me·te·or/ˈmētēər/
Noun: A small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth’s atmosphere, appearing as a streak of light. The problem is once they fall to earth they aren’t all that spectacular, or easy to find. So goes the story of yet another one of Mercury’s flops, and a Turkey to roast.
When the Meteor debuted in 1962, it reflected the adrift at sea mentality that plagued Mercury. It took what was basically a decent American car, the all new for 1962 intermediate Fairlane, and put more chrome and Jet Pod tail lamps on it.
So what did you get for your few extra dollars and loyalty to the winged messenger God of the Ford family? Besides those new tail lamps and that huge piece of trim on the lower quarter panel not much. No distinct models or engine choices from the Fairlane other than this S-33 model that did a better job of adding a sportier element to these rather beige looking/driving mid sizers than the Fairlane Sport Coupe.
Those engines weren’t anything to write home about to begin with. Your base choice was the 170 cube inline six with 101horsepower that had a hard time wheezing through life in a Comet or Falcon, especially paired with the 2 speed Ford-O/Merc-O-Matic. I would guess that it would have been absolutely horrid in the ever so slightly heavier Fairlane/Meteor twins.
One way the Meteor could have been seen as a value would be to offer the 221 Windsor V8 as standard equipment. But even at 145hp, it wasn’t exactly a ball of fire either, especially compared with the eager new Fireball V6 throbbing under the hoods of Buick Specials, never mind the aluminum block 215 found in Specials, Skylarks and F-85 Cutlasses. In a Motor Trend test the 221 V8/Ford-o-Matic Combination was only good for a 13.3 second 0-60 time. Which is what a 225 Slant Six Valiant could do on a cold Monday. So out came the “Challenger” 260 V8 mid-year with a brazen 164 horsepower. Again, something that could have been a Meteor exclusive that was shared with the Fairlane.
The other nuisance sat in the same Lincoln-Mercury living rooms as the Meteor: The comparatively wildly successful Comet (above). One can wisely say the Comet kept Mercury from going the way of DeSoto in the early 1960s, even if it wasn’t formally a Mercury until 1962. The Comet was larger than the Ford Falcon, with a 114 inch wheelbase, but on average only $100 more than a comparable Falcon but with better trim and appointments. The Comet was almost as much car as the Meteor, which rode on the same 116.5 wheelbase as the Fairlane. The gap between the Comet and Meteor was anything but galactic, and since the Comet arrived first, the Meteor’s entry trajectory was almost invisible.
The numbers really speak for themselves. Although the Comet had a relatively down year in 1963, 122, 000 made their way out the door. That compares to just over 50,000 Meteors, even with the addition of a lovely hardtop coupe and a station wagon model. Although, for 1963 the Comet also got its first hardtop, plus a convertible and the option to fit the 260 V8 between its torque boxes.
The unloved Meteor made it to 1964, kinda. It retreated to being a basic big body Mercury back in Canada. But it became a pointless detour of the orbit of Mercury in the United States. Which makes you wonder if Mercury was possibly the biggest Turkey of all American brands.
What could have saved the Meteor? An exclusive 289? A Convertible? Who knows? Who really cares? Other than those looking for a cheap way to own an early 1960s Ford Product. Just look for an odd piece of stone that looks like 1963, but you can’t exactly remember where it came from.
I came upon a Meteor last year. I was embarrassed that I had to look up what it was.
Laurence, I always look forward to you articles. Unique perspective and great pics. Thanks again!
The Meteor nameplate was first used by Mercury in 1961 as a affordable full-size Merc before the mid-size come.
One guy imagined a “what if?” to imagine a ’64 Meteor http://www.whatifcars.com/gallery/What-If-Cars/64_Meteor?full=1
Then, in the Great White North, the Meteor nameplate survived longer as a “Mercury in Ford’s clothes” or a “Ford in Mercury’s clothes”. Here a couple of links to various pictures from brochures or promotionnal photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4803589899/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4799948074/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4799311805/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.tweedcreative.ca/mercuryrising/mercuryrising.html
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/Canada/1970%20Mercury%20Meteor%20Brochure/dirindex.html
Canada’s ’61 Meteor has one of the weirdest quad headlight setups ever. What did that look like coming down the road I wonder? Hockey stick taillights, too. Strange car.
I’ve always thought that car looks like it was meant to be the ’61 Edsel, although I know there is no evidence of that.
Wow. I mean wow. That is one of the most insane looking cars I have ever seen (and I love insane looking cars. I think the 1960 Lincoln Continental is one of the most beautiful cars ever built). That car just jumped to the top of my list, if I ever find one of those for sale in the US I’m buying it.
By the way, that front end looks a lot like the 1959 Oldsmobile, which was probably intentional because Oldsmobile and Mercury were direct competitors.
That “what if” site is great. I’ve done a few sketches of alternate car designs, but never anything like those.
To Steve
I have a Meteor I am thinking about selling.
Stansfield2002us@yahoo.com
I wonder why the Meteor came out with the same wheelbase as the Fairlane. They stretched the Falcon’s wb to make the Comet, so why not do a similar stretch-job to differentiate the Fairlane and Meteor? A 118 (or even 117.5) inch wb would have been smaller than the Galaxie and a nice niche for a midsized Mercury. More upscale trimming could have made the Meteor a worthwhile step up from the Comet. But, with the hash that Ford made of Mercury’s midsizers over the next few years, it is probably a moot point.
I always kind of liked these cars. The 62 Fairlane (and Meteor) created a class into which every competitor soon had an entry. The 116 inch wb sedan became a staple of the US auto industry through the 1970s and beyond. Just think: had Ford thought the whole thing out better and executed on the concept properly, Paul could have written the Complete Meteor Chronicles (instead of the ones actually written about that runaway success, the Cutlass).
Laurence asked “What could have saved the Meteor?”. If anything could have, I think J.P.’s suggestion is on the right track. The Meteor’s main problem was that it overlapped too much with the Comet, a model that was already established in the marketplace, and that also had the advantage of being relatively distinctive from its Ford counterpart. A larger Meteor may have avoided all of this.
With the benefit of hindsight, though, I’m not sure this would have actually been enough to save the Meteor. While the Fairlane laid the blueprint for the American midsize car of the ’60s and ’70s, and the Comet was close enough to the Fairlane concept to adapt to it, no market ever really emerged for anything like what an “upsized Meteor” would have been. The idea of FoMoCo building an entire range of Mercury products that were all distinct from their Ford counterparts also would have increasingly become a nonstarter over time as the market continued to subdivide (the Comet itself would only continue as a modified Falcon until 1965, after which it would become a more straightahead adaptation of the Fairlane design). A larger Meteor may have done better, but I have a hard time seeing both a c.114-15″ wb Comet and c.117-18″ wb Meteor survive long-term under any circumstances. Maybe after 1966 they would have merged together as two trim levels of the same Fairlane-bodied car, lined up against the Tempest and LeMans.
As Laurence alluded to, the Meteor name had a much longer history in Canada, most of it as a low-priced standard-sized car offered by Lincoln-Mercury dealers to cover that market in areas that might not have enough population base to support both a Ford and Lincoln-Mercury dealer nearby. (It also served a low-priced full-size role in the U.S. in 1961 before being downsized along with the Fairlane, but that and ’62/’63 were the only years for U.S. Meteors.) A possible subject for a future “uniquely Canadian cars” CC — in the same vein as the recent Pontiac Acadian CC — assuming someone north of the border can find one to snap a photo of?
This just goes to show that Ford couldn’t hang with GM in the style department, even though their sales were pretty good. To me, Ford’s products looked quite dated and ponderous until the 1965 Galaxie and later models for a few years.
For the most part, with a few exceptions until 1965, no Ford products have ever been on my radar and that has not changed since. Show me a 1965-66 Galaxie, a 1968 -69 Torino, 1967-68 Mustang and later, sleeker Falcons – now you have my attention.
I might be in the Minority but I think the 1962-64 Ford Full Sizers were more dashing than their Chevrolet competitors, especially the 63 1/2 “fastback” hardtop coupes, compared to a contemporary Impala Hardtop.
You could say GM once again “followed” Ford in roof design since all of the 1965 B bodies had swoopy roofs that improved on a theme Ford introduced.
I always thought that Ford did a decent job of matching Chevrolet in the style department, at least with the full-size models. A 1961 Galaxie Starliner is every bit as sleek as that year’s Chevrolet Impala hardtop, and the 1962 Galaxie is just as attractive as the 1962 Chevrolet. If anything, I prefer the front and rear of the Ford.
I agree with Laurence that Ford’s semi-fastback roofline on the 1963 1/2 models and 1964 models is sleeker than anything Chevrolet offered during those years.
The Corvair coupes, however, were more attractive and youthful than the Falcon coupes until the debut of the 1963 1/2 models with the semi-fastback rooflines.
Where Ford fell down was with Mercury. Until the first Cougar and the 1969 full-size models, it seemed as though Mercury was the red-headed stepchild that received the ideas rejected by the Ford and Lincoln studios. Mercury was simply no match for Pontiac in the 1960s (again, except for the Cougar and 1969 Marquis), or even the more conservative Oldsmobile and Buick offerings.
Moving up to a Pontiac from a Chevrolet really did get you a better (and more impressive looking, which is also important) car in those days. The Mercury from those years simply does not look like a step up from a Ford.
I happen to like the 1963 Ford and 1962 Mercury, they are two of my favorite cars for the same reason. Sure they are somewhat plain and conservative looking cars, but they both have fantastic taillights. Both the huge rocket boosters on the Ford (the best year for those, in my opinion since they both jut out and have no fins), and the smaller retrorockets on the Mercury.
I don’t remember ever seeing a meteor up close and personally. I was a young man stationed in Japan at the time and I do not recall seeing them on any base. When I had finished playing around on ships several years later one could suppose that there were not many left.
Curious. Looks just like a size I would have bought. Around Nova to Chevelle wheelbase and a small v8 available. Probably would have been very easy to slip in a 200-6 when they were available. The station wagon would have been perfect for a young serviceman who moved about a little.
My wife has owned two mercuries and neither seemed destined for a long useful life. I know what their purpose was supposed to have been because I remember the pre 1949 line when they actually were bigger than ford with bigger engines. I don’t think I see an advantage to anything built after 1954 unless you were just into paying more when the same thing was available as a ford.
Interesting anyway, and a good article.
LJ- what equipment are you using to achieve that retro look?
(f you can tell us a little secret)
Nice article. If Ford had really “thought out of the box,” it would have killed the full-size Mercury, slightly upsized the Meteor from the Fairlane, made the 260 V-8 standard, given the interior the LTD treatment, and turned the Meteor into a Cutlass Supreme five years before Oldsmobile came up with the idea.
I actually drove an 62 Fairlane in the mid seventies and found it to be a fairly peppy four door sedan with bland looks.
I agree that they should have kept up with the stretch job. The rest of the line had longer wheelbases than their Ford counterparts so in addition to the different style and more chrome you actually got more metal and room for that extra money. But the Meteor with its Ford wheel base was just too close to the success that was the Comet. So they essentially were merged with the Comet name plate being put on what would have been the Meteor. So one could say that it was the Comet that died while the Meteor continued on with its name changed to protect the guilty.
I had a 63 Meteor with the 260 V-8. I thought it was better built than the Fairlane and the Comet wagons from 63 i also owned. Eventually I had the engine apart and found the rods were different from other 260s, and the pistons had a carbon ring cut above the top compression ring into the piston. The Meteor had gauges whereas the others used idiot lights.
I didn’t care for the grille design, I like the Comet better. If I could have a 63 Ford, it would be Meteor, Comet, Fairlane, Falcon in that order.
These cars look great, though at first glance I thought it was a Comet. I’ve only seen one in my life and it looked even better in person and way better than the beautiful Fairlane! I would take a Meteor over a Fairlane any day. Had I been looking for a Ford midsize in 1963, though, it would be a Comet due to its Falcon-like price and midsize spaciousness.
This got me imagining the 170/Fordomatic combination that my amemic 1961 Falcon has in a car that is hundreds of pounds heavier, especially when loaded with people and luggage.
As for how to save it, the only possibility would have been to discontinue the Comet. Still, even that could have backfired because of the Meteor’s higher price.
I remember seeing these around my town as a child, I was 4. We Had a great L-M Dealer, which generally allowed me to collect their catalogs, sit in every model on the showroom, years before I’d have my own license.
These were Librarian’s cars. Assistant to the Principal(Secretary) cars. Perhaps some rather quiet men drove these cars, church elders?
I do remember the corner taillights as being rather cool to me as a 4 year old. They Could have made it a baby Lincoln?
Actually an English teacher I had in High School had one, a 1962. The only new car she ever bought.
She’s probably dead now. I wonder what happened to the Meteor….. it was nearly 35 years old when I was in High School.
I’ve always thought the Meteor was a very attractive car, much sleeker looking than the 1962-63 Fairlane. I know the width and height are essentially the same as a Fairlane, but somehow the Fairlane LOOKS taller and narrower than a Meteor and hence stodgier. The S-33 hardtop coupe was especially sharp.
Did these really have a 31 cubic foot trunk? That is HUGE, almost double the trunk room of most modern sedans.
There was really nothing wrong with the concept. In 1966 Ford moved the Comet up to the Fairlane platform and de-emphasized the Comet name, switching it to Montego in ’68, and the cars sold well. The difference in ’66 was there was no slightly smaller Mercury competing against it.
The 63-64 big Mercs were cool cars, and were in NASCAR, when real stock cars were raced! So, no not all were ‘step-kids’
And can people please stop using overused,outdated, terms like ‘red haired step child’?
Compared to a Pontiac (which was supposed to be the target for Mercury), the Mercurys are underwhelming. The Fords from those years are better looking, more cohesive designs. The Mercury hardly seems like a step up from the Ford.
In this case, the term “red-headed stepchild” fits.
Strange reactions to this car! I am clearly biased – my family had a ’63 sedan, and Meteor was a well-known brand in Canada. I do remember there was some brand confusion when Meteors became mid-size Mercury’s in 1962, instead of being the slightly down-market full-sized Fords (sold by Mercury…) they had been throughout the 1950′s. A bit like when another actress took over the role of Roseanne’s daughter on TV (Hey, that’s not Becky! You can’t call her Becky!!). But, you know, the second iteration turned out to be better, in both cases.
I always thought the ’63 looked great in profile, and especially the rear / rear quarter view. The front grille was admittedly pretty poorly resolved. Overall it seemed a sensible package however, attractively styled. I loved those tail lights – they were very sculptural and fluid for a car of that era, and better integrated into the fender line than most cars of its time.
I recently found a moteor 4 dr sedan with a small v8 that sounds good , front floors are rusted through but the rest of the body is pretty good. I would like to buy it but dont know what its worth, any ideas/
Actually, the Meteor is more than just a Fairlane with different taillights. They have a lower A-arm type front suspension (of sorts) where the Fairlane has a strut rod, and a “cusion link” on the front of the leaf spring instead of a solid mount. It also has some little extras like gauges instead of idiot lights and things like that. I really like the 221, remember this was before the muscle car era; GM had the 215 in the Buick/Olds/Pontiac, Mopar had the slant 6. I believe Meteors had the 200 I6 as an option in 63 as well. If I could change one thing about the drivetrain it wouldn’t be the motor but instead the Merc-o-matic transmission. Don’t get me wrong, they seem to go forever, but just aren’t as snappy to shift as a Powerglide, and having a C4 with one more speed would help too. If 0-60 time is what you’re after, you want a Meteor with a 260 and a 4 speed, both an option in ’63 and basically the same drivetrain that the earily Mustang had. Also, the Meteor does have a longer wheelbase than the Fairlane, except the wagon. There is a *lot* of trunk space for a mid-sized car, the trunk lid is about a foot longer than the Fairlane’s. Also remember, while the Meteor name was dropped in the US after ’63, by ’66 Mercury had dropped their compact line and made the Comet into their mid-sized car, based on the Fairlane, just as the Meteor had been.
I now own the 4 door Merc that is in two of those pics kinda odd just looking at pics and was like wow that looks a lot like mine. Lol and the licens plate numbers match.