(first posted 4/15/2012) Of the three US compacts introduced for the 1960 model year, the utterly conventional Falcon was the most successful, so much so that Chevrolet and Chrysler would quickly modify their offerings to match it. The flamboyant Valiant sported a much more conservative suit in its 1963 redesign, and the 1962 Chevy II would become the division’s bread-and-butter offering as the Corvair was first moved upmarket, then put out to pasture.
While the Valiant had the best handling and performance thanks to its Slant Six and torsion bar suspension, its Exner-approved styling was polarizing to say the least. The rear-engined Corvair, while backed by thousands of friendly Chevrolet dealers and the might of General Motors, had a very unusual powertrain design, and some folks just weren’t sure what to make of it. Ford played it safe. They basically made a 3/4 scale full size Ford, with inline six power (up front, of course), rear wheel drive and modern, if somewhat vanilla, styling. It was a hit, even with only two- and four-door sedans initially available. Within three years the Falcon would have a full line of vehicles, with station wagons, two-door hardtops and even a convertible. There was even a Falcon-badged version of the Econoline forward-control van.
The Falcon received only minor changes through 1963, but a new Futura model that debuted in 1962 was a mini-Thunderbird of sorts, with extra chrome trim, full wheel covers and bucket seats with a mini-console.
In 1964 all Falcons received attractive new sheet metal with a forward-leaning front end, thicker Thunderbird-like C-pillars and a rocket-shaped stamping along the bodysides, which were outlined in chrome on Futuras. The trademark Ford tail lights remained, but the rear deck traded its gentle contours for a more squared-off affair.
Despite the updated styling, it was still largely the same old Falcon underneath. The Futura, a single model in 1962, was now a full lineup and boasted sedans, coupes, wagons and a convertible. The basic Falcon was still available for those seeking basic transportation, though.
The standard Falcon was a cheapskate’s dream. As basic as can be, they featured chrome windshield and backlight moldings, hub caps, dual horns and sun visors, armrests on the front doors only, and a horn button in lieu of the Futura’s chrome horn ring. These plain-Jane Falcons came in two- and four-door sedans only, listing at $2040 for the four-door and $1985 for the two-door.
Standard engine for the Falcon was a 144 CID straight six with 85 hp @ 4200 rpm and a single barrel Holley carburetor, though you could get the 170 six or 260 V8 if you desired a less leisurely pace.
The sky blue Falcon I found last week sports a few options to spiff it up a bit, including a chrome side molding, whitewalls and a pair of fuzzy dice on the mirror. It was in excellent shape, and the antique vehicle plates suggest a loving owner. While it’s not flashy, I really like the clean lines. I’d guess that the owner loves the simple mechanicals and reliability. $2040 got you quite the reliable machine in 1964, so long as the rust stayed away.
Going in the opposite direction, the flossy $2611 Squire wagon was just about the most expensive Falcon you could get, with the exception of the Futura Sprint convertible, which ran an extra $49. There really was a Falcon for just about any taste in 1964, but the 1965 Mustang would change all that.
I still love those afterburner taillights, just as iconic in my mind as the 6 rectangular taillights on a Mustang.
I love the Peanuts cartoons on the print ads. ’64 (and possibly ’65) Peanuts was the ad campaign for the Falcon (or was it the entire Ford line?). I remember the animated television ad of Linus doing a calypso number in celebration of the Falcon winning its class in the Mobilgas Economy Run.
I found the Peanuts characters in Falcon ads all the way back to the 1960 debut–Falcon-specific ads, plus a few others (Falcon wagon + full-size wagon).
Here’s one I don’t remember at all–a first-year wagons “Alice in Wonderland” ad and the Tenniel-style illustrations:
The first animation of the Peanuts strip was for the 1960 Ford ads.
Kid who voices Charlie Brown sounds nothing at all like the one used five years later for A Charlie Brown Christmas, but Lucy sounds remarkably similar
The older I get, the more I think the absolute greatest era of American cars was 1960-1965. When I was younger I always had the hots for the late 60s muscle cars, but now these appeal to me much more. The transition from the radical/gaudy late 50s to the clean, sleek lines as seen here was a glorious time for styling, the Big Three compacts debuted (1960 Corvair and 1961 Tempest are very high on my wish list of classics I could realistically own), the horsepower wars were being waged all-out – with factory sponsored racing programs still intact, GM especially was doing lots of interesting, technologically advanced things messing around with fuel injection and turbocharging and lots of cars from this era (which wouldn’t happen again with American cars for a looooong time) looked just as good inside as they did out. Maybe this is a silly reason to idealize this period of car design as well, but the imagery and execution of the advertising was just unbelievably outstanding. Who wouldn’t want to cozy up with that beach bunny in a spiffy new black Falcon droptop? Even one of the most boring, pragmatic vehicles available was still attractive and compelling in the proper setting.
I’m a convert – keep the long-haired SS396s and Boss Mustangs. In my dreams I’m laying rubber leaving the World’s Fair parking lot in a Corvair Monza Spyder with an Audrey Hepburn lookalike riding shotgun.
Well said. These days I enjoy the cars I loathed as a youth. I’ll happily take that OHC6 Firebird that I so ignorantly ignored back when they were quite plentiful.
No kidding. My neighbor’s son stores one at her place during the winter. I’m very tempted to make him an offer. it’s a beauty.
I really wish I’d kept the ’64 Comet wagon I drove in the late 90s… Awesome car, dead simple, factory V-8 and dealer air that blew ice cold in the hot Atlanta summer. Great car.
Also had a ’65 Ranchero in the ’80s. Had similar feelings about that one, except putting the seat all the way back still didn’t give enough legroom — and I’m only 5’6″! Can’t imagine how taller people must’ve felt…
But that Comet wagon really was Just Right, in so many ways.
During all of the retro touches on new cars during the last decade, how on earth did Ford miss a reissue of the classic big round taillights?
I have always liked these Falcons – particularly the converts and the wagons. Unfortunately, they have always come a half-step behind the Valiants and Darts in my hierarchy, so I may never get to own one. Which is too bad. I saw a low-mile original sedan for sale at a car show a few years ago that had me thinking, but I let the urge pass.
Imagine the Fivehundred/Taurus with big round taillight homage and the name “Galaxie”. That would get my attention.
(Still waiting for someone to try retro tailfins in a design… 😛 )
A little bit beyond the last decade, but Ford did recreate the large, round tail lamps on the 2002 – 2005 Thunderbird.
And they didn’t get ’em right. They should have been slightly smaller & with a chrome trim built in as well. Give the taillights a touch of class instead of the cheapness they exude now.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
The size was likely mandated by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), and integrating the backup lights into bottom half of the circle further ruined the look.
Sniff sniff……I love (and miss) my old Falcon! This was back in 1987, before “restomod” was even coined. I called it +1………as in what someone would have done, a year later, after the original tires/shocks wore out and needed a power boost 😉
Back in 05 when the Mustang came out I thought it would be cool to photochop a retro Falcon Squire also.
[IMG]http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z281/timmm55/corel%20photo%20shop/squireRear2.jpg[/IMG]
link didn’t work
They should have made that instead of the Freestyle.
Nice job – i’d buy it!
Great to see this one again Timmm55. I’ve missed your posts on BON. You did one from the front with a ’63 style grille IIRC.
The blue featured car picture is like a step back in time. The neighborhood with the lower middle class houses is like a time machine. The cape cod and little ranches illustrate 50’s and 60’s life.
What a great time in America.
I thought the same thing about those shots – sensible little cars belong in front of tidy little houses.
The blue ’64 was my mother’s car in 1965. Her’s was an ex-Hertz rental car with absolutely no chrome. As we lived in San Juan, PR, the car had the heater-delete option. It was incredibly roomy inside and didn’t give up much to my dad’s ’63 Chevy Bel Air. The unit body was very tight and the doors closed with a solid thunk, much unlike the Bel Air that sounded like the doors were filled with random pieces of junk. The single speaker AM radio did a fine job of belting out Fun, Fun, Fun and Satisfaction. No power steering or brakes. Didn’t need it. With the 101/170, I could out-drag my friend’s MGA. Good little car.
Back in High School a friend’s dad had a 64 Falcon Sprint drop top. I geeked out when he popped the horn button off and it had a Mustang embossed on the back side.
Find myself wondering how these cars would have done if we hadn’t been raised on a diet of front engine and rwd. I drove a number of vw beetles and loved them so I think it’s something cultural that makes me think these cars might have been better than the vw. I think the corvair ran up against the same problem as the vw.
A lot of us older guys still buy rwd when we get the chance. I could be convinced that is the reason trucks are so popular. Oh well, time for my meds so gotta go.
Well, here’s one old fart that has no use for front engine/rear wheel drive. During one semester break in college, my squeeze drove her dad’s Saab 96 Monte Carlo to meet me at my aunt and uncle’s home in western Illinois. It was a real revelation. It handled the snow-packed gravel roads with precision and control that my 1960 Plymouth Fury couldn’t approach. Aside from the fact that it needed a new engine on an yearly basis (roller bearing mains don’t like 2-stroke carbon), I was hooked on FWD. Once I had graduated from school and had built up a bit of savings, I bought a brand new Fiat 128. Say what you will, I really loved that car. It made my wife’s Datsun B210 feel and look like the piece of junk that it was.
After the 128 I did not buy anything but FWD until this year when I bought a new 2012 Subaru Impreza. Sweet car. Given my wife’s experience with two Subarus in Salt Lake City, I probably will never own anything except AWD from now on.
Had a GF in about 1972 or so with a sky-blue ’64 Falcon Tudor. BTW, these were everywhere then…the equivalent of a Corolla today, the obvious cheap used car for a girl to buy then. Anyway, we drove up to NYC and back, via the back roads of NJ. The personalities of these were defined by which transmission they had: three-speed manual or the two-speed Fordomatic. The latter is what her’s had, and it made it really pokey….the little six just moaning away forever, until it shifted into high, which it couldn’t maintain on any grades…deadly combination, except for granny to drive to the store. It just cried out for a four-speed stick, a little tighter steering, decent shocks. With a bit of the right stuff, these could have been a decent little driving car. Close, but….
Done properly the Falcon could have as good as a Zephyr but it was cheaped out in the suspension the body integrity and powertrain so it was basicly crap which is why Zephyrs sold so well here and Falcons didnt
Gotta agree with Paul here. The clunky shifting 3 speed manual transmission, with the non-synchro first gear, was a less-than-satisfying, penalty box driver. The 2 speed automatic transmission was smooth, but S-L-O-W. Esp in the station wagon body.
One year later (1965) came the 200 cubic inch six cylinder engine and (finally) the 3 speed “Green Dot” Cruise-O-Matic automatic transmission.
This power train, combined with the upscale (for a Falcon) Futura option interior, made for a decent economy-compact car.
Ford in Argentina keeped the original 1960 Falcon with some changes over the years like 4 lights and later squared headlights and a redesigned dash and made the Falcon to 1991. I spotted some publicity pictures of a 1970 Argentinian Falcon http://www.todofalcon.com.ar/pub70.htm
Wow – Ship the tooling to South America and keep making ’em down there, quite profitable I imagine. Appears that there have been very few changes, the quad lamps are an interesting touch.
I wonder how frequently US manufacturers did this “recycling” trick? I have seen a couple of examples documented here @ CC
Ford did the same thing with the ’66 Galaxie/LTD tooling which went to Brazil. That body lasted in South America for many years.
1983
I’ve always liked these, vanilla or no, especially the 60-63 versions, but the 64-66’s were nice too.
I see these every so often still chugging along here in Seattle, some restored, some definitely not.
When I lived on Queen Anne Hill, a resident in my building had a metallic blue 2 door sedan, I’m guessing a 60 or 61 since it had the front turn signals in the grill, rather in the bumper and yes, it was stock, but unrestored though but very straight and complete.
I learned to drive in my father’s 1961 sky-blue Falcon deluxe 4-door. A company car, it was slower than molasses in January, guess he thought I couldn’t get into any trouble with it. I remember it taking a half hour to accelerate from a stop, although it did have the Fordomatic, so that made it easier on the learning process. Rubber floor mats and a manual choke (whatever that was in those days) made this a true down market econobox. It sat in the garage next to my mother’s fully loaded Colonial White 1959 Galaxie Club Victoria, looking like big and baby brothers watching out for each other. They were, indeed, the epitome of vanilla, and ubiquitous in Los Angeles in those days. My father was so damn enamored of that Falcon, when it came time for me to get my first car, he was insistent that he buy a new 1965 two-door post Falcon for me to commute to USC. In those teenage years, I was already so horrified to be seen in the 1961, I put my foot down, and ultimately prevailed with my 1964 Pontiac LeMans, much to my everlasting relief. Great memories!
Falcons are great classic cars to own, dirt simple and cheap, with a little bit of style. I’m currently working on this deluxe ’64 wagon. The chassis they share with the early mustangs make many parts very inexpensive too.
Nice honest little Falcon.
Anyone notice the Buick loyal house in the background with the 2 white LeSabres?
The house that screams “old people live here?”
(Hey, I’m old myself…)
We had three Falcons…a dark blue ’60 sedan, replaced by a white ’64 four-door wagon like Pixel’s except ours was the base model (no side molding or roof rack)…and then, in ’72, for my first car, I bought a white ’66 sedan. I’d be happy to have any of them back.
By the way, the changes in terms of variety and performance came in ’66, not ’65. Still, if I ever run across a good or better ’66 or ’67 Sport Coupe, I’m buying it.
Falcon is a great model name and I wish Ford made a four-door sedan on the Mustang platform called Falcon to compete against the likes of A4/3-series/ATS, along with a Lincoln twin. That platform could be adapted to be fitted with an IRS and 2.0/3.5 or ecoboost motors, both to go head to head with the aforementioned competition and to clearly mark it as separate from the Ponycar’s live axle (except Cobra) & V8 image. A Mustang V8 of some variety could go into Falcon’s Lincoln twin to compete with the likes of M3.
It makes sense to me, honestly. Lincoln could use a Eurofied Mustang based car to reboot its image (which is pretty murky). Lincoln LS failed by being cheap looking (very Detroit in its stying execution), but the Falcon and its Lincoln twin would be smaller and convincingly European, more in the vein of the one-Ford policy. I bet the Falcon could even have a shot in Europe’s compact executive market.
Ford already has the technology necessary in its Mustang and Ecoboost engine families.
Uh, they’ve been doing it in Australia all along. Unfortunately, this is the last of them. What they should be doing is exporting it here like GM does with the Holden Commodore (Chevy SS).
I like the little Falcons. I have 3! A ’62 2 door wagon(not pretty), a ’62 Falcon Futura currently on the rotisserie and a ’64 Ranchero:
I’ve been fond of 1964 Ford Falcon 2-door sedans for a long time. It’s a car so simple the greatest engineering minds of 2013 would probably have an attack of some kind trying to figure it out — quirks and all! 🙂 Mine still runs pretty well at 49 years old. Still has the original 170-cid engine with the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic transmission. Just think: If you bought a new car today (Sept. 17, 2013) you’d have to keep it until 2062. I’ve got a Standard Falcon (read: the cheapest model) with the ‘script’ on the sides instead of the bird symbol. I’ve grown to appreciate it more as the years pass simply because cars aren’t simple any more. And all these unnecessary add-ons (daytime running lamps . . . please) and computer-powered goodies that cost a bloody fortune to fix when they foul up. I do enjoy just starting up the Falcon, pulling the manual ‘choke’ knob out a little ways then putting it in “D” and moseying on down the highway. The humble ’64 Falcon: Technically primitive motor car of the misty past, but it still looks good almost 50 yrs. later! What more could you ask of a car?
My first car was a 62 Ford Falcon, with the 144ci… a car you could not get in trouble with…. I must confess the 64 Falcon in convertible guise or better yet the Sprint package is still a car worth lusting after..
When my uncle passed away, he had three Falcon’s in the driveway. Tudor Futura, Ranchero, and Convertible Sprint. The family sold off the Futura and the Ranchero, but I got the Sprint. 🙂
My uncle always loved the Falcons because they were reliable and easy to fix. I knew him for 35 years, and I can not think of a single time he ever drove anything but a Falcon.
I must admit, I rarely see another Falcon on the road. I see them at car shows, but I can only think of one other time I saw a Falcon on the street — and that was just two weeks ago!
In any event, I will always look at Falcons and remember my Uncle Rolf Kargl.
My first car was a light blue Falcon 4 door just like the one pictured. I think the paint color was actually called Ford Blue. It was a very durable car and simple to work on. Underpowered with the 144 CID straight 6 and three speed on the column shifter. No A/C (in humid South Florida). Exactly what a 16-18 year old idiot like myself needed. No seat belts but somehow I survived. I bought it for $300 in 1970 and literally drove it into the ground in 2 1/2 years. Part of me wishes I could re-acquire that same car, but I actually had the hots for my friend’s 2 door Futura with the small block V8 and floor shifter. Two tone darker blue with white top. That would be a fun car to own, but I shudder at what the fuel ecomomy must have been for such a heavy “small car” regardless of the power train. Who cared back then with gas at a buck a gallon.
Dad had a 62 and a 64 like the feature car.Both plain vanilla 6 cylinder 4 doors.I felt like royalty going to school in it in the 60s.
From what I understand, the Falcon sold more units than the Corvair, but a lot of those sales were cannibalized from the much more profitable full-size Fords, while the Corvair mainly attracted import buyers that liked the rear-engine format. Given that the Corvair, Falcon, and Valiant were developed to stem the tide of the import (VW, Renault, etc.)/compact (Rambler, Lark) car surge of the late 1950s, I would say the Corvair was more successful of all the big-3 in fulfilling that mission. If not for the Mustang that finally made the Falcon platform profitable, I doubt the Falcon would have been considered especially successful.
I disagree. The humble Falcon was quite successful. The Edsel which preceded it was not.
“a new Futura model that debuted in 1962 was a mini-Thunderbird of sorts, with extra chrome trim, full wheel covers and bucket seats with a mini-console.”
The Futura first appeared in the spring of 1961 as a 1961 model. It had the full wheel covers rimmed with polka dots, bucket seats with a small chrome console glove box, and trim spears on the rear fenders.
My Dad bought two new Falcon sedans in 1961 and later, a used Falcon Ranchero. These were really basic cars but easy to work on and quite reliable. The interior and trunk dimensions and big greenhouse were good selling points for folks moving down from full-sized cars. Good cars for their time. As the country forgot the recession of 58 and the economic boom of early/mid-60’s took off, people wanted more style and power and the Falcon was left behind.
I should’ve noted this Futura precedent when that name was resurrected for the 1978 Fairmont coupé. Instead, at the time I thought of the Lincoln Futura, which seemed a complete non sequitur.
The Falcon did get a power bump in ’63 with the optional 260 V-8 that put out 164 hp. After the Mustang was introduced in ’64, the Falcon was relegated to economy car status for the most part. By ’66, the hardtop, convertible and Sprint were gone from the lineup and the Fairlane got the performance upgrades
I learned to drive a stick in a ’64 wagon with 260 and 3 on the tree. My dad loved basic cars like that. (He must have known Paul’s dad somewhere)
My mom had a white ’62 that she drove for 10 years and sold to my buddy. How many women (or men) today can work a manual choke effectively? Mom could.
That color blue was once ubiquitous. I had a ’70 F100 in that color.
A convertible I saw the other day
Sweet ’64 Sprint!
I remember that scene in” What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”, where the family piles into that little Falcon with huge huge mom weighing down the right side of the car. They drive down to the county jail to pick up Arnie. A good movie, if you haven’t seen it.
Great movie. I remember that scene quite well.
A friend of our family had a white ’66 Falcon Sports Coupe that she bought new and drove for the rest of her life (she passed in the late ’80’s). She garaged it every winter, and she drove it up to her cottage in Northern Ontario every summer from Fort Wayne, Indiana. It was always well kept, and she even had the white plastic model of the car they gave her when she bought it. I don’t know what happened to the Falcon after she died, but I hope it stayed in the family or at least went to a good home.
When I was about four my father bought a used 1964 Falcon Squire. It was white with red interior with the genuine fake wood. Us kids always rode in the wayback, and in the good weather the tailgate window would be down. We called it the magic window because when Dad said the magic words the electric window went down. Eventually we figured out he had a switch on the dash. It was like finding out there really is no Santa.
The Falcon has always been a good car. its a real shame that Ford US left it to wither on the vine because todays Falcon answers a lot of questions that continue to plague the current NA line up.
Of course that car is the Australian Falcon which is rear wheel drive, seats 4/5 adults, is utterly reliable, has excellent road manners and comes with the option of a turbo 4 cyl, 4.0 six, with turbo and a supercharged Coyote.
Seriously, if the aussies can manage it on a shoestring budget and limited market why can’t Ford US make something even remotely similar?
After looking at that picture of the ’64 Falcon convertible on the beach, I guess I’m just now realizing it was actually a pretty good looking car. I like everything about it.
It’s never too late to start liking Falcons!
There was an old lady that lived on our street that had a grey 1960. Even at 5 years old I could tell it was strippo-city! It was there until 1972 or so and I don’t think it ever got washed….
I have always been a Falcon fan they were the cars of my earliest memories. My Dad had a ’63 Falcon Squire with the bucket seat/console option Black with a Red interior. That was traded for a ’65 Deluxe in Blue. My childhood babysitter had a Dark Blue ’62 Futura that I spent some time in as well.
We were a Ford Family until the end of ’65 when my mom got a ’65 Corvair Monza. From then on through my high school years my parents drove Chevys, but my high school cars were all Fords.
I’ve made several posts regarding 1964 Ford Falcons and I thought I may as well give the full rundown on my ’64 Falcon. It’s the “cheapskate’s dream” model: A 2-door sedan. A car no one probably gave a second look to in 1974. I received it as a present in August 1989. By then, it seems folks were giving it a second look. It has never ceased to attract attention wherever I’ve driven it over the past 26+ years. It needs a new paint job; the original color was aquamarine or turquoise.
I had nothing to do with the acquisition of the Falcon. My mother and stepdad were in Daytona Beach in August 1989 and saw an ad for it in some magazine or newspaper. (I never did ask exactly what they were looking in when they ran across the advert). My mum later showed me the simple advertisement: “Lady too old to drive” along with a 1-line description of the car. Apparently the original owner was now past 95 years old and her daughter (who was past 70) tasked herself with selling it by means as simple as the Falcon itself. The original owner must have been a tough cookie to be over 70 in 1964 and buy this Falcon with so little in it or on it. From the paper trail I’ve seen it looks to have been a special order at the end of the model year. Bought from Valley Motors in Hanover, Pennsylvania. The original owners manual came with the car and I noted a date stamp of ‘August 3, 1964’ when the car was put in service. Every August 3 I give the Falcon a pat on the hood and a quart of oil. Doesn’t take much to make it happy. I do my best. ► There’s still a load of un-used coupons in the back of the owners manual. When I was feeling mischievous I had thought about mailing them in so many decades later and see what sort of response I got from FoMoCo.
There were times years ago when I wondered why the old lady didn’t just wait for the 1965 models to come out; from what I’ve read ’65 Ford Falcons were equipped with alternators instead of generators + they had automatic chokes instead of a manual choke and Ford now utilized a 3-speed automatic transmission (Cruise-O-Matic) instead of the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic. Also, from what I gathered Ford in ’65 would not put the 3-speed automatic in with the 170 CID-engine. A buyer would need to get the 200-CID engine upgrade to have the Cruise-O-Matic installed. NOTE that I have never seen a ’65 Falcon in person. I’ve only read about them and seen pictures; if I’m wrong about any of the differences between ’64s and ’65s please let me know. I never went to car shows and I’ve never known anyone else who’s had a Falcon — much less a ’65 to compare.
So this particular 2-door sedan I acquired by way of my folks shelling out $1,750 bucks almost 27 years ago grew on me over the decades. When I got the Falcon — my folks hauled it down from Ormond Beach, FL, to West Palm Beach on a trailer — I didn’t even know what it was. I knew a falcon was a bird and that was it. It had 50,349 miles on the odometer. It had a bench seat in front. Forget about shoulder belts. It had a 170-CID engine with the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic. My mom told me one important reason she bought it was because it came equipped with an automatic transmission instead of the manual 3-on-the-tree. She guessed rightly it would be easier for me to navigate an automatic to school and around town. I never saw what a ’64 Falcon looked like with the manual tranny until one day years later I saw a ’64 parked at a Midas muffler shop on Military Trail in WPB. Right across from Albertsons. I gave it a good look-over! At first I thought it was an automatic when I peered through the window . . . but then I realized it was a “3-On-The-Three”. Only time I’ve ever seen a ‘live’ one. I wished the owner of that Falcon had been around the car when I walked across the street to look at it. But he or she wasn’t. It was locked and all I could do was peer in.
The original owner got 4 optional features for her Falcon sedan: Back-up lights, a side-view mirror on the drivers door, the 2-speed Ford-O-Matic and the engine upgrade from the ‘144’ to the ‘170’. Unlike the powder blue ’64 pictured mine has no hood ornament or a molding down the side or anywhere else. The ‘Falcon’ is in script like the Falcon above; but the word ‘Falcon’ is not written across the glove compartment like in a Futura or Sprint. Nor are the armrests very big. I’d swear the armrests look bigger in interior shots I’ve seen of Futuras and Sprints. There are no “windshield washers”. I can see the little holes near the wipers where the washer fluid would shoot out, but the old lady didn’t get that option. I have 1-speed wipers. You turn them on and that’s that. Sometimes they are hard to stop. There have been many, many occasions over the years when I’ve turned off the wipers . . . but they don’t stop working. They just keep going for a while longer until I turn the knob back on and then off again. Other times I’ve gotten to my destination and turned the car off and the wipers are still in mid-wipe across the windshield. But they have always worked! There is no power steering or power brakes. She didn’t want them and I’ve not added them. No radio. I have to bring my portable deck with me. Something else: For several years after I acquired the Falcon I thought there were ‘Warning/Hazard Orange Flasher’ lights. I ~never~ checked for those until — as best as I can remember — 1995. I didn’t actually need to use them, but I finally thought to look for them after almost 6 years of ownership. I never cared enough to look before. So I searched the dashboard area for a knob or doohickey to trigger said hazard flashers and found nothing. I checked the owners manual for info. Nothing. Apparently, ‘Hazard Flashers’ were not mandatory on U.S. cars until 1967 and Side Marker Lights until ’68 (the Falcon has none) and head restraints
Apparently in 1963 Ford would equip a Falcon with a ‘144’ with the 2-speed, but in ’64 a Falcon buyer had to get the upgrade ‘170’ engine to get the automatic. Perhaps Ford had heard enough from buyers regarding the sedate performance when the ‘144’ was coupled with the Ford-O-Matic? (I honestly don’t know the answer).
The dashboard is metal with no padding. The original spare is still in the trunk. It’s a Remington tire. It’s been driven on 5 miles since I’ve had the car. I don’t think I’d want to use it now, but I have kept it in there. I’ve had mechanics asked me over the years if I wanted to have the original ‘GEN’ swapped out for an ‘ALT’. I wouldn’t do it. Wouldn’t be original that way. I’ve had the generator re-built. Odometer now has 126,172 miles. The Falcon is still eager to go places and do things. I believe if I had a Futura or a Sprint or a convertible it would easier to replace (as long as I had the $money$, of course) than it would be the El Cheapo model Standard Series 2-door sedan. I don’t think too many folks saved those. That said, I’d ♥ to see a flock of Standard Series Falcons motoring down the road some time. I won’t hold my breath, however. I’ve read the production numbers for 2-door sedans was 36,441 units and for 4-door sedans was 28,411. So says ‘The Standard Catalog of FORD’ book from Krause Publications.
My mother knows I will never get rid of the humble beastie with the lackluster gas mileage. I can live with its technical shortcomings and it’s occasional water leaks. There is a lot of interior space, though. Keep the Mavericks and Pintos; I’ll stick my ’64 Falcon.
Even when I endeavor to proofread a post I still miss things. I should have put ‘with’ as in “I’ll stick with my ’64 Falcon”. I also should have finished the sentence that I read about ‘Head Restraints’ not being mandatory on U.S. cars until 1969. The Falcon doesn’t have any head restraints; just a long, low bench seat. I like being able to lean back and not have to concern myself with them, to be honest.
My first car was a 1964 ford Falcon this very same color and trim level except it was a two door model and had backup lights in the center of those afterburner red lenses.
It had a manual choke and a 170 inline six with that glorious two speed automatic.
These cars were so simple to work on and had so much room.
This car had 64k miles and was ragged out – my 1997 Escort has 170k and runs and looks like new. Don’t tell me that new cars are worse than older ones.
That said, I still would like one of these to fix up and to drive on Sundays.
If your ’64 was ragged out at only 64,000 miles whoever preceded you in ownership must not have treated the car very well. Maybe he or she was a leadfoot who slammed the gas when the light turned green or did some other pea-brained things.
My Falcon was put in to service 52 years ago today. It’s nice to have the original owners manual and it’s stamped (in black) ‘AUG 3, 1964’ on the inside page. The date does not look like it was typed; there’s no indentations on the page. However, the rest of the information included on this inside page was typed with red ribbon and there are indents.
FORD REGISTERED OWNERS PLAN
Dealer Name VALLEY MOTORS, INC.
P & A Code 165 (I don’t know what this means)
City HANOVER State PA.
More Info:
Vehicle Code: 62A D 14 07G 26 3 3
Vehicle Description: FALCON 2DOOR SEDAN
The humble Falcon was ready to rock ‘n’ roll 52 years ago today. A car Ford made to last 5 to 7 years has stuck around for over half a century. DIG IT.
Cheapo Falcon has now officially reached 54 years old having been put into service on Aug. 3, 1964. That’s a long time for any car to exist in drive-able condition, especially a low-cost automobile designed to last 5-7 years. I expect 98% of the Standard Series sedans FORD produced for the 1964 model year have long gone to the Great Crusher -or- Rust City.
A question that has intrigued me over the years (and which can never be answered) is why the 1st owner decided to special order this car at the tail end of the model year? She could’ve just waited a few weeks — I noted FORD introduced their 1965 models in August of 1964 — and bought a ’65 Falcon which would now be equipped with an ALTERNATOR, an automatic choke and a 200 CID engine with a 3-speed CRUISE-O-MATIC transmission. And, yet, she did not. I wonder if she got a fat discount on already-cheap car? 😀
In the final analysis the Falcon I’ve owned for nearly 29 years was already outdated by September 1964 a mere month after it was bought . . .
Perhaps the 1960 Falcon with the 144 and Ford-O-Matic is the original car that gave us phrase ¨All requests for acceleration must be submitted in writing.¨
I always thought these wedge Falcons were particularly attractive in sedan form, the hardtop feels like its’ roof was taken from a smaller car.
There was also a slightly awkward interim model, with the later squared-off roof having replaced the original bubble rear window as a Futura exclusive in midyear ’62 and spread to all Falcon sedans for ’63 clashing with the original rounded lower body.
I wish I could love it more, but by 1964 there was a Mustang and no one paid any more attention to the Falcon.
The ’63 Futura I had for a few years made the 64 Valiant I had, feel like a Mustang GT or a Barracuda. The Futura was slow-slow-slow. Not even a synchronized clutch.
I wish I could love them more because I love honest cars like the Falcon, however, I had one and there was little joy in driving it. Even by the standards of the day, the Falcon was very old-fashioned mechanically.
I drove a ’64 or ’65 Falcon in the mid 90s.
It was the first time I’d driven a column-shift manual. It was really clean and had fairly low miles. Reminded me of a mini-Mayberry police car ( it was a white four door with blue seats) But it was not very interesting to drive.
Made my ’78 Zephyr Z7 seem so solid and powerful afterwards. And as we all assume it was neither of those things.
Crazy ad is covering my comment window now.
Still covering it.
Still covering it.
Still there.
Okay, it’s gone. Time to fix the typos.
Whatever Cayman Jack is I will go out of my way to avoid it. Sumbitch!
Yes, the backup lights are an inexplicable mistake. They only had about twenty examples of variations on the theme to look at for inspiration. The other and basic reason why they don’t work on the Retrobird is that they are inset into a sloping rear end. They should be at the end, preferably with of a suggestion of tubular body shape leading to them.
This wasn’t hard and the effed it up. And the front end too. The same design crew had cranked out a whole bunch of retro Lincoln and Ford inspired concept cars and they were all way better than the one that finally got into production.
It’s always easy to nitpick from 60 years’ distance, but congrats to Ford for the sales success its design choices made possible. (Yes, yes, thousands of compromises.) Full-size Fords/Chevies in base trim (no chrome, small hubcaps, etc.) always looked deprived to me, but even the stripper Falcon’s didn’t seem so compromised. I found every restyle appealing—not to say that it was better, just that it never seemed “worse”—even if there weren’t that many advances mechanically.
I haven’t driven one in fifty years—and might find it shockingly primitive today–but a clean survivor would be a tempting hobby car. Hooray Falcon–whatever its vintage!
I’ve always loved the early Falcons ’60-’65 but the 64, 65s are my fav. This lovely unit in light blue, in a pristine spring setting just speaks to me! Might need to save these for a screensaver.
I’ve saved a copy of the sky blue Falcon and use it as wallpaper on my laptop as the car and its setting in a middle class neighbourhood puts a smile on my face.
My father was considering a Falcon sedan in 1962 and I vaguely recall going to a Ford dealer as he looked at those models. Anything bigger would not have fit in the garage.
He took a liking to the Mercury Comet and bought a basic 4 door sedan in Sky Blue. Well, that’s the colour as he described it. The Comet stayed in our family for over a decade. Simple and reliable cars like the Falcon and Comet were also affordable for many families who could not afford bigger sedans or wagons.
If the many people posting on this entry, who praised this car had to drive it today, for a month or so, they might want to modify their kind words.