(first posted 1/13/2017) Few people, if any, have a life goal of being upstaged. While the term is most associated with the mechanics of theatre, it is an exhibition of behavior that is easily found in many places – particularly the workplace.
This isn’t to say the person (or performer) being upstaged is deficient or devoid of talent. Rather, it’s simply an indicator of someone having a little more verve and zest about themselves, displaying a genuine yet hard to quantify something extra that sets them apart from everyone else.
The act of being upstaged can also apply to automobiles; this base model Fairlane two-door sedan could likely be the automotive poster child for being upstaged.
The same year our featured base model Fairlane two-door sedan first hit the road, a new sized Ford also entered the market. With the exception of being branded as a Ford, there was nothing particularly unique about this diminutive sized automobile; Studebaker and Rambler both had similarly sized cars on the market that predated this new Ford.
Nor was Ford unique in introducing a small car at that time. Compact competition sprang forth from both Chevrolet and Plymouth for 1960 but neither the Corvair nor the Valiant hit the sweet spot of the market as thoroughly as this little Ford. A distinct factor in its success was the Chevrolet possessing a constitution too far outside the norm while the Plymouth had an appearance that wasn’t universally enticing.
This new car simply upstaged its competition. Its name, of course, was Falcon.
It’s never been argued the Falcon was a very successful car in its freshman year. With over 435,000 produced in the U.S., Falcon production was fairly comparable to that of Rambler; it was fourfold that of Studebaker and exceeded production of both Corvair and Valiant by very healthy margins.
However, this statement of 435,000 is just a raw number, failing to put any context to the magnitude of Falcon’s success – and how it helped upstage the full-sized line.
When seeing it compared to production of the standard Ford (a long used term that was starting down the path of archaic, a path that generally ends at woeful obsolescence) the Falcon had a production volume of almost half that of the “standard Ford”.
If looking at Ford production for the three years on either side of 1960, the influence of the Falcon’s upstaging is even more apparent. It has been argued Falcon took sales away from the full-sizers; another thought might be sales were down due to a combination of the lackluster economy and 1960 being an off-year for styling, somewhat like 1958. Regardless of reasons, Ford production didn’t waiver heavily after the introduction of the Falcon. Granted, Ford’s market share fluctuated during this period, but output remained fairly consistent.
When looking at our 1960 Fairlane two-door sedan, the third most popular body and trim of “standard Ford” available that year, there was another car that upstaged it in the collective memory that year. And, no, it wasn’t the Thunderbird.
Let’s be honest; this Starliner is easier on the eyes than is our featured Fairlane. Despite both bodies having been plopped on the same 119″ wheelbase, the difference all boils down to the roof – and, oh what a difference that makes.
We’ve discussed the 1960 Starliner here, but suffice it to say the Starliner’s roof was heavily inspired by the 1957 Plymouth; maybe Ford wanted to prove it really was 1960. Regardless of its origins, the Starliner looks a lot more fluid and svelte than does our Fairlane despite having the same length.
This roofline also provided some tactical advantages on the ever blossoming stock car circuit. Ford would have had a better year in NASCAR had someone not goofed in some paperwork. The potency of their one year wonder of a 360 horsepower 352 cubic inch (5.8 liter) V8 was emasculated as Ford failed to disclose the availability of 15″ wheels and a 3.22:1 rear axle ratio when telling various racing associations what was on their options sheet. This error eclipsed their success that year, especially at the Daytona 500.
Despite such a mistake, the Starliner roof was so conducive to racing Ford toyed around with continuation of it into 1962. They proposed this ‘Starlift’ removable hardtop for the Sunliner convertible. Bill France of NASCAR wasn’t buying it, although it was allowed to run the first race of the season. A semi-fastback Galaxie reappeared midway through 1963.
Like the Falcon, the Starliner helped upstage the pedestrian two-door Fairlane in spite of the Fairlane having more sales.
Fleet sales counted toward the 93,000 Fairlane two-door sedans that were sold. All it would take to turn our featured car into the twin to the car in the ad would be a few red lights and a snazzy spotlight on the A-pillar.
So maybe our white two-door Fairlane wasn’t totally upstaged if she got to be the covergirl on brochures hawking cars to the po-po. Most awesomely, someone at Ford made an exquisite choice by placing a salute to Kansas City on the cover.
Perhaps this gracing the cover was a consolation prize for the biggest upstager the Ford Fairlane faced for 1960. Remember how Ford made 911,000 full-sizers? Chevrolet made 1.3 million full-size cars of all varieties for 1960, effectively spanking Ford in the annual sales race. In other words, Chevrolet produced roughly as many of their biggies as Ford and Plymouth did combined.
In a real contrast to Ford, Chevrolet put the swanky roof on their el-cheapo models with a flat roof on their better trimmed cars; could they have been any more opposite to each other?
Some things are upstaged so easily; this far into an article and so little talk about our featured car. Despite it being upstaged by just about everything available that year, and a roof that isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, there is a lot of goodness to behold.
A lot of people around here enjoy base model cars and this one makes it easy to understand why. While this interior is proof positive gray interiors have existed for many, many years, there remains an elegant simplicity with this interior and dashboard. All controls are close at hand, with each likely providing a satisfying tactile feel that simply cannot be duplicated (or found) in many contemporary rotary dials and push buttons.
Even the radio delete plate has a nice form-fitting shape, helping cloak the miserliness of the original owner. While visible options are sparse, they did spring for an automatic transmission – even it is the two-speed Fordomatic instead of the three-speed Cruisomatic.
The Fordomatic may or may not be a clue into what propels our bat-winged Fairlane; while it could be obtained with any available engine, it was the only automatic that could be teamed with a six-cylinder. Model year 1960 didn’t see the best economic circumstances in the history of the world, leading to nearly one-third (32.5% to be exact) of the standard Fords to be propelled by the lowly 223 cubic inch (3.7 liter) straight six. One hundred forty-five gross horsepower funneled through a two-speed transmission to propel a 3,600 pound car does not a rocket sled make.
The only demerit this Ford earns is easily corrected – those fender skirts are hideous on any car but doubly so on a base model such as this Fairlane. They would make terrific e-Bay fodder.
The skirts also detract from those delectably unique tail fins. They work well to enhance the width of this Ford, the widest Ford passenger car built. It exceeded the maximum width restrictions in several states but, knowing it was a one year anomaly, these states looked the other way.
There is some enjoyment to having found a car from the ever-dwindling bucket list, a model year of Ford that has been a perpetual personal favorite. This is a car that didn’t deserve to be upstaged any longer.
Found May 2016, Hannibal, Missouri
Related Reading:
CC: 1960 Ford Starliner – Greg Beckenbaugh
When and how did a few hundred 1960 Ford Custom 300s come to be produced? The 1960 Ford catalog makes no mention of such a model; the Fairlane, the trim line of this CC, is the “cheapo.”
The Fairlane Business Sedan was the four-door version of the old Business Coupe; a standard four-door sedan, with rear seat deleted. Even it sold many more than the “Custom 300.” The Chevrolet Biscayne Utility Sedan, mentioned in the 1960 Chevy brochure page shown, must have been the directly competing Bowtie.
Yes, the fender skirts look hideous but in a “bad-ass” sort of way, which is probably why the owner got them.
I’ve always liked the 1960 Ford, it was fresh and new and looked like nothing else (except the 1960 Edsel, of course); and nothing in the following years resembled it, either. It stands alone, unique.
There’s something about antique car owners that drives them to go thru the factory catalog and tack on every bit of bolt-on crap that the manufacturer offered.
The reality (according to dad) is that damned few of those items ever sold in any numbers. What did sell was the swing out under dash tissue dispenser. And a few sales for the vacuum operated ash tray. Skirts were probably a bit after that, but back in the day they had kind of a sleazy hot-rodding image to them, as if the owner who was respectable to buy a new car at the dealership was trying to ape the greasers and low-life’s who hot-rodded cars.
Yeah, back when I was a kid, hot-rodding was only (kinda) respectable in California. Otherwise, you’re talking a crowd on a notch or so higher than bikers. Remember The Pharoes in ‘American Graffiti’? Yeah, they were that kind of crowd.
Nowadays, the Boomers who are most likely to restore these cars look on at that crowd with a fondness and they have an image way higher than they used to.
If one is going for a “rod/kustom” look, the accessories should be newer than the car. as real “rods/kustoms” were based on used cars. Most cars at shows (that are supposed to be “restorations”) are loaded with crap that never appeared all at the same time on one car.
further “fancy” appearance items look silly on low buck cars, Kinda like “broughamized” Chevy Monzas (I like Broughams, But only at Oldsmobile/Mercury level or higher.
If hot rodders had a bad image, blame Hollywood. Before bikers, rodders were the movies’ choice for B-grade depictions of rebellious youth up to no good.
Remember James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” (1955)? The 50’s and ’60’s had a flood of cheap movies where ill-tempered rodding kids provided the salacious details and thrills to keep the people attending the drive ins. Titles like’ Hot Rod Gang’, ‘Hot Rod Rumble’, ‘The Devil on Wheels’, and (my personal favorite) ‘Hot Rods to Hell’ made this connection clear for the public.
Even retro – movies like “Grease” spoofed this association, making for a stylized, mockery of the rodding hoodlums.
Ironically, I think aging, well-off boomers relish in this image. They may drive pampered garage – queens now, but somewhere deep – down, they relish this wanna-be bad-a$$ image.
Yes. I just watched a short from 1955 called “Why Vandalism ?”. No cars, but the hoodlums all fit the stereotype.
They even wound up killing a rabbit when they vandalized the school’s chemistry lab.
The Custom 300 was intended for the taxi and police crowd. Whether it was available for a part of the year, or had such a low take rate given the likely austerity of it, or was a combination of both, is something that could not be determined.
IINM, a similarly small number of Custom 300s are also shown in 1961 production figures. I have long wondered about this as well.
Here’s a dealer (August 1961) letting go of two Custom 300’s, so they must have really existed. I don’t know anything about mileage/condition, but their price makes for interesting comparison with the Falcons:
A couple of those are really “loaded”: power steering, Ford-o-Matic, radio and heater. The decadence !!!
That’s a fascinating pic – ’58 loaded Merc next to lowest price….T-Bird most expensive…separate Falcon section with strong pricing compared to the full size cars…
One more thing: Fall ’59 Ford salesman’s brochure has the 300:
That brochure compares the Custom 300 to the Chevrolet Biscayne Fleetmaster, which is listed in the Encyclopedia of American Cars as having been available in both 1959 and 1960, and shown in the Standard Catalog of American Cars in 1960 only. The only production breakout in either source is 3,000 for 1960 (shown in the Encyclopedia).
The Biscayne Fleetmaster and 1960-61 Custom 300 seem to represent a short-lived attempt to market an ultra-low-end full size model variation specifically for the fleet market. That these came out during the soft economy of the 1958-61 period is probably no coincidence. Perhaps Chevy introduced the Biscayne Fleetmaster for ’59, so Ford decided they had to have one too, and the ’60 Custom 300 was the result.
Neither model appears to have sold well. Jason’s suggestion that they were too austere even for the fleet market may well be correct. (If your budget was really that cut to the bone, it probably made more sense to just buy a Falcon.) Still, while that production figure of 3,000 for the ’60 Biscayne Fleetmaster seems reasonable, the published figures for the ’60 and ’61 Custom 500 seem almost implausible. How could any car offered by a brand the size of Ford be produced in such small numbers? If it truly sold that poorly, why did Ford bother bringing it back for a second year?
Never realized the Custom model was so rare. I bought a ’60 Custom 300 4 dr sedan off the lot at the Ford agency where I worked for $35 in ’71. 6, stick, no radio. Only option was a heater.
Under Wisconsin rules at the time, any car that failed a safety check could not be resold by a dealer. We mechanics could buy them, but we couldn’t tag the car unless the damage was repaired. For the dealers, it made more sense to scrap the cars rather than repair them at shop rates.
The leading cause of safety check failure at the time was rust. A rusted through floorboard was a common and automatic safety check failure. This was also a repair that could be made with little hard investment in parts, just a lot of time. A common dodge was patching the holes with old license tags.
To get the car tagged, we just needed a law enforcement officer to sign off on the repair. In our small town, the police department would sign off on any repair signed off by a local mechanic know to the police who also had an NIASE certification number. That practice meant mechanics were effectively inspecting and certifying their own work.
Many of us made a nice side income saving decent running but rusty cars from the crusher. We’d fix ’em, drive ’em for a little while the state processed the paperwork to send the title, then resell them for a profit after we got the title. Went through a lot of cars like this when I was a young mechanic including an evidently rare ’60 Ford Custom.
Never thought about it much, but I now wonder what other rare gems might have slipped through my hands. Oh well. The experience of driving a different car and earning beer money every month was pretty fun while it lasted.
That’s the life!?
Quicksilver styling; what’s not to like? Unfortunately the 2d sedan is the worst roofline for this bumper year of Ford and Edsel goodness.
Fairlane Cuda
I like it, but the skirts really need to go with the bubble back.
Reminds me of those eighties’ Monte Carlo and Grand Prix aero coupe NASCAR specials with their huge rear glass windows.
+1 ?!
Crew cab Ranchero. hehehe
Very GM N cars in proportion
I always like the styling of the ’60 Ford, actually liked it better than the ’60 Chevrolet. An opinion wisely not mentioned around the parents, especially at the dinner table (as I would find out four years later regarding the Mustang).
What I didn’t like about Ford’s back at the time was the cheapness in the execution. The realization that they couldn’t be bothered to cover the shift linkage, making the extra cost automatic look like a three-on-the-tree (where even Chevy’s three speed appeared to be the extra cost Powerglide until you noticed how low the shift lever was hanging in first and third). Or, the cheapness of the door handles: Ford’s were hollow in the back, where Chevrolet’s were a full three dimensional casting.
Back in those days, Ford was definitely a cheaper product in the fine details to a GM vehicle.
I agree 100%. As someone who has owned several Fords, up to and including my ’83 Ranger 4×4, yes some details did get skimped on. They were always built to a price point. But they made up for it in other areas. Like the Borg-Warner 13-50 transfer case in my truck. Despite the fact it first came behind wimpy engines, it was built stout enough to live behind a strong 5.0L from the start. I have had my 302 powered Ranger since I did the swap in ’92,(making a usable truck out of it) still on the original T-case and Dana 28 front drive axle
None of the low-priced three’s full-sized offerings for 1960 were worth writing home about, and the Ford’s cheapness means I would choose it only if those were my only choices like, say, for a company car.
But if I were spending my own money in 1960, I’d try to scrape up enough cash to get a Pontiac or even a Buick if I could afford it. Those two were the best styled and built domestic cars (at the time).
I’d take a full-size Oldsmobile as opposed to the Buick, just to get Hydramatic instead of Buick’s Dynaflow.
I find the ’60 Pontiac somewhat odd-looking personally, but the Buick has to be the best styling job for ’60 hands-down. I’d put the Ford near the top though, along with Chrysler.
My thing for the 60 Ford was always more fascination than love. I always found these intriguing. More than most cars, the difference between attractive and unattractive is all in the trim level, body style and color. A black Galaxie convertible or a white Country Squire was stunning. A plain white 2 door sedan, just not.
I find the skirts oddly compelling on this, and I usually hate skirts on cars not designed for them. They give this plain car a hovercraft kind of vibe.
I agree with Syke that Fords of this era had a crudeness (or maybe a conservatism) about them that ranked right up there with Studebaker. But the part that really bothered me was that steering wheel. It’s shape offended my sense of how a steering wheel should look. I must not have been alone, because that one was gone after 1 year.
An excellent find and post, sir.
Another look at the steering wheel and dash in even the high trim models reminds me that they did not do a great job on these. The dash looks cheap even on a Galaxie. And that steering wheel again – it looks upside down, except for that lonely thin spoke.
Nice write-up.
Just one remark: why all the hate for fender skirts? I understand it’s a matter of personal taste and some cars wore it better than others, but I always thought they are kinda cool, especially on big American cars. For example, 90s Caprices look much better with fender skirts…
Fender skirts on a base model car are as out of place as tomatoes in pudding. It just doesn’t work for me.
That said, there are a few cars (and I’m thinking mid 1970s era Olds 98s) in which fender skirts looks okay but then again those all had them.
What gets me with fender skirts on this car is Ford graced it with tiny fender skirts with the basic design – maybe a miniskirt of sorts? So on this car it’s like adding onto a miniskirt to give something ankle length. It just doesn’t quite gel.
What constitutes a base car? Minimal trims? I think sometimes skirts spruce up a base car more than a well – trimmed one.
Often , well trimmed cars look a little over-done, and the presence of skirts just over-does them some more.
By comparison, a base car can look more smooth and clean, an effect only enhanced by skirts.
The trim level constitutes whether or not a car is a base model, would it not? With this Fairlane being lowest on the pecking order (as the Custom 300 is a fleet special), it’s a base model.
The aesthetic qualities of the fender skirts is a subjective thing, sort of like continental kits. And I agree that sometimes base models do have a sleeker appearance than higher trim levels; these skirts are a big negative to me, ruining the appearance. But, like I say, that’s subjective.
Many cars had the lower rear wheel openings. Compare those of the 60 Chevrolet in the brochure Sally Sublette posted. See the Falcon. Olds, Buick, Pontiac etc.
The 60 Chevrolet’s wheel wells are just as low.
It was a styling thing. And, no disrespect, was never referred to as being a “skirted fender” unless there was actually a skirt on it.
Ate Up With Motor’s treatise on the Ford Falcon made mention that the lower rear wheel well opening added strength to the rear fenders. So that may indicate more than a styling decision, rather an engineering one to add to better body integrity.
60 years I’ve been spinning around the sun and I truly haven’t seen a car with fender skirts that improved it’s looks. Even in top trim it still looks more Pep Boys than classy.
To my eyes, which were born in ’57 (did you know our eyes are the same size from the day we’re born to the day we die?), and inveterate car spotters (my eyes, that is) since noticing the looming fins of Plymouths and Cadillacs casting shadows over my peering head, there were two cars that were the first “modern” looking cars on my humble timeline of observation of the world I was born into, and lived in my first decade or two of life–The ’59 Chevy and the ’60 Ford. I consider myself as self-respecting an enthusiast as the next guy. I’m not sure if it’s really the case, or my own hubris, but I’ve never heard anyone either make the same point, let alone agree with my assertion about these as the first “modern” looking cars. I could more confidently say the 707 and DC8 are the first “modern” looking airplanes. I know more sophisticated types would have long lists of arguing points for other cars and planes. I guess I’m talking about the viewpoint of an 11-year-old kid in ’69, or a 14-year-old in ’71. I’m not talking engineering, just the way the vehicles look. The ’60 Ford is endlessly fascinating, especially its one-off nature. Thanks for the CC Profile!
Wow, I still see a Falcon once in a while but I can’t remember the last time I saw a 1960 full sized Ford. Maybe it’s because the Falcon has the advantage of a multi year run with few changes.
A partial memory I have of a 1960 Ford is a Wonderful World of Disney movie I saw on TV with Larry Wilcox (of CHiPs fame) fighting a forest fire. Looking it up it was called “Fire on Kelly Mountain” and I think he drove a 60 Ford Wagon.
Agree with Jason on the fender skirts. My decorating philosophy on the 63 VW is no mods, no accessories.
You used “elegant simplicity” in your prose – these words describe this car perfectly to me, despite being on the low end of the “standard Ford” range. The frontal styling is my favorite things about these cars, though I do also like the back – there’s some pleasing, clean and linear about it, despite the fins.
This is the widest Ford ever? I’m shocked. I would have thought (just guessing) that the new-for-1973 Fords would have had that distinction.
I wonder how much Ford spent for the extra tooling for two different rooflines.
I liked the analogy of this Ford having been upstaged. Anyone with siblings could probably identify with this. 🙂
Great piece, Jason.
“I wonder how much Ford spent for the extra tooling for two different rooflines.”
Even better than that, there was yet another roofline on Galaxie models, with a thicker more Thunderbird-like C pillar. Even on the 2 door sedans.
The skirts on this green one look so much worse. I think the Galaxie quarter trim relies on a wheel opening, where today’s white Fairlane does not.
Yep, The trim calls out the wheel opening, making the skirts look like a J.C. Whitney affter thought.
Here’s the look you want – a friction scale model I’ve had since 60. I think my grandmother bought it for me at the local drugstore. Funny that I’ve held on to it because the 60 Ford is one of my least favorite Fords of all time – a bad 59 Chevy knockoff that was quickly forgotten when the handsome but conventional 61 was released. IIRC the quality of the full-sized Ford was quite low in 60 – and went up quite a bit in ensuing years.
Ford should have made the quarter-panel trim and the skirt mutually exclusive fender treatments. I remember that trim was optional on Aussie Falcons, though you hardly ever saw it.
As soon as I saw the bank building in the background of the first pic I thought that had to be Hannibal…there’s an old bank that was converted into a book store, and that sure looks like it.
I love skirts, but only on fancier cars…looks silly on a base model like this.
“All controls are close at hand, with each likely providing a satisfying tactile feel that simply cannot be duplicated (or found) in many contemporary rotary dials and push buttons.”
Or worse, touch screens.
I first noticed these in the original The Parent Trap. Maureen O’Hara steps out of a ’60 Fairlane taxicab when she arrives in California, and I seem to recall Brian Keith driving a 1960 or ’61 Sunliner at some points, and a ’60 Thunderbird in others.
The interior shots of this car really take me back. The first thing that comes to mind is that old car smell. It’s sort of a mix of old pine-tree air fresheners trying to cover the smell of sweat and cigarettes. A few gasoline and exhaust fumes mixed in round it out. It would probably smell gross except that it triggers a memory. Weird.
I always liked the 1960 Fairlane and 1961 BelAir bubble-back rooflines myself. They must have been a bear to ride in, in the back seat especially, on a hot sunny summer’s day. Even so, the visibility for the driver must have been exceptional. They certainly had to be better aerodynamically on the rack tracks than the “formal”-rooflined Galaxies and Impalas. The sad reality was, they added not one millimeter of usable seating room – just a huge package shelf.
Nice to see another Laurel & Hardy fan. Your nickname has to be a reference to that classic short (“County Hospital”) from 1932. I just watched it again for the umpteenth time, last Sunday. 🙂
Unfortunately, the B&W versions are all on disintegrating acetate film (missing large blocs of soundtrack) but this colorized copy has the full soundtrack so it’s the best one out there.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2kqaen
That is where I got that name. Glad to know there are other L+H fans out there. It’s very sad that many don’t even know of them. They are comedy royalty. Youtube has a lot of great Laurel and Hardy material, and for the antique car buff, they used some of the coolest trick Ford Model T’s ever.
TOPIC DRIFT ALERT :
.
L & H films were shown on L.A.’s channel 5 into the 1980’s……
.
Many of us who grew up watching their films miss this greatly but time marches on I guess .
.
-Nate
Old Car Smell is intoxicating. TMI: I love to stick my head into old original cars at shows and sniff.
Much more respectable than bicycle seats, Hardboiled.
The most difficult articles to write are those in which there is so little to say about the subject car. Despite this challenge, thank you Jason for taking the time to give this oft-forgotten Ford a little attention and affection.
This Fairlane 2-door sedan is not a particularly attractive design in my eyes, largely for its exclusive styling elements (notchback roof which I agree doesn’t work with the fender skirts), though the rest of the 1960 “standard size” Ford is an attractive, inoffensive design.
It’s funny you should mention how Chevrolet took the opposite approach, putting fastback rooflines on its base cars and notchback rooflines on its high-end models. I think this approach worked better and Ford’s. The fastback works for either, but it makes the base models look less dowdy and stripped, while the notchback gives the higher end models a more formal appearance.
GM only used the flattop roofline on four-door hardtops, too, The two-door had a much “faster” one.
I don’t know if I’ve ever really looked at a ’60 Ford before, and I guess I know why. I’m not exactly inspired by the design, but I do agree that the fender skirts have to go, if for no other reason than to accentuate the swept back line of the rear wheel opening, which conveys a sense of fluidity to the side view. I’m intrigued by that rear window too, it’s quite a complex shape for a lowly base model car. I would like to see this car in a dark exterior color with a sharply contrasting light interior, as even though the shape doesn’t do a whole lot for me I just feel like that combo would help it to “pop” and highlight reflections off the (minimally) sculpted panels to give it more visual interest. It’s not an unattractive car, but it’s certainly one that isn’t done justice by being painted refrigerator white.
My very first car. I was 13. Rear quarters rusted away below the wheel opening. 6-stick in gray. I never got it to run. Paid $5 for it, it ended up scrapped.
As to speculation about featured car’s unidentified propulsion unit…
It appears the control for manual choke is visible to the right side of steering column – that’d squeal out propulsion unit as 223 six cylinder.
Notice both air vent controls pulled out to wide open?
Fender skirts on a base model…maybe not. But on the Starliner, absolutely!
Here’s a shot of mine back in ’92.
What a period shot! Could have been taken for Prom 1960 !!!
I remember these new, good cars but considered dull .
.
A *very* hard sell used, that’s why there are so few left .
.
Those are ‘ Foxcraft ‘ aftermarket fender skirts, me I like ’em .
.
-Nate
The sales figures are interesting, particularly how there was so little deviation for 1962, the year that Chrysler went through their infamous downsizing. You’d have thought the figures for Ford would have jumped just like GM but, apparently, the people who normally bought Chrysler products and were put off by the 1962 cars went, en masse, to GM.
Actually, 1962 Chrysler sales didn’t drop as much as is often assumed, because they had already dropped so much in the prior two years. 1961 was quite ugly already, in part because of the recession. Everyone else bounced back in ’62, but not Chrysler.
Just so happens I’m delving into 1960s Chrysler production statistics for an upcoming CC. There are various figures out there, but according to the source I’m using (Std. Catalog of Chrysler), production actually increased from 1961 to 1962 (96k to 129k). However, 80% of this sales gain was due to the Newport — the value-oriented Newport hit the right note for the times as sales of the more expensive Chryslers lagged.
I was referring to Chrysler Corp. sales, not the brand. But you’re right about the increase in Chrysler brand sales, and why. Plymouth and Dodge each dropped some 20-30k in ’62.
Sorry — I misread your comment. I think I have too many Chrysler statistics jumping around my head right now. A few of them just happened to jump out.
I wonder what percentage of Newport buyers were former DeSoto buyers?
Probably a lot. Or a least, a lot were POTENTIAL DeSoto buyers, since DeSoto sales themselves had been in the dumps since the 1958 recession.
For 1962, I’m sure that the Newport captured more than a few people who were completely turned off by the style and size of that year’s Plymouth. If a prospect said “no way” to the Plymouth, the sales rep quickly showed them the Newport sitting just across the showroom floor.
I can hear the sales pitch: “Here is our Newport, which is still a full-size car, and not much more per month than a Fury. And…it’s a Chrysler!”
Upon further review of the figures, Ford did have an increase from 1961 to the tune of 210k units, which is nothing to sneeze at. So they did seem to get something of a bounce which might be attributed to Chrysler’s 1962 cars. I suppose it could have been a case of pent-up demand for the 1962 Chrysler cars after holding off for a couple of years and some of the Chrysler faithful got fed-up with waiting for something decent.
So, yeah, it makes sense that Chrysler was already suffering from previous, mostly atrocious model lineups (worse was it was in their bread-and-butter cars like Plymouth) by 1962. I guess when you’re at rock bottom, there’s nowhere else to go, and 1962 was just a repeat of previous years’ poor sales.
It also lends a little more insight into Chrysler president Newberg’s downsizing folly. With a couple of really poor years, instead of taking a chance on the same old, same old, Newberg’s radical 1962 gamble makes a bit more sense. It might actually have panned out if it hadn’t been such a last-minute, compromised, rush job.
My numbers show that Ford (brand) increased by 137k from ’61 to ’62. FWIW, that’s all from the new smaller Fairlane, as full size Fords actually dropped in ’62. So if folks thought the new Plymouth and Dodges were too small, it’s not likely they switched to the smaller Fairlane. Although it’s possible they were just put off by the styling. It’s impossible to divine the intent of buyers so many decades later.
What jumps out at me from the sales totals is that after the compact Falcon and intermediate Fairlane were in place, it took three different-sized model series to exceed the sole full-sized 1959 Fords. And they fell far short of the total 1957 achieved. For all that effort in a splintering market, it had to be a major frustration to see Chevrolet out sell them by significant numbers too. One guesses the Deuce was livid.
I’m not so sure. The year prior (1958), Ford only sold 19k more full-size cars, and that was also without any other models. Or, put another way, if Ford hadn’t brought out the Falcon in 1960, would they have sold 435k more full-size cars? My guess would be not even close, and that the vast majority of those 435k 1960 Falcon buyers would have, instead, bought either Corvairs or Valiants.
The big sales number of the 1959 Ford full-size is curious in one aspect, though, and that’s how Ford managed to achieve such a high sales figure in the inaugural year of the Studebaker Lark (as well as the first year of the all-new big Chevy). I guess even though the 1959 Lark was a big seller, it was only big in terms of Studebaker sales. In terms of GM or Ford sales, big Studebaker sales numbers were probably relatively insignificant.
Ford had no choice but to enter the compact fray for 1960, would have taken a terrible hit if not. That the Falcon proved so popular, that it hit the market sweet spot, was just a plus. My point was considerable effort and money had to be expended from 1960 on to get to the same volume.
Studebaker was a non-entity by the 1959 Lark introduction, its sales an anomaly which might be attributed to mostly loyal Champion/Commander owners embracing a car in line with the original light, economical car theme. Any conquest sales quickly soured of their Studebaker try, gladly moved as the Big Three choices as they became available.
“My point was considerable effort and money had to be expended from 1960 on to get to the same volume.”
True, but I can’t imagine the situation being any better over at Chrysler and (especially) GM. It’d be great to see the same sort of chart with GM’s cars. While Hank the Deuce certainly wouldn’t be happy with the R&D money spent for the Falcon, my guess is it was nowhere near what GM had laid out for the radical Corvair (which the Falcon was badly trouncing). GM had to drastically redefine the Corvair’s mission and spend even more cash to get a true Falcon-fighter with the just-as-stodgy 1962 Chevy II.
@rudiger: The key issue is cannibalization. The Falcon clearly did just that; folks that wanted a cheap, thrifty and very conventional car now had a very real option to buying a six cylinder big Ford. Don’t forget that Ford advertised that the Falcon seated six and had 90% of the interior room of a big Ford.
The exact opposite happened at Chevy. The Corvair clearly did not cannibalize big Chevy sales. Due to its rear engine and other qualities, it was a genuine import fighter, and there’s no doubt in my mind that that’s where the bulk of its sales came from. Don’t forget, import sales took a huge dive in 1960.
The Corvair’s image was very different than the Falcon’s, and it appealed to import buyers who were open to something different.
My argument is that the Corvair brought in some 250K new buyers a year to Chevrolet, ones they previously didn’t have, for the most part. And as such, the Corvair was much more successful than folks give it credit for. It helped push up total Chevy division sales to record levels, while Ford stagnated.
Most Falcon buyers had long thought that American cars had gotten too big, and bought them reluctantly. It was the Model A reincarnated.
The Corvair was a VW on steroids, and attracted buyers who thought the VW was too small. Two opposite ends of the buying spectrum.
58: I think The Deuce or Iacocca made the same observation at the end of the 60s: all that effort, all that fragmentation, and total sales were pretty much where they’d started in 60.
Read it in MT IIRC.
Were these wider than a wide-track Pontiac?
Yes. The Pontiacs used the same A Body shell as other GM brands; only the wheels were pushed further out into the wheel wells.
Ugly cars. The ’62 models were much nicer looking. And I’m not a fan of base-model cars either, I like to have some creature comforts.
My father owned one of these when I started driving (legally) in late 1967/early 1968, albeit his was the Fairlane 500 and not the bottom feeder model. This particular car was equipped with the 223 six/Fordomatic combo and, as others have pointed out, it was no hot rod. Of course this was likely a good feature for a beginning driver as it was difficult to get the beast going fast enough to get into real trouble. Unfortunately the Fairlane came to an untimely end a couple of months after I got my drivers license. I was on my way to work one Saturday afternoon (I can still remember that Steppenwolf’s “Born To Be Wild” was rocking the AM radio) when I was involved in an accident. No one was hurt but the Ford was a total loss, as you might imagine this did not improve my popularity at home.
I thought the styling of these was hideous back then but now I appreciate that it doesn’t look like anything else. Seeing the pictures with this article really triggers some nostalgia; it is really hard for me to believe that my experience with the 1960 Ford was nearly 50 years ago. Thanks for posting this article.
I actually quite like the ’60 styling, always have. It just works for me for some reason, and I find it rather unique with the slight “U” shape of the grille opening and the horizontal finlets. But this base 2-door roofline does it no favors (despite the wraparound back glass being kind of cool). In Starliner trim these are gorgeous. And the skirts do look more than a bit out of place on this lower trim version. Mom learned to drive on a ’60 Galaxie sedan, though her own first car was a ’60 Valiant.
Was the Victoria the 4-door hardtop? I had forgotten that still existed as a model this late.
That back glass seems so out of proportion yuuuge. Many models of ’60 Mercury had something similar, but on the bigger Merc it seems more in proportion.
I can’t say as I ever really liked the grille of the 1960 Ford but, over the years, it’s grown on me to the point I now don’t think it’s so bad. While I’d still rather have a 1960 Pontiac or Buick, if I were on a budget, I’d definitely take the Ford before a batwing Chevy or Plymouth.
In fact, I get the feeling the 1960 Ford front end may have been the inspiration for the 1963 Plymouth with its outrageous, big, outward-canted front-fender turn signals. They look a lot like they have the same outward angle as the front fenders of the earlier Ford.
These year of full-size Ford must be the hardest to find anywhere in North America.
The fender skirts don’t help much on this model and the roof doesn’t work much either. As for the car itself depending on the model and trim I don’t mind them. I like that the feature car still has the radio delete plate. This is a big deal for some collectors. Personally I would not add a radio to a car that did not have one originally installed.
The third family car Ford I remember after our ’49 station wagon and a ’54 Mainline two door was a ’60 Fairlane four door in black and white that had been a local village patrol car, 292 V8, stick with overdrive. The dash still had the drilled holes from the police radio mountings. Later my dad had the black repainted in dark emerald green, very pretty with its white top. This car gave me an understanding and appreciation of overdrive.
For a relatively plain car, this Fairlane sure does have a lot to look at. I think it’s a successful design overall, even in 2-dr sedan trim, though some angles are certainly more becoming than others.
It’s interesting how — even in the non-fastback form — the rear window is a swoopy wraparound deal. I bet it was like sitting under a magnifying glass on a hot day.
Well, at least the police-car version didn’t have fender skirts!
These are interesting to look at. the “sporty” roof from Plymouth, flat “fins” from Chevrolet, and a face from no where else. There’s an homage to past (and upcoming) Fords hinting at circular tail lights. And the overall styling was unrelated to 1959 or 1961. I’d love to have one (and a 60 Mercury) for the “There’s something you don’t see every day” effect!
Dad sometimes drove a Navy-Blue four-door version, borrowed from the US embassy in Lisbon, Portugal, where we were stationed in the mid ’60s.
It’s one of my favorite Fords, including the back window, which provided outward visibility superior to the ‘T-Bird roof’ models. I think the curved back glass also looks more extravagant than the ‘flat’ glass used on other cars. To me, the curvy fenders, chrome edging, grill surround, and horizontal fins are a nod to the ’50s, while the straight sleek body looks all new.
The fender skirts don’t bother me. At least they’re not permanent and can be removed. Later Fords looked good too. But plainer, and without the relatively lavish curves and fins of the ’60, those hinted of cost cutting. The fender skirts don’t bother me. At least they can be removed.
As to why they’re so rare today, one thing I recall on nearly every other TV show from the ’60s, was if they needed a car to blow up, demolish or drive off a cliff, it was a ’60 Ford.
As for GM, while they sat lower, the fullsize 1960 cars, with their big fins and dogleg windscreens, still look very ’50s. Most didn’t get all new bodies until ’61.
Happy Motoring, Mark
Always liked the front end of the ’60 Ford, much better than the ’61 or ’62 Ford.
I was in high school when the 60 Ford came out. I always thought it was the first modern looking Ford. Much better than the 59 and more futuristic than the Fords that followed. Our family owned a 62 Galaxie and it looked positively staid next to a 60. The front end of the 60 was clean and modern and the bat wing fins were a better interpretation of the styling motif than the 60 Chevy (although I liked the big Chevy a lot).
[mostly @Jason Shafer:] I share your ’63 Ford love (another car of my childhood), but it’s always nice to see the ’60. My father, WW2 vet & career FoMoCo guy (still with us), didn’t buy his first *new* car until the fall of ’59. He chose the Corinthian White Country Sedan over the (as it turned out) uber-low-production Edsel wagon ’cause my Mom didn’t like the latter’s interior so much. One of my earliest memories I’m _certain_ of (as opposed to something related by an older sibling I can’t really recall myself) is going to that NE OH Ford Dealer, not at all far from Ford’s huge Cleveland Engine Assembly and Foundry complex. Many years and miles spent in the third seat of that one! ////// This photo seems really timely—a Springfield, IL dealer. Maybe they kept the deluxe wheel covers off so nobody would steal ’em?
The ’60 has long been a favorite of mine although, of the group, I cannot say the Fairlane roof is my favorite. Part of my fascination with the ’60 is the infrequency with which one sees them – in fact, the first ’60 I saw was sometime in the mid- to late-80s and it was sitting in a salvage yard.
I share your suspicions about the wheel covers in the picture. Long ago, I remember seeing upper tier GM cars that way at dealer lots and on transports.
“1960 Ford” also brings to mind the width problem: at 80.5″ it exceeded many states’ limit for vehicles (before they’d hafta have different lighting). There are lots of little articles like his in the fall ’59 newspapers:
I’m also fan of the 1960 Ford. It’s a bit of an orphan stylistically if you look at Fords two-to-three years on either side. It’s clear Ford was nervous of Chevrolet’s radical bat wing rear end in 1959, and was likely scared of being scooped stylistically by GM only a few years after everyone was scooped by Chrysler’s ‘Forward Look’.
Ironically of course the full-sized Ford outsold Chevrolet in 1959, probably largely because of those bat wings. But by the time sales trends were apparent the die would have been cast for 1960 styling.
It’s hard to make a two-door full size sedan of that era look good, and this one does look a little sad (taking the fender skirts off would help!). But I prefer Ford’s overall roofline and profile approach to GM’s. Ford sedans switched over completely to the more modern-looking ‘4 window’ design (2 windows per side) in 1959 I believe, while Chevrolet sedans stayed with the more awkward and dated ‘6 window’ look for several years until 1961. That aspect of GM’s ‘big car’ designs of the era seems unresolved and unattractive to my eye. (‘What do we do here, Fred?’ ‘Beats me, just bang in another window I guess.’).
A great example of how difficult it is to make a good-looking 6-window sedan is the 1965 Chrysler New Yorker which had both 4-window and 6-window ‘Town Sedan’ versions. While the six-window version actually looked good, the 4-window car with its blanked-off C-pillar still looked better.
No one has mentioned Sheriff Andy Taylor drove one of these Fairlanes as a patrol car in the initial season of “The Andy Griffith Show”, supplied by Ford Motor Company listed in the credits, crafty product placement. Each year the good Sheriff Taylor had a new Ford patrol car, a pretty tall expense for such small town. Thanks to ME TV, we nightly get to be transported to the gentle, homely, unreal world of Mayberry……
How much you want to bet Andy’s cars were actually six-cylinders? I doubt Desilu would have shelled out for actual Police Interceptors.
What I dont get is that very expensive, yet awkward, rear glass on the Fairlane, while the Galaxie sedan got a simple pane and thicker “C” pillars. Steel costs very little.
GM saved on tooling costs by giving all trims, the same sedan (not hardtop) roofline and glass.
I think that Ford got surprised by how much of a home run it hit with the roofline of the 1958 Thunderbird and the 59 Galaxie. The entire rest of the automotive world seemed headed to wraparound rear glass and thin roof pillars on their top models, and I think that Ford hedged its bets.
The Galaxie roof of 1960-61 has always struck me as the weakest of the whole series – the C pillar is not as thick as earlier or later models and looked like Ford trying to transition back to a thinner pillar. But it just didn’t work as well. And by 1962, everyone was going Ford’s way in roof styling. Including Ford.
Those fins remind me of a floppy-eared dog 🙂
In retrospect, 1960-1964 was an amazing and interesting period for American car manufacturers – and including the design phase that preceded it.
The early infiltration of foreign cars and the recession of ’58 motivated carmakers to build *something* smaller, but I don’t think anyone really knew which version of “smaller” would sell. GM alone tried 5 or 6 entirely brand new ideas for their various “compact” models: flat-6, V-6, half-a-V8 I-4, aluminum blocks, turbocharging, rear transaxles, IRS.
I think the big losers in this era were the stripped-out “standard” size cars, as well as late-model used cars. Would you prefer a 3-year-old “standard” Ford vs a brand-new Falcon? Or, if you want a cheap new car, do you want a stripped out Custom 300 or a Falcon with a few niceties?
May be sort of ugly, but very cool!
My grandfather had a 60 2dr sedan, lite blue, 6 cyl, 3 on the tree. I don’t recall if it was a Fairlane or a Galaxie. Just a bland car. My brother inherited it, I think it finally died in the 80’s. I’m more the 63 1/2 fastback or 61 Starliner, got to have those big round taillights.
An odd footnote. I had a ’61 Ford for a bit in the 70’s. Long story I won’t bore you with. Trim wise, it was a Fairlane. But if I went to the parts store I had to just say big Ford or whatever, but anything but Fairlane. If I did I got parts for the not even produced yet, intermediate Fairlane, not the big car.
Actually had the same thing happen with Chevy one time. Helping a friend with his Corvair, 6 cylinders, right? Went somewhere, maybe K mart and bought an oil filter for the appropriate year that said, Chevrolet 6 cylinder, all. It didn’t fit. All except Corvair it seemed, somehow it wasn’t a Chevy 6 cylinder, in spite of the cylinder count.
I think I said it before but to me this is one of the best looking Fords ever – maybe it’s because I look at it through a European filter. Very understated compared with the offerings of GM and Mopar, and in some respects it predicted the future (just imagine the Galaxy 2 door with vinyl and landau irons and the grill styled like the Continental Mark III’s). IMHO the 61-64 – as nice as they are – were retrograde steps.
Somehow it escaped me from the time that these cars were new until only a few years ago, that the rear wrap around glass on the 1960 was different than the 1961.
The 1960 glass is much larger with a much more fastback rack.
The 1961 is smaller with a more vertical rack.
A beautiful car except for the somewhat peculiar roofline. I’m okay with the angle of the rear window; the C-pillars are too upright though. And I agree with T.Turtle, the ’61 was a retrograde step, with those angled fins (reprising 1957 in 1961?) and a front clip that didn’t really mesh with the rest of the design.
Looks best with this roofline. The skirts on the base model don’t bother me, but I wouldn’t put them on one of these.