It doesn't have the look or profile of a typical front engine, rear drive truck. Was there a van-based Dodge pickup from that era? Anyone remember the name?
The only van-based Dodge pickup I can think of is the old A100. I forget when it came out, but Here's a 1967
Well, Falcon added a V8 three years later than Lark; Rambler Classic, in mid '63; Valiant in '63 or '64, and Chevy II in '64.
Corvair was only available as a four-door sedan upon its introduction. A coupe was added later in the model year, as was the Monza variant. A convertible came in '62 and a wagon for '61.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Also, I'm not certain Chrysler's quality control was too improved by '60. An older guy I used to work with--not really a car guy--used to say his bought-new '60 Valiant was the worst car he ever owned. While he said it was 'peppy', he said there was something like bathroom caulk over seams in the body and in about a year they would get loose and could be pulled out in one easy sweep. He also said one day while backing it out of the driveway, a tire and wheel broke off--not fell off; broke off. He traded it on a new '64 Rambler Classic. I dislike Ramblers because there are so utilitarian, but he said--like other folks I've heard--that that was the best car he ever had.
His second worst? '77 Toyota Corolla which would quit running on the interstate. Toyota dealer could never find anything wrong with it.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Well, Falcon added a V8 three years later than Lark; Rambler Classic, in mid '63; Valiant in '63 or '64, and Chevy II in '64.
I don't think V-8's were popular in the compacts early on, when people were still focusing on cheapness and fuel economy and such, but they did catch on in later years. I think it was 1964 that they started putting 273's in the Dart and Valiant, and it was kind of a force-fit. While the 1963-66 Darts and Valiants are all the same basic design, I think they did something to the '64 to make the V-8 "sort of" fit, and then something else in '65-66 to make it fit right.
The '67-76 Dart style was designed for a V-8 from the get-go...but not a big-block. However, that didn't stop them from making one fit, from the 383 to the 440 on up to the 426 Hemi!
As for popularity, I imagine the V-8 was rarely ever the most popular engine choice in compacts, but there was enough demand. For instance, in the 1968 Dodge Dart 270 series, they made 76,500 total. 21,300 were V-8 and 55,200 were slant six (170 or 225)
CR did love Rambler for the earlier part of the 1960's as I recall, but later in the decade, they tended to have a preference for the Valiant and Dart. As long as it was a 6-cyl at least...they tended to hate anything that was too powerful in their eye. They also tended to hate convertibles, anything without a B-pillar, pony cars, personal luxury coupes, luxury cars, medium and upper-priced cars, and so on and so on.
the old A100 That's it. And the name which had slipped my mind was "Dodge Forward Control."
Haha...little red wagon! After seeing that I went to the web site for National Trails Raceway to see if they had any old pics similar to the one posted, and the first line of their text was: Who could possibly forget such classics as the Hemi Under Glass or the Little Red Wagon? Not many pics at all in their track history page, though. Too bad.
Anyway, that A-100 compact sized body was even used on the "tilt cab" L series medium duty truck line. Totally different on the heavy L trucks though. After my dad got the Corvair panel truck for yeoman light delivery/errands he also got a bigger van for heavier loads I suppose. I think it was a Dodge A-100 van but can't be sure. I just remember that it was bigger, louder, and more uncomfortable with that big hump between the seats covering the engine. And the gas station stops took longer too. Dad explained it had 2 fuel tanks-and need them both. I even found a Dodge pic with that same green/white color from Leno's truck.
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
My parents bought a new '60 Valiant with Torqueflyte, and it was a terrific car. Reliable, low maintenance, rugged, and it handled well. I'm not suffering from a case of selective memory (not that I'd know it if I were). Fit and finish were poor, but this car met or exceeded all expectations from a functionality standpoint.
Yeah, eventually they replaced the 170 with a 198 version. I thought it was 1969, but according to Wikipedia it was 1970. IIRC, the 170 went out having 115 hp gross, and the 198 came in with 125. The 225 had 145 hp. The 198 was actually cheaper for Mopar to manufacture than the 170 had been, as it was essentially a 225 with a narrower bore. The 170 had both a narrower bore and a shorter stroke, and a shorter deck height.
The Dart and Valiant were really too big and heavy for even this engine though, and I'm sure once emissions controls became stricter, it probably became a real dog. It was dropped after 1974, so for 1975-76, the 225 was the standard engine in the Valiant and Dart.
My '69 Dart wasn't exactly a screamer with its 225 slant six. I'd hate to think of how slow it would have been with a 170!
You are correct that those surveys can't tell us much about long-term reliability. But they do give a clue about what people were experiencing in 1960 with those cars.
If my neighbor says, "I love my Valiant's handling and power, but my the floor and trunk get wet every time it rains," and my co-worker says, "My Corvair looks good, but the heater is terrible, it smells of gas and uses lots of gas," then the Falcon looks like a decent, but bland, alternative.
From what I've read, all three cars underwent regular improvements - the 1961 Corvair, for example, had so many changed and revised parts that some GM insiders said that GM should have advertised it as an all-new car.
Today, a 1960 model of any of those cars is a rare sight at car shows, so they must have been used up and tossed aside without much thought.
I had a 198/3sp manual trans in my '72 Duster, got 70k miles out of it (bought it at 50k, sold it to a friend at 120k). It drove fine, but was underpowered. I did mange to tow a small Uhaul trailer back and forth TX/CA a couple of times with no problem.
Falcon sales remained steady through 1962, if I recall correctly. After that, the Fairlane came on to the scene, followed by the Mustang, so, internal competition hampered sales as much as anything else.
My first job was at a family-owned restaurant, and the vehicle that they used for deliveries was a van version of that Dodge. I remember riding in it and hoping that we were never in a collision, because there wouldn't be much between our legs and the other vehicle.
The Chevy and Ford competitors weren't much better in that regard, if I recall correctly.
Today, a 1960 model of any of those cars is a rare sight at car shows, so they must have been used up and tossed aside without much thought.
One thing I've noticed, when we go to the Ford, GM, and Mopar shows, is that the early Falcons (not necessarily the 1960 models though) seem to have a relatively good showing. But at the Mopar show it's rare to see a first-gen Valiant or Lancer, and early Corvairs don't seem all that common, either.
So, it seems like those Falcons do have their following, although I don't know if these car shows are really a good indication of their longevity or not.
Here's a concept Studebaker cab-over pickup built in '63. It's way basic, but bigger than the competition. I've seen it a bunch of times at the Studebaker National Museum in South Bend:
I never really cared for the style of those A100's...the big "owl eye" headlights just kill it for me. But, in larger applications like those medium duty trucks, it looks a bit menacing.
Yes, you could get a V8 in the Falcon as of 1963, but I have no breakdown on how many V8s went into them. Given that the Sprint package was only $130 more, I would think most V8 lovers would have sprung for the Sprint. We see very few V8 Falcons today, relative to the 6 cylinder versions I mean, so this suggests that even back in 1963/64, the ratio heavily favored the 6 cylinder. This makes sense, since the performance between the original 260 V8 and the 170 Six isn't that much.
When Ford put the 289 V8 in the Sprint and added a 4-speed transmission option (late 63?), then things got interesting.....for a short while.....
I do know that when the Mustang came out, Falcon Sprint sales went into the ditch, in 1965.
I never understood the point of that "1970.5" Falcon. Although I just read on Howstuffworks.com that the proper 1970 Falcon was discontinued in December 1969, so maybe they thought they needed to keep the name alive, through the end of the model year, by putting it on a stripped-down Torino?
Also, when the Maverick came out in early 1969 as a 1970 model, it was initially only offered as a 2-door, and it was a lot smaller than your typical 2-door compact such as a Dart, Valiant, or Nova. So maybe Ford felt like they had to keep some kind of presence in the more traditional-sized compact range?
Wonder why they didn't just let the compact Falcon run for the whole model year? Unless they needed the assembly line to switch over for the upcoming 4-door Maverick, which debuted as a 1971?
**Edit: just found this blurb from Wikipedia: "The Ford Falcon compact model continued for the first half of the 1970 model year, but was discontinued as it could not meet new federal standards that came into effect on January 1, 1970."
Okay, so that 'splains it. What was it that went into effect on 1/1/70, though? The new side impact standards? I think they also required cars in 1970 to have locking steering columns and gearshifts. As I recall, GM was early to this game, as my '69 Bonneville already had that, but my '69 Dart GT didn't. So maybe it was just easier and cheaper for Ford to axe the compact Falcon altogether, rather than try to make a car conform to the new standards, when they were about ready to drop it anyway?
The Falcon line got the Challenger 260 V8 in '63, but I've only seen the 289 option advertised for the Falcon beginning in '65.
I've read that the only engine available in the '63 Sprint was the V8 but some dispute that-stating that "early" Sprint models were available with a 6 cyl. That seems odd because both the Sprint and the V8 were both "mid year" introductions for '63.
According to print ads the 4-speed was available at the beginning of the model year. Makes me wonder if those "early" Sprint Falcons with 6 cylinder and 4-speed could have been Futura models - since both Futura and Sprint had same production code. Oy.
A 1963 road test of the new Falcon Sprint with 260 V8 and 4-speed had a sticker price of $2624.60, but I don't know the base price of the Sprint or other models.
In 1964 the base 2-door Sedan Falcon was advertised at $1,985, the Futura 2 door HT was an advertised $2,198, and the Sprint (again with Challenger 260 V8 but with standard 3-speed) was advertised at $2,425.
For 1964 Falcon convertibles and station wagons the 260 V8 option was $152.70 and $169.40 for other models.
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
In the early 1960s, $130 was a lot more than it is today. Plus, credit was tighter. Banks weren't throwing money at anyone who had a pulse. They were actually concerned that the borrower could be expected to pay back the loan. I'm sure that plenty of people thought long and hard before adding another $130 to a loan in those days.
Nice car. Does your uncle remember any of the details about it? Engine/options, etc. There were some interesting versions built of that 1970.5 model:
The Marti Report for this Grabber Green Falcon is as follows: 429,134 Torinos Built 26,071 were Falcons 69 came with 429-4V CJ non-Ram Air engines 27 where automatic transmissions 2 where painted Grabber Green 2 had black Vinyl Bench Seats 1 was equipped with Argent Style Steel Wheels
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
Very true. A more expensive, V8 "compact" was rather a contradiction in terms in the early 60s, and not a great marketing idea. Some companies tried to cleverly get around this, say with the Studebaker Avanti, which was a Lark V8 chassis (modified a bit) with an Avanti body dropped on it, or a V8 Mustang, which was a lowly V8 Falcon chassis.
Domestic compacts were born out of the late '50s recession, and the market for them had pretty much evaporated by the late '60s, so I would imagine Ford figured a true compact wasn't worth the effort anymore.
It should be noted that while the Falcon died here, it fared better elsewhere.
I believe the 70.5 Falcon evolved into the Torino line of vehicles in 71. This allowed it to fit the mid size car class of requirements. I believe that line ended in late 70's.
I just plugged it into an inflation calculator, and $130 in 1963 is the equivalent of $901 in 2009 dollars. So yeah, that was probably enough to make people think twice. Plus, in the earlier 60's, I'm sure people were more focused on cheap and economical when it came to their compacts. It wasn't until into the mid and later 60's that people wanted them more powerful and better-equipped. And then by around 1975, people wanted to be able to buy their compact car and pretend it was a Mercedes!
I know the guy who built this car. He owns a local repair shop and anything he does is first class. How he managed to cram everything into that VW is beyond me. It's on a tube frame.
I know a guy who rode in it one time and he said it was just wicked fast and the scariest thing he has ever done.
He swore that if he lived he would NEVER get into it again.
9 second quarter mile times for a car that's driven on the street??
I just stumbled across this thread so I figured I'd share my thoughts on cars that gained or lost respect.
My suggestion: How about the Saab 96 and 99 series? These cars may have been disparaged by the general public when new, and they may have been unreliable for most owners (due to the weak transmissions and head gaskets), but I think they have emerged in recent years as a cult favorite with rally folks and eccentric types. The 99 Turbo seems to be coveted by those who want a practical classic car.
And I just saw a mid-60s 96 driving down my street a few hours ago. That putt-putt burble of the 2-stroke motor sounds just like my old moped!
I think the two-stroke Monte Carlo model definitely is a respected vehicle. I don't expect that the 99 will ever be forgiven for the torments it put its owners through. This was simply not a good car, even though it did bring "turbos to the masses".
So in my book I will grant it historical respect but certainly not any mechanical respect.
In the early 70s I had a part time job where one of the guys drove a Saab 96 and bragged that his car could beat any other import on the street. During one of his bull sessions while showing off the Saab 3 cylinder engine, the store owner drove up in his Mercedes 280 SE. So we all laughed and asked Saab-guy if he was serious about the "on-the-street" part!
No doubt they were tough little trolls in a rally. There were other great rally cars/drivers making news back then even though it never really caught on here at home. Soccer has always been more popular as a sport here than rallying! Haha!
The Lancia Stratos was a dominant force in (1970s) Europe while John Buffum was the top American driver (and driving insanely fast!) with the factory Triumph TR7/TR8s until 80? 81? Whenever the rules changed Audi created a monster phenom with the Quattro. It still looks like a world-beater even in hind sight. 30 years later.
Anyway by the late 70s we had a new local Saab dealer and I thought the 99 EMS was cool. Yesterday a Saab 900 Turbo drove past the house looking very sharp, very clean. It looked completely stock including factory alloys. There can't be too many good examples of those left.
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
The Saab 900 Turbo to have would be the older 5-door models. Great combination of room, utility and decent performance/fun factor. Downside of course is that they are prone to disaster. You have to stay on top of them, or sink a boatload into one and get it up to snuff. Chronic issues are of course transmissions and head gaskets, and biodegradable interiors. You don't even *want* an automatic.
Did that get any better for the 9000 turbo with the B234 L/R engines in the early 90s? The reviews were very good when those cars were new - and very expensive - but did they have the same auto trans problems as the 900?
Saab never seemed to find itself in the right place at the right time here. Either ahead of the pack with turbo technology and front drive or playing catching up with reliability issues. And even just pricing disadvantages versus everyone, domestic and Japanese.
A fully optioned 900 turbo in the early 80s cost about $17k. By early 90s the 9000 turbo was twice that which would be about $53k in 2010 money. Acura/Lexus was very well positioned for the market by the time Saab moved the ignition to the steering column. I never thought the console ignition was a big deal but it was just another thing that made Saab different!
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
Comments
The only van-based Dodge pickup I can think of is the old A100. I forget when it came out, but Here's a 1967
Or are you thinking of the old Dodge Deora concept?
Well, Falcon added a V8 three years later than Lark; Rambler Classic, in mid '63;
Valiant in '63 or '64, and Chevy II in '64.
Corvair was only available as a four-door sedan upon its introduction. A coupe was added later in the model year, as was the Monza variant. A convertible came in '62 and a wagon for '61.
His second worst? '77 Toyota Corolla which would quit running on the interstate. Toyota dealer could never find anything wrong with it.
Valiant in '63 or '64, and Chevy II in '64.
I don't think V-8's were popular in the compacts early on, when people were still focusing on cheapness and fuel economy and such, but they did catch on in later years. I think it was 1964 that they started putting 273's in the Dart and Valiant, and it was kind of a force-fit. While the 1963-66 Darts and Valiants are all the same basic design, I think they did something to the '64 to make the V-8 "sort of" fit, and then something else in '65-66 to make it fit right.
The '67-76 Dart style was designed for a V-8 from the get-go...but not a big-block. However, that didn't stop them from making one fit, from the 383 to the 440 on up to the 426 Hemi!
As for popularity, I imagine the V-8 was rarely ever the most popular engine choice in compacts, but there was enough demand. For instance, in the 1968 Dodge Dart 270 series, they made 76,500 total. 21,300 were V-8 and 55,200 were slant six (170 or 225)
That's it. And the name which had slipped my mind was "Dodge Forward Control."
Haha...little red wagon! After seeing that I went to the web site for National Trails Raceway to see if they had any old pics similar to the one posted, and the first line of their text was: Who could possibly forget such classics as the Hemi Under Glass or the Little Red Wagon? Not many pics at all in their track history page, though. Too bad.
Anyway, that A-100 compact sized body was even used on the "tilt cab" L series medium duty truck line. Totally different on the heavy L trucks though. After my dad got the Corvair panel truck for yeoman light delivery/errands he also got a bigger van for heavier loads I suppose. I think it was a Dodge A-100 van but can't be sure. I just remember that it was bigger, louder, and more uncomfortable with that big hump between the seats covering the engine. And the gas station stops took longer too. Dad explained it had 2 fuel tanks-and need them both. I even found a Dodge pic with that same green/white color from Leno's truck.
Great color combo too!
Yeah, eventually they replaced the 170 with a 198 version. I thought it was 1969, but according to Wikipedia it was 1970. IIRC, the 170 went out having 115 hp gross, and the 198 came in with 125. The 225 had 145 hp. The 198 was actually cheaper for Mopar to manufacture than the 170 had been, as it was essentially a 225 with a narrower bore. The 170 had both a narrower bore and a shorter stroke, and a shorter deck height.
The Dart and Valiant were really too big and heavy for even this engine though, and I'm sure once emissions controls became stricter, it probably became a real dog. It was dropped after 1974, so for 1975-76, the 225 was the standard engine in the Valiant and Dart.
My '69 Dart wasn't exactly a screamer with its 225 slant six. I'd hate to think of how slow it would have been with a 170!
If my neighbor says, "I love my Valiant's handling and power, but my the floor and trunk get wet every time it rains," and my co-worker says, "My Corvair looks good, but the heater is terrible, it smells of gas and uses lots of gas," then the Falcon looks like a decent, but bland, alternative.
From what I've read, all three cars underwent regular improvements - the 1961 Corvair, for example, had so many changed and revised parts that some GM insiders said that GM should have advertised it as an all-new car.
Today, a 1960 model of any of those cars is a rare sight at car shows, so they must have been used up and tossed aside without much thought.
The Chevy and Ford competitors weren't much better in that regard, if I recall correctly.
One thing I've noticed, when we go to the Ford, GM, and Mopar shows, is that the early Falcons (not necessarily the 1960 models though) seem to have a relatively good showing. But at the Mopar show it's rare to see a first-gen Valiant or Lancer, and early Corvairs don't seem all that common, either.
So, it seems like those Falcons do have their following, although I don't know if these car shows are really a good indication of their longevity or not.
The A-100's headlight frames were the same used on the Dodge pickups of that time.
I like the looks of the A-100, but it seems odd to see a two-piece windshield, even on a truck, in the '60's.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1963-studebaker-westinghouse-pickup-truck-concept.- - - htm/printable...
Could you get a V-8 in a regular Falcon though, or did you have to get a Sprint?
When Ford put the 289 V8 in the Sprint and added a 4-speed transmission option (late 63?), then things got interesting.....for a short while.....
I do know that when the Mustang came out, Falcon Sprint sales went into the ditch, in 1965.
Also, when the Maverick came out in early 1969 as a 1970 model, it was initially only offered as a 2-door, and it was a lot smaller than your typical 2-door compact such as a Dart, Valiant, or Nova. So maybe Ford felt like they had to keep some kind of presence in the more traditional-sized compact range?
Wonder why they didn't just let the compact Falcon run for the whole model year? Unless they needed the assembly line to switch over for the upcoming 4-door Maverick, which debuted as a 1971?
**Edit: just found this blurb from Wikipedia:
"The Ford Falcon compact model continued for the first half of the 1970 model year, but was discontinued as it could not meet new federal standards that came into effect on January 1, 1970."
Okay, so that 'splains it. What was it that went into effect on 1/1/70, though? The new side impact standards? I think they also required cars in 1970 to have locking steering columns and gearshifts. As I recall, GM was early to this game, as my '69 Bonneville already had that, but my '69 Dart GT didn't. So maybe it was just easier and cheaper for Ford to axe the compact Falcon altogether, rather than try to make a car conform to the new standards, when they were about ready to drop it anyway?
I've read that the only engine available in the '63 Sprint was the V8 but some dispute that-stating that "early" Sprint models were available with a 6 cyl. That seems odd because both the Sprint and the V8 were both "mid year" introductions for '63.
According to print ads the 4-speed was available at the beginning of the model year. Makes me wonder if those "early" Sprint Falcons with 6 cylinder and 4-speed could have been Futura models - since both Futura and Sprint had same production code. Oy.
A 1963 road test of the new Falcon Sprint with 260 V8 and 4-speed had a sticker price of $2624.60, but I don't know the base price of the Sprint or other models.
In 1964 the base 2-door Sedan Falcon was advertised at $1,985, the Futura 2 door HT was an advertised $2,198, and the Sprint (again with Challenger 260 V8 but with standard 3-speed) was advertised at $2,425.
For 1964 Falcon convertibles and station wagons the 260 V8 option was $152.70 and $169.40 for other models.
The Marti Report for this Grabber Green Falcon is as follows:
429,134 Torinos Built 26,071 were Falcons
69 came with 429-4V CJ non-Ram Air engines
27 where automatic transmissions
2 where painted Grabber Green
2 had black Vinyl Bench Seats
1 was equipped with Argent Style Steel Wheels
It should be noted that while the Falcon died here, it fared better elsewhere.
Here's the Australian '62 Falcon XL and '78 Falcon XC Cobra below:
I saw it blast off from a light one time and it was just incredible.
http://seattle.craigslist.org/est/cto/2069284654.html
Anyone?
"The Car Detroit Refused To Build"
I know a guy who rode in it one time and he said it was just wicked fast and the scariest thing he has ever done.
He swore that if he lived he would NEVER get into it again.
9 second quarter mile times for a car that's driven on the street??
My suggestion: How about the Saab 96 and 99 series? These cars may have been disparaged by the general public when new, and they may have been unreliable for most owners (due to the weak transmissions and head gaskets), but I think they have emerged in recent years as a cult favorite with rally folks and eccentric types. The 99 Turbo seems to be coveted by those who want a practical classic car.
And I just saw a mid-60s 96 driving down my street a few hours ago. That putt-putt burble of the 2-stroke motor sounds just like my old moped!
So in my book I will grant it historical respect but certainly not any mechanical respect.
In short, a great idea very badly executed.
No doubt they were tough little trolls in a rally. There were other great rally cars/drivers making news back then even though it never really caught on here at home. Soccer has always been more popular as a sport here than rallying! Haha!
The Lancia Stratos was a dominant force in (1970s) Europe while John Buffum was the top American driver (and driving insanely fast!) with the factory Triumph TR7/TR8s until 80? 81? Whenever the rules changed Audi created a monster phenom with the Quattro. It still looks like a world-beater even in hind sight. 30 years later.
Anyway by the late 70s we had a new local Saab dealer and I thought the 99 EMS was cool. Yesterday a Saab 900 Turbo drove past the house looking very sharp, very clean. It looked completely stock including factory alloys. There can't be too many good examples of those left.
House payment was $124.00 a month so we lived and raised our family on the rest.
(and I thought I had a pretty decent job!)
Did that get any better for the 9000 turbo with the B234 L/R engines in the early 90s? The reviews were very good when those cars were new - and very expensive - but did they have the same auto trans problems as the 900?
Saab never seemed to find itself in the right place at the right time here. Either ahead of the pack with turbo technology and front drive or playing catching up with reliability issues. And even just pricing disadvantages versus everyone, domestic and Japanese.
A fully optioned 900 turbo in the early 80s cost about $17k. By early 90s the 9000 turbo was twice that which would be about $53k in 2010 money. Acura/Lexus was very well positioned for the market by the time Saab moved the ignition to the steering column. I never thought the console ignition was a big deal but it was just another thing that made Saab different!