own stable. I suppose that the Torino Cobra Jet and the Mercury Cougar were enough competition, but there was no hot Maverick, for example….the Ford/ Mercury/ Lincoln divisions made sure that there was no cheap, affordable entry level option to compete with the Mustang, and the Cougar had fairly quickly aligned itself as the brother/ sister car to the Thunderbird.
Hmmm. maybe a small V8 would fit somewheres in one of my Festivas.
Having done/assisted on more than a few engine swaps, I have some opinions on a comparison between the Chevy SBC/Ford Windsor/Chrysler LA small blocks. When putting a V8 into a compact, I always thought the Ford had some advantages. Not in the performance department or the cost department, but in size & weight.
The Windsor and the LA were physically small engines. Width – a critical dimension in small V8 compacts, was about 2″ less than the SBC. The LA was just a bit taller than the Ford. One reason the Windsor is a popular engine swap is the packaging advantage afforded by its compact dimensions
The LA may have been close in size to the Windsor, but it couldn’t match the weight advantage. Both the SBC and the LA were about 100 pounds heavier than the Windsor and brought the baggage of extra weight to their respective compacts.
Luckily for GM & Chrysler, their compact car lines had more robust front suspensions than the early Falcons. Ford did upgrade the suspension on the first V8 Falcons, but the starting point wasn’t a very robust design.
While all of those small blocks could be made to perform quite well, cost of mods was always an issue. Ford seemed to handicap their designs more than Chevy or Chrysler by introducing changes that hindered parts compatibility.
By comparison, SBCs were a model of backwards part compatibility. This characteristic helped give the SBC a cost advantage. Chrysler LA parts interchangeability was better than Ford – perhaps even as good as the SBC. However it didn’t enjoy the same economics as the SBC.
Those economics were driven by their respective introductions. It took Ford 7 years after the SBC to introduce a competitive engine. The darn Chrysler poly lasted so long that Chrysler didn’t have a competitive small block until 9 years after the SBC.
Part prices reflected that scarcity and neither the Windsor or the LA could ever touch the SBC in that regard.
I once made a living fixing Fords and I favor them. Even so, I have to salute Chevy for getting their first V8 so “right” out of the gate. I’ve also owned a few Chryslers over the years. I’ve always been impressed by their engineering. Even so, they really took way too long to introduce the LA. By the time it came into volume production, the window for high performance American compacts was close to closing.
My opinion for what its worth.
like an american v8 mkI cortina, doubtless it would have handled just as badly
Wouldn’t the “power” of a V8 just vibrate a “Cortina” into pieces. They were not “sturdy” as i recall.
Hope that poor , little, white, coupe lived on. ((all or in parts)) Looks soo sad in the ‘long ago, pics.))
I just turned up a new-to-me Ford film of the Falcons doing the Monte Carlo Rally………at last, I get to see things in color (and I had no idea that there were any women driving for Ford!): https://archive.org/details/ZMOwGq4xhF7mdVXOBvdkOB2CRd177z