(first posted 6/7/2018) If you’re one of our younger (or even middle-aged) readers and don’t readily recognize this car, you’re forgiven. It’s about as dull and anonymous as it gets for a 1960s car, a decade renowned for its iconic designs. This poor Fairlane was the wallflower in Ford dealers that year, when the Mustang totally stole the show, and the new full-sized Fords were the other big hit. Who would possibly be attracted to a black stripper Fairlane sedan; other than my dad, that is?
Those of you who have been around a while will know that a black stripper ’62 Fairlane played an influential role in my early years. If not, you can read all about it here. To make a long story short, it was our first new car in America, and it was mostly a good car, except for some certain very unpleasant experiences encountered within. As in all 6¾ of us (Mom was heavily pregnant) stuck (literally) on its clear plastic seat covers, crammed together for a three day drive to New York and back in the hot and humid August of 1964. Some of us were never quite the same after that trip (I’m thinking of my older brother’s nose).
Yes, old black Fairlane sedans do trigger a bit of PTSD, but I can put it aside for this ’65, as it looks vaguely different enough from the all-new ’62. Different, in that it was shorn of its little finlets, given a vague suggestion of a Pontiac-esque rear hip, and a new squared off front end and generic grille. And very un-Ford-like rectangular tail lights. Where did those come from? Obviously all the exterior panels were new, but it was hard not to see the original hiding underneath.
Not surprisingly, Fairlane sales hit a low point this year of 224k units, close to half of what the Chevelle sold, and less than the other GM A Bodies, except for tying the F-85/Cutlass.
The odd pointy ends of the front fenders are a bit curious. Well, let’s just say that given how tied up Ford’s top stylists were with the Mustang and the Galaxie, it’s safe to assume that the job of restyling the ’65 Fairlane must have been given to the second (or third) stringers. Or maybe the interns.
The grille is a puzzler, as it seems to have very little family resemblance. The whole thing was of course just a place-holder, until the new ’66 Fairlane arrived, which did breathe some fresh air and life into that rather dull name.
There is a consolation in this car, and it’s under the hood. Ford’s gem of a small block 289 CID (4.7L) V8 was available, in three states of tune no less: 200 hp (2V carb, reg. gas) 225 hp (4V carb, premium gas), and the lovely K-code 271 hp solid lifter version that was the basis of the Cobra’s legendary success in its 289 form.
Our 1962 Fairlane had the very first year version of this soon-to grow family of engines, the 145 hp 221 CID baby of the family. Teamed with the two-speed Fordomatic, it was probably just about the slowest V8 car to be had in the US, but than that made it all the more appropriate for my dad.
In the summer of 1965, he finally broke down and realized the Fairlane sedan was too small for us, now that we were seven, two high-shoolers, and I was big for my age. So he went wagon shopping, but still stuck to intermediates. He naturally went to the Ford dealer first, who sent him to test drive a Fairlane 500 three-seat wagon. He brought it home, and I remember clambering all over it.
But he turned it down, because it had the 225 hp “Challenger Special” version of the 289, with the four barrel carb and a 10:1 compression ratio. Hardly the solid-lifter K-Code engine, which wasn’t even available in the wagons anyway, but he deemed it “too hot”, and took it back. It probably would have made a very nice power train with the Select-Shift three-speed automatic, but it was not to be.
A day or two later, my father took me along to look at Chrysler’s alternatives to the Fairlane, and after checking out the Belvedere and Coronet, he settled on the latter, a 440 series 3-seat wagon, with the 230 hp 318 “poly” V8 and Torqueflite. All in all, it was a better solution, even if the Coronet was also just a mildly face-lifted ’62 Dodge, also with one of the most generic grilles ever. Let’s just say the choice was not exactly between the two most handsome wagons of 1965.
This is what I had in mind for us. But then these happy and fun-loving folks were obviously the Not-Niedermeyers, and thus the real Niedermeyers were not worthy of such things.
Nor this. We didn’t do idyllic, peaceful settings like this either. Thus no Vista Cruiser.
If my dad had bought the Fairlane wagon, at least it would have been in the deluxe 500 series, as that was the only way to get the 3-seat version. But if he had known that my sister was going to bail out of moving to Baltimore at the very last minute (three days before moving day), and since she’s just turned 18 and there was nothing my dad could do about it, he might well have bought another stripper ’65 Fairlane sedan. But it would have had to be an automatic, as he wasn’t willing to take the time to try to teach my mother how to shift a manual. Just as well.
I should point out that although the Coronet (and Belvedere) were positioned as mid-size cars in 1965, they were clearly closer to full size cars in their interior accommodations. The increase in living space, never mind the wagon’s third seat, was quite noticeable. The Fairlane had essentially been a Falcon stretched a couple of inches each way, but the Coronet started out as a space-efficient full-size competitor in 1962. The difference was quite apparent. Good call, Dad!
When we moved to Baltimore, my dad needed a second car for his long commute to John Hopkins. He bought a ’65 Opel Kadett, which ended up not satisfying him very much. He’d probably have been much happier if he’s bought another black Fairlane stripper instead, and with a three-speed manual so he could indulge his true inner self.
When he ditched the Opel after three short years, he did almost just that, buying himself a stripper ’68 Dodge Dart, with the little 170 slant six and three-on-the-tree. Just the ticket for a neurologist at Johns Hopkins.
The ’65 Fairlane may be the most forgotten American car of the 60s. And so it was for the Niedermeyers, as we passed on one too, thanks to its “too hot” engine.
This is my second stab at the the ’65 Fairlane; my first, a Sports Coupe (“The Failane”), is here.
Have to agree here. The ’65 Fairlane was probably the least interesting and most generically styled car of the 1960s. The only oddity about the Fairlane was the body-color rectangular plates surrounding the headlights. They looked peculiar in a light color. Perhaps black paint would have helped.
However, the ’65 Fairlane nose did seem to influence the German 1969 Ford Taunus 26M.
Rather like the ’65 Vauxhall Cresta too (photo taken in 1981):
1965 Ford Fairlane 4 k code car….
I’ve never noticed the body colored bezels before. Pics on the web show a mix of body color, argent and black. The ’65 brochure doesn’t appear to be available on line, so perhaps there was a running change or it varied by trim level.
The police brochure does, however show the base Fairlane (which the feature car appears to be) with argent bezels (along with the exaggerated width!).
I always saw the 65 Fairlane as the stylists being given an impossible assignment: “OK guys, your job is to take this early 60s Fairlane and turn it into a miniature 65 Galaxie 500.” Yeah, right.
The grille, the forward-thrust of the front end, the squared-off taillights (though turned sideways) and even the dash panel. I had never paid attention to the dash panel in these but it really did channel the big Ford.
Two mysteries here: Why did the Mercury get the vertically stacked headlights instead of the Ford, as that look would have really brought home the “mini Galaxie” vibe they were shooting for. Also, I never got the side trim (like on that wagon) that looked like a return to the 62 Fairlane (which was, in turn, a repeat of the 57 Fairlane). That trim made the car look suddenly 3 years old.
On that higher level Fairlane 500 side trim, Studebaker had used a look like that in 62 to hide a ridge pressed into the doors that had been a legacy from years before. But with all new sheetmetal on the Fairlane, that style of trim just looked old-fashioned for no reason. A straight line would have been more in line with the look of the 65 big cars.
The stacked story, as per CA August 2001
Ahhh, thanks. Interesting stuff.
That’s certainly a GM-like, cost-conscious reason for the horizontal headlights of the ’65 Fairlane while the ’65 Comet got the stacked ones, when the full-sized Ford and Mercury cars of the same year were just the opposite. OTOH, if the situation had been reversed, I suppose the intermediate Mercury would have come off looking down-market in comparison.
The biggest problem with the Fairlane is the pointy, bladed, forward-cant front fenders. I guess the logic was Ford wanted to make the transition to the larger, stacked-headlight ’66 Fairlane smoother, but the those big-ass ‘eyebrows’ are just too out-of-place. It actually reminds me, a lot, of the front end of the fuselage 1969 Plymouth Fury.
The comparison of the ’65 Fairlane to the Dodge Custom 880 is apt. They’re both two of the most anonymous-looking cars built in the sixties.
This indeed is a very interesting read. I’m inclined to believe Shenk’s story, Mercury started it, Ford took it, and the smoking gun as far as I’m concerned is the statement that Ford’s desire for the division was to use European style rectangular headlights.
1) This is almost completely validated by the 65 Fairlane’s design itself, those odd rectangular pods that have seemingly no family design connection I’d wager are the correct size for the rectangular European lamps that would have been used, but because they never were federalized twin rounds were substituted in place – which by the way, Ford later did with the early SVO Mustangs almost 20 years later. – This would be a good photoshop opportunity.
2) Mercury was clearly chasing Pontiac, and were more of a direct competitor at that. The 65 Comet design was a virtual clone to the 65 Tempest/LeMans line, down to intricate detailing that couldn’t even possibly be coincidence. The later claim that the 65 Galaxie’s vertically stacked headlights were organic, and in no way cribbed from a preproduction Grand Prix is laughable. Clearly they had eyes into GMs studio for the 65 Comet, with styling that debuted the same exact year as the Pontiac they cribbed, yet we are supposed to believe a design with a significantly longer year lead time happened independently? Please…
The answer to the 1965 Fairlane/Comet conundrum might be summed up with three letters: LTD.
Consider how, for 1965, the lowliest Ford Custom got fresh, exciting, Pontiac-ish stacked headlights, while the full-size Mercurys, ostensibly Ford’s middle-tier GM B-O-P competitor, had to make do with now old-fashioned horizontal-oriented quads. Add in the new, up-market brougham-tastic LTD which was definitely encroaching into Mercury territory, and I’m sure there were more than a few Mercury dealers irate about the situation.
So, to placate them, Ford went with a mediocre-looking Fairlane and tossed Mercury a Tempest/Lemans clone Comet. IOW, Ford got a 1965 Bonneville, while Mercury got the GTO.
That would ignore the fact that all of these cars were released at the same time, unless Ford presumed Mercury dealers would be upset and planned ahead for that, but I cannot imagine any corporation would deliberately sabotage a car like the Fairlane, as the 65 Galaxie and LTD being hits weren’t even a sure thing yet.
More likely, Ford was perusing the design direction that made it to light in the 65 Fairlane for the big Ford’s as well, while Mercury chose to crib Pontiac since they were positioned in a similar market bracket. Ford division however (especially Lido) saw the forest for the trees when it came to Pontiac, that they struck a chord with the public, and likely lost faith in the intended 65 Fairlaneish design direction for the big Ford, and since Mercury already had a head start with it they simply repurposed it. The same thing happened with the 61 Continental, which was originally intended as a Thunderbird design.
The article claims the fenders were too far along into production to stop the Comet refresh, but then why not carry over the 1964 parts? They were only one year in production afterall, and had the “desired” side by side headlamps Bordinat wanted. And if Ford division wanted that stacked headlight styling language, why not then throw those tooled up 65 Comet fenders onto Falcon body and kill two birds with one stone, recouping the cost? I now believe the answer to both of those questions is that the Comet was a profitable hit for Mercury, and Ford the company knew not to let that car become uncompetitive and not have fresh hip styling. Same with the Galaxie, what was the stronger and more important car for Ford motor Company, the big Ford or the big Mercury? They used their aces on the important models.
I think it’s also possible the recollections of these guys is true, but jumbled. The Comet fenders that were already tooled up and had to be put into production may have actually been the FAIRLANE fenders. Like I said above, the Comet had a perfectly good side by side nose that could have used on the carried over bodyshell, the Fairlane however was all new, that is the car that would have had no option but to go with the undesired front end, not the Comet.
Just speculation, of course
There’s another wrinkle that I’d completely forgotten about, and that’s that the 1965 Fairlane and Comet were technically in two different size classes. The Fairlane was an intermediate whose closest Mercury stablemate wasn’t the Comet, but the Mercury Meteor. The 1965 Comet was still a Falcon-based compact.
I thought about this when looking at pictures of the earlier Comet and how much it resembled the Falcon. I mean, everything, from the side-sculpting to the fastback roof of the hardtop. Essentially, the 1965 Comet was a stacked-headlight version of the Falcon, unrelated to the Fairlane.
All this model confusion would definitely add to clouding the memory of those involved to recall exactly how the styling of the two cars ended up being so strangely different in relation to their full-size stablemates.
This was all resolved the next year when the Comet moved up to intermediate size and truly shared a chassis with the Fairlane, leaving the now quite dowdy Falcon Ford’s sole compact.
More from CA (Feb 99). Buzz Grisinger talks of the original 65 Mercury full-size proposal being nixed by Iacocca. That waterfall grille only needs a triangular cap. This was apparently cancelled so late in the program, the fender profile was kept with just the face made more conventional.
Is it just me or does the hidden headlight version look remarkably like what would become the 1969 Lincoln Mark III?
yep
My thoughts exactly, J.P. Vertically stack the headlights and the 65 Fairlane becomes an almost 2/3rd scale Galaxie. (I would guess that the headlights were horizontally oriented to maintain continuity with previous Fairlanes.) Oddly, the 65 Comet had the vertically stacked headlights while the “big” Mercury had horizontally oriented headlights.
As far as the idea that Mercury had been working on vertical headlamps for the Comet and Ford was working on horizontal headlights, would it really had been difficult to re-engineer the Ford for the Mercury fenders?
Perhaps they should have swapped the Fairlane’s front clip with that of the Comet…along with the taillights?
BTW, I felt ALL the 65 intermediates looked pretty dull, with the exception of the Pontiac. Yet, being a big Plymouth fan, I would have bought a 65 Belvedere in 65 if I had been old enough.
My theory: There was an earlier design proposal for the 1965 full size Ford and the Fairlane design was derived from it. Somewhere along the line the 65 Ford design was changed but Ford did not bother (or care) to revise the design of the 65 Fairlane. Of course the new design came in 66.
I thought the taillights of the Fairlane were similar to the full size LTD/Galaxie. Looking at it again, I see less of a resemblance. All in all, a fairly vanilla design meant to offend the least number of customers.
I am sure that these existed, and since I existed at the same time and was into cars, I must have seen
thousands, hundreds, dozensat least one of these in my lifetime, but I have zero memory of any. Mustangs, Galaxies, and even Falcons…. but nope, not these.I sure remember those classy Pontiac wagons though, and I still have a Vista Cruiser fetish.
Ah the Not-Niedermeyers. I do feel for you on that Paul, my family had uninteresting cars when I was a child too, although we did have a level of family fun that I look back on fondly.
It’s never too late to have a happy childhood though, in some ways at least. And I think you’ve done well in that respect.
And I forgot to mention the 65 Fairlane..
We managed to have plenty of fun too, just not in the company of my father. 🙂
While I can see it being ‘forgotten’, my neighbors had a ’65 Fairlane in the day. Also, I got an AMT model kit of one, since it was familiar. I added the ‘custom’* front grille, to make it look racier.
*AMT used to have “build one of 3 ways” 1/25th scale models, usually “stock, custom or drag racer”.
I loved those kits and always built them as customs. Here’s AMT’s custom version of the ’65 Fairlane. Sleek!
That’s it! I wish I still had it, but got lost in a move. I kept the rear stock, and added some drag racing decals, so it was a “custom/drag” car.
My inner-German demands organization, simplification and logic. As a librarian and programmer, there should be no surprises, even pleasant ones. The Fairlane, the Dart, the Coronet appeals to me because they are what they are. Driving is expensive and its purpose is to transport you from one place to another without malfunctioning. The idea of buying a car to impress strangers exposes you as an emotional individual that can be easily talked into a frivolity. We all need to put our priorities in order and driving around in a wagon with superfluous roof windows weakening it, exposing the interior to possible leaks, isn’t putting your priorities in order.
There is no reason to purchase an engine that lunges its occupants forward in any jarring manner. These engines cost more, waste fuel and causes excessive tire wear. You don’t light your cigarette with a blow torch, so why would it be in any way acceptable to put an overpowered engine in a vehicle?
I don’t want to be remembered as the guy who drove a car that overshadowed his role as a distinguished citizen in the community, a capable and caring father, or as a dutiful husband. I, and others I respect, will ensure that people purchasing these kinds of vehicles are mocked during personal private conversations.
So… this?
That is a bookmobile.
I don’t recall anywhere mentioning that the vehicle needs to carry large amounts of reading material.
Are you trying to be humorous?
If that was your intention, then yes, it was amusing.
Only if the books are correctly shelved according to the Dewey Decimal System. 🙂
You don’t light your cigarette with a blow torch, so why would it be in any way acceptable to put an overpowered engine in a vehicle?
Speak for yourself, I light my cigarettes off of carb backfires from overpowered engines!
Literally, laughed out loud at that.
Why do we do it? Because we can.
That would have described my dad, who came from German stock on both sides of his family. And this is a specimen of the car that he yearned for, and finally got in 1966, a Mercedes-Benz 190Db. And if other cars came to close, Dad could lay down a smoke screen as opaque as squid ink!
So you are saying that rollin’ coal is not a new thing? 🙂
You must be fun at parties…
Not forgotten by me though. My second grade teacher had the twin to this example down to the color in 1970. Her husband raced an AC Cobra and made the Fairlane her driver. She said he “souped it up” as we used to say with some engine mods and a four speed poked through the floor. What a ride it was!
If you think the Fairlane is dull – take a look at that year’s Chevelle. These cars were styled as second family cars. This means that they needed to compliment the garaged larger car, regardless of brand. A man with an Oldsmobile, Buick, Chrysler or Mercury will need a second car that visually says, “second car”. The Fairlane and Chevelle should appeal to a man who would buy a used car as a second car.
Buying one of these as the primary vehicle for a family was fine, but these cars were intended for ladies needing a more manageable size, or something new that could shuttle the six kids to Vacation Bible School.
Our neighbors had one, and I kept thinking “this is a lot bigger than a Falcon.” It surprised me when it became a one-year-only body–I figured Ford had given up on that. Some brochure copy:
Another page; my go-to is usually oldcarbrochures.com, but it’s always worth going to http://www.lov2xlr8.no, some Norwegian devotee with lots of old brochures and such:
What’s surprising is that there’s no Fairlane-specific brochure posted anywhere on the web.
Half of 12-page brochure viewable here (nice scans) on eBay–now to see if any sellers scanned the rest:
Photos, not scans, but at least every page viewable (’til it sells ): https://www.ebay.com/itm/1965-Ford-Fairlane-Catalog-Sales-Brochure-500-Wagon-Excellent-Original-65/273217480267?hash=item3f9d07e64b:g:9cMAAOSwAa5aj2ha:sc:USPSFirstClass!53094!US!-1
From the side profile, the Fairlane resembles the 1967 Plymouth Valiant.
I knew a gal in high school who drove one, probably a hand-me-down from a grandparent. By 1980, most 1965 cars were used up, so I can only assume it was a grandma-mobile. I mostly felt (and still feel) that it looked like a Rambler/AMC product, in a very generic-car way.
Another “anonymous” 60’s car is the ’64 Dodge Custom 880. Looks like a larger Rambler Classic, and ’64 Chevelle in front. Rear is out of this world.
Was one of the last domestic cars I learned about from that era, too.
I can remember the last 65 Fairlane that I saw. I need a cheap beater in 1982 or 83. On the side of the road was a yellow 4 door with a for sale sign on it. I pulled over to give it a look, thinking that this is a $200 dollar car on a good day. The car had no floors, completely rotted away. There was a huge puddle of oil under it. Getting closer, I could see the price, $500. I left, never to see a 65 Fairlane again.
The front end on these always reminds me of the kinds of front ends designed in like Argentina or Brazil for the cars that soldier on there long after they went out of production here.
The grille seems to be inspired by, but not as elegantly executed as, that of the 1964 full-sized Fords.
The ’65 Fairlane was 10 years too soon, it had Granada proportions. Ford saved the shell and reworked it, and voila, new ’75 Granada/Monarch.
Circa 1975 iirc, in the Navy, between cars, had ridden the bus into town with a friend. We were taking a shortcut thru a residential neighborhood, and sitting on the street with a ‘For Sale’ sign was a ’65 Fairlane 4 door. Knocked on the door, “How much?”, “$150″… “sold”. 289, 3 speed, AM radio and heater, basic transportation, new tires to boot. Seller was a retired minister. White with tan interior. As we drove away, my friend said “never seen anyone impulse buy a car before”. Reliable as the hammers of hell. Drove the wheels off it for the next year. Gave it to a friend when I got out of the Navy, and he blew it up 3 months later 🙁
They were also selling a 1950 Chevy 2 door ‘fastback’ for $100, which I told a friend about, and he bought that one. Unfortunately, he ran out of gas with it on the way to the base, and by the time he got a ride to get gas, and got back, some jackass had broken all the windows out of it. Jerks
Next door neighbor was an old TWA pilot, so very few miles were put on their car per year. Local errands and an eight mile commute to LAX a few times a month was it. He finally replaced the ’51 Ford convertible with a refrigerator white Fairlane tudor hardtop in ’65. That was his last car. At the time I thought it was extremely boring. My grandfather bought a turquoise Belvedere II sedan the same year. It was a bit more exciting.
Dad also bought a new station wagon in ’65, a very un-Niedermeyer Impala with the high-compression 4v Corvette 327. It had style and power. I drove the s**t out of it.
Ugh, vinyl seats on long trips. We rode in the back of a 69 Delta 88 between Cincinnati and Sanibel Island several times a year, on green vinyl seats and no a/c…my dad claimed it gave him a headache. Add sand to the mix, and the ride home was hellish. We would drive straight through too, because my thrifty parents hated to spend $$ on hotels, so we would be stuck to the seat for 16+ hours. Good times.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen, or at least noticed, a 65 Fairlane, and I was a car-crazy kid.
For some odd reason I’ve always liked ’65 Fairlanes, given mt propensity of liking oddball cars I guess it’s to be expected 😀 !
CC Effect: the local hardware store owner was driving his ’65 Fairlane this week. It’s immaculate in dark blue with black interior, and 289 V8, but I don’t know which trans is in it. Not my favourite Ford of the day, but it’s still nice to see it being regularly driven. Even more so when it coincides with a CC article!
This may be another CC-first for me: a regular, mainstream production car from the Big-3 in a year that I can’t remember ever having seen or paid attention to. Another stone unturned.
Our next-door neighbor on the downhill side was a Ford man. (I don’t recall his wife ever driving.) He was a school principal and had one of these as a sedan in white.
The Fairlane was arguably the ugliest domestic car of that model year. (I’d call the Chevelle bland but not ugly.)
While not all that different, the difference was in the details. The ’65 Mercury Comet made a case for itself over the Ford Fairlane.
My dad bought a ’65 Rambler American for his commuter car. We lived in a suburb of Minneapolis and he, worked as an engineer at a TV station in downtown Minneapolis. That was the most stripped car I had ever seen. 6 cylinder, 3 speed column shift, vacuum wipers, black rubber on the floor instead of carpet. Not even a radio. It sat outside all the time while the Buick LeSabre got the garage. He drove for years until the brakes locked up on one side while on the freeway slamming him into the the concrete wall median. Fortunately it was while slowing down in traffic and he was fine. The car, however, was not.
Why the disdain for the 65 Chevelle. Granted it was the least inspired of the GM midsizers, however, the changes for 65 were an improvement over the uninspired 64. the 65 had a little “V” to the front in plan view where the 64 looked flat as if it hit a wall. the taillights were an improvement as well. Little things. but the 65 deserves some kudos considering it had to use most of the 64 styling.
I could never understand why they would completely reskin the car (except the roof?) for one year only. The ’64 had already got rid of the throwback fins, and with a smoother rear door skin could have survived ’65 surely? It’s not like it was going to sell in full-size numbers for them to recoup the investment.
And, if they positively had to do a full reskin, surely some money could have been taken from the tooling budget to pay for some better designers? I’m so glad we never got this model down under.