You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons

1960's Ford Falcons

133 messages,  Last post on Feb 05, 2008 at 7:50 AM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum. Your Host is mr_shiftright

What is this discussion about? Ford, Wagon

Messages Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#21 of 133 Gutless Wonders by 2099 Jul 19, 2002 (4:53 am)
Thats what dealers called the Falcon wagons in the sixties. I was in the business at the time with my dad and I remember buying a 60-61 Falcon wagon at the auction in Columbus, Ohio..a 6 cyl. automatic. Nice, clean, roomy car for its size, but it barely made it up the small hills on the way to Cleveland from Columbus. It was really laboring. Great for around town though, and I remember selling a few of them. IIRC the gas tanks were sandwiched vertically in the left rear quarter panel between the sheet metal and the interior and they rusted out easily (we use a lot of salt here in the winter). Thanks for the memory jog. Oh yes, a lot of them were this kind of ugly green color that looked kind of dull no matter how much you waxed it. There was a chrome roof rack option that did help a little.
#22 of 133 by speedshift Jul 19, 2002 (8:26 am)
That's sure how I remember my Falcon wagon. Decent around town, good enough for delivering mail or chicken dinners but forget about anything more than that. Mine couldn't even make it up into the local foothills.   One time I loaded mine with two friends and our camping equipment and set off for the Sierra. As soon as we got out of the Central Valley and into the foothills I had to pull over every half hour or so to let the car cool down. It wasn't the cooling system, the car just didn't have enough power to go up even slight grades.   I remember that color too, kind of a pastel light green. Imagine that color on a '60 Comet--I've seen it and it's the low point in American car design.   The 223 six was IIRC Ford's first OHV engine, introduced in the '40s, and I've heard it was a better engine than the flathead V8--certainly more modern and with fewer quirks.   I think the 240 came out in 1965, supposedly based on the 289 and with a lot of cutting and welding a 289 head (or two) will fit. I've heard of them being put in Mustangs but it's a good hundred pounds heavier than the 250 and has a short stroke, good for revs but bad for emissions. I think the larger version, the 300, is still around in trucks.
#23 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jul 19, 2002 (10:00 am)
Actually there is no such thing as a 64&1/2 Mustang. That's a made up term for early production 1965 cars.
#24 of 133 by speedshift Jul 19, 2002 (10:48 am)
Right, that's why I used quotes. But it's a useful differentiation that Mustang people make. Not only did the "1964 1/2" have a different six, the 170, it also had a different base V8, the 260. Mustangs with the 200 or 289 are "1965s". That's something of an oversimplification ("1964 1/2s" could also have a 289) and there were some other running changes but that's basically it.   In a sense it's a recognition that the first Mustangs had 1964 model year engines, not 1965 engines. For example the Galaxie's base V8 was the 260 in 1964, the 289 in 1965. 170 sixes didn't show up in any 1965 Ford products aside from the earliest "1964 1/2" '65 Mustangs.   But you're right, Ford never made that distinction. Mustang was introduced in April(?) 1964 as a 1965 model and IIRC that was the first time a manufacturer fudged the model year like that.
#25 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jul 19, 2002 (2:01 pm)
Ah, you were too subtle for me!
#26 of 133 How gutless was it? by speedshift Jul 19, 2002 (9:38 pm)
I'll tell you. In high school I liked cruising this road in the foothills looking for races. I was driving a 1960 Corvair with 80 hp, Powerglide and not much compression left. Not exactly the hot setup but it had no problem making it up this road. And it could go down pretty darn quick.   After I totaled the Corvair I got my father's next hand-me-down, his '61 Falcon wagon. The first time I tried to take it up this road I got as far as the first steep part and it started to overheat. This was a car that rarely ran hot, even in very hot weather, and the engine had good compression. It just had a worse power-to-weight ratio than a tired '60 Corvair.   So for performance or charm I wouldn't recommend a Falcon wagon. (I wonder if Bill's still around?) I could see maybe a '62 Futura, the "sporty" version, with a bigger six. I could definitely see a Sprint or the Comet S-22 with a 260 or 289. Neither would break the bank and both are a lot more fun.
#27 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Jul 20, 2002 (5:24 am)
We are talking BASIC CAR here, stripped of all fun, performance or style. Still, as a basic car, it will get you from here to there and I'd imagine even the occasional comment on whose grandpa used to own one. So you could do worse, but personally I'd bring along a magazine to read while you're driving it (just kidding, don't really do that).
#28 of 133 Nostalgia by dunkmydonut Jul 20, 2002 (11:50 pm)
Hello, I remember those Falcons with great fondness. I had two twins both of them light blue. It looked a little odd with two identical 65 Falcons sitting in the driveway. I just couldn't pass up a bargain. The wife and I were sharing one, when a friend from work said his brother in law needed money, and would sell me his 65 for a hundred bucks. I felt affluent a 2 car family. Moving on up with my 2 blue 65 Falcons. I was a trucker then, so driving underpowered was something I was used to. I had a house with a garage, and man I used it to keep those Falcons running. Good thing I turned a wrench in the sixties for Plymouth. The experience paid off. It eventually turned into a beer fest every Saturday between friends and neighbors. Some times we actually fixed something in between cold ones. Sorry to run on. I forgot how much fun it was, until I started reading this forum. Thanks for the memories......Leo
#29 of 133 It's interesting... by andre1969 Jul 21, 2002 (6:11 am)
...what a big deal being a 2-car family was back then. The people I bought my '57 DeSoto from had always been a 1-car family, but in 1966 they bought a used '64 Catalina, but decided to hold on to the DeSoto because the wife liked it so much. I remember them telling me about how great it was, to finally become a 2-car family.   Nowadays, we don't think twice about multiple-car families, but I guess it was something rare back then.
#30 of 133 by jrosasmc Jul 21, 2002 (9:07 am)
There was an interesting article in USA Today a month ago. The cover story in the Life section was devoted to the rise of people who had three or more cars in their inventory.   If you don't mind me asking, Andre, how many cars do you personally own at this moment?

Messages Page 3 of 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Classic Cars 1960's Ford Falcons