Probably inspired by the success of Chevy’s four-door Monza, Ford apparently gave serious consideration to a four-door Mustang. Probably just as well that Ford gave it a pass, but that’s not to say the work on it was wasted, as it clearly inspired another Ford sedan.
There’s a lot of four-door Mustang in the 1966 Falcon. But based on the rather weak sales of the ’66 and up Falcon, it didn’t do it much good. But the Australians loved it.
Actually, this would have been great.
But FoMoCo, being as tone-deaf as ever, continued to pile on the bloat & by 1973 the Mustang was a pig, just like the Thunderbird.
No this would have been an abomination, as bad as GM slapping the Cutlass name on everything or in the 70s Mercury deciding that everything should be “Cougar” including a Cougar Villager wagon.
I second PrincipalDan. We would have seen a base version with a 3 on the tree and rubber mats. Then, to get the price down, the 2 door Mustang would have done the same, and suddenly you are doing what not even Chrysler was stupid enough to do with the Barracuda. The Mustang would have just been the new Falcon, and we would remember it as fondly as we remember the Maverick today.
It’s different though, if the Mustang would have launched with a sedan in 1964, with all the other models, then where is the “watering down”?
It would have been there all along, not like the Cougar, which mutated into sedan and wagon versions a decade after it launched, though I’m not saying that it was a good idea, I can see where the idea came from, if it would have had been a hardtop sedan, similar to the 2nd gen 1965-1967 Corvair hard top “sports” sedan, it could have been something interesting, if properly equipped it could have come off ad one of Americas first compact performance sedans.
PrincipalDan is right. One of the big reasons the Mustang has been around for 50 years is that it has always kept true to its origins – a sporty car only available as a 2 door coupe or convertible. Some were classic, some not so much, but everyone always knew what a Mustang was. Although it was no doubt tempting to cash in on the Mustang aura, a 4 door Mustang sedan, no matter how nice initially, would no doubt have spawned a Mustang Squire in a few years. Then it would have gradually morphed into a line of smaller Torinos and eventually disappear, a la Cougar.
It’s probably just as well that the Mustang remained a 2 door. While I prefer the 1964-68 Mustang, I also like the Mustang II of the 70s, and the 80s version of the Mustang.
I agree. That thing looks bent in the middle. It would have ruined the whole image. I am no fan of the ’71-’73 Mustang, but it is better than this. If they had brought this “thing” out, just think how bloated the 4 door version of the ’71-’73 would have looked. And then a 4 door Mustang II?
I can just see Steve McQueen racing around Frisco in a green 4 door! Ugh
That’d be scary. Or how about the bad guys in the same movie driving a 4 door Charger? Hello!
Of course today the bad guys are driving a 4dr Charger.
Not quite a Villager, more a Nomad.
I’ve seen pictures of a Mustang station wagon. From this angle, it looks ok, but from the side and the back, it looks ugly! I’m glad Ford didn’t make a Mustang station wagon.
+1
Super interesting I have not seen that. Date says late ’66 right after the launch of the ’67. The front end is similar to the ’67-68, like they were studying this change for ’69.
Glad it wasn’t this, way too thick. I doubt they would have had a different front on the “wagon” and coupe. The wagon would have looked killer with the ’69 front end.
I agree with Dan and Jim. A four-door would have undermined the whole image of and reason for the car. I didn’t know it was considered though I’m not surprised.
As an aside, I thought the XKE 2+2 ruined that coupe’s lines.
I agree that it would have seriously hurt the image of the Mustang, killed its sales and the Falcon’s too. It is pretty simple why they considered it though as the Mustang was the hottest car to hit the market since the Model T.
Yeah the XR Falcon finally put Falcons in Kiwi garages it had evolved into something that could compete with the other 6 cylinder cars on our market plus if you had overseas funds and plenty of them you could get a 289,
Aided and abetted by Ford UK putting together the most incompetent Zephyr ever the MK4, Ford buyers simply switched their preference on the waiting lists for the Aussie car and thats only just changed back Mondeos sell well Falcons not so much.
Yep ..I remember those first locally assembled XR’s were powered with the little 170 Pursuit engine and initially had a ‘whistling’ tail pipe problem (they were BIG cars for such a puny little donk and it wasn’t long before the 121hp 200 Super Pursuit was offered as an optional extra just to make it a bit less of a drag and able to struggle along better behind a Mark 111). The 170 engine was okayish in the smaller XM and XP, but the 200 was only available as the top option for those (for the first time with the Borg Warner 3 speed auto box in the XP, where it was then a reasonably powered car). I think the XM could have the 200 but only with two speed Fordomatic. Anyway it wasn’t that long after the XR that they brought out first the 221 and then the 250 cube sixes to move those big heavy cars along. Even then they weren’t exactly snappy performers until EFI finally came along and helped things a bit. But the OHC Speed Density MPFI six changed the manual box base Falcon into a strong performer at long last. Quicker than an XB 351 Clevo in fact.
I maybe wrong, but I could have sworn I read somewhere in the history of the Mustang that it was, originally in the planning stages, going to replace the Falcon all together…. thus the brief look at the four door.
They did drop the Falcon altogether only Ford AU kept it in production from 71 onwards and now the new one Ford policy has cancelled the best Falcons ever made.
Ford kept the Falcon around until mid-way through 1970. The ’70 1/2 Falcon was a base model Fairlane coupe or wagon, much like the Comet had been a lower level Montego in 1968-9. By the ’66 restyle, there wasn’t that much difference between a Falcon and Fairlane. In fact the wagons were the same from the cowl back with a different instrument panel.
The U.S. Falcon was finally made obsolete by the introduction of the Maverick introduced in April 1969 as a 1970 model as Ford’s entry level compact. The Maverick was a big seller (500,790 in the ’70 model year) so it’s hard to fault Ford for making the decision from an economic standpoint.
Strange then Ford considerated the 1966 US Falcon was already obsolete while the Dodge Dart/Plymouth Valiant redesigned the following year (1967) menaged to soldier to 1976 with some slight body modifications and the addition of the Duster/Demon/Dart Sport while in Mexico, the first years of the Maverick was sold as “Falcon Maverick” just like how the Duster was sold “Valiant Duster” for its first year.
By the end of the Falcon’s US run it was seen as a dowdy economy car which is why they retired the name and switched to the Maverick which had a sportier more youthful look with its fastbackish styling.
The question then is why Chrysler could sell a dowdy economy car but Ford couldn’t? Assuming Falcon/Comet sales were lower than Valiant/Dart, which may or may not be accurate.
Brazil kept making the original Falcon well into the 80’s giving it updates like rectangular headlights and wrap around tail lights.
You mean Argentina.
Oops, yeah.
2016 right? the death of the amazing Falcon 3984cc inline six .. .. .. the latest top end turbo versions are smoking hot engines (as in P O W E R F U L).. .. .. just sad 🙁
Twalton, I find that hard to believe as when the Mustang was in planning the Falcon was considered a huge success so it is unlikely that Ford would abandon the name at that point. The Mustang was sold on sex appeal while the Falcon was sold on practicality.
You have confirmed why the Falcon resumed… I’m not saying the dropping of the Falcon was carved in stone, but it could have been on the table at some point, however brief.
A lot of the thinking towards the four door Mustang was because of the four door Corvair. Don’t forget that, initially, Ford was only expecting to sell Mustangs in something like Corvair numbers. So you might as well match them, model for model.
And I remember the articles talking about the final generation (American) Falcon stating its intent as a “family Mustang”.
It’s no uglier than the coupe was.
Sorry, don’t mean to offend – and I know I’m in the minority here – but I never warmed up to the style of the 64-1/2 notchback, I’ve tried and tried and tried…and I just can’t. I love the fastback look though, it fits the car much better than the “formal” roofline.
The weird thing is the Mustang 4 door looks more dumpy than the Falcon from this angle!
The C-pillar is too wide and the window area too short to carry it off, they fixed it on the production Falcon.
More of a contemporary Lincoln Continental roof/pillar/window arrangement
Also on the Falcon the rumpiness on the rear quarter is reduced by a undercut character line. It really makes it look lighter.
In those days the people who bought mustangs would not have bought a four door IMO. Now for the past couple decades, with the proliferation of four door sports coupes etc they might get away with it. But why?
For 1966, the Ford menaged to get 204 429 Falcons built but it got a big drop for 1967, I guess the intro of the 3rd-gen A-body Plymouth Valiant/Dodge Dart didn’t helped things.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1966-1970-ford-falcon6.htm
Sorry, I was confused, I read that as 204 429 Falcons, as in 204 Falcons with a 429, which made me go “whhaaaaaaaa?”, 204,429.
Speaking of line expansion/dilution, Audi announced the other day that they’re seriously considering a four-door version of the Audi TT…
They have a way to catch BMW yet – not sure why they think they need the 3-series GT, 4-series Gran Coupe and X4! How tall do you want your 4 door fastback?
Seems the German cars are mutating so fast it soon won’t be able to assign them properly to classes anymore. I suppose it’s thinking outside the box, sort of.
While I still think “4-door coupe” is an oxymoron, I do have to say I find the 6 Series Gran Coupe and the A7 both incredibly sexy.
And I find this Mustang coupe proposal very unsexy. The proportions are just all wrong. And while if it was part of the line at launch it wouldn’t have “watered down” the line, I do think it would have ended up replacing the Falcon rather than starting a line of coupes that is still going strong today.
The 6-Series Gran Coupe is a good-looking car, but I guess the main thing it makes me wonder is why the 5-Series sedan wasn’t as attractive. To be able to charge more money for the “four-door coupe” version, one supposes.
Long bonnet on the 6 Gran Coupe makes all the difference. I think that would result in a smaller cabin, but I don’t know interior specs.
I like the tail lights of the Mustang. It’s too bad it didn’t make it onto the Falcon, or even a Galaxie..
The Falcon Futura Sports Coupe of this era (e.g., ’67) was fairly sharp-looking, especially with black vinyl top. Naturally, two-door sedans weren’t in vogue at the time, but they proved a lot more structurally sound in the long run.
Arf, arf but not a bad idea for Lincoln. Take the current Mustang platform and make a four door off of it in an “international” size like the BMW 5-series. Start with the classic 70s grille and coffin nose and work backwards from that. Use the RWD layout to get a long dash to axle ratio and short front overhang.
Don’t be afraid of going a little boxy like the first Seville. Or swoopy like a Bentley. Or retro like an ’05 300C. All of those designs flowed out from the grille. Believe me if Volvo could make it work on the 740 anyone can.
When that car takes off, and it will, start work on a larger flagship sedan and maybe even a smaller entry. The first gen should be a little smaller than a 5-series to maximize the market coverage then grow it up later. The idea is not to slap the Mark III grille on a Fusion that would be dumb.
There have been rumors of a stretched, Lincoln version of the Mustang that is about to be released as a 2015 model, but nothing verifiable.
I had not heard that. Hopefully it’s not a coupe and has a Mark III snout.
It needs to be like the first gen CTS and G35 in price, size and number of doors to sell in high volume. That’s what they will need to pay off the investment and make a profit.
Add a coupe and grow it up later if things go well.
No, if it was coming for 2015 it would be on their website with the 2015 MKC and Navigator.
Sorry, I worded that awkwardly…I meant the rumored Lincoln is to come later, but based on the IRS Mustang that’s slated for 2015. But it’s just that…rumored.
Ironically, the 2005 – 2014’s D2C platform is loosely based on the old Jaguar/Lincoln/Thunderbird’s DEW platform.
But like XR7Matt said, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I’ve been hearing rumors of a Mustang based Lincoln since the 05 body came out. Don’t hold your breath.
Global RWD platform was killed, but the real worth in ‘platform sharing’ is just as much in the non-structural systems and components, given that each bodyshell variation has to be separately validated and tested anyway. How much (structural) sheetmetal do you want to share between a cheap ponycar and a high-end luxury sedan anyway, given their vastly different roles and customer expectations?
Also, as I’ve pointed out before on this specific rumor, there are limits to (a) how far a particular platform can stretch dimensionally and (b) what kind of NVH and handling characteristics you get based on the design and materials of the structure, subframes and suspension components.
Obviously, different tuning of bushings and the use of different dampers and so forth can give you a range of variation on (b), but in general, a platform designed as a compact, relatively cheap sporty car is not going to make a good luxury car and vice versa. I feel like this rumor comes down mostly to wishful thinking and the idea of “Well, it’s a rear-drive platform, right?” without really grasping the way the engineering works.
I don’t know about that. In this very post you see two cars that shared a platform and were both successful. I think the ’69 Mustang Fastback was pretty competitive in its class and so was the much larger, and different, Granada.
The Nissan 370Z shares its platform with the mid-sized Infiniti 4-door whatever that’s called these days. FX is also done off that platform.
So yes starting with the current Mustang platform and giving the program enough budget, like they do at Infiniti, would get the job done. The Mustang isn’t that far from a 370Z in terms of performance, it’s just quite a bit bigger.
If a 370Z can make a competitive Q60 then the Mustang can make a competitive Q60 fighter. This isn’t that complicated.
The perfect car for Lincoln, as I see it, is a tweener like a CTS or G35. That’s not a very large sedan. It would be more about style — a long hood for sure, fender blades maybe, plenty of chrome, Lincoln lights out back and something trick with the headlamps. No LED pearl necklaces on this car, that freaking ruined the Chrysler 300.
You would have to protect the budget for that level of differentiation. Keep the interior simple but use high quality materials. Skip the fancy computer controlled suspensions.
Use a solid axle to pay for it all, if you have to. The concept would be Mark revival in a 4-door which means style and comfort come before 0-60 and skidpad Gs.
As someone else mentioned, the Fairmont made a pretty damn good Lincoln Mark VII. I didn’t see much structure sharing there. The 2015 Mustang is a much better starting point than the Fairmont.
Sorry Aaron but you can stretch a platform fairly significantly as has been done many times quite successfully. The new Mustang doesn’t have a live axle and the bushings, spring and shock rates can certainly be adjusting significantly to produce a dramatic difference in ride and handling. GM feels that they can make a pony car and a luxury car off the same platform as they are switching the Camaro to the Alpha platform used for the ATS. As mentioned Infinity and Nissan vehicles also share platforms.
I think it is you that is caught up in the idea that the definition of a platform requires the use of the same floor pan and body structure when in fact it doesn’t. Or go VW and call it modular architecture.
The only thing I’ve heard is people who have nothing to do with Ford or Lincoln saying that they should produce a Lincoln based on a stretched Mustang platform as a new “flagship” product, myself included.
John yup shortly after Mullay took the reins he canceled the planed future generation of the Falcon which would have included a stretched version of to underpin the replacement of the Town Car.
The current version of the Mustang was derived from the platform that underpinned the Lincoln LS, Thunderbird, and Jag so it wouldn’t have been that crazy to have produced another Lincoln from some of those components.
Personally I do believe that they should use some of the bones of the upcoming Mustang to create a new flagship RWD Lincoln.
If they do create a Mustang-based Lincoln, it needs to be a coupe. And it needs to be called the Mark IX. Not the MKX, none of this three letter acronym nonsense, a revival of the Mark line of coupes that would pick up where the excellent Mark VIII left off. The VII was based off the Fox platform along with the Mustang, so there’s even precedent.
I agree that it needs to be a long hood short deck coupe in the spirit of the Mark cars, but it should have a back seat that is useable by an adult so the wheel base needs at least 4″ or so of stretching.
The Mustang sedan doesn’t surprise me that much, remember Lido was one of the big supporters of the 1967 4-door Thunderbird too.
I’ve always liked the 1967-69 Thunderbird. I prefer the 4 door version over the 2 door version. Some cars look better in 4-door form than others. The Mustang is definitely a 2-door car. Change it to 4-door, or even a station wagon, and you change the way the car was supposed to be: a personal sporty car for young people, or anyone just starting to drive. 🙂
The 66 Falcon looked more attractive as a 4 door than a 2 door, I cannot say that about the Mustang.
Sad thing is if that concept had been proposed today the 4 door would have gotten the green light and 50 years from now we’d be discussing the coupe that never came to be.
Another thing that I like about the Mustang is that it’s still rear-wheel drive. With so many cars these days going front-wheel drive, it’s nice to see some cars remain rear-wheel drive. I hope that never changes for the Mustang.
You mentioned BMW 6 GranCoupe as an alternative future for the Lincoln brand.
And I fully agree it could be a good thing for the lovers of classy Lincolns…
But I am afraid we canbe faced with far less sexy 4-door-coupe looking similarly to Merc’s CLA – as a derivative of a Mustang in 2015+
And that would be a disaster… 🙁
While interesting to see the Mustang cues on a sedan, the ’66 Falcon sedan turned out much better than this. What amounts to the ’65 Galaxie 4 door hardtop roof combined with window frames doesn’t do anything for me.
This one has the LTD trim band on the roof, slightly breaking up the big formal C pillar…..
The last generation Falcon was too close to the Fairlane in size, and overlapped. Also, the name was associated with ‘cheapskate’, but then Ford let it happen.
The Maverick should have kept the Falcon name, but was launched as a ‘VW Beetle fighter’, so a new name was applied. Thus, can push as “all new”.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/first-looks/2014-ford-mustang-sedan
Lets NOT forget this abomination.
Sorry but 4 doors are NOT meant to mix in with sportiness. I find the whole ‘sports sedan’ idea ludicrous, and the idea of the so-called ‘gran coupes’ or ‘comfort coupes’ that BMW, VW and a few others have been trying to hawk are nothing but a blatant insult to our intelligence. How is something with 4 forward swinging doors and no attempt WHATSOEVER to even downplay, let alone hide the rear door handles anything more than a sedan? What Mazda did with the RX-8 and what Saturn did with the Ion coupe was ok by me. 2 big ass openings with 2 ‘shells’ on each makes a coupe, especially since the lines still make sense. Hell, even Nissan makes a half assed attempt to stealth the rear doors on some of its SUVs.
All this said, the suicide door T-bird IS kinda cool. That’s how a sportier 4 door should be pulled off. I think the shortness of the side glass area and the thick C-pillar at least try to fool you into thinking its a coupe.
Um, that was a photo chopped April fools joke.
In deciding not to produce this, Ford really did have a better idea!