We all know how it actually went, as the Falcon led the big 3 small car parade in 1960. But never before did the mighty big 3 contribute 3 vastly different entries into the task of answering one question. In 20/20 hindsight which would you choose?
1960
The radical nature (for American cars) of the Corvair led it to be voted on as Car Of The Year by Motor Trend. But it was not without its faults. We all know about the radical camber changes that could lead to many a sticky situation for those unfamiliar with swing axle dynamics. Also the air cooled 6 wasn’t as economic as it could be, pre-Monza trim level models could be quite grim in appointments, luggage space was awkward, and small. And well…that Powerglide didn’t exactly liven things up, with 0-60 times running between 18 to 20 seconds.
The Falcon ran away with the sales crown for 1960, with nearly 436,000 of the simple, sturdy little machines coming out of factories. It also had the greatest international reach, finding different lives in places as diverse as Argentina and Australia. But its popularity doesn’t mean that it was necessarily the best option. Though sturdy and thrifty (genuine high twenties economy!), that 144 cube Thriftmaster 6 was wheezy, and downright asthmatic when paired with the 2 speed Ford-o-Matic. Maybe that goes hand in hand with the fact that the original Falcon couldn’t be all that fun to drive, with handling dynamics of a mid century modern sofa.
And then there’s the Valiant. Soon to be legendary Slant 6, Torqueflite 3 Speed automatic, Torsion-Aire ride and handling. And although the styling (minus the “toilet seat”) appeals to me, the reappearance of the jaunty long hood short deck proportions didn’t excite buyers in combination with quite a few “Exner embellishments.” Although improved, Chrysler’s reputation for build quality wasn’t exactly universally great during this period either.
1965
In a reverse of things, the re-styled 1964 Falcon was included with the rest of the Ford line up as Car of The Year by Motor Trend. And now with zestier lines, sprightly interior appointments and the soon to be legendary Windsor V8 recently upsized to 289 cubes, The Falcon was decidedly having a party. A party that was crashed by a car it gave birth to: The Mustang. Just when the Falcon seemed to get everything right, no one wanted to come to the party.
The Valiant actually was standing pat after going through puberty and becoming a quite normal looking, pleasant looking little appliance car. In fact, the Valiant reset the character of Plymouth back to its traditional place of being a well constructed, well engineered, all around competent car for a low entry price. Still present were the Slant 6 in 2 sizes and the LA block V8 was now on board. But this is the generation that established the Valiant as the choice of all women that never married and the men who pursued them. That image problem never hurt the Valiant as much as it did every other Plymouth, as the “Valiant image” defined the brand.
And then there’s the 1965 Corvair. Completely free of the shackles of having to pretend it was an economy car (There’s the Chevy II for that now), we now have America’s first (and at this time only) Sports Sedan in the idiom that was strictly German or Italian in the 1960s. Even the slightly awkward sedans were graced with pillarless hardtop styling, a sign of status GM pioneered (Why settle for pillars?). A Corvette derived 4 wheel independent suspension and surprising pep and economy from the 140 and 180hp sixes made them some of the most joyous cars to drive. But the GM quality slide of the late 1960s started to rear its ugly head. And who wants a Sports Sedan when you can have a Mustang…..
1969
From being at the top of the flock for the class of 1960, The Falcon proved that your best times are high school when you’re popular in your youth. In 1969 it was virtually forgotten, being redesigned in 1966 on a shortened Fairlane chassis (all Falcon Wagons were basically 1966 Fairlanes from the Cowl back). Nary a Hardtop or anything special in sight, its economy image stripped by the mid-season Maverick, the Falcon shuffled into 1970 a corpse that would be attempted to be resurrected on a “1970 1/2” stripper Torino for half the year, before becoming a total expatriate in Australia where it lives to this day.
Corvair, did it really have to end this way? Like many a true Rock legend that joined the “27 Club” between 1969 and 1970, The Corvair joined some type of car club for strokes of genius that didn’t get their share of fair breaks. The last Corvairs were noted for abysmal quality that would become somewhat of a normal disease for many more GM cars over the coming decade. It’s obvious how much love GM had for the car at the end when the artist rendering of the model doesn’t get the front fender right…
Nerds have the last laugh, from Bill Gates, to the Plymouth Valiant. That solid reputation as an appliance led it to be the sole survivor people could count on out of the big 3 compacts from 1960. And the variety of variants throughout the world were equally, if not more impressive than what American buyers could get their hands on. Not only would it survive into 1976, it would leave such a towering shadow that Mopar couldn’t replace.
So I’m sure you have your opinions, so here’s how I cast my vote.
In 1960, my freak flag would have flown high and I would have got a rip roaring Valiant. 200 Series 4 door Sedan with the Torqueflite, probably White with a red interior.
In 1965, I would have swooned over the sleek musculature that was the Corvair, seeing a 7/8ths 1963 Riviera with a bit of Lancia or other Pininfarina styled wares outside of my budget. Having saved a bit of money, I’d splurge on a Corsa Coupe with wire wheels and the base 140hp engine. 4 Speed of course.
In 1969, Being 10 years more sensible than I was at the beginning of the decade, A Valiant Signet 2 Door Sedan, no vinyl top and a 318/Torqueflite would have been the ticket.
So time to cast your votes, crowd. Anyone have a 3 time in a row winner? Be objective.
An excellent read…well done as always Mr. Jones.
Interesting how the Valiant went from, shall we say, unique styling to utter vanilla in 9 short years, while the other two evolved more predictably. But I would have to go with the mopar on all 3, simply for its powertrain.
I new a girl in high school who had a 70’s-ish Valiant with the slant 6, I remember her car more than I do her…it was a pleasure to drive that simple, competent machine.
Mopar homer that I am, I will cast my vote for Valiant 3 times in a row. The 1960 model was twice (or at least 1.5 times) the car either of the others was. Biggest engines, best transmission, the best handling. I even kind of like the quirky styling. If the year were 1963 where Falcon offered a V8 and hardtop or convertible models, I may have been a Ford customer. But in 1960, I see no choice at all here. No matter what Paul Niedermeyer says.
1965. Hmmm. To me, this one is a toss up between Valiant and Falcon. V8s, convertibles, hardtops, bucket seats. I am on the fence here. But I do love torsion bars.
1969. Again, Valiant all the way. Some pretty stout V8s were being stuffed in these, and they could be equipped to be really, really fun to drive. Falcon was out of the game for everyone but your aunt Jane who valued a dollar and whose father always drove Fords.
You will notice no Corvairs here. To me, there was just never any reason to go here. The second series was much improved, but the car always struck me as the answer to a question nobody was asking.
Well we only got the Valiant and the Falcon here in New Zealand, so that narrows it down. But even if we had got the Corvair here, the engine’s at the wrong end for me.
My 1960 choice would be the Valiant (looooove the styling) just nosing out the solid simplicity of the Falcon. But 1965 and 1969 would be the Falcon all the way – although the Australian/NZ 65 and 69 models. And with Falcons still sold here new, for 1970 to 2012 it would be Falcon too!
Valiants sold much better in NZ than Falcons untill 1970 and the demise of the Zephyr and the Valiant was hands down a better car
True re the 1960 Valitank being a better car than the XK/XL Falcoon. But the XM/XP were much improved and more on a par as the Valiants became more bland; and the XR/T/W/Y Falcs were far superior – in V8 format at least. The 1969 Valiant VIP that was my parents’ wedding car was awesome, but yep, put me down for a GT Falc all the way!
I agree, Valiant over the not-so-solid simplicity of the Falcon for 1960. 1965 Falcon Sprint V8 narrowly from an XP Falcon, err I mean Valiant, even if the Corvair was worth buying by now (and I own a rear-engined car) I’m just not sure on them.
1969 it would have to be an XW Falcon GT – blatant cheating here but google it & tell me if there is anything comparable in the Valiant line-up? The coke-bottle curves trump the boring Valiant styling. You don’t make a great case for the Corvair…
Local Valiants post-70 make a decent case but Falcon in those years too, not to mention 2012!
I concur with your choices completely.
In ’60, the brilliant and dramatic Valiant with the most modern and up-to-date drivetrain.
In ’65, the `affordable European’ Corvair, with the engine where it should be.
In ’69, the plain as the girl you’d marry instead of just date (stereotype alert!) Valiant.
The Valiant every time, its gorgeous. The Falcon was rather frail (from an Australian perspective). The early Corvair would do it’s best to kill you if you didn’t get the tire pressures right.
In 1960 I had the dubious pleasure of driving a 1960 Falcon twice a week in high school driver’s ed. I always liked the styling, the handling was fine around town, but, as you say, the engine paired with automatic transmission made the car a very slow performer. I would have chosen a Corvair in 1960.
In 1963 my father did purchase a new Corvair Monza with 4 speed primarily because he liked the air-cooled rear engine for getting up the mountain road we lived on in the winter. He liked the Corvair enough to trade it for the newly restyled 65 Monza 4 door hardtop. It was a much better handling and driving car than the 63. I agree with his choice, the Falcon and Valiant were never contenders.
In 1966 I purchased my first new car, a VW Beetle, royal blue with white interior. It cost $1600 and it usually cost about $3.50 to fill the gas tank. With $3.50 worth of gas I could drive about 300 miles. I rolled the VW a year and a half later, sold it to my dad when I went to Vietnam and he promptly got smashed backing out of his driveway. ( He never approved of buying foreign cars anyway)
Neither of us had any injuries from our VW mishaps but he traded the VW for a new 68 Dodge Coronet while still keeping the 65 Corvair for my Mom. In 69, upon discharge from the Army, I bought a new 68 Pontiac Catalina 2 door hardtop. (a demo with 3000 miles on the clock) Paid $3000 for the Pontiac. It was a very comfortable car but in retrospect I regret not buying the sharp 65 Thunderbird or 63 Corvette Fastback that I was also considering. I still had some education to finish so the Pontiac was a sort of compromise. I was shocked a few months later to discover that gasoline had risen to over 40 cents a gallon.
Corvair, all the way, ’60, ’65, ’69. I cannot stand driving boredom, and even the last Corvair that GM was desperately trying to forget, was one hell of a better driver’s car than the other two alternatives. Even if I’m forced to take Powerglide.
Falcon? Boring, boring, boring, boring, boring throughout its entire existence. Valient? Mildly interesting for the first 3 years, then desperately trying to outdo the Falcon in the boring sweepstakes. And the slant six ain’t all that interesting, not when you consider the car it was stuffed into.
The Falcon is living proof that H.L. Mencken was right.
1960 – Valiant: Fascinatingly weird looking and a good performer for the time.
1965 – Corvair: Clean lines that still look pretty good today.
1969 – Corvair: Practicality be damned.
Hindsight is 20/20 but…
1960 Valiant, Slant 6 + Torqueflite FTW!
1965 Corvair, make mine 180hp and I’ll pretend I’m driving a Fiat, only more reliable.
1969 Falcon with the 289V8, 4 barrel please, and manual trans if I can get it. Why? Because it would be different from the millions of Mustangs that would already be on the road by 1969.
(Side note, I’m surprised no one commented on my change of avatar way back when…) 😛
Nobody noticed mine either… then again it goes back and forth depending if I’m Logged in or not.
I do like yours, although being soooooooooo tiny it makes it hard to see “you.” Although I think it would make a nice framed picture on your office wall (if you have a space you call an “office”.)
I think that you would have to settle for a 302 in your ’69 Falcon. The 289 was phased out early in the 1968 model run.
Thanks for the reminder. I was remembering my love for the 1967 289V8 in my Dad’s Mustang. His is the “mid level” option with 4 barrel carb but no K-code cam and lifters. Nice small block Ford with a sound at idle that implies it is much angrier than it really is. (But that’s because of Dad’s love of glass pack mufflers.) https://www.curbsideclassic.com/my-curbside-classic/my-dads-curbside-classic-the-one-dollar-1967-mustang-convertible/
I do like the “Mustang-esque” styling of the Falcon in that year. Again me going for an automotive oddball even if it is a very subtly styled one.
Great pic…who is it???
🙂
You look like my pastor. A lot.
LOL, I’ll never be confused for a man of the cloth, especially after I open my mouth.
Viewed from the perspective without hindsight and the priority of the buyer, there would be different choices made:
For 1960, if someone wanted cheap, reliable, A-to-B transportation, the Falcon would be the choice (as evidenced by the high number sold). The Corvair got sales primarily due to it’s much more ‘sporty’ aspirations (“Hey, look, Bill, I got me an American Porsche!”). The poor Valiant’s slant-6 was still too new and had not yet established the anvil-like reliability. Coupled with the radical styling, well, no one really gave the Valiant much consideration. Thus, almost by default, the traditionally executed (i.e., downsized full-size) Falcon was the go-to car for a 1960 compact.
In 1965, things had changed. Although the new styling of the Corvair had definitely made it the looker of the trio, Ralph Nader had managed to effectively kill it, safety-wise. It’s a shame because, by 1965, GM had managed to make the Corvair a pretty decent compact for someone wanting some flair in their basic transportation.
The Falcon, although improved, styling-wise, as well, had gotten into a rut, remaining nothing more than a big-car made small. The Valiant, OTOH, was now firing on all cylinders, with a now conservative, but still pleasant appearance, and the slant-6 and Torqueflite combo being the reliability champ.
Nothing was much different by 1969. The holdover styling of the Corvair is a testament to how good it was when it was original in 1965 and, to its credit, was still the sportiest of the trio, even in the autumn of the model run. The once omnipresent Corvair, which had had a diverse model line including a station wagon, convertible, van, and even a small pickup was now down to just the hardtop.
The Falcon, OTOH, if anything, had gotten worse. Thanks to being afraid of stealing sales from the Mustang, it looked like the Ford stylists had went out of their way to make the Falcon look as plain and homely as much as they possibly could. It was still okay if you just had to have a basic Ford compact. Otherwise…
The Valiant was the obvious choice for anyone wanting simple, basic, reliable transportation in a smaller package in 1969. Although it was also a box on wheels like the Falcon, Chrysler did a much better job of it. While the 1969 Falcon looked dated even when it was new, the ’69 Valiant (like the second generation Corvair) still looks good today. Coupled with what was by then approaching legendary drivetrain reliabilty (albeit with abysmal body integrity), with a bare minimum of maintenance, the only reason any of those old sixties’ Valiants aren’t on the road today is because the bodies were wrecked or they simply rotted away.
I have to agree with the choice of the Valiant for 1960, with the toilet seat lid! In 1965 it would be the Comet, just like grandpa’s. For 1969 definitely the Valiant. It looks like the 144’s better dressed sister!
I’m with Syke; Corvair for 60, 65 and 69. That 65 sedan hardtop would look so cute parked next to my Sedan de Ville.
’60 Valiant, ’65 Falcon, ’69 Corvair. There, I get one of each, and for me those capture the best qualities of each type.
If I could have only one: ’65 Falcon 2-door HT with the 289, for me a much more desirable car than the Mustang of the same year. For reasons unknown, I’ve always had a serious jones for the compact Squaremobiles of the period. Just as good would be a ’65 Rambler American, but no one asked.
I was worried about how complex it would get if I added the Comet, American, Lark, and then the B-O-P luxury compacts, considering they left the compact fold in 1964. Or the Nova… since it was too close to character to the Falcon/Valiant.
Oh, that’s fine; I wasn’t complaining, just expressing my slightly perverted Rambler Love.
The choice for me would be very easy, Valiant, Valiant and Valiant. The Mopar car always had an excellent combination of good handling, room, fit and finish, not to mention heads and above the best engine and transmission of all the “compacts” available at the time. I particularly love the 1969 model; clean, classic lines with a really nice interior, especially in the higher trim levels. In fact, I would have bought a Valiant in 1969 over a bigger barge for its ease parking and good economy. There are few powertrains in history that worked better for around town driving than the 225 Slant Six and Torqueflight, while at the same time giving around 15 miles per US gallon, not bad for city driving at the time.
Downsides? Well, being made by Chrysler, the quality control was spotty at best and you could wind up with a lemon fairly easily. The body would disintegrate around the motor and transmission; where I grew up in Quebec, the fenders of a 1969 Valiant would have holes in them within three years and the rocker panels would be gone in five, along with holes in the floor and trunk. But really, that was no worse than anything else at the time, I suppose.
While I love to think of owning a 1960’s car, the thought of “regular tune-ups” and chasing rust, not to mention what would happen if were involved in a crash, keeps me looking here and not on Craigslist!
Valiant for me, all the way! My 1962 V-200 2-door served me well, starting in NYC and ending up in Colorado Springs. Economical, fun to drive and roomy, especially big trunk with spare underneath. And it had that pushbutton torqueflight too. Sorry, no pic of the 2-door.
While I actually did own a 1969 Signet 2-door with 318 and 4-speed, when that car was new I was actually driving a 1967 383 4-speed Barracuda. That leaves little doubt that I’d have taken the Valiant over the other two compacts in 1969. In 1965 I had a new 318 4-speed Barracuda, so that choice is also clear. For 1960…hard to say. What I was actually driving then was a 1948 Ford 2-door sedan with a hopped up flathead, or sometimes like on dates my old man’s 1950 Packard. I was in college then, living at home, and in no way in the new car market. Based on later experiences, I suspect that if I’d had a chance to test-drive, the Valiant would win.
For 1960 I’d take the Comet and if your not going to let me pick it then the Falcon with the MT backing up it’s 2.3l for sure.
1965 Falcon by a mile again but this time I’d take advantage of those 2 extra cyls and 1 extra gear made possible by the return to the longer, lower, wider, more powerful, larger engine that is the norm in the progression of auto design when not influence by an outside event.
1969 is a little tougher as that is the least favorite of all the Falcon body styles. But I’d still have to go that way due to it’s much more durable front suspension and because I could never stand listening to the poorly made gears in the Chrysler gear reduction starter make there annoying whine every time I started the car. Would it really have cost that much more to get the tolerance right so they didn’t whine like they were shot right off the showroom floor?
@ because I could never stand listening to the poorly made gears in the Chrysler gear reduction starter make there annoying whine every time I started the car.
That sound is actually one of my favorite parts of the car. Some people are just so hard to satisfy! 🙂
Indeed. The ‘Highland Park hummer’, high-speed, reduction-gear Chrysler starter is widely held to be one of the most endearing and memorable sounds from that period’s cars.
As a kid, I always thought the Chrysler starter sounded like Dino the Dinosaur on the Flintstones.
Glad to hear I’m not the only one that thought the Mopar starters sound like Dino. I love that sound. Chrysler pretty much pioneered the gear-reduction starter, which everybody uses today.
I remember reading back in the ’60’s that the ‘Chrysler wine’ with the starter was deliberate, so they’d sound different from the other three manufacturers.
I find that a little hard to believe intentionally making the car sound like it was self destructing just so it sounded different than the others. As BigOld Chryslers noted most every car today has a gear reduction starter but none of them sound like they are self destructing until of course they actually are self destructing.
I’d like to think I’d have gone with the Corvair, given my own love of oddball cars. But like Laurence, I’d probably have settled down with the Valiant, eventually.
I see a guy commuting in a Valiant of late-’60s/early-’70s vintage just about every day. I see a Corvair on the road, once in a blue moon. What does that tell you?
In 1960, Ford Falcon. The front of the hood was rounded-off, so you could see the road just a bit closer to your front end, according to the commercials. Safety first! White w/blue or red interior.
My aunt had an early 60’s Valiant or Dart – can’t recall which or the year. It did have A/C, so that was points right there.
In 1965? Valiant, but please make mine a Barracuda, 273 cu. in. stick, if possible. Red w/tan interior, of course. NICE! …off-list: a Nova SS!
1969? That’s easy: Corvair 2- or 4-door hardtop. A poor man’s Camaro. Red w/saddle tan interior!
That’s quite interesting about the rounded front fenders of the 1960 Falcon. I always thought there might be a non-aesthetic reason for the rather droopy look of the front ends of those cars and that explains it.
Easy for me- 1960, has to be the Valiant. the 60 ‘Vair was just too troublesome, and had been re-engineered stem to stern for ’61. The Falcon never did anything for me, and only the Valiant came with an alternator, the device that made it possible to use headlamps and wipers a the same time and still start the car in the morning.
1965, my Corvair 500 2 door hardtop that was my first car in 1993. Only the Corvair made a hardtop in the ‘base’ series, and it was the most beautiful car of all time. I’m not sure if I’d choose the powerglide again or the manual. Perhaps due to their light weight and rev-happy engine, the powerglide was well suited to the ‘vair- especially in the snowbelt. Its ‘high’ first gear made the most of the traction in the snow, ensuring you could always start off without spinning the tyres, while in nice weather the revvy engine made it able to stay in 1st until about 55mph before thwumping you into ‘high’. In 1993, it didn’t feel slow, especially as everybody in my highschool was driving malaisemobiles with leaky vacuum tubing and computerized carburettors or little Honda or Toyota penalty boxes saddled with automatics. Having a pre-emissions car gave me a luxury feature that none of my friends had in their 80s cars- the ability to stop at a traffic light without stalling.
The Corvair’s handling was the best of the bunch in ’65, and probably the best on any American car for at least another 25 years, as the suspension was lifted from the Corvette. I tried on many an icy parking lot to test Nader’s hypothesis, and while it would do a 2000 degree spin, it would pull out with a fling of the wheel. Granted the early swing arm Vairs may have been hairy, particularly on bald under-inflated cross-ply tyres in the hands of drivers whose relationship to the laws of physics may have been as close as their understanding of oil changes. I’d hazard a guess that the majority of people who came unstuck in a Corvair were the type who paid for blinker fluid and muffler bearings when getting the car serviced.
The Valiant was a very good car by 65, probably its zenith, with quality control at Highland park reaching nearly acceptable levels, and many of the bugboos worked out. However, it did not have the showroom appeal of the uber sexy Corvair, with its micron-thick roof and perfect coke bottle proportions.
I think though that I would choose a Dart over the Valiant for ’65 if I was to go Mopar, as the styling was very nice, with its Chrysler Turbine styling cues.
The Falcon was boring by ’65, and had little to offer anyone who didn’t have a fleet contract with Ford.
For 69? Well, it would have to be a Vair again, this time to put into a hermetically sealed chamber to preserve for eternity. If I had to buy a car to drive everyday, it would probably be a Valiant Signet with the 225, upgrade to the 727 transmission, aircon, and ziebarted to within an inch of its life.
One question- why is the Rambler American not included in this comparison? It was available each year, and was the original compact anyway. However, I hazard a guess that few would choose it over the others.
1960- the bar of soap Rambler still with the flathead six and vacuum wipers.
1965- better styling, quite neat looking and now with the 232, but still vacuum wipers.
1969- looking long in the tooth, and yes, still with vacuum wipers.
Quality at AMC was always hit or miss- about on par with Chrysler- you either got a really good one, or a really bad one with little in between.
For the import buyer, there really wasn’t much on offer. Saabs and Volvos were reliable but priced at ‘full size’ prices, Economy cars like VW were too small, and the Asians hadn’t really started up yet.
When all those cars were new I would have taken the corvair. Today, as a combo of looks and long term reliability I would take the Falcon. I think that time has been much kinder to it and from here in warm East Texas, I will take Falcon times 3. If you stick me back in Newfoundland and/or new england I’m afraid I think the corvair would be much better for the locale and the snow.
Lets let me stay in East Texas and take the Falcon.
1960: I’d be very tempted by the rare late-year intro Monza coupe, in white with the four-speed manual and blue interior. There was one just like that on my walk to grade school, and it really infected me with Corvair fever.
But I admit that a hyper-pak Valiant is almost equally tempting.
1965: Did you have to ask? Corsa coupe; 140 hp, four speed.
1969: Valiant Signet 2 door sedan; V8, four-barrel, four speed.
This is an interesting exercise….
For 1960, I would probably close my eyes and go with the Valiant, with the thought that I wouldn’t be looking at the exterior styling while I’m enjoying the torsion-bar front suspension, Torqueflite and slant six. I would pray that mine wouldn’t leak like a sieve, which was a common problem for first-generation Valiants, and wouldn’t look as though it had been assembled by bored third graders.
For 1965, I’d go with a Falcon Sprint hardtop – excellent 289 V-8 and factory four-speed transmission, wrapped up in a nicely sized and styled body.
For 1969, I’d go back to the Valiant. I’ll take a Signet four-door with the smallest V-8 and Torqueflite.
1960 I’d probably go Corvair. The Falcon was too Frumpy and Valiant was just too far out there.
1965 Would find me riding the coattails of the Mustang in the sharper edged Falcon.
1969 I’d have to go with a Valiant and the 318 and a 4 speed.
My parents were newlyweds in 1960 and bought a Rambler 6 compact. Collectible Automobile compared 4 compact cars and picked Rambler also.
For me, 1960 Falcon, ’65 Valiant ‘Cuda, and ’69 Falcon V8*.
*Mostly since I have a 69 Falcon AMT 1/25th scale model from early 70’s. I picked ‘drag’ from “1 of 3 ways” to build it. [Stock, Custom, Drag]
OK, everyone, if we are opening 1960 to the Rambler, we have to consider the Lark too! V8, hartop, convertible, certainly a lot of car for the money. I understand that there is kind of a 65 model and certainly no 69 model, so I guess I understand. 🙁
Hey this is unfair. If we’re allowed to have the Lark in 1960 *that’s* what I’m having. Rambler looks tempting too, but Stude it is.
I think my justification with leaving out the Lark is that it wasn’t around past 1966. It would have been a tough choice between it and a Valiant in 1960, as the Stude V8 made them quiet fast and not all that thirsty on Gas.
But my reasoning on opening up the discussion was that there was such polarity between what the industry titans thought Americans wanted in a small(er) car. The Lark is well known to be just a chopped down 1953 Studebaker, which weirdly makes it more of a shrunken intermediate. The American was a at 1960, a decontented Luxury Compact, considering the original 1950 Rambler was marketed as an upscale smaller car. It was most like what the Falcon wanted to accomplish, but engineering-wise it was ancient.
And this is such a fun comparison since other than the low priced 3 big cars (1949, 1959, 1969) , rarely did any entries in any other segment fire off against each other with all new models at the same time like the Big 3 Compacts.
I get it. Thanks for the heads up. I really like the Lark though, the (alleged) faux-Mercedes grille be damned.
I like the corvair across the board but would be mighty tempted by the ’60 Valiant, that funky styling I find alluring. All of my choices include the most powerful engine choice with a proper manual transmission;
1960 Coupe in Suntan Copper with a Black interior
1965 Corsa in Willow Green with a Black interior (turbo!)
1969 Cortez Silver with a Black interior
You may have noticed that I like Black interiors, I live in the Seattle area so it’s a reasonable choice 🙂
If there were some way to drop the 1960 Falcon body and interior on that year’s Valiant chassis and drivetrain, I’d have the perfect 1960 compact.
Interesting, because my Mom and Dad went for Falcons in 1960 and 1964 (the same body style as the ’65 in this exercise). By 1970 (a year late, I know) my mom was a 48-year old widow and went for a Mercury Monterey Custom Coupe (my first car in 1972 was a 1966 Falcon, the same platform as the ’69).
But me, now? With 20/20 hindsight?
1960: Valiant. Clearly the superior machine.
1965: The Corvair is simply gorgeous. Irresistible. My second choice would be the Valiant just because it was virtually indestructible.
1969: Falcon Sport Coupe with the 302 and a stick. Last of its kind, quite rare today.
I like this guy. We think similarly. 😛
Hmm…Falcon, Corvair and Valiant in that order for me. The first one’s the hardest, as none really grab me. 2nd is easy as the Monza is just a great design (and I have no fear of rear engine and swing axles as I have a 62 Beetle as one of my rides). 3rd would have to be the Val as I’ve always wanted an (Australian) Pacer sedan in one of the lurid 70s colours they came in down here.
My choices:
1960: Valiant – Love the styling, especially the fake spare on the decklid and fender blades.
1965: Corvair – Make mine a 4 door hardtop please. Lovely styling, and by then the mechanical side was pretty much bulletproof.
1969: Falcon – I had a 1968 and it remains the favorite car I’ve ever owned. The lack of trim highlights the clean lines, and with the V8 it hopped along pretty quickly.
These choices are really hard I think 😛
1960: I really like the simplicity of the 1960 Falcon, it’s all about basic humble transportation, and simple mechanics, and unlike the Valiant, the exterior matches that. ( I am an Exner 50’s design fan though) Corvair was an impressive car in idea mostly, and not really a looker yet in ’60.
1965: this is the tough one. I love all three of these cars, again the Falcon’s only con is that the Mustang existed. The Corvair now really looked good, and with some breathing help it was properly fast, and the Valiant had shaped up properly too. Can’t really decide… even tougher if the Barracuda also counts as a Valiant?
I’d go with a Faclon Coupe, 289 and manual.
1969: Falcon has lost the touch, Corvair on it’s way out, Valiant has gotten boring, but good…
If I had to get a new car, I’d get a Valiant, and own it right through the Malaise era, and replace it with a early 80’s Civic.
Any of my choices will be based on me being an american citizen in the 60’s, and I would buy manual transmissions.
1960 Valiant.
1965 Corvair, preferably a convertible but the hardtops were fine too. Though if the Barracuda is included as a Valiant, that’d be a tougher choice…
1969 Corvair again.
Saw an old Kojak rerun the other day, the villain drove a Corvair Greenbrier. He was a bomber. 🙂
1960: Geez, do I really have to pick one of those? I think the 1960 Valiant styling was then what the Nissan Juke is now: awful. The Corvair is the nicest looking, but I’d want a traditional engine up-front, driven wheels in the rear vehicle. The Falcon would be the winner on fairly inoffensive styling and traditional drivetrain, but it’s a Ford, so unless they’re giving them away for free….. how about a Rambler American?
In ’65 and ’69 I’d take a Valiant with the smallblock V8.
Man, I love this website!
My parent bought one of the first Corvairs in the fall of 1959. I was a bump in my mom’s belly at the time. Without the benefit of today’s hindsight, I know I would have gone for the Corvair. Same for 1965 and 1969. An irrational love of air-cooled engines is in my DNA.
I’d take the Corvair across the board, though I’d not turn down a late-model Valiant. The early styling on the Valiant is hideous to my eyes, which is saying something considering that I am an unabashed 1970s-era AMC fan (with the exception of the Matador coupe, which looks awful coming and going). The Falcon is nothing more or less than a rolling appliance, I could take it or leave it. It is only offensive in the sense that it’s horribly boring, less so today than in the ’60s due to its rarity but still nothing to write home about.
Also, while I am not necessarily a contrarian, I think that the Corvair got a raw deal from Ralph Nader’s book and it essentially killed the rear-engine rear-drive car, and I find that package pleasing from an engineering and intellectual standpoint. Add to that the innovative styling and it’s a slam dunk.
The Corvair was already a dead duck by mid-’65, killed primarily by the Mustang’s sales. The point was well made that American were suckers for a combination of nice styling and stone age engineering. Besides, I don’t think “Unsafe at any Speed” hit print until 1966. So the plan was to just start backtracking on the Corvair starting with ’66 (last of the Corsas), and put everything in the Camaro, which was much more upgradeable.
The other thing that killed the Corvair was that it was already verging on obsolescence when it came out in late ’59. And for that you can thank the Mini. It’s yet another example of American conservatism in cars that the transverse FWD car didn’t really take off over here until that Golf, er, Rabbit sixteen years later.
Oh, I know the Corvair itself was dead, but the architecture was killed by the legacy Nader gave it. All the average person knows about the Corvair is that it was unsafe, which is not true (at least not in comparison with its contemporaries). So, where can I get a rear-rear car for the price of a Toyota Camry? Nowhere. Maybe Craigslist if I want a clapped-out Porsche and all the headaches that come with it. That possibility may not have ever come up again after the Corvair, but Nader made sure it wouldn’t with his book. Now it’s an unsafe configuration except in Porsches or other exotics where handling eccentricities are not only accepted but embraced.
Airman,
I love second gen Corvairs, and I can’t stand Ralph Nader or people of his ilk. But I gotta say, Corvairs had enough quirks that the writing was on the wall before Nader slandered it. You’re right, they were not really unsafe by the standards of 1965 even though that’s how most folks today see them. But they did have issues, such as fanbelt problems and oil leaks, that led to a bad reputation. The oil leaks were caused mostly by the pushrod tube seals. The oil got friendly with the fan which deteriorated the belt and the body seal which kept fumes out of the cabin. Once that was gone you had engine vapours getting into the cabin and it wasn’t a simple fix. Improperly installed or cheap aftermarket belts killed many a Corvair engine as well. You had to know how to keep these things in decent shape and keep at it a lot more than you did with a Valiant, Falcon or Nova and most people saw that as a disadvantage.
Me, I’d take a Marina Blue Corsa with the 4 carb engine and a 4 speed in the wink of an eye if I could find a decent one.
1960? Hmmm, give me a minute.
1965? Corvair Corsa 4 carb 4 speed. And 6 extra belts. And the factory service manual. And a vacuum gauge. And….
1969? Valiant 2 door with the 225 slant six & torqueflight. I’d probably be in the mood for simple and unbreakable after that Corvair. Probably still be running today.
So, back to 1960. If I was faced with that selection of ugly ducklings, frumpy pooches and just plain weirdos I think I’d find a good used ’55 Belair hardtop.
Without the benefit of hindsight it would be
1960 Corvair more like the Euro imports the big 3 were trying to compete.
Grandpa drove a first generation Falcon, too conservative.
The Valiant was just too weird.
1965 Corvair again, a little more American but still the style champ.
Falcon still to plain.
Valiant now a closer second. Barracuda shared same basic style, unlike Mustang/Falcon.
1969 Is rough. All the original compacts seem abandoned by the big 3.
Smog controls were worse on air cooled engines.
I’ll pick the Valiant, with the not so economical 318 V-8. At least it would go fast.
1960 – The Mopar is so butt ugly that I can’t even consider it, though it is probably the best of the 3 technologically. If I just needed a commuter it would be the ‘vair for it’s styling, and it’s technical daring. If I needed a family car with a useable trunk, it’s the 3/4 scale Ford. If I must get off the fence, I jump off on the Falcon side.
1965 – The Mopar has improved it’s looks, but that is saying very little. It’s still kind of cheap looking (As Mopars traditionally have been). The Falcon is starting not to make sense in it’s sporty versions because -why not just get a Mustang? The Corvair has a revised suspension for ’65 and it looks nice, so it’s the Corvair this time around.
1969 – What am I doing buying a new car only 4 years later? Oh, ;yeah, it’s the ’60s. Working people’s real earning power is still rising, I live in Michigan so no car bodies still look good after 4 years, and I’ve used up a good 70% of my ’65s expected service life. I’m not buying another Corvair that looks just (very nearly) like the one I have. The Falcon is fat and ugly. That only leaves the Mopar, which is as exciting as vanilla pudding, but a sound and reliable car. But I’ve never really cottoned to Mopars, so I’d get a ’69 Rambler American.
1960 Valiant the fragile handle with extreme care stickers on the Falcon put me off
1965 Valiant I had a 65 Falcon it was rubbish
1969 Valiant again Pacer please floor shift and stripe kit The Falcon was still 1 model from being any good
OK, I’m going to be one of THOSE types not willing to color within the lines:
1960 — Comet. Remember, it’s really an Edsel, all they did was change the grille at the last minute.
1965 — Corvair. No question about it.
1969 — Rambler American. Because I can get it as a wagon. The only compact available as a wagon that year. (The Falcon wagon being really a thinly disguised Fairlane)
I’d go with the Falcon X 3.
My oldest sister had a little green Falcon wagon deluxe, 61 maybe? Later when I was in HS I had an early Corvair…….it was good in the Minn. snow, but the heater sucked. With an auto it was slow if it was slower than the Falcon I don’t know, but neither seemed to matter.
65 is easy, I had a 64 Sprint convertible. Done deal!
69 is bit more difficult. I had a 68 Barracuda, but it was tinny compared to my other sister’s 68 Cougar. I had a 71 Demon 340, really like that one 😉 I also had a 66 Corvair and with a manual trans it was a lot of fun. But I like my engine in front with RWD. A dark blue/bk vinyl top 69 Falcon Sports Coupe with a 302 would be nice.
How about a 69 Dodge Dart 340?
So that now everyone has had their say that is based on 40 or 50 years having past since these were new how about some period thoughts about them from their original owners.
Falcon http://books.google.com/books?id=99sDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=snippet&q=how%20good%20%20falcon%20whats%20wrong%20with%20it&f=false
Valiant http://books.google.com/books?id=q9sDAAAAMBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=how%20good%20valiant%20what%27s%20wrong&f=false
Corvair http://books.google.com/books?ei=OQ6uT-HqEcaTiAKAqZXYAw&id=v9sDAAAAMBAJ&dq=corvair+owners+report&q=covair+is+exciting+to+drive#v=onepage&q=covair%20is%20exciting%20to%20drive&f=false
1960: Valiant with Hyper-Pak and 3-speed manual transmission
1965: Valiant with Commando 273 4-barrel, 235 hp V8
1969: Valiant with 318/2-barrel and 4-speed
Torqueflite may have been the best automatic transmission ever conceived, but it is still an automatic transmission. I care not for these things.
Too bad Popular Mechanics didn’t survey the children of Corvair owners. My favorite feature of my parents’ 4-door ‘vair was the cubbyhole storage compartment behind the rear seat, the space that a convertible’s top would fold into. Since my parents were in the habit of leaving the car unlocked (this was small-town America in the early ‘ 60s), and my brother and I would take turns stuffing ourselves into it. We were 6 and 4 years old at the time… I don’t think I could fit in there any more.