Ask the Car People.SM


1960's Ford Falcons

133 messages,  Last post on Feb 05, 2008 at 8:50 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford, Wagon

Messages Page 1 of 14

#1 of 133 1962 Ford Falcon Wagon by billd2222

Jul 15, 2002 (5:39 pm)

Have the opportunity to purchase a 1962 Ford Falcon wagon (not sure of the body type yet - squire, country, etc) for a really good price. Anyone here own one? I would love to talk to somebody does or has owned one.
 
Thanks!
bill

#2 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 15, 2002 (7:24 pm)

I did own one many years ago. A very basic and simple car, slow and steady but with good care should serve you well even as a daily driver. I guess in that year they had a choice of sixes, is that right? A 144 or a 170? The 144 would not be my choice.

#3 of 133 by speedshift

Jul 15, 2002 (8:46 pm)

Yeah I owned one too. It's a kind of punishment that enthusiasts have to go through.
 
Should you buy one? It depends on your tolerance for boredom. A Falcon wagon will indeed get you from point A to point B but so will the bus.
 
Pluses: simple, fairly rugged, economical by '60s standards, has the reliability that comes from having few moving parts.
 
Minuses: tippy handling, acceleration measured with an hourglass, noisy, crude, vacuum wipers leave when you need them most. And when I say gutless I mean so gutless it limits your range. Don't even think of trying to take one over a hill.
 
How I would improve: 14" four lug wheels from a Mustang or better yet the drum brakes and wheels from a V8 Mustang; 200 or 250 CID six with corresponding "modern" tranny--synchro on first or count 'em three speeds in the automatic.
 
BTW Falcon wagons always sell at a really good price.

#4 of 133 Use to drive 'em by carnut4

Jul 16, 2002 (12:38 am)

when I was a mail carrier mack in 66-67. The Post Office had several Falcon wagons for delivery to supplement the regular Willys and Cushman fart-carts. I actually liked 'em, because they had lots of room, easy to drive and a nice size to handle around town, and the little 170 wasn't too bad with the little Fordomatic around town. And I sure would rather drive them at the time than anything else the post office had! I thought they were cleanly styled, and pretty good overall for their intended purpose. One of the ones they had though someone dropped in a 289. I remember punching that the way I did the six, and got a big surprise. It wasn't setup for the V8 either, because the steering and handling were noticeably worse.
Anyway, I think they are a good little package if you want an older, compact station wagon, lots of practical utility, and of course you can upgrade them in all kinds of ways, just like you can a Mustang.
I saw one once that had the full treatment-5 liter V8, suspension, brakes, tires, etc. Didn't cost all that much to do, either.

#5 of 133 billd2222 by ghulet

Jul 16, 2002 (2:21 am)

Someone around here (north side of Chicago) has a '63-ish wagon, four door, nicely restored, metallic medium blue color (in Wicker Park neighborhood). Please tell us a bit more about the 'wagon in question': Price, is it a 2-door or 4-door (the 2-doors are relatively rare), what engine and transmission, etc. I've seen a couple of 'Falcon Squires' (fake wood, usually white body), they're kinda cool.

#6 of 133 Did the Falcons ever have a habit... by andre1969

Jul 16, 2002 (6:28 am)

...of blowing up easily when rear-ended, along the lines of some of their cars later in the '60's, and culminating with the Pinto?
 
Reason I'm asking is that those early '60's Falcons had the gas tank V-E-R-Y close to the rear bumper, as close as any Pinto, and I believe they were also of the drop-in variety that would breach easily in the event of a rear-ender.
 
I've never heard anything bad about them, but they just look like an explosion waiting to happen!

#7 of 133 I remember them well... by isellhondas

Jul 16, 2002 (7:30 am)

When I was a kid, I worked for a now defunct company, Chicken Delight. Anyone remember that?
 
Anyway, our delivery cars were 62-63 Falcons. We drove the bejezes out of them!
 
The 170's weren't THAT gutless and they were cheap to fix.
 
I caught the back seat on fire on one of them once. The can of sterno slid out of the stainless steel ovens we carried in the back seat to keep the chicken hot!
 
The boss was NOT amused!

#8 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Jul 16, 2002 (7:55 am)

If a 1962 Falcon hasn't blown up or tipped over or crashed by now, I wouldn't worry about its safety features.

#9 of 133 by speedshift

Jul 16, 2002 (9:17 am)

The Falcon wagon was okay around town and would have made a decent delivery car. But it's not a car built for the open road. Out of the 60 or so cars I've owned since 1970 my '61 Falcon would be the last one I'd pick for any trip of more than 30 miles or so. Even my '70 Hornet was Cannonball Rally material compared to the Falcon. It's just old bare-bones transportation.

#10 of 133 My buddy had one... by andys120

Jul 16, 2002 (9:56 am)

It wasn't too gutless with a three speed. Very bare bones, I don't remember a Detroiter with less stuff on it...AM radio was the only option on this car! Very rugged, a kind of American Volvo (at a time when Volvo imported few wagons).
 
I rember it fondly, it was our Surf Wagon, it swallowed a big Hobie board w ease (they were bigger then).

Messages Page 1 of 14

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement