There’s a reason this is the very first Mercury at the new CC. It’s the same reason why pretty much the only Mercuries at the old CC were the Comet, Bobcat and Cougar: big Mercuries are mostly a sad tale. There are some exceptions, and we’ll get to one of them as soon as I catch that ’64 Breezeway outside of its carport. But the Mercury story must be told, and this ’61 is a key player, even if it’s song is in a minor key.
Ford and Chrysler perpetually faced the same problem: GM. More specifically, the mid-upper brands at GM, which perpetually dominated the charts. The Ford and Plymouth brands could give Chevy a real run for the money, but otherwise made very few serious dents against the Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac juggernaut. Ford made its one and only really serious attack in the 1957 – 1960 period, and staggered out, bloodied and blood-let.
Ford’s very ambitious mid-fifties plan was to go mano-a-mano against GM, with five full divisions against theirs: Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln and Continental. I don’t have to tell this crowd how that turned out, but let’s just stick to how Mercury was involved and battered. Although Mercury survived, it was never a really serious player again.
From its birth until 1957, Mercury had always used Ford bodies, except for the ’49 – ’51 period, where it used a body originally planned for the ’49 Ford, and shared with the low-end Lincolns. In 1957, Mercury got a totally separate bigger body, to be shared with the upper-end Edsels. This made Ford a three-body company, a la GM’s A, B and C bodies of the times.
With the crash of Edsel and the whole ambitious Ford scheme, for 1961 Mercury went back to what it would remain to the end of its days: a slightly tarted up Ford. At least the 1963-1964 reverse-slanted rear window Breezeway models looked a bit different than the Fords; this 1961 Meteor 800 requires a closer look to distinguish it from the Galaxie. Pretty sad indeed.
On the other hand, 1961 was a good year to downsize, as everyone else was doing. The 1959-1960 Mercuries were huge wallowing barges, and without any of the GM pizazz to sell them. Sales were abysmal, and they’ve been rare on the streets for decades.
This 1961 lives the life a of a daily driver for its owner, who used to live few blocks down the street from us. It’s fun to see it coming and going, although I imagine $4.00 gas may have something to do with not seeing as much anymore. Or maybe like so many of the vintage daily drivers, it succumbed to a malady and is awaiting the time, energy, parts or money before its burble once again graces our neighborhood.
I know this one has a V8, as its fairly hard-driving owner makes all too clear. Normally, one would never have to even consider whether a full-sized Mercury had a V8 or not. But here’s an interesting trivia fact to add to your list to impress your friends: the 1961 and 1961 big Mercuries were the only years ever when a six was even available. Mercury was deeply associated with being a slightly more flashy and powerful V8 Ford from day one in 1939, and never again would a six sully the biggest RWD Mercuries again.
That does make this 1961 a serious low point in the Mercury story; helps make everything afterward look a bit more cheerful, eh? Good thing then, because this one sure looks like it could use a bit of cheering up.
The ’61 Ford was a great looking car and won some design award as I recall. Clearly the same wasn’t in store for the tarted up Merc.
The Mercury does look sad and the rear overhang is ridiculous; the Galaxie wears it better.
And I remember the Breezeway models when I was a kid. I always thought they were rather eccentric looking, with the opposite angle rear window that would roll down.
(am I remembering that correctly?)
IMO this is an ugly car. The Ford was much easier on the eye. The mid 50′s Mercs were nice looking cars. The styling from 1957 (Turnpike Cruiser) seemed very contrived, and continued down hill until the mid 60′s in spite of the fact that they did indeed have their own bodies through 1960. I think, but I’m not sure, sales followed this same pattern, starting a downhill slide in 57 and perking back up around ’64 or ’65.
Mercury was always the up market Ford though over here post ww2 they both had the ‘big bore’ flathead so there was little to differentiate them just a bit of trim That reverse slant window was also featured on english Anglias and the Consul Classic and other than the early Cougar Mecurys have little to interest. Seems Im not alone in that reguard.
IMO the “Quicksilver” Ford that this car is based on was all wrong. It is the Ford that was (reportedly) rushed into production on a crash basis because HF II saw a concept car and was smitten.The original (Ford) was bad , the copy (Mercury) is atrocious. Every line on this car is an error ,every detail a mistake. I remember these from my early youth. Even as a 10 year old , I felt sorry for the people that drove them. By the time I was in high school,poor build quality had pretty much done them in.
Oddly enough, the 1960 Edsel was based on the same bodyshell as the 1960 Ford and to these eyes , was the best looking car of the lot. The market didn’t agree: After about a month and a half and less than 4000 units,Edsel closed up shop,never to return.
The 1962s to me faired a bit better because they ditched the furrowed brow look compared to the 1961s. What is most amazing to me is that Mercury retreated so far out of the middle of the Market in 1961. I assumed the unique bodied Park Lanes from 1960 were at least supposed to compete in price and prestige with Oldsmobile 98s?
I think the problem wasn’t solely the B-O-P mid market juggernaut, a lot of blame can be put on the Squarebird T-Bird as a unique upper crust offering somewhere in the middle of Mercury’s intended price range that stole a number of sales from upper middle crust prestige machines. Didn’t it sell like 90K copies in 1960 alone? That’s definitely more than all of the Park Lanes sold that year, and if I bothered to look at sales, probably trumped Olds 98 sales that year (and definitely Chrysler Saratoga or New Yorker sales, for instance).
Another call me odd, but the 1959-60 Mercurys are some of my favorite Fords for being solely Unique, and having some odd mishmash turn of the decade eccentricity to their designs (particularly the 1960 with the grille mounted headlights and those weird oval taillamps). But even in 1961 I would have went for the weird of a Dodge Polara over this sad frowning Mercury.
You’re right on; Ford really stole Mercury’s thunder with the Squarebird.
I Think I remember that point being made in Disaster in Dearborn:The Edsel Story that the Squarebird and Ford not moving Mercury properly up into Buick/Chrysler territory + the 1958 recession is what killed Edsel/Mercury’s chance at a Unique identity.
I think the price charts even show Citations being more expensive than Park Lanes for 1958 if I remember correctly, even if Edsels were more or less aimed at Dodge/Pontiac in theory. That put a Edsel and Mercury model squarely in the market segment dominated by the Buick Super and Olds 98 and (Maybe) The Chrysler Saratoga, or against a New Yorker with no options. At least Chrysler boxed Desoto in well enough that it’s prices never moved too far out of sync with comparable Oldses.
Add in that the Squarebird bought hipness-new motoring concept and (subjective) better styling to this section of the market where Mercury had become a baroque afterthough, especially by 1959 (much as I like them) It’s easy to make the case that Ford never really understood the ladder system of prestige that General Motors and (to a far lesser extent) Chrysler did.
For some reason I thought that the Meteor line was a Canada-only thing… just an alternate trim of Ford products to be sold at Lincoln-Mercury dealers. Kinda like the Mercury Frontenac (Falcon), and like GM did with Pontiac dealers selling the Acadian Beaumont (Chevelle). In the 50′s in Canada, I think the Mercury dealers wanted a lower cost model than the Mercurys, and so the Meteor was brought in at a lower price point. (The Canadian market has always been more price-sensitive).
I do recall early 50′s Meteors that were just Fords with a different grill, sold alongside the “real” Mercs at the Mercury dealer. Maybe by 1961 the Meteor models were implemented in the US as well, in response to the economic conditions of the time.
P.S.: Ah yes… just checked Wikipedia… “Initially, Ford used the Meteor nameplate in 1949 when it created a stand alone brand of vehicles that used Ford bodies trimmed using Mercury parts for sale specifically in the Canadian marketplace. Meteors were produced and sold in Canada until 1961, and then reintroduced again from 1964-76, after the US model using the name was discontinued.”
This was the only year for a full sized Meteor in the US. For 1962-63 the Meteor was a slightly redesigned Fairlane. It was actually a very attractive car, particularly in S-33 sport coupe form, but it was too close in size to the Comet (which was stretched vs. the Falcon). When the Comet was restyled to look more upmarket in ’64, there was no more need for the Meteor.
The Canadian Meteor wasn’t the same car. It was Ford based-and had much different appearance.
My folks got a new ’61 Ford Sunliner convertible, black with white top and the 352. Sharp car and we loved it. Summer trips to the ice cream shop, the whole family out for a drive with the top down.
But what they really wanted was not the Mercury convertible. They wanted that gorgeous new 1961 Thunderbird. (Confirming your observation, larsupreme.)
That’s what started Mercury’s long decline. FoMoCo let their little 2-seat answer to Corvette grow into an high-end high-status Ford. When GM finally responded with the Riviera, it was a Buick, not a Chevy.
LTD may have launched the Great Brougham Epoch, but not single-handedly. The revolutionary 1958 Ford Thunderbird broke down the class system. Too bad for Mercury.
I always am amazed how narrow the track is on some cars from this era. The huge gaps between the tire and the fender on the horizontal make the car look very clownish to me. Pontiac had it right as far as how it helped how the car looks, nevermind any handling benefits.
Nothing looks as woebegone as a license plate hanging by one bolt.
Looking at the windshield wipers, I’m guessing that this beast still has the vacuum-operated system with an air motor on each side. When the switch was made to electric wipers, the passenger wiper moved to the centerline so both wipers worked on a common linkage to one electric motor.
Years ago I helped my dad work on a early-60s Ford C-Series cabover with the vacuum wipers. I had never seen one before and was fascinated. How did it work? I asked him. He smiled. “Good until the first air leak.”
You’re probably right about the wipers. I see from the sales brochure vacuum wipers were standard on all series of the ’61 Ford, with electric wipers optional. The Mercury brochure doesn’t seem to specify, but I would bet it’s the same.
I was 7, and starting to get interested in how cars worked (as opposed to just thinking they were pretty cool beasts), when my Dad bought his ’61 Ford with vacuum wipers (the only options he was going to spring for were radio and heater). I always thought it was the goofiest damned thing that the wipers slowed down when he accelerated away from a stoplight or the car climbed a hill, then resumed normal speed once the load was off the engine.
Thanks for the illuminating info. I had no idea that Ford actually offered electric wipers as an option over the standard vacuum system. I assumed that they just went from vacuum in one year to electric the next.
Love that shot of the dashboard. I believe that Ford must have cornered the international market on conical black control knobs in the early ’60s. The cabover C-Series had them too! With chrome inserts for the cars and white inserts for the trucks. I love the simplicity.
The other detail worth noting is that the steering column is fully enclosed on this Mercury, whereas the Fords still had that crude exposed linkage on their columns. That seemed really out of date by 1962, which I think was the last year for that. (hard to see in this pic)
Murilee Martin took some pics of a ’62 Galaxie recently that showed the exposed shift linkage clearly. And people say there’s no difference between Fords and Mercs!
“And may I point out, Mr. Smith, that this Montclair has the latest in shift linkage technology, unlike those crude devices down the street at East Side Ford.”
Hah! I had forgotten all about that bit of my Dad’s ’61. Now that you mention it, that was freakin’ cheap, like something out of the 40′s. Kind of like when you see cars from the 50′s or 60′s without a radio (hard to imagine a time when ads had to specify “R&H”) there’s a plate covering the opening where the radio should be. It just screams, “You cheapskate! You couldn’t afford 50 bucks for a radio?”
I always liked the 1961 Ford, which was a huge improvement over the rushed-to-market 1960 model in every way from styling to build quality. It measured up well against that year’s Chevrolet, and was much better looking and better built than the 1961 Plymouth.
This Mercury, though, was completely outclassed by the 1961 Pontiac and Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight. Fortunately for Ford, the 1961 Dodge was so downright bizarre that it made even this Mercury look good.
Mercury was the forgotten stepchild in the Ford family after 1960. It also seemed as though Mercury received the styling ideas that had been discarded by the Ford and Lincoln studios.
The 1959-60 Mercury had received its own body, but Robert McNamara wanted Ford and Mercury on the same body for 1961, to save money and rationalize product offerings. By 1961, every Ford passenger car shared its platform with a car from a sister division – Falcon-Comet, standard Ford-standard Mercury and Thunderbird-Lincoln.
The Thunderbird and Lincoln Continental showed the right way to do this. Ford got two very distinctive cars from one platform. The standard Mercury, however, was too obviously based on the mass-market Ford to really be a step up from its corporate sibling.
You’re right about the T-bird and Continental, but they were a special case. They were Ford’s first unit-body cars, and the main thing they shared was the firewall and cowling assembly. If I understand correctly, each car was two main components–the common forward section, and the unique rear section. The two were completely different aft of the A-pillar. The two components were built separately and joined on the assembly line.
This was a boon to my dad, who did body-and-fender work and had a friend who ran a junkyard. His friend managed to find two ’60 T-Birds, one wrecked in front, and one rear-ended. Daddy bought both, cut them at the main joint, and spliced the two good ends together. And that, my friends, is the first car I remember as a child–vaguely.
“I know this one has a V-8.” It’s in the name. Meteor was the low – end Mercury at that time (Low-end Mercury???) under the Monterey, replacing the Montclair. The Meteor 800 was a V-8, while the Meteor 600 was a 6.
Okay, I had to go back and check out the brochure for the ’61 Merc again.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1961%20Mercury/1961_Mercury_Full_Size_Brochure/dirindex.html
Check out the very first interior pages. “… priced right in the heart of the low-price field!“. THEN WHAT’S THE POINT? You’ve already got Ford covering the Chevy Bel Air and Impala and Plymouth Belvedere and Fury. Why have Mercury covering the same ground? Sounds like the two Meteors had the Ford Fairlane 500 and Galaxie covered, too. At least the Monterey maybe was a bit more upscale than the Galaxie. Paul’s right (as usual); this set the pattern for Mercury for the next 50 years. Comparably equipped, Mercury was no more expensive than the facing Ford; it’s just that Mercury didn’t have the price leader models that Ford had. Only in the full-size cars did Merc ever have a trim level Ford couldn’t match.
There were a few occasions when Merc managed to distinguish itself (Cougar vs Mustang in the 60′s, when Cougar had the full-lux leather interior XR-7, and in the mid-80′s when Thunderbird went full aero while Cougar went for more of a GM vibe), but for the most part Ford wasted millions upon millions over the years on design staff and divisional staff to support a car line that just wasn’t that much different from Ford.
I think that the point was that from 1958 through about 1962, the bottom fell out of the medium price field. The economy was in a prolonged funk (like now). All of the action was in the lower price ranges, and Mercury (under the ever-practical McNamara) chased the fat part of the sales curve down into Ford territory. Not that it had much choice, as there was not much to recommend Mercury over a nice Galaxie other than the concealed shifter tube as has been pointed out elsewhere.
Oh, by the way, I look forward to Paul’s post on a Breezeway Merc, or (I can only hope) a 1st gen Monarch. I’ll have lots of comments.
The ’61 Canadian Meteor bridges the (admittedly tiny) gap between the US Ford and Mercury, and in the process ends up looking, especially in the rear, like it might have started out as a design for a 1961 Edsel:
What a great story (series) the demise of the Cougar would make! From the glorious gen 1 muscle to the joke T-bird clone in the late 70s, to a very good Fox body sports coupe in the 80s, to a complete disgrace with a pseudo-Caddy looking Old Folks Car in its 90s iteration. And then a final twitch before giving up the ghost completely with the 00s clean sheet design. Oh how I fear that Lincoln will follow Mercury’s path… they are killing it right now with idiotic marketing and what currently has to be the most blatant badge-engineering in North America.
I can’t say that I remember any of these cars prowling our neighborhood in Northeast Ohio, but I may have mistaken them for Mercurys instead. I remember our 63 with the Breezeway rear window, and our series of Montegos. But like many other posters, I’m disappointed by the continual mis-handling of the Mercury brand over the decades, to the point now where it’s been cancelled.
However, it would make a great story. Tell it Paul. Let me know if I can help.
I was bored on a recent road trip. I remembered that my parents bought a new 61 Olds F-85 wagon. I started into a mental exercise, and wondered what I would have bought instead as a young family man in 1961. I came to the conclusion that 1961 was a really dismal year to go shopping for a new car. Think about it: other than the Continental and T-Bird (and maybe Cadillac), what did you buy then, particularly if you wanted a wagon on a budget? This Mercury was about par for the year – a not very appealing car competing against other not very appealing cars. Personally, I would have swallowed hard and bought a Dodge Dart wagon, but not with much gusto. But at least the Merc came with the FE engine, avoided the fragile GM transmissions and the bizarre Chrysler styling. Maybe this Meteor would have made my cut in 1961 after all. Hard to say.
A ’61 wagon on a budget: Chevy Wagon with four-barrel 283 and either four speed stick or three speed and overdrive. Wanna’ race?
An interesting suggestion. Personally, I could never stand the driving position of every 61-64 Chevy I ever drove. Low seat and high steering column that made you feel like an 8 year old in your own car. Add the shuddery X frame and an automatic transmission that was short a gear compared with everything else out there, and the Chevy was a no-go for me, despite the attractive styling and willing engines. Any station wagon that makes a column 3 speed look attractive is suffering from a severe handicap in my book.
When I am having trouble sleeping, this is what I do instead of counting sheep. I start at a given year, usually 1955, or 1960, and I go year by year forward thinking of what two cars would fill my garage each year, assuming I replace them each year, color and all.
By the Time I go forward 3 or 4 years thinking of all the available models, I usually have fallen asleep. As a car nut, try it and see if it is as effective on you as it is on me.
For 1961, aside from the obvious Three favorites you mention, I liked the 1961 Pontiac, preferably Bonneville, Convertible or if need be a Wagon. I would also assume Corvettes & Imperials are out of the question or I would choose them.
A more economical choice, I always liked the styling on the 61 Impalas, unless I could score one of the few Desotos that were produced IIRC… I kind of liked the
Mercury Comet Taillights that year, did that come in a wagon? I also actually liked the cats eye Taillights of the Original Valiant as well.
I actually liked the 1961 Styling way better than the rather rounded 1962 styling.
I spent much of my youth doing that during the day, but not at bed time. Other fantasy thoughts tended to predominate then. For me, it was picking a particular car, and obsessing about every detail for days or weeks on end, and modifying it in great detail, thanks to JC Whitney. Especially during school. No wonder I bombed out of high school!
I am so glad I found this. My father, for reasons I still don’t quite understand, bought a ’61 Mercury Meteor 600 to replace our ’57 Ford Fairlane. Of course I was 6 at the time, so my memories are rather fuzzy, but I seem to recall the Ford making some awful noises and vibrations, and apparently the needed repairs would not be worth it. The ’57 was a distinctive 2-tone – I think cream and gray – and probably one of Ford’s best designs. Unfortunately I don’t remember it that well, but I recall my father coming home with this new car that was red with a white top (which he claimed caused people in the city to hail him as a taxi, in that pre-yellow cab era). The Meteor was our car until I was 12, but met a sad end when traffic came to a sudden stop on a curve at the Queens end of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge and it was sandwiched. The last time I saw it, my dad took me to the shop where it had been towed, to get our things out — it was totalled. I cried, and he cursed and said he shouldn’t have brought me. So I still have a warm spot in my heart for that nasty grill, and seeing the interior photo brought back a lot of memories.
p.s. For most of my life I’ve had an inexplicable obsession with Edsels. I only just found out that the ’61 Meteor was essentially supposed to be the ’61 Edsel, and I was riding around staring at an Edsel dash for 6 years! I don’t think my father ever knew that either. I just know that every time he went looking for parts for the thing, he was told he was crazy because there was no such thing as a ’61 Meteor. Anyway, thanks for posting!
hi there my name is trevor i live in australia , i own and drive a 1961 mercury meteor 800 sports coupe , i have read a number of your comments and found them to be untrue , everytime i take my coupe out it draws a crowd and i’ve only ever had one dick ever say he thinks it a peace of shit !! , you have to knoew the guy he’s a real dick himself lol , my coupe travells along like a cadi , its powerful i can get 70+ miles an hour out of first ,rides very good , a real pleasure to drive , the 61 coupes are very rare only about 2600 were built , mine is colored in summer rose … with black & white interrior , all original condition not restored one new sides painted about ten years ago , the good thing about these l.a made coupes is the parts are easy to find usually nos , and ford made .i have put a video on youtube for you all to see , also will try getting some pictures up loaded as well , thanks for looking at a fine coupe , as i always tell my friends its not common like fords,and chevs ectra , lol cheers from australia.
this is my 1961 mercury meteor 800 sports coupe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSP9TJDc77w
That is a beautiful old Mercury you have. I have always had a thing for the 1960-62 era Mercurys just because they were always so rare in the States. You have latched onto a really nice one. Thanks for sharing it with us.
thanks so much for your comments on my rare coupe , i took it to a local car show other week in uralla nsw australia , had a lot of people like the old girl , you know what i really like about a 61 mercury is you just dont see them around , and most people just love them ah , cheers from trev in aussie :O)
this is my 1961 mercury meteor 800 coupe , something you will notice is the height of the car they sit lower than most cars i’ve been to car shows & have to tell them that its original not hot rodded low rider lol .
Nice car!
hey for any one looking to buy a 61 rare coupe i found this one for sale in usa cheers trev from aussie http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/monterey/1412660.html
My best friend in high school had a 1961 Mercury Meteor 600 in seafoam green. I never realized at the time how few were made with a 6 cyl., or how rare this car became.
I remember it had a three-on-the-tree and no radio. When it came to choose a car for the gang to go somewhere in, he never volunteered, and no one ever asked. A car without a radio was unthinkable in 1972 when EVERYONE had an 8 track.
Now, I appreciate this car, because it was an Edsel, even had the Mercury “man” pasted over the Edsel insignia on the dash…but we didn’t know that.
My friend always felt he had the worse car of the bunch, and his Dad had bought too cheap…..if only he knew how rare it is now.
And I remember it had flat, oblong tail lights that were turned on their side. That was different from every other Mercury or Ford and must have been designed to be Edsel tail lights. Very cheap looking rear and, and no back-up lights….rubber floor mats too….and vacuum wipers that didn’t work very well.
Here is my 61 Merc Meteor 600. I like the taillights better than the 800.
Nice! Yes, these are the taillights our red 600 had; I like them better than the 800 too. Those big tires and rims look a bit odd on it though!
They are only 15s. With the air shocks up I like the stance with the side pipes. Here’s one of the front.
Also the girl has a Ford 400 cammed with an edelbrock intake and 4 barrel carb. C6 three speed B&M shifter 9inch ford rear end with 3.73s in it with a solid rear end. A blast to drive and always draws a compliment when she’s out.