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 9 of 14 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#74 of 133 by jrosasmc Sep 11, 2002 (11:24 am)
With all this talk on horsepower, I should note that the old Volvo B18 engine from the '60s was rated at 115 hp. The 5-cylinder in my '93 850 is rated at 168 hp. I know nothing about gross or net ratings. How many hp would those engines put out at the wheels?
#75 of 133 Does anybody remember... by lemko Sep 11, 2002 (11:26 am)
...the midsize Falcon? Ford produced a car called the Falcon on the midsize Torino chassis in 1970. It was pretty much a Plain Jane.
#76 of 133 That's the one... by andre1969 Sep 11, 2002 (12:16 pm)
...that was commonly referred to as the "1970 1/2" Falcon. I think the car was fielded mainly to use up extra Falcon trim, badges, etc.   The Falcon actually shared quite a bit with the intermediate Fords starting around 1966 or so. Whereas a Dart and a Coronet were on completely different platforms, same with, say, a Chevy II and a Chevelle, the Falcon became a truncated Fairlane. The similarity was especially striking with the Falcon wagons, which were on the same wheelbase as the Fairlanes, but with the Falcon fenders, hood, and grille.
#77 of 133 Saw a couple old Falcons the other day by carnut4 Oct 07, 2002 (12:55 pm)
one was a white 64 4dr sedan-the low level trim line-for sale. Not a real desirable car, but I thought "now there's a simple ride, that could be fairly reliable, cheap transportations for someone." Later that day, a guy passed me going the other way in a red 63 2dr-again, the cheaper looking one. I could see and hear him shifting the 3spd on the column [winding out first gear to about 7mph!] and I remembered what it was like to drive those [or any 60s Ford] with the 3speed column shift. They were particularly clunky to drive just because of the shifting and clutch action. That's why floor shift conversions caught on so fast in the 60s. But that clutch linkage was also so cumbersome, and the clutch action itself hard to get used to. I think Ford could have made a lot better car to drive if they'd worked on the ergonomic things like that. Not to mention the slow steering. Anyway, we've done a lot of bashing here of those early 60s Falcons. But, I was thinking-back in 1960, in the $2000 price range-if you wanted a car that would hold 4-6 people, room for luggage, get good gas mileage, [high 20s] and be fairly dependable and cheap to repair, what were your choices? Just look at the imports available at the time-in that price range [$2000-plus or minus a little]. Would it be a Simca, a Panhard, Opel, or maybe a Vauxhall? A Renault, or a Hillman? The Peugeout and Volvo cost a bit more. The Japanese cars weren't even around yet. How 'bout a Fiat 1100, or a Skoda? When you think back to the 1960 context, and what else was available at the time, the Falcon looks pretty good. Never mind it was gutless and not fun to drive. Some of those imports weren't much either. People didn't buy Falcons for that. For just reliable, basic transportation, with the support of a huge dealer network/service/parts, hey, it was OK. I think I might have bought a Valiant, though. Just think, though-the Falcon was the basis for the Mustang, and with some upgrading/tweaking, the Mustang was fun. Look at the Shelby GT 350. I wonder who will buy that forlorn little white 4dr I saw for sale.
#78 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 07, 2002 (1:36 pm)
The Falcon was built to compete with the VW Bug, but the idea was that Americans would never drive small cars, so they made it bigger and more powerful and charged more for it.   Still compared to a Falcon, a VW Bug was built like a Mercedes Benz, wheezy engine though it might have had. Most of the other imports were no great shakes that's true. Well, little Borgwards were good cars, and the Volvo 544and Mercedes 190s were excellent, albeit more expensive.   Basically, American car companies refused to believe that you could make money building small cars. Their slogan was "small cars = small profits"   The Japanese proved them very very wrong about ten years later. Also, the Japanese got lucky with the 1973 oil embargo and with the wonderful little Honda CVCC.    And American companies STILL didn't get it about smaller, good handling, economical cars until the 1980s.
#79 of 133 I dont know....... by crosley4 Oct 08, 2002 (4:10 am)
Mayb the big 3 got it together on small cars in the early 1990's........   I see a couple of Falcons and a Comet on the road here weekly. Actually see them on the I-10 headed to down town PHX, AZ   Besides my 62 Falcon that I see daily... LOL   Tony
#80 of 133 I would imagine... by andre1969 Oct 08, 2002 (4:40 am)
...that the Falcon, Corvair, Valiant/Lancer, and Chevy II were built not only to compete with the Beetle, but to serve double duty and go after the likes of the Rambler and Studebaker Lark. The compact Rambler was a hot enough seller to push the nameplate into the #3 slot for a few years, and the Lark gave a temporary reprieve to Studebaker's death sentence.   Just out of curiosity, what kind of demographics did the typical Beetle driver have back in, say, 1960? I'd imagine that most people bought the Beetle as a spare car, or it was bought as a car for high school and college kids who hadn't started a family yet. GM, Ford, and Chrysler seemed more intent on making a car that could substitute for a standard-sized car or even replace it, rather than merely accent it, as the Beetle seemed more suited to do.   As for the Big 2.5, sometimes I question whether or not they've gotten it together with their small cars, even today!
#81 of 133 by Mr_Shiftright HOST Oct 08, 2002 (11:05 am)
The Bettle cut across all demographics, which is what so confused the Big Three. Rich people, poor people, city people, country people, it didn't seem to matter.   Of course, the VW advertising was truly brilliant, and this played a large role is re-fashioning American drivers' attitudes about small cars.   In this sense, VW probably helped the American compacts. I say this because resistance to small cars was so fierce in the 1950s that no American company dared to try and sell one, even Falcon sized.   You'd think that when cars as cheap, bad and homely as the Rambler sold in large numbers, that the Big Three would have awakened and said "My god, if they can sell THAT, we can sell anything!". Hard to believe, but people were buying Rambler Americans with flathead engines in the 60s!!   I remember these cars. The labels for the dash knobs were actually glue on decals, and right side sun visor was optional.
#82 of 133 figured I'd stagger in here.... by bretfraz Oct 08, 2002 (11:19 am)
And talk Falcons with y'all.   The first car I ever owned was a 1964 Falcon Sprint. Bought it about 2 weeks after getting my licence for $575. It had a 260 V8, 2 speed Fordomatic, buckets, and all the Sprint trim (chrome engine kit, center console, fake woodgrain steering wheel, wire wheel covers, etc).   One of the many things I learned about old cars is that they always seemed to need new batteries and radiators. I got pretty good at replacing those after a few cars....   Anyway, after a clean up and whatnot my best friend and I took it cruising on Van Nuys Blvd. This was 1981 and the whole cruising phase was winding down on places like Van Nuys Blvd due to massive police presence. Still, growing up a car crazy kid in LA meant Van Nuys was a critical right of passage and had to be cruised; kinda like earning your Combat Infantrymen's Badge.   On the way home I "raced" a friend who had a '68 Camaro SS with a 396 in it. Driving north on I-5 leaving the Valley I was doing about 105 and the car was allll over the place. My friend must have been doing 130+ because he completely blew my doors off. Ahhhhhh, youth.   I kept that car a good long time. Had it repainted in the original color (that 60's gold color), had some interior work done, and eventually put in a 289 and C-4. It was fun to drive in a wild and wooly sort of way. Pressing on the manual brakes was a real adventure - you could feel each wheel cylinder doing it's job one at a time and with 3/4 turn loose steering, it was a real chore bringing that car to a straight stop.   My roommate eventually killed it by driving a U-Haul truck into the LR 1/4 panel and messing up the best part of the car, the body, which was arrow straight and totally rust free being a CA car its whole life (it was built in San Jose and was sold originally in the SF Valley). Ended up selling it to a parts guy for $1000, IIRC.   Still, Falcon's are pretty cool in their own right. I get the urge every once in awhile to dig up another one but there are soooo many cars vying for my attention.   Great thread.
#83 of 133 Good story bretfraz by carnut4 Oct 08, 2002 (12:07 pm)
I remembered a story myself, after my last post here. When my sister and former brother-in-law were in college, his car was a 1960 Comet 4door with a 3spd stick. Now if you think a Falcon was gutless, try the heavier Comet! Same car with those weird fins and extra length. Anyway, my sister had borrowed that car once to drive home from Stockton, CA to San Francisco-a 2 hr drive or so. On one part of the trip, she came to a hill, and had to shift to second gear to make it up the hill. As she shoved the lever in to second, it came right out of the column in her hand, leaving her stranded. Had to get towed. My bro-in-law traded that car soon after, for, um, a 61 Rambler American 4dr, flathead 6 and 3sp stick. This was in 1968. Some of us used to joke about the cars he had in those days, and the stories that went with them...

Messages Page 9 of 14 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

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