pictures by Triborough
I was walking down the Cohort sidewalk, when I came across this black ’61 Ford sedan. Galaxie Club Coupe; looks pretty decent, for what was undoubtedly an old family hauler. Six or V8? I’d guess V8, most likely the standard Y-block 292 boat anchor. Oh; it’s for sale; well that ad in the windshield would likely confirm my guess. Or take me for a chump.
Unbelievable; literally. He’s trying to pawn this off as some sort of NASCAR “1961½ Homologation special”, “with only 1000 made. And with a “406 hp” engine. Well, I happened to have some personal experience with hi-performance 1961 Fords (more below). This guy might have benefited from reading my story, at least in order to learn how to make a whopper sound more credible.
First off, there were no 1961.5 big Fords. And the NASCAR racers strongly preferred the Starliner, as it was of course much slipperier than than boxy sedan roof. And there was no need to homologate it, as the Starliner was a popular production model.
There was no “406 hp” engine in 1961. The hi-po 390 V8 came in 475 and 401 hp versions, but the single-carb 375 was the one used for NASCAR, as dual four-barrels were banned. The 401 hp version was a drag-strip special.
A screaming “406hp” NASCAR V8 with a single exhaust. Hmmm. Here’s the real give-away on the ad: “new Holly double-barrel carburetor” Aha! Well, let’s just say that all of the higher-performance Ford V8s, starting with the 300 hp 390 came with at least a four-barrel carb. Which means this one has either the 292 or 220hp 352. Busted. As if it was necessary.
And here’s another whopper: “was featured in tv shows (Andy Griffith) and movies….” I guess we’re to be impressed that various 1961 Fords made an appearance in them, as did various Fords run in NASCAR races. But that hardly adds any value to this particular car. Enough already; oh, and good luck with that price….
Enough of the lies and BS about ’61 Fords! Here’s the 100% honest-to-god cross-my-heart true story about the 390/375 hp 1961 Starliner my dad once owned.
Give the man a brake, Paul. It does have new “breaks!”
> Here’s the real give-away on the ad: “new Holly double-barrel carburetor” Aha! Well, let’s just say that all of the higher-performance Ford V8s, starting with the 300 hp 390 came with at least a four-barrel carb. Which means this one has either the 292 or 220hp 352. Busted. As if it was necessary.
My guess is that the seller actually means it has a “Holley double-pumper” carb, which is a 4-bbl with two accelerator pumps. That’s how I interpreted it anyhow. Given the other errors in the ad (some more obvious than others) the seller probably doesn’t know his double-pumpers from his double-barrels. 🙂
Also, I don’t believe that the seller is claiming that the engine in the car originally had 406hp, but that it supposedly what it has now. Still a dubious claim, considering the single exhaust out back.
In any event, the words “Buyer beware” were never more appropriate.
PS: Speaking of wheels, this car really needs to lose those trailer wheels…. or are those proof of its NASCAR heritage. 😉
I read it differently; I think he’s telling the truth, in this instance. With a single exhaust, this car either has the 292 or 352, both of which had a two-barrel carbs. If it had a pair of big pipes out the back, I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
406 hp? with a little single exhaust? I don’t think so. And as JPC pointed out, there never was a 406 hp Ford engine.
Aftermarket 4-barrel manifolds were available for the 292 and 352 engines, right? No reason to assume that the stock 2-barrel manifold is still in place, especially on this “homologation special” (snicker). In which case it’s quite plausible that he really meant that a Holley double-pumper was installed. If it really is a NEW carb as stated, they would be much easier to come by than a Holley 2-bbl. Holley does still sell 2-bbl. carbs, but the local speed shop probably wouldn’t have one on the shelf.
As for the 406hp claim, I agree that you won’t see anywhere close to that at the rear wheels, regardless of what’s under the hood. Maybe the guy that sold him the double-pumper said it would add 100hp. 🙂
It could have anything under the hood, maybe a twin-turbo 292, the only one in the world, and dyno-tested at 406 hp.
I tend to put evidence ahead of speculation. It has a single exhaust. The odds of someone running a warmed up FE with a four barrel carb and not adding dual exhausts is about as good as this being a true NASCAR homologation special. Anything is possible. Maybe it has a 427 Cammer. Maybe it has a gas turbine. Maybe……… But it still has a single exhaust, that we can’t speculate away.
Kind of reminds me of the time my buddy and I were looking at a mid-80s E-Class Mercedes he wanted to buy. I put it into gear at idle and it just died. The seller said, “Oh, they all do that. They have a lot of compression and they just want to GO!” He pointed to his similar era XJS and said, “That one’s the same way.” I gave him a look like a teenage girl gives her Dad when he says something stupid, gave him back the keys, and just walked away.
Can we really rule out that this isn’t an east coast car and the driver’s side exhaust rusted off behind the rear axle housing on the way across the Rockies? Plus, even Y-blocks can be built to make well over 406 horsepower if money is no object (and that might help to explain where the $24k went).
tdballo: No, we can’t rule out anything. As I said above, It could have the world’s only twin-turbo 292. Or maybe the atomic powerplant from Ford’s Nucleon. Or……
Or we can use common sense, which tells me this guy is full of shit.
> I tend to put evidence ahead of speculation. It has a single exhaust. The odds of someone running a warmed up FE with a four barrel carb and not adding dual exhausts is about as good as this being a true NASCAR homologation special.
Sorry Paul, I disagree with this statement. There were probably lots tinkerers “back in the day” who swapped on 4-bbls because carbs and intakes were readily available for cheap/free, but without really doing much else to take advantage of them.
For example, my dad swapped an Edelbrock DP4B and Holley 4-bbl. onto the 383 in one of his cars because a friend gave them to him for free, but he was too cheap to have a set of dual pipes plumbed. He planned to upgrade to duals after the single exhaust rotted off and needed replacement, and it just never happened.
Yeah; you’re undoubtedly right. He must have spent the whole $24k on the upholstery, and couldn’t afford the duals. 🙂
Yes, most of the ad seems to be off in left field. My only point was that it’s very plausible that the seller meant “double-pumper” instead of “double-barrel”. If the guy really has spent $24k on the car, it’s a safe bet that whatever is under the hood isn’t stock.
A project car evolves over time as funds permit. I spent a ridiculous sum building a performance engine for one of my Chryslers, then slapped on a 600cfm AFB carb because that’s what I had on the shelf, and cast iron exhaust manifolds because the (dual) exhaust system in the car was already setup to bolt up to them. I swapped them out for a better carb and headers later… years later.
Have you all forgot the Ford 406 ci High Performance (hp) engine?? My gawd!!!
Please ignore my previous reply. I didn’t see the reply that follows.
It looks like he’s trying to pawn off a ’61 as a ’62 with the just introduced 406 CID engine, and the ‘hp’ doesn’t refer to horsepower, but ‘high performance’. That’s why he put in the ‘1961 ½’ fiction to make it more plausible.
Still, that single exhaust poking out the back doesn’t seem it’s likely. Given all the other outlandish claims, I’m going to agree that it’s got a stock, single-exhaust 292-2v or 352-2v. So, in that regard, Holley ‘double-barrel’ carburetor is, indeed, one of the few accurate statements in the ad.
I always wonder where cars advertised in such an outrageous, PT Barnum-style manner end up (and how much they eventually sell for). I can’t see this ‘NASCAR special’ going for anywhere near even half of what this guy is asking.
Rats, Paul – had I known that this would get picked up on CC, I never would have told the world to “Call JP”. 🙂
Seriously, you would have thought that this kind of thing would have died with the internet. I wonder what this thing really is – it has Galaxie trim on the roof but none of it below, and as you note, some lowly slug of an engine with a 2 barrel carb. He also does not tout the 4 speed tranny, so the thing probably has one of those NASCAR-bred Cruise-O-Matics (unless it is one of the special HiPo 2 speed Ford-O-Matics). Actually, I’m not sure if I am seeing a column shifter or not.
This, folks, is the side effect of all of those 1962-64 Mopar strippo special 2 door sedans with monster engines in them. Everyone now thinks that not only were these popular in Chrysler stores, but that other companies did them too. Like the 66 Impala “2 door post” that we saw yesterday and this stupid Galaxie /Fairlane/300 2 door with a 406 hp 292. Arrrrgh. And just in case it really is a 406 that someone has stuck in, they were rated at a maximum of 405 hp.
Also, is there a less appealing 1961 car made than a low level 61 Ford sedan? OK, other than one made by Studebaker or Chrysler.
Yes, I did a close up of the interior; it has a column shifter, and I rather suspect it’s for the HiPo Ford-O-Matic. NASCAR racers didn’t really need more than two gears anyway 🙂
It’s definitely a Galaxie, the Fairlane 2-door sedan had a different C-pillar and rear glass. It is missing a good deal of trim, however.
I read the linked Starliner tale. Still laughing. Your father was an interesting and accomplished man.
+1 they were and still are great looking cars.I love those afterburner lights
I got behind a ’61 after a car cruise last summer. There is something great about seeing one pull away at night. The same applies to the ’62-’64s and the ’61-’66 T-Birds. All you need is the Top Gun soundtrack.
Mark, love your t-bird but your taste in music takes my breath away.
I shouldnt laugh because that car being a tudor would fetch that much coin here we only saw fordors new however any Ford savvy bogan isnt gunna believe that ad, despite us using a different brand of spelling here Holley is spelt like you guys do and breaks are what you take at work, brakes are used in cars and single exhaust belongs on the family hauler not the race car, our race cars might turn left and right only but we’ve seen the NASCAR stuff and it didnt run the sedan roofline
And a “boat anchor” indeed was the 292. Cousins had a tudor in that chalky pale green as their school car, with the Fordomatic 2-speed. Reliable boat anchor-everybody piled in to go for the ride to turn the speedometer over at 100,000-but slow. On the hill headed out of town, people with faster cars (i.e., any other V-8 of that era) would pull alongside, pause to wave, and then leave it in their exhaust.
If this guy’s spent $24,000 on this car, well he either can’t work on his own car and takes it to the dealer for every little thing or he’s lying. Considering the other evidence, I’d go with the latter. People see the Jackson-Barret auctions and think their crapmobile is worth what they saw there when an actual historic car with established provenance rolls onto the dock. I don’t know how many basket case Mustangs I see on Craigslist that are asking $4,000. They all have the line ‘future classic’ somewhere in the text, too.
Indeed, it’s nothing short of astounding what some misguided individuals think they can get for some of the biggest piles of automotive crap on Craigslist. I mean, there are, literally, cars that appear as if they were dragged out of a junkyard, photographed, then slapped with a five figure price tag.
While this might be understandable if there was actually something special about the vehicle, there isn’t. They’re just a bare, stripped, usually bent in someplace, two-door hulk of some old, popular fifties or sixties car, and that’s it.
Hmmmm….. Truth in advertising. Would you be able to seek determination from the BBB on this?
There are just so many things wrong with the For Sale flyer. Not only was there no 1961 1/2 Galaxie 500 XL, if there had been, it would have had bucket seats (this car has a bench seat). The XLs didn’t debut until 1962 and only came in the 2 dr hardtop and convertible body styles. I owned a ’62 500 XL convertible.
Certainly the Starliner was the roof style of choice for Fords in 1961, especially on the NASCAR super speedways. But on the short tracks, where light weight was more important than aerodynamics, a Custom 300 business coupe was the go-to body style. It weighed 3465 lbs vs the Starliner’s 3617 lbs (Encyclopedia of American Cars). Check out Nelson Stacey’s 1960 Custom 300.
Such lovely ripples in those bumpers, especially the rear, it reminds me of the ripples hitting the bank of the Mississippi River after a tugboat has passed by. While I do tend to like the ’61 Ford full-sizers, especially in this color, I will decline having any fantasies about it. Perhaps it is because he is $24k into it and it still needs some TLC.
With 24K sunk into it I reckon it should look like it was new no used and abused.
Enough with the speculation! Someone call this guy in the guise of being a buyer and get some specifics! Maybe he can even e-mail our mole some pics of the motor. Of course if the seller was smart, he’d have an e-mail on the for sale sign or at least a link to some pics on Photobucket or something,
Well, this kind of through me for a loop. When I was in 10th grade my best friend had what he called a NASCAR Ford (1962 I think), which is what I thought this was at first glance. The car was new, so as far as I know, it isn’t something someone built. His father was a big deal at Sunoco, and supposedly that’s how he got his hands on the car.
I know it had a big block, floor shift and we were unbeaten in any street drag race we arranged while eating 15 cent hamburgers at the drive-in. It only had 2 very slim bucket seats and no back seat, no armrest, no radio, front rubber floor mat and that was about it. I remember him telling me it had an aluminum hood and trunk lid.
Has anyone ever heard of the car I’m talking about?
Don’t know if this will answer the question, but here goes.
In 1962, while still living in Mexico City, my friends and I rode our bikes to a popular cafe on Avenida Reforma abutting the Las Lomas area where we lived to get some Cokes.
Outside of this cafe sat a brand new 1962 Ford Club 2 dr sedan. It was painted Sahara Rose (a really wimps color, but perfect for a Q-ship), but a number of details drew me to it. #1, it had a 406 engine badge on the front fender; and #2, it had Pirelli Cinturatos mounted on American Racing Torque-Thrust Ds. The interior was also interesting. It had buckets and upholstery right out of a 500 XL (in Chestnut vinyl), as well as a 4-speed. No console.
I was only 14 at the time, but I inhaled Motor Trend, Car Life, Hot Rod and Road & Track Track mags when I could get my hands on them. My guess today is that the owner of this car was too cool for school and worked for Ford de Mexico. How else could such a unique thing exist in Mexico? The image is still clear in my mind some 52 years later. Knocked me on my ass.
I guess the owner is trying to say that this is the car that the rapper Ludicrous drove in the movie Fast Five. I’m not a huge fan of either but a little Goggling found that his Ford in the movie was a Galaxie 500 of a different year. So there’s something else to throw into his advert of b.s.
This ’61 looks like the beginning of the cheapening of the Galaxie name. It looks like a Custom 500 strippo with chrome added. But, Galaxie gradually degraded from top line to one step above fleet special Customs.