I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today! (Archived)

fintail

That's pretty cool, never seen these before. I kind of like the last one, looks like pretty flush glazing, not a common styling theme of that era. The actual 60 Ford certainly looks better than that segmented grille prototype in the middle of the article. And of course, especially with the first pic, these presage the 61 Thunderbird.

The mk 1 Capri also has some of these styling themes, kind of a 2:3 scale Starliner:

ab348

The '60 Ford "snout-nose" design that they approved initially really looks pretty awful. I found the corporate shenanigans part of the story really interesting too, with Ford getting a copy of the design plans for the '59 Chevy 2 years before it made its debut, then after seeing it not believing that GM would actually build it. Finally having HFII bypass the entire management structure and decision-making process to say that the '60 should be done off the Quicksilver concept shows how Ford back then was still run like a owner-manager company despite its size.

I thought the alternate rear end design for the '60, with round taillights dipping down into the bumper like the '61 had, looked better than what they produced.

fintail

The round tail lights would have also presented a unifying styling theme over many years of Fords. The 60 arched lights are unique, and a little odd, especially with how they are mirrored in the bumper design - but nothing went there. I've seen customs with the lower arc lights filled in. I once thought they were spots for reverse lights, but nope, those are inset near the license plate. As they lasted only a year, maybe HFII didn't like them - someone didn't, as they went back to round, then square/rectangle for the next 10+ years.

andre1969

It's interesting that they were concerned, initially, that the formal-look '59 Fords wouldn't sell, and that Ford was being left out of the "space race" that they apparently thought Plymouth and Chevy had entered. Yet, the Ford ended up being the sales winner for '59.

As for the '60 Ford being down about 500K units compared to the '59, I wonder how much of that could have been because of the Falcon? I just get the feeling that the Falcon served pretty well as an alternative to a full-sized car, and probably cannibalized sales of the larger cars, whereas the Corvair was probably viewed as too oddball and out there, to steal as many sales from the big Chevies.

Dodge was also a much bigger contender in the low-priced field starting in 1960. In 1959, the cheapest Dodge model, the Coronet, was priced about the same as an Impala or Galaxie, around $2580-2600 for a 4-door sedan. But for '60, Dodge brought out the Dart, which wasn't just a new model, but an entire model that matched Chevy, Ford, and Plymouth, pretty much model for model, at similar prices. In retrospect it probably hurt Plymouth more than Ford, or Chevy. In fact, the Dart lineup actually outsold the Plymouth Savoy/Belvedere/Fury line for '60. However, thanks to the Valiant, Plymouth as a whole still outsold Dodge. Still, the low-priced market was getting more crowded.

roadburner

I loved the 1957 Ford but I thought the 1958 cluttered up a clean design. I never liked the 1959; I thought it was awkwardly styled- especially when viewed from the rear.

andre1969

For some odd reason, I find the '58 Ford to be the most appealing of the three years, but realize I'm in the minority there, by a long shot. My main hang up with the '57 Ford is those jutting, bug-eyed headlights. That's just something I never liked on a car. But, other than that I think it's an attractive car.

The '58 is definitely busier, but I like its front-end. To me, it bears a slight resemblance to a '57-58 DeSoto/Chrysler, just a bit more heavy-handed, so that might be why I like it. But, don't like its taillights. The '59 has a nice, formal, almost expensive look from some angles, but the rear end really bugs me. The way the fins flare out, and where the backup lights are mounted, really make the car look top heavy and tipsy.

In my opinion, you could pretty much "fix" the '57 Ford by simply insetting its headlights a bit. And you could fix the '58, for the most part, by just giving it the '57 taillights. But, to make the '59 look just right, in my opinion, would take a little more work.

fintail

I have always been amused by the hood scoop on 58 Fords - couldn't be from any other year, I remember my dad liked the 58, once tried to buy a blue and white 58 Country Sedan he discovered parked in a carport in a small town near where we lived - another "gonna restore it someday" cars that was never seen again.

uplanderguy

I like the '56 best, but I also like the '57 and '58. My favorite aunt drove a cocoa brown with white top '58 Fairlane two-door sedan (whatever Ford called that), with a white 'scoop' of paint behind the front wheel opening, a la Corvette, which I liked. If I can remember the car, being born in '58, that tells you how late she was driving it.

I hate the '59--blunt in front, huge taillights in back. I don't even care for the instrument panel. In the '64 Avanti dealer intro tape there is a base-model '59 Ford four-door shown driving in a lane next to the Avanti, and love it or hate it, the Avanti looks twenty years newer, not five. Of course I realize, different markets.

andys120

I've seen a '61 Falcon sedan in my area a couple of times recently. The paint is shot, a kind of matte blue-gray but there's no visible rust or dents. Chrome bumpers and and trim are all there.
Now that's something you don't see everyday

ab348

Rightly or wrongly I lump the '57 through '59 Fords together though I don't know if the '57 was merely a refreshed '56 or if the '59 was significantly different under the skin from the '58. It's just that those 3 years seem similar in terms of size and overall design. I prefer the '57 to the '58, which just seems to be changed for the sake of change and not in a good way, with a cheap-looking stamped grille and poorly designed taillights. We had a '59 when I was a tyke so I have some nostalgic memories related to it but I don't think it is a great design looking at it now, though I like it better than the '58. 1958 would have been a tough year if you were buying a new car - poor styling across the board from GM and Ford, and good-looking cars from Chrysler which had a terrible reputation for quality after the '57s started falling apart right out of the showroom.

uplanderguy

As a kid, I liked the reverse-opening hoods of the '57 and '58. Do the '59's do that too? I'm not sure.

andre1969

Yeah, the '59 Fords are like that, as well.


So is Mercury:

andre1969

ab348 said:

Rightly or wrongly I lump the '57 through '59 Fords together though I don't know if the '57 was merely a refreshed '56 or if the '59 was significantly different under the skin from the '58.

The '57 Ford was all-new, body and frame. Its frame even began to show the slightest beginnings of the transition from ladder frame to perimeter frame, which allowed the footwells in the back seat to be dropped slightly.

Ford had a knack in those days though, for making a car look all-new, but using a pre-existing frame. For instance, I always thought the '55-56 Ford was an all-new design, but apparently it was just a new body dropped down on the '52-54 frame. Still, it looked "all new" enough to fool me!

They did the same thing with '57-64. Same frame for the whole run, although they got a new body for '60. I don't know if the '61 body was considered "all new"; to me it seemed like the '61-64 was just a heavy modification. One area where that '57 frame betrays the newer bodies, however, is in the trunk. Ford made the bodies more low-slung to keep up with the times, but because the '57 frame had a fairly high ride height, it made the trunk shallower.

I also thought the '69-72 and '73-78 Fords were totally different cars, but in more recent times I've heard that the '73 was just a very heavy modification of the '72, although it was convincing enough to look "all new"...at least to me.

When Mercury had its own dedicated body/frame for 1957-60, I've heard that the '59 was actually an all-new design, from '58. But, I don't know if that was a new body, a new frame, both, or just misinformation.

mrwhipple311

I don't know if its just a small sample size in my area or really a thing but it seems the survival rate of the first generation Falcon is amazingly high. I would have thought they all would have been used up and discarded by 1970. I never see a full size 60-63 Ford but I doubt that I ever go a month without seeing a different first gen Falcon. I don't see later generation Falcons either.

andre1969

From what I've heard, the early Falcons were actually pretty well built, and reliable. They were just cheaply built in some respects, like the "drop in" gas tank that made them more vulnerable in a rear end collision. The early Falcons also came in a wide variety of body styles, including hardtops and convertibles, so I think they might have a broader appeal among collectors and old car lovers.

But, once the Mustang came out, Ford started to cheapen the Falcon. The '66-70 Falcon was actually based on the intermediate Fairlane/Comet, just on a shorter wheelbase. It was reduced to just a 2- or 4-door sedan, and wagon styles (which shared their 113" wb with the Fairlane/Torino). By and large they were just cheap, throwaway cars. Not unreliable, necessarily, just a cheap car that not a whole lot of people were interested in holding on to. The earlier Falcons were also a smash hit, sales-wise, but in later years, with increased competition, not only from other compacts, but also ponycars, their popularity waned seriously.

As for the '60-63 (I'd throw '64 in as well) big Fords, they were pretty popular when new, but nowhere near the volume sellers that the Chevy was. They do have their fan base...I was at the Ford Nationals in Carlisle PA this past weekend, and they had a pretty good turnout, although most of them were '60-61 Starliners. But it just seems like the Chevies of that era are more sought after among collectors.

My Dad's first car was a 1964 Galaxie 500 XL with a 390. Hardtop coupe. He bought it from a guy who got drafted. It was actually a very nice car, and in later years Dad said he never should have gotten rid of it. BUT, he said, it was a Ford! His dream car was a '63 Impala with the 409 and a 4-speed. He found one for sale, traded the Galaxie, and was just in heaven with it. Until, HE got drafted, and gave it up.

uplanderguy

I've heard back in the day, from somewhere, that those first Falcons were flimsy, but I have zero evidence whatsoever to back that up.

RE.: Front-hinged '59 Ford hood--I thought I had seen that somewhere, but the blunt front styling is that which would make you not think they were front-hinged.

I love '61 Starliners, as long as they're some other color than what I remember as 'tomato red', outside and in, that was so 'everywhere' where I lived, on Fords from '61 to '64.

fintail

I see a lot of early Falcons, too. 60-62 big Fords are thin on the ground here, but for whatever reason, 63-64s seem to pop up more often.

mrwhipple311 said:

I don't know if its just a small sample size in my area or really a thing but it seems the survival rate of the first generation Falcon is amazingly high. I would have thought they all would have been used up and discarded by 1970. I never see a full size 60-63 Ford but I doubt that I ever go a month without seeing a different first gen Falcon. I don't see later generation Falcons either.

fintail

My dad's 60 Ford was that red, white top, red and white (the red was kind of plaid-grained vinyl IIRC) interior. Looked great on that car, but I remember the paint seemed to oxidize fast, I was well into my clean car OCD by then and it was a job keeping it shiny (waxed it a lot).

uplanderguy said:

I've heard back in the day, from somewhere, that those first Falcons were flimsy, but I have zero evidence whatsoever to back that up.

RE.: Front-hinged '59 Ford hood--I thought I had seen that somewhere, but the blunt front styling is that which would make you not think they were front-hinged.

I love '61 Starliners, as long as they're some other color than what I remember as 'tomato red', outside and in, that was so 'everywhere' where I lived, on Fords from '61 to '64.

ab348

The '60 Falcon was an early unibody for Ford, after the '58-up Lincolns and Thunderbirds, which were criticized for being heavy, so maybe they lightened up the structure a bit. I do recall reading that when Ford Australia took on the Falcon for assembly there, they had to beef up certain components to handle the roads there at the time. The other reason they may still be somewhat prevalent is simply because they sold so many of them.

xwesx

An old Falcon-based first-generation Econoline window van came up for sale locally. Looks original in terms of condition/paint, no engine, $1800 asking. I love the look of these first-gen Ecos, though the thought of bringing it back to life is a little daunting. I keep thinking of a small bore crate engine and possibilities.....

andre1969

Funny thing is, at a quick glance, the early Falcons actually look a bit beefy to me. For instance, under the hood, the way the fender wells are extra thick, and it has a few brackets under there to strengthen things up.. But, maybe they have to be beefy, in those respects, because they were so flimsy in other areas?

Weight-wise, the 1960 Falcon started at 2259 lb for a 2-door sedan, and 2288 for a 4-door. So, there really wasn't much to them. But, the Corvair wasn't much different... 2270 lb for the 2-door, 2305 for the 4-door. The Valiant was a relative porker, at 2635 lb for the 4-door sedan. I had forgotten, but the 2-door Valiant didn't hit the scene until 1961. It was 2565 for a stripper 2-door sedan, 2605 lb if you wanted a stripper 2-door hardtop.

Something else I had forgotten, about those early compacts...the Valiant, and Chevy II wagon, actually offered a 3rd row seat. I don't think the early Falcon did, although by the time they were sharing a lot of their structure with the Fairlane, they might have. And, for obvious reasons, I'm sure the Corvair wagon never offered a 3rd row seat.

As small as those early Valiants and Chevy II's were, I'd imagine the third row seat was really cramped, as well as a death trap! It's interesting that they could squeeze a 3rd row back there, but in the 70's when the domestics returned to that market (Volare, Fairmont, Malibu, etc), none of them had a third row, until FWD in cars like the Celebrity and then Taurus wagons gave them the space efficiency to put a 3rd row back there. But, I also imagine that in those early Valiants and Chevy II wagons, they probably put the gas tank vertically, in the rear quarter panel, to clear some foot room? The government probably told them to stop doing that by the 70's!

xwesx

andre1969 said:

Funny thing is, at a quick glance, the early Falcons actually look a bit beefy to me. For instance, under the hood, the way the fender wells are extra thick, and it has a few brackets under there to strengthen things up.. But, maybe they have to be beefy, in those respects, because they were so flimsy in other areas?

They formed the basis of vans and "trucks" during that era, so maybe they were on the beefy side!

uplanderguy

There is a Chevy salesman's video on youtube, comparing Corvair Rampside pickup to the Falcon pickup, where in a panic stop the rear two wheels of the Falcon pickup leave the ground, LOL. Of course, the fairness of said video could well be in question.

Even when I was a kid, if I saw an early Econoline, Corvair van or pickup, or even the second-gen van ("Chevy Van"), I used to think, "Man, I'd hate to be in a front-end accident in one of those".

The early Dodge vans and small pickups looked nice, but I always chuckled that they had a two-piece windshield.

ab348

Leno just recently did a segment of his show on the Rampside he had restored years ago, and used the old line "when you get into an accident with one of these, you're first on the scene" to reference the unprotected driving position with your legs ahead of the front wheels.

Here is the Econoline pic you referenced:

omarman

A different place and time. Dad let us kids have skates, skateboards, bikes, minibikes and other things in life that you wouldn't call "safe" at any speed. Helmet? Who's playing football? We're riding over to Honda Hills!

fintail

I thought all forward control vehicles operate on the idea that the driver is the crumple zone.

kyfdx

omarman said:

A different place and time. Dad let us kids have skates, skateboards, bikes, minibikes and other things in life that you wouldn't call "safe" at any speed. Helmet? Who's playing football? We're riding over to Honda Hills!

Skateboards that were literally metal skate wheels mounted to the bottom of a board. I think I still have road rash from 1969.

ab348

kyfdx said:

Skateboards that were literally metal skate wheels mounted to the bottom of a board. I think I still have road rash from 1969.

I still remember an event that went on here when I was maybe 10-11 years old and those metal-wheel skateboards suddenly became popular. A local shopping center had just built an underground parking garage and decided to have a skateboard contest on the sloping laneway leading into it. Local radio station had a DJ there with music blaring, and the idea was for contestants to do various stunts and be judged by a panel of local minor celebrities. It attracted a huge crowd, to the point where many (including my family) could only get close enough to see the beginning moves, as the contestants disappeared out of view about halfway down. Since we couldn't see them at that point all we knew was either the applause that we heard when they did something good, or the groans when they wrecked.

At my age it was hilarious to me to hear the groans and then see the victims limp into view (or in at least one case, being helped along) nursing the injuries caused by their mishaps. No helmets, knee or elbow pads were in use back then. I'm laughing now even thinking about it.

Michaell

Growing up in SoCal in the 70's, the skateboarding culture was quite huge. My town approved the development of a privately owned skate park, which contained areas for kids of all ages and skill levels.

They required safety gear (likely for liability purposes), but I'm sure there were a number of injuries.

The place only lasted a few years before it was shut down and replaced with a Burger King.

roadburner

omarman said:

A different place and time. Dad let us kids have skates, skateboards, bikes, minibikes and other things in life that you wouldn't call "safe" at any speed. Helmet? Who's playing football? We're riding over to Honda Hills!

I’m reminded of Mollie Hemingway's philosophy:

"Look, I'm a mother. I care deeply about my children's safety. But safety is just one important thing to teach our children. And it's not even anywhere near the most important thing. Keeping your kids from dying or getting hurt is of secondary importance to teaching them how to live. Safety isn't even a virtue. If you're teaching your kids more about safety than you are about honesty, kindness, respect for others, responsibility, gratitude, integrity, cooperation, determination, social skills, enthusiasm, compassion and manners, you're doing it wrong."

For some reason this quote fires up the hand-wringing bed wetters...

xwesx

roadburner said:

For some reason this quote fires up the hand-wringing bed wetters...

First time I've seen that. A great quote, indeed.

fintail

But how many of those does she display?

Not that I distrust such whine from a Federalist/FOX employee...

omarman

Can't trust anything on TV. Or in front of it either.

uplanderguy

I always tell my wife that Mollie Hemingway, although I sometimes agree with what she is saying, always has the biggest smirk on her face when introduced! She is often on Bret Baier's show, whom I think is a news guy, not an opinion guy. Mara Liasson from NPR is usually on the same 'panel' Hemingway is, on his show.

Speaking earlier of '60 Fords, woke up to this on Facebook this morning, unfortunately:

omarman

So the license plate means this '60 Ford Batmobile is registered and street legal?

imidazol97

Is that a Canadian model?

andre1969

My guess is that as long as it still has turn signals, tail lights, and brake lights, it's street legal, even if it's modified from stock. I don't think backup lights or 4-way flashers were federally required equipment in 1960. At least, I remember a 1960 DeSoto ad mentioning the 4-way flashers being newly standard that year.

Actually, I guess if it's old enough, and has historic tags on it, depending on the state it doesn't even have to go through any kind of inspection. So you can make it as illegal as you want, until the police happen to stop you.

uplanderguy

Anybody here from around Galax, VA? I'm thinking not, but I posted a pic I found of a Studebaker-Jeep dealer there in the '64 model year and wondering if anyone recalls the place. It's on the 'Postwar Studebakers' page.

omarman

I was thinking about a distracted driving offense or rather driving an offensive distraction.

fintail

Now I know why JC Whitney is out of taillight lenses. I wonder if they operate sequentially.

imidazol97

Sequential operation would something I'd like to see working.

I recall how jealous I was of Cougars with their sequential taillights.
My 67 Mustang only had normal turn signals...

Now I see certain Audis with sequential taillights, and I still think
it's neat.

imidazol97

fintail said:

The round tail lights would have also presented a unifying styling theme over many years of Fords. The 60 arched lights are unique, and a little odd, especially with how they are mirrored in the bumper design - but nothing went there. I've seen customs with the lower arc lights filled in. I once thought they were spots for reverse lights, but nope, those are inset near the license plate. As they lasted only a year, maybe HFII didn't like them - someone didn't, as they went back to round, then square/rectangle for the next 10+ years.

I've been wrong before, but I believe there were optional factory reflectors that went in those "empty"
spots on the bumper that were symmetrical to the regular taillights.

Sometimes heavily modified 60 Fords at cruise-ins have them, along with rubber bumper tips, continental spare, etc..

fintail

I think I have seen the reflectors too. Not sure if they were a stock accessory, as the cars were old enough to drive when I was born

Thinking of that, and how I thought they could be a reverse light, reminds me of how my dad's 60 Country Sedan was optioned. Big engine (352), automatic, power steering, manual brakes, radio, no reverse lights.

Sequential lights can be cool, I am surprised more haven't jumped on it in this era when stylists are desperate for anything to set their cars apart.

Speaking of obscure sightings, I have The Price is Right on in the background, and the prize car is a red 55 Thunderbird.

imidazol97 said:

I've been wrong before, but I believe there were optional factory reflectors that went in those "empty"
spots on the bumper that were symmetrical to the regular taillights.

Sometimes heavily modified 60 Fords at cruise-ins have them, along with rubber bumper tips, continental spare, etc..

imidazol97

At least I'm now having memory failure in dementia in what I remember about the reflectors
from the factory. I had forgotten about the optional hood ornament. I've seen those at
cruise-ins on 60's but I doubt I ever saw one on a 60 Ford back in the day.

I recall the ambiguity of the wording in the description about the reflector doubling
the size of the taillight's "glow." It's actually only a reflector and nothing glows.

fintail

Cool, there it is. It doesn't look bad, as the empty space is begging for something. The pic also highlights the inset reverse light.

I've seen those hood ornaments too, I'd have to pass on that option.

uplanderguy

I absolutely remember the lower reflectors, although I never knew they were a factory option, or at least a dealer accessory.

Of course, at a car show one can hear any level of automotive BS, but an owner of a very nice '60 Sunliner at Hershey once told me the cars were wider than some states allowed, and also that they were shipped to dealers without that beltline or peak molding at the top of the bodysides, to make them fit the carriers.

As an auditor for forty years, both seem suspect to me, LOL.

fintail

I don't know about being illegally wide (lots of arcane rules back in the supposed good old days, I bet), but IIRC the 60 Fords were the widest ever, even marginally wider than period Lincolns, I think, and might have been the widest car that year.

ab348

Regarding the width, that statement is true, as noted (ahem) in the article I posted a few days back:



If you want a set of rear bumper reflectors for your '60 Ford today, be prepared to pay:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/NOS-1960-Ford-Galaxie-Rear-Bumper-Reflector-Kit-Starliner-Sunliner-FoMoCo-60-/311891737607

fintail

My reading comprehension stopped at the pics

The "gunsights" on the front fenders of 60 Fords could be useful for judging width, too.

andre1969

The story I'd always heard about 1960 Fords is that in some states, they had to be registered as medium-duty trucks because they exceeded 80" in width. But, they got a 1-year reprieve from that, as well.

That one could have just been an urban legend, though.