It is by pure coincidence that this car comes on the heels of yesterday’s roundup of last editions of the big American convertibles. So let’s keep the theme rolling with a closer look at one of the cars Will featured – jpc.
The XL model has a fairly short history as Ford model designations go – at least on passenger cars. It went from birth to death within a decade and changed its personality fairly severely in that short span. This was the last one.
The first one was a welcome sight. The Ford showroom of 1960-61 must have been a dreary place. Sure, there were some Thunderbirds and the occasional highly-optioned Galaxie convertible, but overall this was the House that McNamara Built. Meaning good, solid, ordinary cars for good, solid, ordinary citizens. And police officers.
There were, of course, some boxes that a dedicated buyer could check which would result in the delivery of some pretty serious performance machinery. Those, however, were rarely seen once you got about a mile away from a major stock car track. Even then, your hot new Ford would lack the youthful vibe of the Impala SS that looked like the hottest car around. Even if it hid a 283 and a Powerglide under its highly-styled outerwear.
There is much that can be (and has been) said about Lee A. Iacocca. His name is associated with some of the most iconic cars produced by two companies over a span of twenty-something years. If there was anything that Iacocca knew it was that some things will sell and some things won’t. And when it came to the image being projected by the Division’s new 1961 models that were coming into showrooms as he was being promoted to Vice-President and General Manager of Ford Division, he knew that the competition had it and his own company’s offerings did not.
When Chevrolet introduced the ’61 Impala SS with its floor shifter on the heels of the Corvair Monza with its bucket seat interior he surely knew that this sports car vibe was “it” – the next big thing. There was nothing he could do about the ’61 Fords, but he got his people focused on what could be done with the ’62s.
There had not been time to do anything with the hard points of the car but interior trim was a different matter. The Galaxie 500 XL was not part of the lineup at the beginning of the model year, only showing up in a revised catalog with a print date of March, 1962. The car took a page from the Impala SS by bringing luxury and sport together in one package, but turning it up a notch as Iacocca knew how to do. And taking another page from the SS, your sharp new Galaxie 500 XL came standard with the less-than-Total-Performance 292 V8, making you pay extra for all of the performance goodies.
Still, it was a winning combination with over 28,000 2 door hardtops and over 13,000 convertibles finding owners that first year.
Advertised as the flagship of The Lively Ones, the interior of the new XL model was the high point of the car. Suddenly a Ford felt expensive. At least if you could avoid looking at that dreadful dash that was a holdover from 1960-61 (so expertly obscured in the advertising photography). So did XL stand for Xtra Lively?
By midyear 1963 there was a fastback roofline added to the XL line (made available on the regular Galaxie 500 as well) and in 1964 there was even a 4 door hardtop version, complete with bucket seats and that gorgeous chrome console. Over 88,000 folks agreed that the Galaxie 500 XL was the car to have in 1964.
And then . . . LTD. After only a couple of years Iacocca had discovered a new “it”, and its concept could not be more different from the youthful sportiness of the Galaxie 500 XL. The new rule would be that big cars are for luxury, small cars are for sport. In hindsight it is amazing that the XL hung on as long as it did as the LTD became the 800 pound gorilla of the Ford lineup. Production of the XL was back down to 1962 levels, even with the ’62 being a short year and 1965 setting industry sales records. Lee was right. Again.
The 1965-68 generation went through a transitional phase. The buckets and console remained but the 4 door was immediately shown the door. My first car was a 1967 Galaxie 500 convertible and I liked it a lot, but really lusted after the XL (no longer called a Galaxie 500) with its bucket seats and console. But even then the XL was starting to morph into a sporty LTD/Galaxie 500 mashup being sold on its comfort and how your wife will like it. Even the buckets and console became optional by the 1968 models.
XL sales did perk up a bit in 1968-69 but that would not be surprising when the cost was barely above that of the Galaxie 500 but gave you the LTD grille with the hidden headlights. Then for 1970 things fell off a cliff. Big and sporty were definitely out.
Now I’ve gone and done it. Just like the old car hobby showers adulation on the 1962-64 version and ignores all that came later, so have I – even when I set out to write about this one. Let’s see if I can do better.
This convertible is one of 6,348 built. The number may not seem totally pathetic until considering that the Galaxie 500 convertible had been dropped after 1969, leaving the XL all alone in carrying the flag for big open Fords. In other words, if you wanted a big Ford convertible, this was your only option.
Really, this final XL was just one more cross between a Galaxie 500 and an LTD which seemed to get virtually no advertising support. Oh well, at least with an XL you got a 351 V8 standard (just like in LTDs and wagons) instead of the 240 I-6.
With no choices other than the convertible and the slightly bizzare Sportsroof model (shared with the Galaxie 500), the low popularity should not be surprising. And while Ford tried to sell the Sport theme with the XL, paint and wheelcovers seemed to be the extent of it. Even the 4-speed transmission had disappeared somewhere along the line, though the 429 V8 was now available.
Isn’t it funny how a white Ford convertible with a red interior was a hot combination in the early 1960s but an oddity by 1970?
The Ford convertible carried on for another couple of years with the new 1971-72 body, but this time it would just be an LTD. Truth in advertising? Because the XL had pretty much been an LTD for the last few years anyway.
At least the XL matched the Impala SS’s lifespan, both coming and leaving the market one year behind the sporty Chevy. But there was one difference. The ’69 Impala SS came standard with a 427 V8, disc brakes and the good suspension but with virtually no exterior identification, making it more “go” than “show”. The final XL was the opposite, being essentially an LTD Sport with pretty much nothing else in the way of standard performance equippage. So all “show” and little “go”. Except for this convertible which has very little “show” either. And in modern times Chevy brought the SS back in its original role while Ford slapped it on a bazillion stripper trucks and vans.
I have a confession – I have a hard time getting 100% on board the Brougham Bus. The LTD and the Broughamance it inspired killed my favorite kind of big car – a car like the XL with a little youth and dash to go along with its uncompromising size. Sports fans praise certain players by saying “he’s pretty quick for a big man”. Just like some athletes can be both big and fast I see no reason a car cannot be the same way. I seem, however, to be part of a very small minority which the industry of that era stopped serving once the Chrysler Three Hundred and Plymouth Sport Fury disappeared at the end of 1971. And while the 1970 XL may be a little past my personal expiry date on this kind of car, I still prefer it to an LTD, if only for the name.
So what did XL actually stand for? I recall reading a magazine article in the late 60’s that claimed it was a shortening of Excel (something I used to my advantage when trying to find cars starting with “E” in car bingo on highway trips.) Some wags have claimed it stood for eXcellent Lee. And there is, of course, the ubiquitous Extra Large, though this was probably not intended but is kind of appropriate for these later models.
The Urban Dictionary online claims that “XX” is slang for “kiss kiss” as in goodnight. If this is true, 1970 was the year that the XL went from any one or more of those definitions above to saying goodnight to the car-buying public. Which is too bad because XL fit this convertible’s personality so much better than the LTD it tried to be in its last two years. Before that one went XX too.
Further Reading
1969 Ford XL Sportsroof (Paul Niedermeyer)
1969 Ford LTD (J P Cavanaugh)
1970 Ford LTD Country Squire (Paul Niedermeyer)
1971 Ford LTD Convertible (Jason Shafer)
My avatar’s car!
I guess conservative Chuck didn’t like the buckets and console either.
He certainly would have had his pick in this scenario!
Couple of points: The XL was actually divorced from the Galaxie starting in ’67, not ’69.
A ’67 has no Galaxie script anywhere on it, nor does the brochure to refer to it in that manner.
The decontenting actually began in ’67, when the door panels and dash trim were taken from the Galaxie 500, so no more swanky door courtesy lamps, for example.
This could be rectified in ’67 only by ordering the Luxury Trim Option, which included
LTD door panels, trim and a rear center armrest. This makes 1967 the only year where 2 different bucket-seat interiors were offered.
There were 2 interior trims offered from 1968 as well, but not in a good way. As noted, the XL reverted to bench seat Galaxie 500 trim mid-year, and was demoted from standard V8 Automatic power to six and three-on-the tree. This was done primarily to hold the line on base price, which had risen because of first-year FMVSS items. Nobody was actually supposed to order one this way!
The LTD was similarly decontented in ’68 as well.
For my money, I’ll take a ’67 in either hardtop or converible trim, my second choice being a ’69 convertible. I just never could warm up to that flying buttress SportsRoof.
A real unicorn would be to find a ’67 with both the 7-Litre Sport Package and Luxury Trim. The ’70 was a poor facelift of the ’69 IMHO, especially at the back where it looked like a ’69 that melted in the sun.
FoMoCo evidently had a large supply of leftover buckets and consoles after the XL went away. They remained an option in ’71 Galaxie and LTD 2-doors, as well as the ’71 Canadian Meteor Montcalm.
The Luxury Trim option. See the difference?
Thanks for this info on the 67. I’m sure I once knew this (I practically memorized that brochure) but had long forgotten. I gurss we could conclude that when the XL stopped being part of the Galaxie 500 line it actually started becoming more of a Galaxie 500.
I have mixed feelings on the 70. Looking at the rear shot when writing this it suddenly hit me how the 70’s back end was a near-copy of the 67 Buick Skylark.
Never noticed the similarity, but you’re right!
BTW, my first post in a week or so, but I still get “posting too quickly, slow down”. What’s with that?
If there’s an automotive styling fad that says “the sixties”, it’s the short-lived, flying-buttress, tunnel-back rear window.
It began with the final 1964 Ferrari GTO. That’s about the time GM would be styling the upcoming 1966 intermediates and, guess what, they all got the Ferrari’s tunnel-back. Then, just like clockwork, both the stunning 1968-70 Dodge Charger and 1968 Corvette followed with the styling gimmick. You could even drop down the rear window on Corvettes as an option.
This left Ford out in the cold. Ford had always stuck with a more traditional fastback and copying the hated Ferrari just wasn’t in the cards. At least not so soon. But they finally got in the game with the full-size cars in 1969-70, following with the big Mustang Grande and Cougar for 1971-73. The Cougar looked okay but the Mustang’s flying buttresses had a weird, stubby look with the Mustang’s shorter rear deck.
The last holdout was the Corvette when the C3’s buttresses were replaced with a curved, lift-glass rear window on the 1978 Pacecar and all models for 1979.
The biggest issue with the buttresses (besides simply going out of style) was how they wreaked havoc with a car’s aerodynamics. Chrysler found this out the hard way with their NASCAR efforts and the measures they had to take to fill in and smooth out the rear windows of their NASCAR specials.
Don’t forget the Jaguar XJS, it had it well into the 90s.
Dang, I knew I was going to miss something. Besides the 1975-96 XJS, there was also the 1975 Lancia Montecarlo, but it only lasted until 1981.
The Europeans (specifically, the German DMV) took a dim view (no pun intended) on flying-buttress styling, feeling (accurately) that it too severely limited rearward visibility.
Frankly, though, I don’t see any difference between a tunnel-back rear window and one that’s been pushed out to the edges of the buttress. I mean, if the C-pillars are the same width, the visual imparement is the same, too, regardless of where the rear window is located.
Ha! That’s the very first thing I thought of too when I saw this post – I rewatched that movie a million times on late-night TV as a kid. Always thought the XL convertible was an exceptionally good looking car, one of my favorites form the era.
Some good car porn in the rest of the movie too…Heston goes on to thrash a baby blue Mustang convertible through the streets of LA, and later drives a nice Cougar convertible, a Dodge military truck and a Citroën Méhari, of all things…
I love the scene where he takes off and burns rubber after shooting the gun.
Undubbed car sounds for once, listen to that throaty induction moan, I guarantee you there’s a 429 in there, only a 385 series sounds like that!
When I saw this post about this car, I immed thought The Omega Man. It was pretty spooky when I first saw it, still is. I read that they filmed those opening scenes on a very early Sunday morning, must have been pretty cool. At the very beginning, he drove through a red light, must’ve been pretty tough in a world with no electricity…
Very informative article JP. I remember the 1969 version of this car being referred to in Ford advertising as “The Michigan Strong Boy”. Those hubcaps also bear a strong resemblance to my parents’ Mark III. One thing I have never written about in my previous posts on the Mark III is how cheaply made the factory lug wrench was. I lost count of how many lug nuts I twisted off changing flat tires as the lug wrench fit the nuts so poorly it was almost useless.
my brother had a circa 1969 xl convertible that he bought for $500 in 1979. it was pale yellow with a red interior and the bench seat. the rockers were completely rusted away. there were holes in the floor pan. but the big v8 was bulletproof. once you managed to get the headlight covers to open, you didn’t risk closing them. we called it a driver centric car because the radio controls were on the left where the passenger couldn’t reach them. i have fond memories of him driving me to my first day of college with the top down and my huge cerwin vega speakers and the rest of my belongings piled up on the back seat. i remember how hard it was to keep it in lane on the interstate when the semis blew by us. good times!
In my senior year of high school, we had somewhat of an LTD club, and would park all of our cars together on coordinated days where we would all bring them to school.
One of my classmates had a ’69 XL with the SportsRoof. Personally, I loved the roof line on that car.
The guy with the ’71 LTD made some modifications to his “in the spirit of the XL” since it was gone from Ford’s lineup by then. His was a white 2 door hardtop with a black vinyl roof and black interior. He gave the car a subtle rake by jacking up the back only slightly, with aftermarket rims… Keystone Classics if memory serves… fuzzy memory as they may’ve been the ubiquitous Cragar S/S wheels. He made some performance enhancements too, to what he called a 400 Cleveland, although I always thought that the Cleveland was a 351, but not like the Windsor I had in my own ’73 LTD. His car was quite a looker done up like this. Definitely ‘not you father’s’ LTD, although it may’ve been at one point like my own ’73.
It’s funny how these cars looked really nice as 2 door hardtops, but looked quite stodgy as their 4 door sedan counterparts. Then again, this is a biased opinion on my part.
Back to the guy with the ’69 XL… If memory serves, his car had the 390 in it like Paul’s Alternative Universe Dad’s car in that third picture down ;o), although likely those engines were starting to get smogged out by then.
Since his car was cool, we let him in our LTD club, even though his was an XL. As JPC says though, by 1969 and 1970, these were basically LTD(s) anyway.
It’s erroneous to refer to the 400 as Cleveland. The only reason the moniker exists with reference to 351s is to differentiate a Windsor-based version from the
335-Series based one. All 400s are 335 series engines, just a 1/2″ higher deck height than a 351, and different size mains. It confused even more people when the 351M (Modified) was lauched in ’75. They simply started using the 351’s bore and stroke in the 400 block so both could be machined on the same line, hence saving money.
Thanks for the clarification on these engines, as it was a confusing time as a teen trying to figure all of this out.
All I know, it that 351-2V Windsor that I had in my ’73 (most likely during peak smog malaise) barely got that over 2 ton car out of its own way.
My friend’s ’71 was much faster, and even the ’69 XL with its 390 could move out much better than mine.
I later learned that the 302 (5.0 which is really a 4.9) that I had in my ’88 T-Bird was related somehow to that old 351. I always thought that a 302 was a 289 originally. I suppose all of these (Windsor?) engines are in the same family. More reading is required on my part.
BTW, I always wondered about your avatar. Now that I see it in context, I gotta say, I like his taste in cars! ;o)
While incorrect to call the 400 a 400 Cleveland, it should be noted that many media sources during that time did call it such. This was simply because the 400 was essentially a tall deck long stroke 351C. It had other differences, such as large main bearings, and the bell housing pattern, but it really was not much different than how a 302 relates to a 351W.
As stated by Roger, the 400 is part of the 335 series engine family, which included the 351C and the 351M as well. Although the 400 predated the 351M, it is more often mislabeled the 400M, which is again incorrect. It’d be almost like calling a 302 a 302W. The only reason the moniker existed was to differentiate the three versions of the 351 Ford made. I plan to do a write-up at some point on the 335 series engines and I will detail all the history and design features.
Generally in the early 70s, and there are always lots of exceptions when it comes to Fords, most full-size Ford got the 351W while the intermediates got the 351C.
The 351W, is part of the small-block Ford family, also commonly called the Windsor family. This engine family was actually originally called the Fairlane V8, when introduced in 1962 as the 221 for the Fairlane. The engine family included the 221, 260, 289, 302, 351W and the 255 V8’s.
Hey Vince, check out a German site
Ford-torino.de
If you haven’t already.
Talk about a treasure trove!
Thanks for this Roger! I had never heard of this site before.
The Ford small-block engine that really muddies the water is the Boss 302. It used a 302 block that had been modified and beefed-up to accept 335 (Cleveland) style large-port cylinder heads. It was something of a 50/50 engine, a hybrid 302 Cleveland (which, incidently, the Australian market actually got). The 351 Boss engines were clearly 335-series.
Other than the Boss 302, the delineation between Ford Windsor and Cleveland small-block engines isn’t all that bad, even with the 400 and three versions of the 351. It’s a whole lot better than the hodge-podge of Ford big-block V8 engines.
The other manufacturers had similar situations. There’s the two different versions of the Chrysler 383 B and RB engines, the 426 wedge and hemi, and two different 318s.
Likewise, there’s the Chevy 400 small-block, and the 1970 402 big-block that retained the 396 designation.
The Boss 302 is still a Ford small block in my books, it just essentially the 4V Clevland style heads. The block design is based on the SBF and that’s what ID’s an engine. Lots of guys have used Cleveland heads on 351W’s to make “Clevor” engines until the aftermarket got some decent SBF heads. While the SBF and the 335 Series were different families, the 335 series was actually an evolution of the SBF. So some basics are shared such as the bore spacing and the head bolt pattern which allows for the head interchangeability (with some modifications). However, little else will interchange between the two engine families.
IMO, Ford was the worst for engines family iterations. For OHV V8s they had the Y-block, Lincoln Y-block, the MEL, the FE, the SBF, the 335 series, and the 385 series. You’d think they were like GM with divisional engines with all these iterations. And so little interchanged between them. While they also had different bell housing patterns, motor mount setups, and so on. Sometimes parts in the same engine family won’t interchange. It just is a big mess. As much as people criticized the ubiquitous SBC, Chevy really got the parts interchangeability right and the consistency on design.
I have heard or read stories about the 335’s origin, likely urban myths, that Bunkie Knudsen
brought over the blueprints he filched from GM when he joined Ford .
If true, we know GM Corporate didn’t do engine designs, the divisions did. Which division could it have come from? Pontiac?
I have heard that about Bunkie too, and I don’t put much worth in it. The 351C and other 335 series engines have some similarities to the Olds V8, such as the cast in block timing chain with flat sheetmetal timing chain cover, and the vertical bolt orientation for the fuel pump (compared to horizontal on other Ford V8s). Sure, I will give them that, but other than that, there is little else shared. And we all know car companies steal ideas from one another. The reason for the cast in timing chain on the block was to reduce the chances of oil leaks.
The head design is very similar to the 385 series engines, while the block was really just an evolution of the old SBF block. Basically they started with a small block Ford, and made a number of “improvements” to the block, added the new heads and ended up with a new engine series. They did make some not so good changes too, save costs. The 335 series oiling system is not as robust as the SBF.
Also, FWIW, Ford of Australia didn’t have a hybrid version of the Cleveland. It got 351C the same as the US, however, the Geelong made engines used 2V sized heads with both 2V and 4V carbs. Only the US manufactured imported engines had 4V sized heads. Geelong also made a 302 cid destroked version, called the 302C (4.00 x 3.00) However, it was all 335 series, using 2V heads with a small combustion chamber, even the same deck height. These heads “Aussie” heads were a popular add-on for a while, especially for low compression 400s, but there are better options now.
When photographing this car awhile back it hit me how this was pretty much a 3 year newer version of my 67 Galaxie 500 convertible, except for this one sharing the grille with the LTD.
The wheel covers could change the personality of the car from “plain Galaxie 500 clone” to “LTD clone” to “Real sporty XL”. The video clip Roger posted has the plain ones, the featured white car has the LTD ones and the brochure shot shows the sporty ones. The ones on this car were never that common, even on LTDs, but really dressed the cars up a lot. As Glenn pointed out above they had a real Lincoln vibe to them.
Actually XL’s used the LTDs grill since ’66. The difference from a lower series is very obvious in ’66, more subtle in ’67. XLs, LTDs and Country Squires
that year used a die-cast grill vs the Galaxie’s simpler stamped version.
The difference is subtle, but if you look closely, the die-cast has a deeper, richer look.
The story of the XL is a bit convoluted, eh? I see where Iaccoca got his inspiration, from the Impala SS, but it seems he rather lost the plot along the way.
This is quite a find, though. Any big Ford from ’69-’70 is, but an XL convertible notches that up considerably.
I have never been a fan of big convertibles, as their point was always rather lost on me. I get why others like them, but it seemed a bit pointless to me. I guess the market eventually came to that same POV eventually. A rare thing, agreeing with me. 🙂
One of my favorite childhood memories is a summer day when Dad put the top down on our ’61 Ford Sunliner convertible, and we all went out for ice cream cones and a leisurely Sunday drive. That’s what a big convertible is for.
Great write-up JP, it was an enjoyable read. For me, the last year I’d consider an XL would be a ’67. The ’67 fastback has always been such a looker to me, yet the ’68 just ruined that great experience. I never cared for the ’69-’70s that much. And even though Ford tried to keep the sporty image alive with the SportsRoof, it just was a bit odd to me. I’d much rather have a ’69 427 SS, better looking and much more performance oriented. That said, a ’69 Ford with a 429 was no slouch either, especially compared to the previous 428s.
I too share the sentiment about the sporty large cars with real performance. Broughams never did if for me, and never will. Coming from a large family we always had big cars, and I grew fond of them. I just want a big car that is fun to drive.
+1
These big 60s Fords look very ungraceful to my European eyes. Unlike most GM products of the time, which often hide their size surprisingly well IMO, they seem to be designed to look as big as possible.
Of course, they still have that expensive-looking American swagger, and are generally well-proportioned. Then in the 70s, American Ford styling dropped to a nadir, while the European division got ever better.
Those hideous safety bumpers always look especially bad on 70s Fords. And you have to believe that weren’t even trying, since Chrysler and the sportier Chevys and Pontiacs showed that while it was probably very hard integrating these bumpers into the frontal design in really satisfying way, vastly better results were possible with a smidge of creativity (and plastics).
“They seem to be designed to look as big as possible.”
I honestly believe that is true, and what was planned. Americans wanted the largest car they could afford (and still do to this day) and Ford was happy to ensure that the XL/Galaxie/LTD was as imposing as it could appear. And Fords were heavy. My 1976 LTD weighed 5200 pounds, and a comparable 1976 Caprice weighed around 4300. I remember the weight as the car still had the monroney sticker when I bought it used and it listed the car at $5200, or one dollar per pound. That weight allowed a better ride (allegedly) but cost the car in performance, handling, and fuel economy versus the GM cars.
I don’t think your LTD weighed 900 lbs. more than the un-downsized Caprice. Look up ’76 Ford LTD specs and you’ll see a weight in the 4300-4500 lb. range.
Nice article and great find! Isn’t it interesting it happened to come after William’s great post yesterday?
I like broughams mainly because I like big cars in general, but I am also an enthusiastic member of the Plus Size Performance Club. I absolutely love those big performance cars of the 60’s. The full sized market certainly went the luxury direction starting with the LTD, though that only predated by a few years the larger trend of mid size and compact performance cars also being dropped in favor of “luxury” versions.
I hadn’t realized just how devoid of performance and style the last XL was. I had been under the assumption that it at least came with a big block engine and bucket seats. I’ve said before, I’m not a big fan of any full-size Ford after 1967. I think 67 is the last truly good looking year, probably because it is the last one that had anything close to a sporty look to it. The 68 and up models were all styled to be LTD’s.
Also, 69-70 models had such a unique dash. It is one of the most extreme examples of the Cockpit Style trend of the time. This highly stylized dash made for some odd ergonomics like the radio being left of the steering column and the ashtray sticking off at an odd angle.
Great piece Jim. Good to have a history of the XL, a usually neglected model. My folks had a ’68 XL fastback in metallic gold, 428, fake mags and racing stripes. It ran on Sunoco 260 (super premium). It served them well for fifteen years. A truly preposterous car, I used to call it their “sports aircraft carrier”. Mom loved it.
Here’s a photo of a similar car, but theirs had the black vinyl roof and bigger stripes.
PS: XL is 40 in roman numerals. As in mid-life crisis car?
I seem to be in the minority but I have always liked those 1968 big FoMoCo fastbacks, and the XL is the best of them all. It is interesting how different of a character they had from the 67 version, which is gorgeous in a whole different way.
My actual favorite of those, though, is the Mercury. A family friend had a black 68 Merc Montclair. That was the car that could sleep 2 kids on the rear package shelf.
The 1968-70 full-size Fords are interesting because a change to the front end changes the character of the entire car.
The Galaxies, with their exposed headlights and simple grilles, look like taxi cabs and police cars. The hidden headlights and different grille of the LTD give the car a more upscale look.
Ford definitely gave buyers a reason to move up the model/price food chain during those years. Much more so than the competitive Chevrolet and Plymouth models.
For me, one of the things I really dislike about the ’68 Ford fastbacks is the reshaped rear side window. Compared to the ’67, the rear window and C-pillar looks so awkward. It just doensn’t work for me.
These big Ford drop-tops were a fond part of my youth. My uncle, a priest, had a string of them.
Following a 1960 (I think) Falcon convertible, he had a ’62 Galaxie (maybe an XL), a ’64 XL (390), a loaded ’66 XL (352), a ’70 XL, and finally a ’72 LTD. The ’66 was my favorite.
I’ve always liked these Fords, but then I like 1960s Fords in general. But this article reminds me that the 1969-70 LTDs and XLs were not that common around our town. The ones I remember were workhorse Galaxies and Country Sedans, all of which were still in service during the early 1980s.
The way I remember it, out of every 50 big Fords of 1969-70 I would see around Fort Wayne, Indiana in the early 70s, 25 would be LTDs and 25 would be Galaxie 500s. Every 51st car (if even that frequently) would be an XL. They started disappearing quickly after 1975 because of their terrible tendency to rust.
That’s one thing that’s always puzzled me about my parents’ 1968 XL. It lasted 15+ years as I said with little or no rust in Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois. I don’t think they kept it fastidiously clean, though my mom did really love the car. I drove it in 1983 and it was in great shape.
We lived in a small town. There were a few of these driven by family members or parents of friends, and they stayed in service until at least 1981. But these were Galaxies or Ranch Wagons.
Now, of course, the ones I see at Carlisle car shows and the big Antique Automobile Club of America (AACA) Hershey fall meet are the LTDs and XLs!
Salt was still used on the roads in the winter in our area (southcentral Pennsylvania), although not to the extent that it was used in the northern and western parts of the state. I remember reading about rust problems with some Fords, but, honestly, the local rust buckets that stick out in my mind from that era were the Vega and various Japanese imports.
I do remember visiting upstate New York (Finger Lakes region) in May 1982, and seeing a 1974 Oldsmobile Delta 88 hardtop sedan with its rusty quarter panels literally “flapping” as it trundled down the street!
Springsteen writes in his aurobiography about driving across the country in a aqua blue convertible ‘69 XL with a buddy and a teddy bear – and somewhere in Texas arriving in this great town anonymously, hearing a good local band at a fair or roadhouse and flipping out about fame and the road lifestyle…
Thanks for this serendipitous post, JP. I often forget the XL existed and you’ve helped fill in the blanks.
I usually loathe stacked headlights on old American cars (but for Pontiac’s) but that ’67 Sportsroof looks mighty fine. The featured car? Handsome and a great find but had I been alive and in the market, I probably would have gone for a GM convertible.
JP, great article. I until I got to the end, I hadn’t realize you were referencing text-slang with the “XX” – but it all makes sense.
Like you, I also like the name “XL” – I assume partially because it never had a chance to be debased like “LTD” did by the time the Panthers arrived for ’79.
I like the idea of an large, ostensibly sporty car with room for six. And about the sportsroof in profile in that brochure photo, I actually kind of like it – it reminds me of what must have been the styling inspiration for the final, 1971 – ’73 Mustang notchbacks.
Well Joe, I’m nothing if not hip. 🙂
I used to like that Sportsroof a lot more than I do now. I also used to like the front of the 69 LTD/XL better than the 70, but this car has made me rethink that.
Nice article! And, thank you for pointing out the name change that occurred in ’67.
I had another example of the 6,348 made in ’70. Rescued it from oblivion only to have it stolen twice in 5 months! It was New Lime (a sort of pale yellow green) with a black interior and a white top. A former Ford zone salesman car, it was rather plainly equipped but had AC. A pleasure to look at and drive, after the second time I sold it to one of the policemen who helped me recover it. He repaired and enjoyed it.
Correct me if I`m wrong, but didn`t Ford have a Galaxie 500XL 4 door hardtop sedan in `62.? I heard it didn`t have bucket seats or a console, but had a premium vinyl interior, and rich, deluxe carpeting. There seems to be no reliable sources on the Internet for this model.
There was an XL 4-door hardtop in 1963-64 only. FWIW there was also a small number of 1963 County Squires built with buckets and console, too.
“And in modern times Chevy brought the SS back in its original role while Ford slapped it (XL) on a bazillion stripper trucks and vans…I recall reading a magazine article in the late 60’s that claimed it was a shortening of Excel” GMC has used the XL name as well, on its longer-wheelbase Yukon since the turn of the century. Beforehand it had the same name as the Suburban but with different branding (GMC vs. Chevy). And Microsoft Office uses the “Excel” name for its spreadsheet program.