I've been in Falcons and that wasn't a lie about seating the 6 adults. The MPG figures are fudged, a bit though, but they are better than any vehicle today that can sit
6 adults comfortably.
More to the point, though - this ad captures and summarizes what is missing from modern Fords. In a word - they are bland.
Ford doesen't have the market share in the US that they did in 1960 and this is why. Fords then - you were looking at something distinctive. You were looking at a car that you would want to be seen getting out of. These were cars with personality.
In the nearly 50 years since then we have lost something. Today, every car looks the same. They are all styled in wind tunnels. And for what? Better mileage? Better than what? Certainly not any better than what you got in 1960.
Sure, cars today are safer and pollute about a tenth of what the 1960 Falcon did. But, why can't the safety advancements and engine improvements we have today be married to the kind of distinctive styles we had 50 years ago?
You aren't suggesting a 1960 Falcon as a high point in styling are you? I thought they defined bland back then. I don't know who was getting 30 mpg in a 1960 Falcon - certainly that wasn't an around town mileage. We had a couple of 1964 Fairlanes, and we never broke 24 mpg on a trip. Around town,
15 was about all they would do. Our '69 Country Sedan got around 12 around town. My 2007 Fusion (V-6 AWD) gets around 22 around town and 32 on the highway trip. And when will I have to do anything more than look at things and change the oil - 100k miles? How long could you go between points and plugs on a 1960 Falcon? If you are going to be in an accident, would you rather be in a 1960 Falcon, or a 2007 Fusion? Which car would you rather breathe behind? Styling is such a fickle thing. I've always thought Honda did pretty good - until now. I just saw an ad for the new Accord 4 door sedan but until they said something, I thought it was a Saturn. At least the
2 Door Coupe is decent looking.
While most will have to agree with your points vis a v old cars to new, but the Falcons are indeed considered stylish by many. There are several Falcon car clubs that beg the point. One will see plenty of Falcons sedan, convertibles and TRUCKS at old cars shows around the country. Nary a Japanese car from the same era, however.
The Falcon was the feature car at the Macungie PA cars show in August of this year, one of the most well attended on the east coast, and there must have been 75 or more Falcons on the show field.
In any event I believe he was referring to the Australian Falcon, currently available as a full size car 'down-under.' I owned around a half dozen US Falcon. The ONLY one that could carry six, actually seven, comfortable was the Falcon Club wagon like the '67 I once owned. ;) mike
A 1970 1/2 Falcon was nothing more than decontented Fairlane (or Torino). It wasn't a true Falcon at all. I'd love to see your gas mileage receipts from back then. We owned two 1964 Fairlanes and one 1967 Fairlane and I never broke 24 with any of them on the highway. I suppose 27 is possible (like in the Mobil Economy Run) but I find in difficult to believe you consistently got 27 on the highway.
It wasn't even shortened. In reality it was just the low end member of the Torino family. Wikipedia covers it pretty well (see
formatting link
). However to be honest, the original Fairlanes were just stretched Falcons, so in a way the whole Falcon thing went full circle. The Falcon was arguably one of the most successful cars of all time. Vehicles that can be considered Falcons derivatives include the original Econoline Van, Fairlane, Mustang, Torino, Granada, Comet, Meteor, Cyclone, Monterey, Versailles, Monarch, Cougar, ..... Ed
Not really. The Fairlane was buildt on a seperate chassis and had a heaver undercarage, although V8 Falcons used the Fairlane suspension.
It a bit hard for me to remember, don't forget we were designing those vehicles five to seven years befor they went on sale, so we are talking about over fifty years ago. I not will to do a search but as I recall the Falcon deritives were the orginal Mustang, Cougar and Comet uptill the end of the sixties, the Cyclone was a Comet modle.
Comet moved up as a deritve of the Maverick in the seventies.
The Falcon Club wagon that came out in 62 was a derivatvie of the 625 Econline Van built on a truch chassis, not the other way around
The later generations like the Torino, Granada, Versailles, Monarch, Cougar where larger chassis on frame cars. We designed those cars to replace Fords full size cars but as gas became availabe again under Reagans free market concept, Ford and it devisions contined to build and sell the larger RWD full size cars that GM and Chrysler abandoned
thought i was the only one to confuse a honda with a saturn... did this just last night... thought i was looking at hondas on the used car lot waiting fcor the wifes plane to arrive
You call that DISTINCTIVE??????? Damn! I was in my late teens and early twenties then and I thought they were PIGS! The only one that looked good was the Futura and that was what.. 63? And that went for most all the Ford Models..{Mustang excepted, you note!}*
62 thru 64 Chevvies.. now THEY had a little grace with their style!
I'm sorry... but I lived through it and I was a car nut. I look at all these geezers YOUNGER than me driving around those restored four-door daddy cars of the fifties and sixties AT 55 MPH ON HTE FREEWAY!!! and I still think of them like I did back then. I WANNA PUKE!
Phhffft! Gen I and II Taurus, MN12 TBIRD.. now THAT is distinctive and good looking and safe and comfortable and reliable.
Speaking of.. it COULD be done, and the current Mustang shows it. Styling cues from 'best of' but not clumsy looking. UNLIKE all the current Chryslers but one..
I miss those 1960s cars. Sure, they didn't have cupholders like today's models do, but they more than made up for it with an ashtray and a cigarette lighter for each passenger.
After 1961, US Ford Fairlanes never had a separate chassis. If you park an early intermediate Fairlane next to the same year Falcon, the similarities are readily apparent. The Fairlanes had a longer wheelbase, but it is not hard to see that they were from the same group of designers. Intermediate size US Fairlanes (after 1961 till the name was dropped) were always unit body vehicles (in the 50's Fairlanes were just a model of the full size Ford line). Torinos moved to a body on frame design for the 1972 model year (they also got coil spring rear suspension at that time).
There was no chassis under the original Econoline van (truck or otherwise). It was a unit body construction vehicle, with the engine mostly beside the driver, extending to the rear which is unlike the later Econoline vans were the engine was mostly in front of the driver. Have you actually ever even been in an original version (1961-67)? The original Econoline van was considered a Falcon derivative because it was a unit body vehicle that used the Falcon's six cylinder engine unlike other Ford trucks that used the large six and V-8s. It wasn't a Falcon in the sense that it used the Falcon's suspension or anything significant beyond the drivetrain. I've ridden in both the van and pick-up versions. I've also ridden in the Corvan (van based on the Corvair) and seen the pick-up version.
Granadas, Monarchs, and Versailles were always unit body cars - they never had a separate chassis. Originally they were Falcon/Fairlane/Maverick family derivatives, later Grandas and Monarchs were off the Fairmont (Fox) platform. At least you are right about the later Torinos and later model Cougars (1974-1976).
"We?" "You" seem to have a really bad memory. Surely if "you" had anything to do with designing Fords, "you" wouldn't get so many facts wrong.
Exactly when did GM abandon full RWD size cars - let's see, the full size RWD Caprice was in production till 1996 in the US. The RWD Buick Roadmaster also lasted until 1996. And Regan left office in - oh yes,
1988..........Interesting how Reagan's "free market" policies allowed GM to keep producing large RWD cars from before he was born until after he was out of office for 8 years.
The two 1964 Fairlanes we owned didn't have any belts at all. I don't think the 1967 Fairlane did either, but we bought it used, so it is possible they were removed. The first new car I can remember coming with seat belts was a 1969 Country Sedan (Station Wagon).
You certainly are entitled to you own opinion but history clearly shows our failure to take advantage of our many available alternate energy sources, like nuclear power and clean burning coal, as well as the billons of barrels of oil resources available in own county and off shore over the past 25 or
30 years, are was has increased our dependency of imported oil.
Our do-nothing energy policy, as you call it, since the oil crisis in the seventies has been the result of inaction by the Congress. ;)
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.