One of my favorite weekend activities over the past few years has been participation in what I call “Exploration Saturdays”. My partner and I decided that Chicago is much too big and interesting to spend each and every weekend doing the same exact things in the same exact order. Familiarity can be both a blessing and a curse. From our neighborhood next to Lake Michigan, there’s basically only a semi-circle’s worth of radii from which to trek out, making our choice of direction a little easier, I suppose. Two weekends ago, we found ourselves in Wicker Park, an area that had, decades ago, been a low-rent district until an adventurous demographic of arts-minded people started to move there in the ’90s, slowing changing its character from blighted and a bit scary, to eclectic, edgy and cool. It was in the Wicker Park of about five years ago that I spotted our featured car.
My experience of that afternoon trip to Wicker Park from just a couple of weeks ago was somewhat bittersweet. While there are still many interesting clothing and resale shops, bars, restaurants and other interesting storefronts in the area, much of the quirky character – the flavors for which I had come to love this neighborhood – seems to have packed up and left. In place of once-stalwart options like greasy fast food joints and diners at which one could order fried Twinkies (which I did once and loved it), now we have Starbucks, Potbelly subs, and the only Taco Bell that serves alcohol probably in the world. The general look and feel of Wicker Park has changed, even since 2013, when I took these pictures.
The automotive landscape has also changed, even since then. Recently, Edward Snitkoff had written a great post about Ford’s recent announcement that they are discontinuing availability of all but just two passenger cars in the United States (the Mustang and a Focus-based crossover), and there was lots of great dialogue and discussion that ensued. Friends, acquaintances, and bona fide knowledgeable car experts have made intelligent, fact-based points about how Fords’ near-complete focus on light trucks and SUVs makes total and complete sense from the standpoint of profitability. Companies have to make money. I just simply will never care as much about a truck or SUV, no matter how practical, as I will a “regular” private passenger car.
A purpose-built hauler could be well-styled. Capable, with four-/all-wheel drive and decent gas mileage. With a cargo area large enough to swallow a complete bedroom set for a medium-sized condominium. With easy ingress and egress and perhaps room for six in a pinch. My left brain would admire all of these things. However, I’m convinced that it is my emotional right brain that responds, almost exclusively, to all things automotive where my car fandom is concerned, and much like a few other innate personal preferences that I can’t explain, I simply like cars better than trucks. I always have. That’s my orientation.
Lest anyone take this for an anti- truck or SUV rant, I just want to be clear that these are simply my feelings on this Ford announcement, and yes, I am upset. I understand that just because I like (or don’t like) something doesn’t mean that everyone else has to feel the same way. I get that different people like different kinds of vehicles for different reasons and can feel very passionately about both those types of vehicles and the reasons they like them. I guess it feels to me almost like by discontinuing most of their passenger cars, Ford is telling me there’s something wrong with car-centric people like myself. I basically grew up being told, with dubious degrees of lasting success, who and what I’m supposed to like, so perhaps that’s a big part of the reason I have such a problem with this.
Let’s now look at this beautiful, red ’63 1/2 Galaxie 500, one of about 134,000 produced for the model year. This was the second-most popular individual model of Ford’s entire ’63 range, with only the Galaxie 500 four-door sedan selling more copies, at about 206,000 units. With about 662,700 two- and four-door models, and an additional 127,100 longroofs sold, the particular configuration of our featured car accounted for a healthy 17% of full-size Ford sales that year. Total Ford production for ’63 was around a million and a half. This sporty, sloping roofline, introduced in mid-model year on the 500 and 500 XL, was an immediate hit, soon overtaking the more upright, formal-roofed two-door in sales. This example, given its shiny, toy-like condition might be powered by a 271-hp 289-V8, which would have provided a reasonable amount of scoot in this 3,800-pound car.
There’s not one single thing I’d change about this example – not even its aftermarket wheels. I’ve written briefly about a different Galaxie spotted in traffic before (a ’62), and I’ll state again that the celestial connotations of its name seem to fit the ’63’s dynamic lines, rakish roofline and tastefully executed chrome accents. Never in a million years would I have thought I’d be gazing at pictures of a two-door, once-mainstream Ford and think that not only would this body style be nearly extinct, but also the Ford passenger car in general. This is coming from a kid who grew up in the ’80s, in an automotive landscape chock full of Tauruses, Escorts, Tempos, Probes and Thunderbirds. While writing this post, I realized there hasn’t been a mainstream, non-Mustang, two-door Ford passenger car available in the U.S. since the 2010 Focus.
Old habits and preferences die hard, including my longstanding idea that cars should always be the norm. I may one day rent an Escape or another SUV that totally blows my mind and seems like the best discovery that I’ve ever made. I did rent an Escape in February of 2011, and I do remember thinking I definitely would have been stuck in one of the areas I had driven in the Michigan winter weather if I had been in just a regular car. The Escape was also roomy and had great visibility, and its elevated driving position gave me a feeling (illusion?) of being in greater control than as if I was in a car. Its gas mileage wasn’t the best, but I don’t remember it being so awful that I later posted on social media about it. Did the Escape move me, in a matter of speaking? A little bit, maybe. Would a rental Fusion have moved me more? Come to think of it, probably not.
Does this realization prompt a one-eighty from my original, basic premise – that Ford’s decision to get rid of most of its passenger cars might be a mistake? Not quite. I’ll say, though, that what this recent news feels like to me is that Ford is taking away my freedom of choice – at least within their showrooms. This is what hurts and feels like, next to Pintogate, one of the most un-American things Ford has ever done. Still, as I’ve learned while attempting to change my weekend routines and activities, a little adaptation and fresh thinking won’t kill me. Let’s see how this plays out.
Wicker Park, Chicago, Illinois.
Saturday, September 21, 2013.
My two cents is that the decision will seem short-sighted when gasoline prices go up again, as they always do. And when public tastes change again, as they also do, and the sport-utility vehicle stops looking so sporty. Whether taste and preference changes back to automobiles will have to be seen; there is no predicting taste. We are not making as many people per family as we used to, so all that regular passenger capacity is not as needed, but we still have friends and extended family. And cars provide more avenues for the stylist than do trucks and SUV’s. At least they are not letting their car lines wither on the vine, like they did in the early 2000’s.
I think that Galaxie 500 may have a 390 V8 in it. I checked Old Car Brochures, but could not get a definitive response. My few remaining brain cells from that era think that the sixes and 289 V8’s did not get their own little logo, but the 352’s, 390’s, 405’s and mid-year 427’s did. (Show me a Chevy of that era, I could tell you.) I would think that a car in that style, and that color, would have a 390, but that may just be the younger me playing Car Option Roulette. Pretty car!
Those fender badges only went on the 390 and 406/427 cars. My ’63 with a 352 has no badge.
Also, while Joe quotes 271 hp for a 289, I think that may be a later version of the 289. As used in these, the 289 was advertised as somewhere south of 200 (gross) horsepower.
The 271 hp version of the 289 V8 was the legendary “K” code engine; which came with a hardened crankshaft and solid lifters, among other upgrades. This engine was a high RPM screamer that was developed mostly for the Mustang, although some of them might have ended up in Fairlanes and Comets. As far as I know it was never offered in the full-size Fords; if you wanted high performance there you had to opt for the 427, or the 390 if you were satisfied with semi-high performance.
Small blocks were only ever offered as Lo-Po 2 barrels for big Fords.
Performance options were always big-blocks.
All for the best, as a highly tuned but torqueless small-block
in one of these big cars would make an unhappy combination.
Also, re: 352 Fender Flags. 1963 was the last year for the 2-barrel
352. In 1964, it got a 4-barrel and was now deemed worthy of a badge. The badge style was different for all 3 years of the availability of this engine. The final, in ’66 was unique because the hash marks were blue, as opposed to the pinky red of 390-up versions.
FWIW the 2-barrel 352 continued in Oakville, Canada produced versions. For reasons likely related to local production and tariffs, there was no 289 offered in Canadian Galaxies until 1966. This meant from 1963-65, you jumped from the six
to a 352, nothing in between.
Then in American Fords in 1967 they dropped the 352 so there was a 101 cid jump from the 289 to the 390.
Yup, the 271 hp 289 was the K-code introduced for the lineup in mid 1964.
Jason is correct. The Thunderbird callout badge on the front fender was used on 390, 406 and 427 equipped cars in 1963.
I don’t believe the 271 HP hi-po 289 was ever available in full sized Fords. It was available in Mustangs, Fairlanes and I think it was available in Falcons but don’t quote me on that.
The ’62-’64 full sized Fords with the 352 didn’t have callout badges, but in 1965 they did. I seem to remember that that was also true in ’66 and ’67 but don’t quote me on that either. The 352 from ’61-’64 had a 2 barrel carburetor and was rated at 220 horsepower. Beginning in 1965, a 250 HP 4 barrel 352 became available. I’m not sure if the 220 HP 352 was dropped for ’65 or not. My dad had a ’65 Galaxie 500/XL with the 4 barrel 352 and it had the callout badges. Note the callout badges are shaped like the Thunderbird logo. In the ’50s and ’60s, the Thunderbird brand had tremendous cachet and Ford used the Thunderbird image to rub off on other models. There was the infamous Thunderbird roofline found on everything from Falcons to Fairlanes to Galaxies to Mustangs. The valve covers on the ’62-’64 390 and larger engines had “THUNDERBIRD” stamped into them. (The 352 simply said “FORD”.) These engines were known as “Thunderbird Special” engines. Even the base 292 Y block was known as the “Thunderbird 292” in 1962.
I concur with the first paragraph very much!
I found it amazing how people were stressing out trying to keep up with escalating fuel cost and their SUV’s prodigious appetite for fuel during the financial crisis of 2008-2009.
Then came the fuel efficient vehicles 12-18 months later only to see the fuel price going down again to more affordable level.
It’s the same pattern over and over since the oil crisises of 1973 and 1979. Americans seem to have short-term memories about that…
Every vehicle I’ve ever bought, new or used, was rated at 29 mpg or higher highway (that 29 mpg car was a Sentra SE-R Spec V – so I do like performance too). My folks got bit hard by the first and second oil spikes, and they never learned.
The real issue is the rate of increase in the price of fuel (or anything else). Psychologists have long known this phenomena, which is akin to the boiling frog fable, which says that a frog will jump out if dropped in a pot of boiling water but won’t if the water is heated slowly (which has been almost totally debunked). But it’s been show repeatedly in experiments and in real life that humans will panic when they perceive a basic commodity escalate in price very rapidly and not panic when it increases more slowly over time.
During that spike in 2007-2008, it was truly amazing: I saw numerous late model big pickups in town with For Sale signs on them sitting at the curb, with a brand new efficient small car in the driveway (often a Prius).
The asking prices on these trucks were extremely low, and there was a distinct air of desperation. If they had calculated on the payback, between selling the truck at huge loss and buying the new car, it would have been abysmal.
But humans are not rational, and the fear of a commodity going up rapidly in price forever (as if) creates panic responses. It was a great time to buy a truck!
Just like 2009-2010 was a great time to buy stocks, and real estate. The folks who act rationally end up rich.
Agreed Paul, I had my high school V8 gas guzzler in 2008 and still have it now. Paying at the pumps sucked, sure, but the car was fully paid for, cheap to insure and at the end of the day I love that car. It made no rational or financial sense to buy an efficient new car in reaction to the spike. IMO sedan advocates are doing themselves a great disservice when trying to tarnish crossovers for their MPG. The real world difference is marginal now, so it’s as if your heads are buried in the sand where you last recall 5.0 Explorers as the defacto family SUV when citing “when gas spikes again”.
I have always been a critic of the SUV/Crossover advocates proclaiming the space efficiency benefits of the segment, as if that’s the only reason they bought them for. But after this announcement, the sedan advocates have been doing the same thing with MPG, arguing one now relatively inconsequential stat against other rarely utilized stat. It’s apparently too vain or uneducated sounding for either either side to just admit they like one better “just because” like that, it has to be meticulous take down of the alternative, rather than an embracing of the choices, which is the real loss here, just as Joseph said in the article.
I suggest that you actually compare the gas mileage of utility vehicles and the cars they are based upon. The difference is usually at least 30%. Greater weight and wind resistance do not add up to a “marginal” difference.
Alright then, these are sourced straight from Ford’s website, selected with equal engines to take out that variable, theoretically only showing the result of the weight/aero penalty .
3.5 Taurus SE = 18/27, 3.5 Explorer = 17/24. 6% and 12% difference
2.0EB Focus ST = 22/30, 2.0EB Escape Ti = 21/28. 5% and 7% difference
2.0EB Fusion Ti = 21/31, 2.0EB Edge SE = 21/29. 0% and 7% difference.
While I am not a big fan of SUVs and CUVs, the biggest difference between 2008 and now is the average fuel economy of said CUVs. In the last 10 years, the SUV/CUV market has moved from body on frame to unibody platforms, and there is a much smaller delta between sedans and them in MPG. I still see large trucks, but less large SUVs, and more sensibly sized CUVs on the road. The Bro-Dozers may feel the pinch, but really, fewer will see such reason to panic when gas prices spike again. And as I recall, the most requested model for purchase at that time in 2008 when gas hit $4 was an old Geo Metro, which got 50 MPG and was torture to drive at best. Even crappy examples went for 2-5 times their expected price. Panic led to stupid choices, but only by (and forgive me for saying it) stupid people.
I was offered a FREE 2007 Trailblazer SS during that time, and I took a pass, with gas price being the main concern (it took premium, and it was 1100 miles away and I had to pick it up, but gas price was the main issue). I could kick myself for saying no, but it was probably the best choice at the time. The Trailblazer ended up being traded in instead, so it all worked out in the end, and I am grateful to have a brother who was kind enough to offer that as a gift.
I look at it this way. I have 2 cars, both small. My 1996 Miata gets 25 MPG, and my Fiat gets 37.5 on average. Am I going to stop driving my Miata if gas spikes? Hell no. I remember when I had cars that were considered economical when they got 15 MPG. But I have the luxury of being single and not needing a family hauler. If you need one, then plan accordingly. Buy a nice one, but you may not want the biggest thing on the market when gas does go back up.
I was living in the UK when fuel prices peaked at the equivalent of roughly U$8.50/gallon, and it was reported that fuel sales went down in the following year, partly due to people making fewer non-essential journeys by car.
I recall reading a study at the time which suggested that most Brits would not significantly alter their habits unless fuel hit 2gbp a liter, which at today’s exchange rate is about $10.50/gallon. At the exchange rate back then it would have been even higher.
There was definitely widespread shock when it hit a pound a liter, as if 99.5p was cheap as chips
“Is this trip really necessary?”
For full-size Fords for 1963 the 390 engine was the minimum for a fender callout, same for ’64. In 1965 the 352 got you a callout as well, same for ’66. When the 352 was dropped for 1967 it was back to the 390 minimum for a callout, which continued for 1968. In 1969 the callout minimum was new 351. In 1970 only the 429 had a callout and for 1971 they were all gone.
Oops!, I didn’t scroll down enough before I commented. I said basically the same thing higher up.
Re the 1969 351 callout-
I distinctly remember one being with my dad in the showroom one Saturday. There sat the most stripped LTD coupe I ever saw.
No radio, no clock, no power, just an auto & blackwalls. I recall us lifting the hood and expecting a 302, since there was no callout. It was actually a 351, and this one didn’t even have power steering!
This leads me to believe that they started putting them in before the callout part was available. Remember, the 351 was a mid-year addition anyway.
FWIW in 1968, the 302 also had a callout, but only on the early pre-strike versions. My friends parents had one.
The 351 was a mid year addition so I wouldn’t be surprised if the 351 callouts lagged a bit behind. There was also some serious decontenting in the LTD mid year as well, with its interior cheapened to Galaxie 500 level. You had to get the optional Brougham package to have an interior as nice as an earlier year LTD.
Also, ’69 cop cars with the 428 Police Interceptor engine (not available to the public) had no callout. The 429 available to the public did.
Here is the 390 callout badge on my ’62 Galaxie 500 Club Victoria two door hardtop. Note that the bird is painted red. In 1963 and 1964, the bird was painted black.
The ’63, and especially this two door hardtop, was my favorite full sized Ford of the ’60s. In 500XL form they had very attractive interiors.
As a longtime Ford fan I was somewhat disappointed by the abandonment of the cars (x Mustang). I very much liked the 2012 Focus I owned but kept a 2015 Mustang for only a short time. I wanted the Fusion (Mondeo) wagon but of course that never came. But Ford is a corporation owned by investors and the chief obligation of directors and management is to make a profit for the shareholders – not to please car fans. So I am afraid there will not be a Ford in my future. Good riddance; I’m not angry. Let’s see what happens.
Joseph: well said about being a car proponent – to the exclusion of trucks and the like. I agree; I prefer cars.
Europe got the Fusion/Mondeo wagon, the US didn’t because (I assume) Ford figured it wouldn’t sell here.
Ford is pulling a publicity stunt. If anyone here reads comic book(i stopped years ago because of the stupidity of variant covers and the like)when they need a sales boost……….they kill off a popular superhero.Superman, Captain America or Spiderman etc…. Then bring them back after the boost in sales dies out. Anyone that thinks sedans (cars)are on the way out are listening to.dare i say it?…..FAKE NEWS!!!. Really the most diverse people/country on the planet are all going to be assimilated into CUV’s? thats jsut as stupid as ford retiring all their cars. You think the Japanese and Germans are going to do the same??? nope!! BTW beautiful 63 Galaxie 500
I’ve said elsewhere, I expect that at a minimum we’ll get a fuller line of Focus hatchbacks than they’re currently letting on, now that the announcement that was meant to show Wall Street that Ford can “Move Fast And Break Things ™” too has had the desired effect on their stock price.
It seems that the market continues to move. Two door cars went from being a huge percentage of the business to a niche, and now passenger cars in general seem to be following that same trajectory. I suspect that some of them will remain, but they will few.
I have always loved the lines of the 63 Galaxie that sported this roof. One thing I have never been wild about is that shade of Ford Rangoon Red that seems to adorn virtually every 1962-65 FoMoCo product you will ever see at a car show. I am not a “resale red” guy in general, but this shade is just way too hot for me.
As nice as the car is, I’m intrigued by the Walgreens behind it. I think I took a picture of that building 20 plus years ago, possibly when it was still a bank.
Am I correct that the Ford is headed southeast on Milwaukee ave?
I kind of like the wheels, but would like them a little smaller, so you could put a tire with more sidewall on. Not only from an aesthetics standpoint, but it would seem like those rubber bands would magnify every Chicago pothole.
Dan, you nailed the location, direction, and (IIRC) the former tenant of that building / storefront. Nice!
As for the wheels, I think they are a tasteful choice and just the right amount of “extra” for my liking. This car reminded me of a life-sized, guilty-pleasure (nicer) scale model I might be tempted to buy if I happened to pass that aisle while running an errand at the drug store.
There will be no ‘mass change’ back to cars, sorry, but true. Younger generations see crossovers as “cars” and want room for ‘gear’. Cant base future predictions on wishful thinking.
One reason 2 doors died off was the back seats are a pain to get in and out, and full size cars became ‘elderly folks’ products. Seniors now drive Ute’s.
Anyway, market shift will make older cars more valuable and hope not get ‘trashed’.
Is that ‘Cash For Clunkers’ program still around eating up late-model cars in the crusher?
Child seats and the legal requirement for them killed mainstream two door cars, or “Tudor” as Ford used to call them. Getting them in and out is just too difficult. My dad bought two door cars in the 1950’s specifically so that we children would not fall out!
This old girl looks terrific! Wonder if it’s a resto-mod or if that’s an all original engine?
Great post! Count me in as feeling saddened and somewhat angry over Ford’s decision to focus (no pun intended, seriously) on CUVs and trucks. Not that I’m one who’d be in the market for a Ford sedan, but still, millions of people worldwide bought one last year so there is obviously still demand. And adding to that, Ford arguably makes the most competitive sedans from an American automaker.
It’s amazing just how much city neighborhoods can change in a couple of years though. I haven’t been to Chicago yet, and it’s definitely on my list, but it’s the same case in Boston too. Exploring different areas of the city are always fun day-off hobbies.
“Not that I’m one who’d be in the market for a Ford sedan, but still, millions of people worldwide bought one last year so there is obviously still demand.”
Ignoring for a moment that your first remark pretty much proves Ford’s point for the US market, that global demand for sedans will be met by Ford. They still sell the Fiesta, Focus, and Fusion/Mondeo elsewhere.
Great timing with your thoughts on two doors and Ford’s decision to kill most of their cars. Until last weekend, my wife and I were driving a Volvo C30 T5 and a VW Beetle 1.8T. Moving into a condo in St Paul’s warehouse district (Lowertown to the locals) meant giving up one car, but which one? The Volvo was 6 years old and starting to face some expensive maintenance needs. The VW was a manual stick that my wife didn’t really enjoy driving. And with our advancing age, we were coming to the conclusion that sitting low and dealing with difficult rear seat access as a result of only having two doors was getting to be an issue.
But what to do? We ended up trading both for a NOS 2017 C Max. We got a big discount from the dealer to move this car plus a nice rebate from Ford and what we perceived to be very generous trade in allowances on both the Volvo and the VW. We get to continue to enjoy owning a relative rare CAR, but benefit from a modestly higher seating position, much improved economy and four doors.
My problem with Ford is more basic. When my wife and I were shopping for vehicles in 2014, it seemed Ford wasn’t trying very hard to be a great “corporate citizen.” Final assembly for popular models in foreign countries. Engines and transmissions sourced from across the pond. Basically, abysmal percentages of US content. There wasn’t enough to make us feel good about Ford’s passenger cars or CUVs in those respects at that time. My wife & I both work in the public sector, so we feel it’s appropriate to support taxpayer jobs that pay our salaries.
Unless Ford improves on those metrics, their products will remain on automatic “no sale” status with our family.
PRNDL,
I wish I was more of an authority, but seriously, I think you’re unfavorable opinion of Ford based on it’s “corporate citizenship” , or lack thereof could be levelled at many (all?) car companies in the US.
I have to wonder how you are able to buy any appliances, a cell phone, or a TV. And clothing, unless you make your own, must be a problem, too. This is not me trying to castigate you, but your reasoning sounds a bit out of date in today’s world.
I’ve been struggling with how I feel when I think about Ford’s decision. Killing sedans from a current lineup doesn’t kill sedans from Ford’s history, and while I don’t particularly like crossovers for various reasons, I don’t know if I would actually pick a Focus or Fusion over one in the current lineup if I were forced to choose at gunpoint. Does my allegiance to old American cars automatically put me in sedan camp? At the end of the day, nearly every point I dislike about the crossover segment can be universally applied to every new modern automobile, regardless of segment, so I’m not all that sad to see sedans in their current form go.
This Galaxie would be lucky to get half, probably even a third the MPG a modern crossover gets, but I still want it anyway. When I mourn sedans, THIS is what I mourn – a large 2-door hardtop with a big long and low trunk – which had been an extinct dinosaur for a decade before my lifetime, but for me it was the long/low/wide sedan at its aesthetic best. Tall modern sedans with tall short butts and egg shaped greenhouses don’t even come close.
I like the wheels on this. Many 50s-70s cars with wheels above 15″ throw the proportions and stance completely off, but they seem to work well on this bodystyle. The design itself helps too, they have a very similar appearance to the Cragars used on the 65 Shelby Mustangs.
Which crossover? Depending upon how it’s equipped, these Galaxies could go from gas pig to surprisingly thrifty for the times. Mine on the highway has ranged from 19 to 21 mpg. This is with a 352 and overdrive. Granted, in town it’s less, usually about 14 to 15.
I get around 12 mpg in town with my 2016 grand caravan, so really, your milage isnt that bad. 16-17 mixed use.
I never checked the mileage, but when I was driving my ’62 Galaxie 500 with a 390 and a 4bbl carburetor it seemed to get pretty good mileage, even around town. And the transmission was slipping which didn’t help things.
Probably my favorite Ford ever! I was surprised to read the sales figures, as I had assumed these were low-volume NASCAR specials the first (half) year. Am I correct in remembering that these were often referred to as “Fastbacks” at the time? I still remember seeing a black one up close as a kid, and being enthralled by its shape and size, when they still seemed rare, maybe in 1964. Almost an early personal luxury coupe, perhaps too much competition with Ford’s own TBird. BTW, to me the wheels are OK but should be 15” diameter, maybe 16” max, with slightly higher profile tires.
Ford’s nomenclature for the ’63 1/2 semi-fastback Galaxie was “Sportsroof”. They used this name for several years.
Joseph: I couldn’t agree more. The main cause of my consternation is the sense of choice being taken away. I’ve grown up in a Ford Family and had my share of Fords through the years. Glad you are getting out and exploring the city. Chicago is a fun place for discovery. BTW, my grandparents had a 62 Galaxie 500 in turquoise. We all called it the “Blue Goose”. 🙂
To those of you who are lamenting/upset/surprised or otherwise unhappy about Ford’s decision to end sales of most of its passenger cars in the US, I have great news, You can run down to the ford store right now and get one! In fact, you actually have a couple of years to do so.
Sorry for sounding snarky but I doubt few, if any, of you who have expressed your dismay about this are beating feet to get to your local Ford store to get a Focus or Fusion.
Which is why they made the decision to discontinue those models and concentrate (focus?) on profitable vehicles.
I understand the position to “put your money where your mouth is”. I don’t need a car where I live in Chicago, and haven’t for close to 15 years. (My last two cars were Fords.) With that said, not everybody lives in a major city like Chicago with public transportation this comprehensive.
My job situation changed in 2010 where I might have needed a car, and I would have leaned “American” and done my research. While I don’t anticipate a change in my environment any time soon, I lament that my Ford options would be limited. No doubt I’d find something else I like, but it just seems like the end of a tradition, and I hate that those Ford choices won’t be there. For the time being, anyway.
I met a colleague at a conference this week who went down to the Ford store and leased an electric Focus. He likes it a lot, fun to drive.
But that’s just a compliance car as far as they are concerned. Ford has a lot of catching up to do if it’s going to be an EV player long term.
Beautiful car, I like it in that hot rod red and semi-donk wheels. Would roll it just like it is.
Very different car histories you and I have Joseph. For me, in my upbringing, “cars” were trucks and were normal rides that everyone drove. (Hickville USA) Actual cars never interested me much. In fact I’ve never owned a Ford car, but have had many of their trucks. The only Ford car I’d ever consider is the Mustang, which is good because it seems that’s the only car choice they’ll give me in the future.
As for expensive gas in the inevitable gas crises, well it is what it is. High priced gas and a vehicle with crappy mileage is a real benefit though, you drive less. A lot less. From 2012 to ’14 I drove a ’72 F250 as my daily which threw down 7 mpg or so. It was amazing how little I drove. Maybe if all cars got 7 mpg the roads would be empty.
Heath, you make great points, especially with regard to geography playing a role in the popularity of certain types of vehicles. I’ll say that even when I’m back in mid-Michigan, I see a lot more pickups on the road than here in Chicago’s more densely populated neighborhoods.
(This Galaxie also really did it for me – including the wheels.)
This car has great style, lovely straightforward lines, and red and chrome always go well together, the wheels work too. A great classic choice, but for a new car its a hatchback for me every time, my reversing parking skills never fully developed..!!
“I basically grew up being told, with dubious degrees of lasting success, who and what I’m supposed to like, so perhaps that’s a big part of the reason I have such a problem with this.”
============================================
The mass media, from the scriptwriters of tawdry sitcoms to the editors of the 11 O’Clock News and the producers of newsradio and talk shows are still doing it. I have big problems with that, too.
The day may be coming when it will be politically incorrect to like cars at all, much less big, stylish, roomy ones like this beautiful 1963 Ford. When it comes, it will be a sad day in human history, as the era when everybody must think alike approaches.
Cars are politically incorrect today in certain circles (usually centered on the coastal regions of the US). There are social engineers who are doing their damnedest to force motorists to quit driving cars and use public transportation. Funds that are intended to be used for roads and highways are being redirected to mass transportation systems such as light rail, which are often impractical and that nobody uses. Mass transit works fine in places like New York, but many cities west of the Mississippi are too sprawled out for mass transit to be feasible or practical. I live in a medium sized midwestern city that is sprawled out and the only practical way to get around is via the automobile. There is a bus system but to use it one must walk great distances from certain places to get to bus stops (we have unpredictable weather and walking in extreme heat, extreme cold, snow, ice, rain, high humidity and other conditions is no fun) and the buses simply do not go to every part of town. The road system is based on a grid with the main arterials being section line roads, and light rail would only work if hundreds and hundreds of miles of track were built, and at least 100 trains would have to run at all times for it to be practical at all. The car hating mass transit clowns believe in a one-size-fits-all paradigm that works in all cities, but in places like where I live it simply does not work and will not work without huge investments, which would require a major tax increase which is something that simply won’t happen here. They say that coastal elites don’t understand “flyover country” and they’re correct. Not to get political, but both parties are guilty of this sort of social engineering.
I’m with Joe: I prefer cars and just don’t like trucks all that much. At the New York Auto Show last month, I spent all my time on the main floor looking at cars (and CUVs) and purposely avoided going downstairs to look at the trucks. I have had my 2017 Fusion for about seven months now and have been very pleased with it. I’m not sure I’ll even consider a Ford the next time I’m in the market for a new car.
On the other hand, CC continues to expand my automotive palate, so to speak. I really like this Galaxie 2-door hardtop, even with the non-stock wheels. Up to now, the 1965 and 1966 Galaxies ranked first among 1960s Fords in my estimation and now I’m not so sure.
I understand your feelings about the neighborhood change. In San Francisco that would be the South of Market area which has always been pretty much warehouses, empty lots, and a Cal Train lot. Also some cheap hotels and a few old homes along the back alleys. Lots of underground nightclubs up through the 90’s.
A friend had a print shop in one of those warehouses at the corner of 2nd and Townsend. On Saturday afternoons we would sit on the loading dock sipping Black Bush and look across to an empty field. That empty field is now Pac Bell Park. Now there are high rise towers full of condos along with all the chic and gotta been seen at spots. It is not an improvement. Haven’t set foot in that area since 1998 and have no intention to do so. In fact San Francisco is pretty much a waste of time for long time locals and I lived in the City for 10 years.
I Love Cars.
Especially red early-sixties Fords like this one.
Crossovers are just tall station wagons, which have always had their ups and downs in popularity. They’re about as tall as a car can get without running boards.
The Wheel of Style will keep turning and low cars will come back. Long low hardtops and convertibles will come back, they’re just too exciting to be forgotten.
They’ll be electric (we have to quit burning stuff), they’ll drive like Teslas and they’ll be long range, quick charging and affordable. They’ll be long and low and red, and people will love their cars again. Maybe they’ll even be Fords.
I also am somewhat saddened by the Ford decision. I came from a GM family, many of us worked for them at one time. About fifteen years ago I bought an old ’66 F250 and was impressed by how much roomier the cab was compared to my Dad’s ’75 Chevy Stepside. This led to me buying a new ’07 F150 (I just loved the styling, still do) and an ’07 Mustang. Since then I’ve picked up an old ’96 Mustang GT and ’96 5.0 Explorer. Now I’ve been converted to a Ford fan. I like the Focus hatchback and Fuzion but truthfully, I would be more likely to buy another new Mustang (which I think looks terrific) or an Explorer or even a Flex. Ford has gotten squeezed by the Koreans from the bottom, the Japanese brands that are their equivalent, and the premium brands that have gone downmarket, ( especially the Benz!). So who is Ford supposed to sell their sedans to, Who’s left?
How nostalgia for a mid 20th Century style translates into such angst about modern Ford products is understandable for this crowd and puzzling at the same time. A modern Taurus has no relationship to that Galaxie, except for the FORD emblem.
Not a Ford guy, I think that 1963 1/2 style is one of the best of that era. Certainly it is the best styled Ford of the time. Get above the “low priced three” and the Continental is best overall, and Pontiac for the mid-priced cars.