(first posted 12/14/2012) The 1965 Ford, once common as dirt, has become a rare item of interest. Oddly, it has also been one of the most-chronicled cars here at CC: We’ve already discussed the groundbreaking 1965 Galaxie 500 LTD (here) and its polar opposite, the Custom two-door sedan (here). While those extreme ends of the ’65 Ford spectrum are interesting, they hardly represent the models that paid the bills–the broad middle of Ford’s lineup that served the broad middle of America. At the very least, one model within that great middle provided most of the sales volume that allowed other Fords to be priced so attractively. Like Goldilocks in the old tale of the Three Bears, most buyers of new 1965 Fords found the Galaxie 500 just right.
The 1965 standard-size Ford was a much greater breakthrough than most people realize. The Ford Motor Company generally had been a predictably conservative organization: Throughout its long history (going back to the Old Man himself), the usual pattern had been radical change followed by years and years of stagnation, during which most of Ford’s competition would cruise past them. In fact, it could be argued that the 1965 model was only the second really new Ford (the other being the 1949) since the Model T.
Instead of listing everything new about the ’65 Ford, it might be easier to note what wasn’t–and that would be most of the available engines and transmissions. The sole new power plant was a 240 cu in (3.9-liter) big six that was seldom seen outside of the Custom and Custom 500 lines. The V8 lineup for ’65 was familiar: The sprightly Challenger 289 (4.7 -liter); the sluggish Thunderbird 352 (5.8-liter); the torque-making Thunderbird Special 390 (6.4-liter); and, finally, the NASCAR-duty Thunderbird Special High Performance 427 (7.0-liter). Any of these engines could be mated to a mix-and-match of three- or four-speed manuals or the trusty Cruise-O-Matic.
Except for those carryover powertrains, the car was virtually new from the ground up, with new fifteen-inch wheels, a new perimeter frame, new front and rear suspensions (Ford’s first use of an all-coil design) and, of course, completely new bodies and interiors.
Even the keys were new. See that car key you take for granted today – the one for which there is no such thing as upside-down? It appeared first with the ’65 Fords.
The LTD model was made famous by being heralded as “quieter than a Rolls Royce.” Nevertheless, accomplishing that trick merely by adding a little extra sound insulation required the basic Ford body and chassis to form an already smooth and quiet car, and they did. Before 1965, full-size Fords were known for durability and relatively good handling. However, when it came to ride quality they were no match for a Jet-Smooth Chevrolet. All that changed in 1965, when Ford became (and remained) the company to beat in terms of taming Noise, Vibration and Harshness (NVH). Key to accomplishing that was the combination of a stiff, torque-box perimeter frame mated to a compliant suspension on one side and high-isolation body mounts on the other.
Unfortunately, that strong box-section frame would prove to be the car’s undoing in many parts of the country where road salt was used liberally. The corrosive brine that found its way into the frame structure could not find a way back out, and eventually something unheard-of would happen: The rust-weakened frame would break in two, usually just ahead of a rear wheel. In most cases, an otherwise completely serviceable car would have to be consigned to the scrapyard. Oddly enough, the exterior of the 1965 Ford gave the appearance of one of the least rust-prone cars on the road. Either coincidentally or due to cost-cutting, each successive year of this generation of Ford brought ever-higher susceptibility to sheet metal tinworm.
The car’s styling was a complete break from the 1960-64 period. Never had there been a more angular Ford (if not a more angular car of any kind.) If the Studebaker Avanti (here) was reputed to have not a single straight line, the ’65 Ford had hardly anything else. Although the look was modern and attractive, GM was still the industry trendsetter back then, and their curvaceous new cars took the industry in a different direction. For better or worse, Ford’s almost immediate response was a hard course-correction; over the next three years, the company would spend lots of money to gradually soften the lines of this car. By 1968, virtually none of the ’65’s angularity remained.
These cars do have one styling feature I never understood: The wheel covers. Why was most of their surface finished in dull argent? I suspect the stylists were going for some kind of mag-wheel look, but in that case, why choose a design reminiscent of a four-spoke wheel? Everyone in 1965 America knew that a proper mag wheel had five spokes. Besides being a big fail in terms of aesthetics, these covers would be thrown off regularly to grace roadsides and ditches all over America. In the early 1970s, my best friend and I rode our bikes all over Fort Wayne, Indiana, picking up stray hubcaps and wheel covers. The ’65 Ford piece was always well-represented in our collection.
Lest some of our younger readers consider it strange that both of these random finds were two-door models, I should note that out of over 420,000 Galaxie 500s produced for 1965, nearly 47% were the two-door models featured here. Although the four-door sedan was the most popular body style, the two-door hardtop was not far behind. The four-door hardtop’s 50,000 sales topped the convertible’s by only about 18,000 units near the end of the era when the vehicular needs of the style-conscious and those with young children would converge in one automobile showroom.
For a long, long time, no one gave a ’65 Galaxie 500 much of a glance. In many ways, it was the Wonder Bread of cars–not the most beautiful, best handling, or highest performance cars (excepting the 427s)–but for an awful lot of people, and for quite a few years, it was just right.
I once owned a 66 Galaxy LTD in white with a black vinyl roof and a 289.
At the time I was living in a small country town in North East Victoria called Benambra. On the way into town there was a fantastic straight about a mile long which just called out for a top speed run everytime I drove it.
So anyway one day I was going down this straight at 100mph when the local crop duster and certified legend, Ben Buckley buzzed me so low I swear I could see the rivets on the underside of his plane. Seriously, I am talking a couple of yards no more.
Chuckling to myself at the event I did a couple more laps of the awesome straight and then decided to go to the pub for a couple of beers. Walked in and noticed Ben and the locals in hysterics, it was obvious I was the focus of the joke so I asked Ben what was so funny?
He said that he running low on fuel and had nowhere to land but then at the last moment he saw an “aircraft carrier” Funny bastard.
Very good article, JP. I’ve always thought Ford’s advertising campaign of comparing themselves to a Rolls was not only daring but brilliant.
Your explanation of frame rust could also explain why ’65’s seem so rare in comparison to, say, the ’66 Ford. I remember seeing a lot of ’66’s while a youngster (I hated the tail lights) but rarely a ’65.
I can’t say I’m a huge fan of 60’s Fords, but that is a really handsome looking car. Swap the wire wheels for something a little more stock looking and I would be proud to drive that on warm summer nights.
The basic 1965-66 Galaxie body (only the 4-door sedan however) soldiered to 1983 with some reskin and trim changes in Brazil. Here a portugese site about the Brazilian Galaxie http://www.amigosdogalaxie.com.br/ahistoria_brasil1.htm and a vintage 1968 Brazilian ad http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4829021163/
Amazing how the later versions used a flattened front fascia, which gives them a strong resemblance to the Engel Continentals. Definitely a common design theme…
Here another Brazilian Galaxie, this time a 1975 model. After that, they dropped the stacked headlights and the Galaxie inherited the Landau and a LTD version. http://www.flickr.com/photos/caccsbill/3847768618/
That ’75 Brazilian Galaxie is mostly a 1966 Galaxie with a grile and hood more like something five years later. The headlight surrounds are the same and the fender line has the bit of hips like a 1966. The 1966 was a sort of light but overall facelift- same front doors, trunk, and hood, everything else a little different.
Yeah, digging around with the links in a comment above, the replacement grille and hood in the next vertical headlight Brazil Galaxie has that center protruding grille and matching hood like a number of early 70’s Ford products, and the next one with horizontal headlights has turn signals in the verticle fenders and a grille and hood like the facelift ’64-5 Lincolns, although the rest of the body is stuck in 1966.
The 1965 Fords echo the themes used by Plymouth. Makes me wonder how long Elwood Enga’s influence remained after he bolted Ford to normalize Virgil Exner’s product lines.
When I checked the 1965 Fury and the 1965 Galaxie. I begin to wondered the same thing?
Also, didn’t the 1965 Galaxie was once referred by some autos historians as the “box where the 1963 Pontiac came”?
Wow, oh wow! Wifey and I looked at this clue last night and I would have got it right, had I ventured a guess!
If there is a mid-60’s Ford I like, it’s this one. Thing is, when one looks at the GM full-size lineup for that year, EVERYTHING else was immediately out-dated. Flat side glass? Glass frames? Hah!
I’ve told this story before, but in 1970, I met a young lady in Yuba City when I was in the air force who drove one of these. White, red interior, black vinyl top, 2 door hardtop. Galaxie 500.
The girl? …she was blonde and gorgeous, too. I chased after her for three years, but young and very immature – put it this way…my REAL girlfriend was my avatar – my 1964 Impala!
For all practical purposes, she was my equivalent of “American Grafitti’s” elusive beautiful blonde in the white T-Bird a few years before the movie came out.
My dear wife of over 35 years thanks me for that!
Back to the car.
I liked this particular Ford very much and even considered buying one a few years ago, but it would have been for a very wrong reason…
Man, now I’m going to be nostalgic all day…thanks a lot, JP! Great article, too.
These cars had curved side glass.
I guess you’re right, but barely. Goes to show memory can play tricks on you.
Sounds like the Accord is the modern day Galaxie…doesn’t excel in everything but it’s just right.
Or, for that matter, my 2011 Toyota Camry LE.
Was the poor fit of the trim as shown in the clue typical? Or, is it likely that this happened at a pint or body shop?
Not sure – I never looked at this part of the car close-up before. Neither of the two cars I shot were completely original, each had been fiddled with just a bit. The white car had the wire wheels, and the turquoise convertible had fender skirts. Neither interior was quite right, but both would be fun weekend cruisers.
Maybe they had a few too many pints! 🙂
I always have thought Ford took a major positive step — not perfect, but good — with this model and got it exactly right in ’66. I don’t think Ford ever has equalled it’s 1966 Galaxie for sheer simple good looks.
When I was a kid, both my father and an uncle had 66s, and that was my favorite of the series. As I got older, I have become partial to the 67, maybe partly because one was my first car. I think today I prefer the 65 to the 66 just because of the un-apologetically straightedge styling. “Hey – has anybody seen my set of french curve rulers? I have to work on the Galaxie today. Oh hell, I’ll just work with the regular ruler today and see what I come up with.”
Now I’m with you on this 100%. My dad had a ’66 and it is a very good looking car (except for the attempt to do a coke-bottle character line along the side). And I was partial to the 66s for a long time and still think those tail lights are the best ones ever on any car anywhere. But the 67’s design works for me much better now. It’s a classic.
Funny, I absolutely LOVE the 66s…….where the 65 was just too square for me the 66 was just right with some curves to relieve the eye strain of acres of straight lines.
Wasn’t this the car that had the “7.0 Liter” badges on the front fender? First time I had to think metric. Did that label mean the car had the 427 of NASCAR fame? My Ford memory is fuzzy, at best.
The 7 Liter was in 1966 and employed the 428. The 427 was the NASCAR engine and was expensive and rare. Starting in 1966, Ford enlarged the old reliable FE engine to 428 cubes. Somewhat confusing, but I suspect that this was on purpose as Ford fans had been familiar with the hairy-chested 427 since maybe 1963. The 428 was a big torquemonster most often found in Thunderbirds or Country Squires. After 1966, the 428 stayed but the “7 Liter” badging and packaging went away. The 427 remained (theoretically) in the lineup for 1967 but was gone by 68.
7-Litre was a special package that was very similar to an XL, except with standard disc brakes and a Mustang-like steering wheel. The 428 was also a stand-alone option and referred to in just that way.
I was not being very clear, and am better with trivia relating to 67s than with 66s. I believe that every “7 Liter”-package Galaxie had a 428, but not every 428 was a “7 Liter”. You are right that the 428 was optional up and down the big Ford line.
Not quite every 7-Litre was a 428, a few had 427s.
Don’t forget the distinctive single pinstripe that followed the “Coke Bottle: lines.
As a kid the 7.0 Liter badges also threw me for a loop, what’s a Liter? I knew what CC’s were since Volkswagen had been using that nomenclature, but I had no clue that the two were related measurements. Of course this was before the US decided that we were going to switch to the metric system and they started teaching it to us in school.
Metric has been a problem for American machinists as they have been conditioned to think in terms of thousandths of an inch, which while easy enough to convert numerically to millimeters, not so easy to convert intuitively, in the shop.
The Gimli Glider was a famous example of metric confusion; Boeing went metric, but ground crews did not.
I’m really liking the white featured car for some reason. Just the way it is, dual pipes, wire wheels, white walls, the whole package. In fact to be dead solid perfect it just needs curb feelers on each side. Then I would be asking if it was for sale. 😛
Any idea what’s under the hood on that example?
This one had a 390 badge on the fender. I believe that the turquoise convertible had 352 identification.
I was torn between Ford and Chevrolet in 1965-66. One day I’d swear the Ford was better looking, and the next day I’d prefer the Chevrolet. To this day I still can’t decide which is handsomer, which says a lot about the high stylistic standard of the period. Either one, Galaxie or Impala, would be welcome in my garage.
Give me a ’65 Impala and a ’66 Galaxie 500.
Agree, the 66 Impala looked watered down, the 66 Galaxie was perfected.
Feel free to disagree 😉
As always, CC reawakens childhood memories, and I have nothing but good ones of this car, after the bulgy ’64 Ford. Not just straight lines, but such sharp corners! And the perfect match of the front and rear lighting shapes, before the ’66 got the more square rear lights. To me, the curves added for ’67 didn’t work until more fully revised in ’68 with horizontal headlights. Another memory that cropped up was a vision of ’65 Ford NASCAR racers, and a quick check of Wikipedia showed that Ford indeed dominated that season. And of course the LTD and the “quieter than a Rolls Royce” ads. The Mustang may be the signature car of 1965 (though I still think the Porsche 911 deserves a shot), but the Galaxie is the true Curbside Classic.
I’m a big fan of these cars. My dad had a succession of big Fords, in fact, one each year from 1964-69. I was in awe of the 1965 Galaxie 4-door hardtop he bought.. Even as a 4 year old I knew this was a step forward over the ’64. The night be brought it home he took the family for a ride. It was an epiphany. It truly was quiet. The engine couldn’t be heard running at idle with the windows closed. This could not be said of the ’64. I also loved the elegant simplicity of the dash compared to the gaudy ’64 dash.
The Canadian cars were slightly different in thier specs. In 1965, the 352 carried no fender flags since it was the base V8, and a 2-barrel no less. That’s right. In Canada you stepped from the 240 six to the 352, no 289 in Canada as there were no foundries for it in the pre-Autopact era. In 1966, he traded it for a ’66 XL, also a 2-barrel, but a 390. The 4-barrel 390 was not offered in Canada, nor was the 352. which had it’s final year in the US.
Packardbakers are at least as common here The front of this car made it here bolted to a stretched Falcon but not many Galaxies came here new
I almost used an ad for the 1965 Galaxie 500 that I did not remember seeing. Then, I looked closely at the bottom, and it was from Ford of Australia. Not New Zealand, but certainly closer to it than Dearborn. 🙂
That ad at the top of the page with the grey sedan is Australian too.
I can’t believe how stuck I am on how the 1965 Big Plymouth and 1965 Big Ford look. And I don’t know which one I’d prefer then or now, just based on styling. (Engineering-wise, I’d want the Plymouth).
Here’s another shot of the ’66 Galaxie 500 I commented on in the “CC Effect” post from today… had a 390, and a lot of “paint on performance” accessories (tach, “gt” steering wheel, etc.).
A good friend in HS had what was probably a base model Galaxie 4-door. Always loved the lines of that car.
Ed, I don’t know who your avatar is, but every time I see your avatar, I wish I looked as good in my hats as that guy!
Me too!
Just amazing looking cars inside, love Fords interior designs then love em now as well. So long and straight as well on outside, just awesome thanks!
“At 60 mph all you can here is the clock ticking” said the Us bound ad. Some enginner at RR said ” must do some thing about that bloody clock!”.
My first new car was the white 65 pictured in this ad. I had the regular hub caps but boy it brings back memories. Fast, beautiful, what a vehicle.
Ah … 66 vs 65, Ford or Chevy. Currently have a garage queen – 1965 Galaxie 500 convertible. Blue w/blue two-tone interior, 352 4bbl, dual exh (long tube headers & magnaflows), 75k mi and VERY orig. Back in the day, a really clean 66 fastback yellow and black theme w/ 289. Also had an all original 65 Chevy fastback (also metallic blue) with 283.
All in all, the 66 Ford drove better albeit a little slower. The 65 Chevy was just SO classic in design. But I find myself looking for a 66 SS Conv. with console shift and that very, very well appointed console guage package. Standard M-21 rock crusher preferred. Then I could settle this argument within me once and for all. Yes, the exterior of the 66 Chev lacked the edge of a 65 design, but the instrument panel (as above) and I believe the fit and finish in 66 were far superior. So many of the 65’s had flawed fittings and seams. I was a real garage (as in auto dealer) monkey when these came out and even then, I saw Chevy had QA problems in 65; maybe had something to do with the strike early in the year? Remember that?
Perhaps the Ford only appeared to be slower because of the extensive Ford sound insulation and the roaring away of the Chebbie’s 2 speed “slip-n-slide” PowerGlide transmission?
🙂
The strike didn’t help quality control. Neither did very strong demand for the full-size Chevrolets. I’m sure that Chevrolet was building its full-size cars as fast as possible during the 1965 model year.
Chevrolet didn’t help matters by using cheaper materials. My parents had a 1965 Bel Air wagon when I was a boy. The interior wasn’t especially durable – particularly the upholstery. For that matter, the car’s mechanicals weren’t that great, either.
I had a real “R-code” 1965 Galaxie 500 with the 427 side oiler with 2-fours and a four speed. It was Ivy Green Metallic with a black interior. I installed a non-functioning hood scoop from a ’68 Mustang and replaced the 427 fender emblems with those for a 289. I rebuilt the engine and transmission and street raced it for several years. It could easily rev to 7000 and did 0-60mph in about 4.5 seconds. I raced everything back in 68-70 and rarely lost. In warm weather I made more money street racing than at my day job. Sure wish I had that car today. I drove it all the way across the US when I moved to Southern California in the summer of 1970.
What kind of wheels are those spoked ones on the yellow car/first pic?
You forgot to mention the coolest 65 Galaxies of all.. The Country Sedan Station Wagon!
Nice looking car. I’ve always liked American station wagons of the mid 60s.
Agree! A much coveted Ford station wagon in the driveway was the “Suburban Status Symbol” of the WWII & Korean Conflict generations. Today’s 30/40somethings just cannot understand or appreciate this fact.
It was a “cold day in August” when my Father, without telling my Mother, traded off her ’66 Country Sedan station wagon for a fulled sized van. Dad prolly needed a quilt on his side of the bed!
Dad NEVER made that mistake again! “Hell hath no fury like a housewife deprived of her station wagon!”
That ’75 Brazilian Galaxie is mostly a 1966 Galaxie with a grile and hood more like something five years later. The headlight surrounds are the same and the fender line has the bit of hips like a 1966. The 1966 was a sort of light but overall facelift- same front doors, trunk, and hood, everything else a little different.
Are you sure the Country SEDAN is the best, and the suburban mom’s dream car?
Depends on if you are a fan of fake wood paneling. Sans paneling, a Country Squire becomes a Country Sedan.
My favourite years for the Ford Galaxie are 1964-1966. Although I used to not like the vertically placed headlamps at one time, I find them quite attractive.
My extended family had several 65, 66, and 69 Fords, and aside from the “usual” rust at the rear wheel openings, none (to my knowledge) developed cracked frames much less broke near the rear axle…..and we lived in northern Pennsylvania and southern New York.
As much as I love these Fords, I think their weakest feature is the dashboard/instrument panel.
As far as being very angular, are these really any worse than Plymouths of the same general time period.
I really liked the 65 Ford when it appeared. It was fresh, new, even if it was obviously inspired by the fullsize Pontiac. It was a clean-slate adter the 1964 Ford, which stylistically was unfortunately a junked-up 1963 which Ford touted in a singing commercial, “This solid, silent Super-Torque Ford is new, clear through.” That didn’t even fool the kids.
But perhaps Ford was working so hard on the 1965, that the 1964 got slighted. If so, putting the resources toward the REALLY “new clear through” car paid off.
Now, a half century later, I would not say “No” to either.
I couldn’t say “No” either! Here’s my recently acquired ’65 Galaxie 500 2 door hardtop.
I find it’s factory 352 4-BBL dual exhaust engine not to be “sluggish” at all; but quite potent for my driving needs. It’s awesome for “Yellow Light Leaping” and will chirp the rear tires.
It’s still working Factory Air Conditioning rapidly drops down to 34 degrees if I don’t modulate the temperature lever.
Time to do a COAL, Mark! Nice car!
1965 was the first year for the full sized Fords having in dash factory air conditioning.
Pre-1965 the middle front seat passenger had to deal with the below dash “hang down” unit compromising his leg/knee room and freezing his cajonies solid.
Here’s a pic of my ’65 Ford Custom 500. It’s powered by a 289, 2 bbl and a cruise-o-magic trans.
I love the old sedans.,
Here’s the cloth & vinyl, turquoise interior of my ’65 Galaxie 500.
While I like both years (Mark’s white 65 is a real beauty), the 66 remains my favorite – the concave rear window and sculpted sides are terrific. My aunt’s 66 LTD coupe in black over Vintage Burgundy also was an excellent car that she kept for ten years and traded for a new LTD that was not so excellent. The 65-66 Fords were such a huge leap from the previous years. My aunt traded a 61 Ford for the 66 LTD in fall of 65 and everyone in the family was impressed with the quality, luxurious interior, ride, and quiet.
I was enamored by these when they came out , Larry Harris bought a Wagon and it was a terrific car .
You got a _lot_ of car for your 1965 Ford Dollars .
-Nate
The interior in the photo, I assume of the cream colored Galaxie 500 2 door hardtop, is completely redone in a simple upholstery shop pleats. Here is what it originally looked like – might have been all vinyl.
The stuff about the trunk is about an innovation of this new basic design. Gas tanks had been getting lower under lower and longer trunks. Cars like the 1964 had a lot of trunk room, but it was pretty horizontal. The 1965 moved the tank to just behind the rear axle with a vertical shape, continuing the rear axle hump farther back and leaving a deep well behind, hence the photo of the four suitcases standing up.
The unit body Lincolns were the first with this idea the year before with the redo that addressed a lot of the complaints about the ’61-63, and also kind of ruined it. One demerit of the ’64 style Lincoln is that the tank placement meant for a big square fuel filler door right in the middle of the featureless plane (or plain!) of the rear fender. The low, low sill on the trunk was possible for the same reason – Ford fillers used to be right in the middle of the rear, below the trunk opening (in a couple of years at least, under the license plate there.)
Ford quality was on an upward trajectory through those years, the difference between our ’60 versus ’63 very noticeable. By ’65-’66, among their best of the decade, after which it seemed to recede annually into the 1970’s.
Here in the northeast, frame rust was a real problem when these became five or six year old used cars. I saw a number of otherwise serviceable cars junked because the side frame rail had broken lose at the rear torque box. The other problematic frame section was under the trunk. It wasn’t unusual to see these with one side or the other of the bumper hanging askew, mechanic wired up to keep it from dropping. A friend had a ’66 Galaxie 500XL convertible which was otherwise surprisingly solid but had had the rear bumper frame sections obviously repaired when rust caused it to fail.
The 1960 full-size Ford was a low point for Ford quality, as it had been rushed into production when Ford obtained Chevrolet’s plans for its radically finned 1959 model.
My Mom had a very smart light yellow ‘65 Country Squire with tan cloth and vinyl seats, a classic colour combination. The car had the 390 V8 with dual exhausts. A few times I beat early Ford Mustangs at the lights. No Road manners but great fun to drive. Prone to rust – after five years there was a rust spot the size of a quarter in the middle of the roof!
Oh, Yes: of those wheel covers, we used to refer to them as TV test patterns! For those who can’t remember them, TV stations didn’t broadcast programming 24 hours a day decades ago. Over night, the signal just showed a graphic pattern and station call letters.
I’ve always liked Ford’s “deluxe” wheel covers from that year with the four blades and large center cap.
Great name for them!
Nice. IMHO a lot better looking than the Impala of the same year. I`d love a LTD 2 door with air, power windows, and, of course the “panty cloth” interior, all in black.
I was all of nine when these Fords appeared; so I’ve been around them all my life. A ’65 Ford (or Chevvie or Plymouth) was often the hand me down car that a high school senior or college kid got from his well meaning parents. IDK how many of these, in every variation, that I have driven or rode in over the last 50 years!
Gotta agree with JPC; these Fords were all over the place in my child/early adult hood and were considered “nothing special” for the longest time. Then I slowly started to notice they weren’t around so much, wondered why, then “did the math” and realized how old they had become.
I bought my ’65 Galaxie 2 door around the first of the year. I was looking for a ’65/66 Plymouth Fury or Galaxie for quite some time, the low mileage, interior & exterior condition and working A/C (SO very important in Hot & Humid New Orleans!) made buying this one a “No Brainer”.
I’ve owned more than a few old cars; but am astounded at the attention this car gets! It becomes tiresome sometimes. It seems like everyone either had one or rode in one or a relative had one….and want to tell me ALL about it.
I consider this car a most pleasing weekend/occasional driver. It rides smoother than many new cars, is just as quiet inside, the power steering is finger light and quite accurate (if a little slow geared), the non power brakes do not require gym leg lift exercises in order to stop it, the “Cruise-O-Matic” 3 speed automatic transmission does it job admirably, with part throttle down shifts right on cue the few times I request one, the 352-4BBL dual exhaust engine had wayyyyy more power than I need 99.8% of the time.
The in dash factory air conditioning (first year for full sized Fords) makes my left hand hand than go numb it’s temperature output is so low! 5 full sized Americans fit in it quite comfortable. Compared to more modern cars it is quite easy to work on, plenty of room under the hood and all engine parts seem quite logical in their arrangement and access.
Here in the deep south (New Orleans) frame rust mentioned by JPC never has been an issue for us. This dry Arizonia car of mine hasn’t got one spec of rust on it that I can find. It’s body is in better shape than the owner’s!
Unless I become too bored with it; it will be mine (quoting a top 40 song of the day) “until the 12th of Never….and that’s a long, long time!”
That’s a nice old Galaxie! My first car was a 67, and I still remember what nice driving cars these are. They would not be my first choice for autocrossing, but made for really nice cruisers, with a nice tight body and a suspension that was softer and quieter riding than the 66 Plymouth I owned later.
I suspect that your 4 bbl 352 may feel a lot like the 2 bbl 390 that was in mine. They were good torquemakers. When I called the 352 sluggish, I think that was only in comparison to some other engines of similar size. The Fords of a given displacement never seemed to get as much out of them as the Chevys or Mopars of the same general size, but they were sure easy to live with and whisked the car to speed as fast as any normal person ever needed.
I will echo the chorus calling for you to write up a “My CC” on this great Galaxie!
I consider the 352 (and the 390 in my Mother’s ’66 station wagon) both as “Torque monsters”, best teamed up with the 3 speed “Cruise-O-Matic” automatic transmission and taller (for that time period!) rear axle ratios. These FE engines just don’t rev up like a later model, more modern FoMoCo 289 or 351 engine did.
I do agree on JPC’s comment about Mopar and Chevy getting more out of the same sized engine.
Prior to the above referenced Ford wagon, Mom & Dad had a 1965 Plymouth Fury wagon, with Mopar’s “Golden Commando” 383 4-BBl engine. Thanks to hurricane Betsy visiting & flooding much of New Orleans in late 1965, the Plymouth lasted only 13 months (but 22K miles! We did a LOT of vacation “road trips” in those 13 months!).
The Plymouth’s hasty replacement, Mom’s beloved 1966 Country Sedan “Suburban Status Symbol” wagon, had the 390 “Thunderbird Special” engine. Dad commented several times that the 390 “was a dog” compared to the Plymouth’s 383 (Dad was a “Mopar Man” in the 1960’s). Even Mom, who didn’t normally notice such things, commented that the Plymouth did indeed feel “peppier” than the Ford.
“Times were different” in the late 1960’s than today. Dad did a LOT of 2 lane passing on pre-Interstate system road trips, “Ethyl” hi test gasoline was twenty eight cents a gallon in New Orleans, radar speed traps were a George Orwelilian theory and both of my parents were “Lead Footers” in their cars. (Mom later taught me how to “Power Brake” the Ford, but that’s another story). Perhaps Mom & Dad enjoyed more situations to drain every drop of performance possible out of their cars?
I will admit to being a more timid “Politically Correct” driver than both of my Parents were, especally when carefully shepherding a 51 year old car around town. So, the torquey 352 4-BBL in my Galaxie is “Fine by me”.
What a great looking car, even in turquoise. That convertible has to be the one for me.
In my opinion, this LTD is probably the best looking big Ford ever. The LTD had not become gargantuan.
I first started sweeping the garage floor at about age15, so 1979. At that time, we still saw quite a few GM and even some Chrysler cars come in, but never a Ford. They had a reputation for willowy handling in place where the waterbed ride wasn’t necessarily conducive for smooth driving. Probably not that many were sold in the first place as “midsize” and “compacts” always sold better on Vancouver Island.
In eastern Canada, Fords of this era had a reputation for being total rust-buckets, rusting right through the cheap steel frame. My family was solidly GM, so I speak from a bias!
Always been one of my favourite American Fords.
The 390 gets bashed here, for no real reason. Back in the early 80’s, builders were getting a horse per inch out of them with mostly Ford parts, exceptions were the intake manifold and camshaft, because that’s all that was what mostly available in the aftermarket. Fords real mistake, in my very knowledgeable FE experience, was not using the 427 style cast iron “headers” on all FE’s. The 352 should have had them from day one. The log style manifolds on the base engines are below horrible.
I greatly preferred, then and now, the ’64’s design, much more sophisticated imo. It handled better too, though the ride suffered. And the 352 wasn’t all that sluggish, at least not in the ’63 Country Sedan that was my first car. At 19 and in college I didn’t exactly baby it, and it would haul, literally and figuratively.
I find the front and rear of the ’64 more interesting… ymmv.
’64
Mr Griffin (on Hazel show) rolled into the Baxter’s driveway in a yellow one of these in one show. It had the black vinyl top and “spinners”! Was a real stunner.
’64 front… cleaner imo. Design is subjective, again ymmv.
Remember the “panty cloth” seats most of all. Smoothest riding car I ever rode in as a teen. The real estate agent had a brand new one and I got to ride along in the back seat. Our other real estate guy had a ’60 Merc. He would buy us soft serve ice cream that we would eat in his car. My parents bought the house from the ice cream guy. About 6 years later, got to drive some in a customer’s ’65 Custom 6 with a three on the tree. Smooth and quiet even though it was well worn.
Good looker. The wheels don’t really say ‘mid 60’s”; still look nice though.
LOVED this forum/ article ! 1 bought a 65 Gallaxie 500 2dr. Hard top in burgundy . Looks like Jay Lenos 66 .
The upper ie body & interior have been redone . But being a retired auto mechanic I couldn’t be seen with it in its bottom end shape . So I’m rebuilding the 390 , installing disk brakes ( all 4 ) and trying to make up my mind about possible air bags ( just for adjustment purposes).
I’m finishing up the car w/small things . Inside I am putting in a digital cluster ( just to keep up w/the times). When I realized that the car was not a numbers matching car . I went ahead of some slight changes . Most changes are for performance all around.
I’m keeping the car as close as I can . I just want it to handle like a car today .
I’ve enjoyed reading all ( or most ) of the comments . I might of actually learned something along the way .
Thanks to all who contributed to this site and I hope to follow this group .
I don’t have any new pics . Just a couple from when I bought it .
More pics later (hopefully soon)!
Sorry not very quick on texting here are some photos of my 65 galaxie 500
Also old wheels if any interest is there