Got a growing family on a budget? Are twins on the way, but you don’t want to pulverize the piggy bank? If so, you had a plethora of choices in 1962! The compact-wagon market was booming, and virtually everyone but luxury stalwarts Chrysler, Cadillac and Lincoln offered tantalizing tailgate options in a reduced-size package. Which one would you have chosen in ’62?
Near-Cutlass level class was available with the F-85 wagons. Using the same basic body as the Tempest, the F-85s upped the ante with our roundup’s first standard-equipment V8 and first optional automatic with more than two gears. Incidentally, that automatic was the Series Five edition of the ever-controversial Roto-Hydramatic. Also, it might even have been mentioned in Curbside Classic (if I remember correctly, JPCavanaugh’s mother had a love/hate relationship with her ’61) that there were concerns about GM’s using buyers as guinea pigs for their new aluminum V8′s casting and cooling issues.
One of our Mid-Century Modern Miniature Mobility Masterpieces, the Buick Special, was actually named “Car of The Year” for 1962, an honor that seems to have been based solely on its new Fireball V6. Still, with 135 standard horsepower on tap, and Buick prestige written on its flanks, how could you go wrong?
It’s time we got to the “Mopar Madness” part of our comparison. While the Valiant/Lancer fraternal twins didn’t share as much DNA as the Falcon/Comet wagons, it was mostly sheet metal and appointments that set apart these family haulers, perhaps inspired by Virgil Exner’s repeated playing of “Fly Me To The Moon” after too many Manhattans.
But underneath the outré styling lived all the typical Mopar goodies: Torsion-aire ride, Torqueflite automatic, and a tough Slant Six. Incredibly, these weren’t even the most mutant looking wagons offered by Highland Park: Despite that reverse slant C-pillar, they still project a jaunty sportiness that’s absent from the competition, the Corvair excepted.
Now, let’s move out of Detroit Metro to our independent choices. First up, from South Bend, is the Lark. From the windshield back, the Lark wagons featured 1959-vintage bodies (which themselves displayed 1953-vintage roots) while all the other Larks tried to hide their age with a little more make-up and some empire-waisted gowns, including squared-off roof lines and starchier rear fenders. But here we see such big-car amenities as the tough-old-bird Studebaker V8. Growing only 2.5″ in the front clip, the Larks had the tidiest dimensions of any V8-equipped wagon for 1962.
But tidiest of all was the thriftmaster from Kenosha, with its Praying Mantis face and basic structural innards from the dawn of the 1950s. Also found here, in base models, is the only flathead I-6 available in the class (although OHV engines were available for higher-grade models). Yet with all that old-fashioned technology also came old-fashioned build quality, with solidity that some competitors rather lacked. Although the world had changed since its debut as a “bathtub on wheels”, plenty of buyers loved the car’s stubborn adherence to its “American Virtues.”
So here we are. Where will our small-wagon fantasy money go? Given the plethora of choices, I find this comparison the hardest from which to make a firm decision–even without factoring in the imports. But have at it.
Great idea, and some tough decisions to make. I really like these little wagons of this vintage, and I could find some love for any of them. Well, the Rambler and Lark purely for their quirkiness. That applies mostly to the Mopar wagons too. These must have been a bit too much for most buyers, because they were always very scarce, even in the sixties.
A Lancer with the 148 hp HyperPak six, but it needs a four speed. That would make a killer combo.
The Falcon is a very pragmatic choice, and the four-speed stick was available after mid-year. That combo with the 170 inch six wouldn’t have been too bad.
But not surprisingly, the two most compelling choices are (of course) the Tempest and the Corvair. A choice between a Tempest with the 166hp four-barrel Trophy four and the four speed stick against the a four-speed Monza wagon…a difficult decision indeed. I’ll get back to you when I make up my mind.
I have to go ’62 Buick Special, with 4BBL aluminum V8, and 4 speed. Don’t know if it was available in the wagon, but the brochure does not say it isn’t!
The Falcon’s styling is about my favorite, but technically, I’d probably go for the Tempest.
The Lark looks like it’s about to fold in half due to the misfortunate dip in the beltline in the rear doors.
Hmmmmmmm let’s set the way-back machine…
It’s 1962 and I’m a 35 year old elementary principal living here in the rugged west with my new wife (the second one… the scandal!) and looking to start a family. I want to drop my coin on a new wagon for the soon to be family.
The Corvair is tempting if you had a time machine I would know that someday (after the wagon body style is cancelled) you could upgrade the wagon with improved rear suspension, 6 cyl turbo engine, and 4 speed manual. That would be SWEET! But that would require some foreknowledge that I would not have. Down goes the Corvair…
For me it comes down to the Tempest vs. the Valiant.
Pontiac Tempest… well I would have ordered the V8 – naturally. Were the aluminum V8s issues high speed cooling issues or low speed cooling issues? You know I’m gonna drive the 20 miles down to Route 66 and crisscross the country with the family during the summers. My wife FYI would want the manual transmission if available with the V8.
Plymouth Valiant – I would have accepted the leaning tower of power and Torqueflite trans. Nicely optioned model. Sure it’s a “visually interesting” car but I’ve always liked Momma Mopar’s more outlandish designs. Ohhhhhhhhh and then some hot rod goodies for the slant six after any warranties expire.
I’m torn guys…
You are thinking the same as me- the Corvair is where my heart goes, but these still had a way to go before they became ‘great’ cars. Sadly, by ’65, there was no longer an estate.
The Valiant it has to be- with a 225 and hyperpack.
The Corvair is engineering for engineering’s sake, the Valiant is engineering that works.
…of course, I would also probably drive into the Big City to check out the little shack that sells Saabs and test drive a 95 2-stroke…. This would then lead me to rationalize that the Corvair is actually a sensible car, leaving me back where I started!
On my way back to the bucolic burbs and heading for the local Chevy dealer, I would then pass by the friendly Volvo dealer, where the shiny new Amazon wagon was parked up. The practicality of the Valiant, but without bits falling off? Why its the next best thing to a Checker Marathon wagon- and it looks the same too. Best of all, the exchange rates make this thing nearly as cheap as a well optioned Lancer, but with so much more class.
I roll.
Don’t forget the Travelall at the IH place.
FWIW my wife just discovered IH pickups (one was sitting at the neighbors for a few weeks, he tends to flip classics) it was a VERY brick like 70s model and SHE WANTS ONE!
She’d take a Travelall with every conceivable option but keep the manual trans. I can just hear her rowing thru the gears on the way to pick up the kids. Toughest momma on the block.
Get her one. I’d suggest the 72-3 1010 for its torsion bar IFS and disc brakes. If you want 4wd then the 74 100 or 75 150 since it too has disc brakes and since they are the same as used on the Scout II and 77-8 CJ all those parts are still available and at reasonable prices. I’d stay away from the 74-5 200 since many of their rotors are made of unobtainium, like the 2wd 74-5 trucks. You’ll have a better chance of finding a 4 or even 5sp in the 4wd trucks since the 1010 was sold as the family wagon/trailer tow rig most of them were equipped with the TF727 but they also were more likely to get all the goodies like AC, power steering, Custom exterior package (for wood grain and bright trim) and Custom interior package (for carpeting and buckets with storage console/armrest)
Dan: Does your wife have any friends or relatives in a slightly younger age group with similar tastes (in cars)?
Oddly… yes.
Let us not forget, also…WILLYS MOTORS.
Which just introduced the sleeper model of 1962…the ‘Jeep’ Wagoneer. Yup, that’s how the company stylized Jeep…with single quotation marks, in all its literature.
The Wagoneer was the stealth giant: It arrived almost unnoticed; it had the first OHC engine in any full-size class; and while GM was to bloat, Ford was to broughamize and rapid-rust, while Chrysler was to fritter away its legacy and finally its assets…the Wagoneer outlived three parent companies. Unchanged but for grilles, appointments, and options, the Waggy enjoyed a longer sales run than any car, domestic or imported, in this country (the Beetle actually had a longer production run from its 1946 beginnings; but it was four years arriving Stateside).
Lark died; the Binders retreated to farm, truckstop and junkyard…but the Wagoneer kept on selling. It was theoretically possible for a Willys worker to start out as a kid on the Wagoneer line and be building the exact same car (for Chrysler by that time) when he became eligible for retirement.
By ’62, was it still Willys or was Jeep owned by Kaiser then? I remember going to the “Kaiser Building” in Oakland right around then (we have pictures of that excursion, and I look about 5 or 6) and seeing the new Wagoneer (no pics of the Jeep though). I also remember going to an Asian trade exhibit in the San Francisco Ferry Building around that same time and seeing a Nissan Patrol on display.
Kaiser-Frazer purchased Willys-Overland in 1954.
They folded Kaiser (Frazer was discontinued with the departure of Joe Frazer) into Willys and discontinued both Kaiser and Willys passenger cars. The remnant business was styled “Willys Motors, Inc.”
“Willys” was the name Jeep was working under until 1963, when it was reorganized as Kaiser ‘Jeep’ Corporation. By that time the head powers at the top of the Kaiser conglomerate (Henry was retired and ill and was to die in 1967) wanted more public prominence. It was the era of Kaiser Broadcasting, Kaiser Permanente (which ceased being an in-house medical plan to compete with Blue Cross) and the various other Kaiser industrial businesses.
I’d probably go with the Valiant, although I am attracted to the idea of “Wagon Jazz”…(and given the apparent cult following of Falcons lately, I might be more likely to find one in running condition).
The Chevy II is definitely a “man’s wagon”, especially given that once that swordfish has been in there, no woman of the time would want to drive or ride in it again.
Good memory, Laurence – my family indeed had that 61 F-85 wagon. (Or am I just repeating myself to frequently – advancing age?) My mother loved the car, but did not love periodically sitting along the side of the road with the hood up while the 215 cid hunk of alloy cooled itself off. The Olds was a mighty tidy package, but if it were me in 1962, I am far from an early adopter, so any of the strange, modern stuff would never make it into my garage. There go the Corvair and the BOP wagons. Also, AMC just never did much for me. I will pass on them as well.
The Falcon and Comet are nice, but the mechanicals of the Mopar twins are so much more compelling. But that Stude with a trusted V8 — hmmmm.
I guess this would be the point where I start bobbing between the Chry-Ply, Dodge and Stude dealers, seeing who wants my business more. “I don’t care if I drive out in this car or not, in fact, there are two others that I am looking at and the wife likes the colors better on those. But I’m a fair guy and wanted to give you a shot at selling a car, so what can you do for me.” I would imagine that with the kind of year both Chrysler and Studebaker were having in 1962, those 3 dealers would probably have made it a dogfight. And the Chry-Ply guy might have had a fighting chance to upsell me into a Fury wagon – just a little more money and trimmer than a Ford or Chevy big wagon.
Edit – it just occurs to me that I have made a decision on a family car without even consulting Mrs. JPC. Wait – it’s 1962, so I guess that doesn’t matter.
My life sure doesn’t work like that now.
Interesting subject. My parents bought a new wagon in ’62 when I was 6 years old. Being the car nut of the family, I was involved in some of the shopping and remember it well. I recall looking at the Chrysler products, and the Ramblers (I still have the sales brochures). I don’t recall looking at any Fords or GM products. I believe we were not looking so much in the compact size, but more of an intermediate size. That market was just beginning to emerge. The Studebaker and the Rambler Classic were all that was available that fit that size. Ford introduced the Fairlane that year, but a wagon was not available until ’63. We lived in Anchorage, Alaska at the time, and the small compacts did not do so well in the heavy snow and rough roads. We bought a baby blue Lark, with a 6 cylinder and automatic transmission. It served us well for several years. I recall we made many trips in it.
Looking back, I would have made in similar decision, except I would prefer the V8. If I wanted a pure compact, I would have gone with the Valiant. I like the engineering advantage of the Chrysler products of that era, and the styling was different without being weird. The Ford’s were good, basic cars, as well as the Chevy II. The other GM’s had quirky, almost experimental engineering, that did not work out so well in the long term. Good days that are long gone.
Thanks for bringing up the subject.
In 1962 I was still a poor graduate student who could barely afford the 1950 Ford convertible I was driving at the time. Looking back on it now I like to think I’d go for the Valiant or Lancer wagon, but in reality my days as a Mopar guy were still several years in the future.
Like JP, I am far from an early adopter, too. I want something tried, tested and not going to cost me an arm and a leg in unscheduled repairs.
From a engineering standpoint, the Valiant should be my driver, hands down. However I just can’t get past the Martian the Martian styling. I can picture Rocky the Raccoon driving one with Bullwinkle passed out in the back, dead drunk. An added demerit is the Valiant was known as a real ruster here in Canuckistan, not that the other brands were much better. In Quebec, any of these cars was junk in five years.
I would therefore want something fairly cheap to buy, with a good, proven drivetrain. I never liked the Falcon motor. The three bearing crank made the engine feel strained most of the time and the 101 (gross) hp really doesn’t cut it. That leaves the Chevy II for me. The Stovebolt Six is a real classic, especially when teamed to the Powerglide. The Six made great low end torque and was ideally suited to the Powerglide.
I have driven quite a few Chevy II’s of various iterations, and I have always thought them a good, honest car. In those days, buying a Chevy was like buying a Honda today: the safe bet. Nothing going to wow you or blow your socks off, just a good, basic, reliable car that doesn’t cost a fortune.
I’ll have mine in red, please!
There are 4 main bearings in a Falcon 6.
Falcon 144 & 170 had 4 main bearings; 200 & 250 had 7.
I stand corrected but if memory serves me right, the Stovebolt of the era had seven and was, in my experience, a very smooth and tough motor.
Actually, the Chevy II’s six was the brand new Turbo Thrift six, not generally called Stovebolt anymore, although perhaps some apply that to all Chevy sixes?
The ’62 full-sized Chevys still had the old six, for the last year, before it got the enlarged (230 inch) version of the Chevy II motor.
My parents had owned both an automatic ’60 Valiant wagon in white and a tan ’64 Nova wagon with the 194 and a stick on the column.
Since I bleed Bowties there’s no other choice. The Chevy II would be an attractive driver for me today if it weren’t for the two projects I currently own. Make mine a stick, of course!
I’d have to go with the Scout, anything less is just a car. However if the wife wouldn’t go for that and it was for her to put around in then likely the Comet or a V6 Buick.
I guess I should cast my vote…. so…..
The Falcon and Comet are automatically off the list since they want me to pay extra money for the amount of horsepower that’s standard in the Valiant/Lancer.
The Nova, given the 194 6 splits the difference in performance between a 170 and a 225 slant six does it no favors either. The fact that it’s very Chevy Plain Jane, when there’s starting to be more luxurious small options is strike two. Strike 3 is that 2 speed powerglide that doesn’t fare well against the Valiant.
Everything said about the Monza wagon rings true. In 1968 or so, when the aftermarket support could make this a real fun dancer makes it seem more viable. But it’s 1962, and I’m buying new. The first gen Corvair wasn’t fully baked until ’64, and there’s still too many compromises on my mind. And depending on what part of the year of 1962, Ernie Kovack’s spin out might still be on my mind.
The Valiant and Lancer get my “most bang for the buck” pang going, but, again, their creature comforts and fit and finish lag behind the majority of the competition. And if I could get a V8…. why not. The American…. and the Classic are super old utilitarian designs. The American still has a flathead for chrissakes. I’ll probably not know then that the basic design dates from 1950…. but that flathead…
Which leaves me between the Lark, and the B-O-P sisters. The lark, while charming, compact and well finished, is a bit pricey for a car that hadn’t changed much since ’59, again I probably wouldn’t have figured out that underneath it’s the same car from 1953. We’re a year from the Wagonnaire to boot. I’m not partial to Four Cylinders and have heard bad stories about the “Trophy Four” when out of tune, so off goes the Tempest Safari.
So that leaves us with the Special and the F-85. The Special has that all new, unproven V6 that sounds like it’s skipping jump rope. Also the Special is a bit too busy in styling, more so than the sedans and coupes. So we have my Oldsmobile Loyalties shining through. I agree with JP’s Mom, I’d fall in love with the F-85 Deluxe wagon.
Enjoyable decision making, Laurence. Mom would approve.
Plus, in 1962, only some crackpot conspiracy theorist would entertain the idea that GM could put out an imperfect car. This was General Motors, after all. So, you (in 1962) would be completely safe in assuming that the General’s drivetrains would not give you a lick of trouble. With that assumption safely in hand, the Olds would look like a pretty smart choice. I think that it is by far the best looking of the bunch. Ours was maroon, white roof, whitewalls and dog dish hubcaps.
And yup, this must be just like 1962 where I and maybe one other person are even remotely willing to consider the Lark.
It’s weird because I think detail wise the Olds carried the 4 door B-O-P bodies better (more taut and dramatic) than the Buick. But the Buick did the Convertible and Coupe slightly better. The Tempest, oddly seemed a little soft to me in detail….
I also have to admit, growing up a few really old Roto-Hydramatic cars, that I absolutely love their gear whine/fluid coupling gurgle sound. They actually sounded like rockets. Again, buying new, I wouldn’t have known it was a really horrible transmission.
The Lark would be my 2nd Choice, considering it did have the biggest optional V8 available, nifty styling and a laundry list of options.
Funny you mention Ernie Kovac’s spin out. In the summer of ’78 I was 15 and couldn’t wait to drive. My parents had inherited a ’62 Corvair wagon. Man, it was ugly, paintbrushed maroon. But it ran good and was tagged. They rarely used it, and I knew where the keys were. You know where this is going? While they were at work, I joy-rided a few times. Until I took a right turn a little too fast. That rear-end swung around so fast, on dry pavement, I nearly soiled myself. Got it back home, and never drove it again. Scared straight. Until I started sneaking the ’68 Rebel out while they slept…
For my money, it’d be a tossup between a Valiant and a Microbus. Practically speaking, I think the other logical choice is the non-Squire Falcon. Didn’t Kaiser introduce the Wagoneer in ’62, tho?
The Wagoneer came out in 63, but you could still get the tried and true Willys-style Jeep steel wagon.
History on this is convoluted – Wikipedia and some other sites insist the Wagoneer came out as a 1963; but I recall ads out of 1962 publications (my mother saved some National Geographic and other magazine issues; there was something of interest to her going on about then) for the “All New, All Jeep” Wagoneer.
Remember, too, model years weren’t codified into law or regulations at that point. Many states titled a car as the year the chassis was first titled by a private owner. IH didn’t even use model years; and I believe Jeep was cagey on model years back then, also. Only safety and emissions laws and regulations made model years written in stone, with identifying characters in VINs.
So it may have been a mid-year 1962 introduction.
As time goes by it becomes increasingly easy to forget what slugs the Microbuses were. On one trip from Chicago to Springfield, Illinois in my friends ’65 would slow to 35 mph (56 kph) on the gradual rises one encountered on I-55. On a hot summer day this was no fun. That’s when I learned to draft semis. Life was much more fun at 60.
Got to go Buick Special with the Fireball V6.
Being a safety minded sort, I wonder what the safest cars on the road would be at that time…Volvo Amazon, certainly… What other wagons offered anything resembling a nod to safety concerns?
Oh, come on, Jeremiahmusic. Safety, schmafety. It’s 1962. Have another cigarette and pour another Manhattan before you hit the road. And for cripe sake, don’t fasten that seatbelt – you’re much safer getting thrown clear in an accident. The best safety equipment is a powerful engine that will get you out of trouble if it happens.
Anybody who was alive back then heard all this and more.
Ahh, those were the days. I can recall my dad, bless his soul, sucking on a beer in a paper cup, though a straw. For him that was part of the Road Trip experience.
I also remember hearing how dangerous seat belts were and that was in the 1970′s, when the first seat belt laws came in.
As much as I love old iron, the safety issue is the main reason I don’t have an old car. I rather like air bags, ABS and four wheel disk brakes, thanks.
Touché!
while I guess the Manhattan-smoking folks were the norm, I remember my mom said her pop had to custom order seatbelts in their 59 Chrysler… lots of stories like that. But coming from a neurotic New York family, that was my line of thought…
I guess I was also thinking along the lines of that MacNamara piece a few weeks ago… Must have been a few companies actively touting safety in ’62, no? Esp. in light of the Kovacs thing and early Naderesque rumblings…
I remember a Bill Cosby line from the 60s railing about safety belts. “They don’t care about peoples’ safety. The ambulance drivers are just too lazy to look for the body.”
All kidding aside, I was in one of the few families that were religious about seat belt use. We always wore them, and I have continued to. My 59 Plymouth Fury had them and I wore them. But not everyone agreed. When I bought my 68 Newport back in the 90s, all of the seat belts except the shoulder belts were gone. As I was thinking about where to get replacements, I happened to remove the back seat cushion, and there they all were – neatly folded up all next to each other. Some old timer hated them so much he removed them and hid them. I’m just glad he didn’t throw them out, because I spent an evening putting them all back in.
Ford had tried selling safety in the 50′s touting their “Life Guard Design” and it was a huge flop. So it took awhile before mfgs actively sold safety again.
My father had a 1962 Falcon wagon. It was the car he had when I was born. It had a 3 speed manual, but I don’t know whether it had the 144 or 170. He had it until late 1969, when he bought a 1970 Fairlane 500 wagon with a 302 and 3 speed manual. I know the Falcon had only about 90,000 miles and was running only on 4 or 5 cylinders when he traded it in.
I like the roll-down window in the tailgate of the Buick, but I’m not so sure about the V6. They weren’t that great 30 years later. So that or the Valiant.
In Australia the July 1962 Holden EJ model wagon came out with an all-new body but still the old 138ci ‘grey’ six (75hp). 105″ wb, 177″ length, 2500lb but designed to be flogged on unmade roads. The wagon missed out on the top Premier trim, which had leather seats.
On the other hand if we are going with US-style model years, we would be looking at the previous EK model, that looks like it came from the 1950′s (because it did…). and The Ford Falcon wagon was different here, with less rear overhang – the same as the sedan’s. Chrysler didn’t sell Valiant wagons yet.
Yeah it took till 63 for a dowsized Chevy2 engine to find its way to Holden the 149/179 red motors, The early Falcon was junk but in NZ we also got the Zephyr must more robust and could be had in wagon. OZ still had Zephyrs but they were being phased out to accomodate the inferior Falcon, Valiants were not available in wagons untill the AP5/6 models. Small wagons were on hand mostly from BMC,Hillman, Ford UK, Vauxhall but these all had 4 cylinder engines so dont fit the criteria, we had a vastly different market to the US then.
I disagree with your assessment of the Buick V6. My ’88 Olds had the Buick 3800 and I put 176,000 miles (283,000 km) on it. Great engine with surprisingly good fuel economy.
Now that’s a tough choice of wagons. I know the Valiant would run forever if treated with even a little respect, but who’d want to wake up to that every morning? Coyote ugly on wheels. I love Corvairs but the wagons just don’t do it for me. So it’s the Falcon or the Chevy II. I’m a Chevy guy at heart, but my buddy’s Mom had a Falcon Squire of this vintage when we were little kids and she was the “neighbourhood mom” type. So I associate these cars with trips to the beach, rides to hockey/lacrosse/baseball, ice cream and such and that’s what these little wagons were for IMHO. The little Squire served well for a long time, and unfortunately outlived our neighbourhood mom who did enjoy her cigarettes and booze.
So I gotta go with the sentimental favourite and pick the Ford.
In 1964 my dad bought by Mom a lightly used black ’62 Buick Special with red interior, the V-6, and Powerglide. Dad had raced cars a decade before and was an advocate for safety equipment in racing cars, so it was natural that all our cars got at least seat belts. I say “at least” because he went one better with the Buick: he had lap and shoulder belts installed, which was highly unusual for the time.The shoulder belts were mounted in those nice vertical B- and C-pillars. The silver, dish-shaped bolt heads were visible outside the car, contrasting visibly with the black paint. Both lap and shoulder belts were similar to those found in aircraft, and in fact the latches sported the logo of the Irvin Parachute Company.
I was in the Cub Scouts at the time. All the moms had wagons, but only ours had shoulder belts, and they had parachute logos to boot! Needless to say, every boy in the Scouts thought this was wicked cool. They would flight over who got to ride in our car. Mom would not start moving until everyone was fully buckled up. I remember having to show the other kids how to do it, as most of them had no prior experience with seat belts, never mind shoulder belts. I’d like to think that those little Irvin logos planted positive feelings towards using belts, but we’ll never know.
Wow, some interesting choices. First scratch the Studebaker and the AMC, they were too dated. The Chevy II looked promising, but all the trim and interiors looked really cheap-and the single leaf rear springs were questionable-it was almost as if GM was broadcasting a none too subtle remark: “I’m too cheap to drive a REAL car!” The Corvair had weight distribution issues that made it not very suitable as a hauler, the Buick aluminum v-8 was of questionable realiabillity and the V-6 was simply too rough, especially at idle. That leaves me to choose between the Falcon and the Valiant, I’d probably take the Chrysler because of the slant six, probably the best engine of the group.
Easy choice. 1962? Dad’s the local Chevy dealer. It’s between the Corvair and the Chevy II. If I’m buying, it’s the Corvair. If it’s a company car that’ll be traded in on a ’63, it’s the Chevy II (easier resale).
And as dad is the Chevy dealer, all those other “alternatives” are nothing more than complete crap, bought only by the fools, idiots, and suckers. ESPECIALLY the Falcon.
Even if your dad was the local Chevy dealer, a lot of other folks would agree with him about the “alternatives”. GM was the old Toyota.
I’d have to go for a Studebaker or something from American Motors. A Checker Marathon would be good too. I’m a sucker for the independent auto makers.
Of course, if I had to choose from the big three, I’d have to take either a Buick or a Valiant.
I remember that when I was very young (I’m going to say 4, which would make it 1967) our next-door neighbors had a Lancer wagon. I had already become interested in cars, and even at that young age I was fascinated by the weirdness of those small windows behind the rear doors, and the reverse angle of the larger rear side windows. It wasn’t until quite a bit later that I realized how rare a car it must have been.
When I see these cars gathered together in one post like this, it drives home how practical they were, and how fun it would be to have one today. There’s something about the boxiness of the Chevy II that speaks to me, but my grandfather was an Oldsmobile man and I really like the looks of that F-85.
Ok, I’ll play. I skimmed some comments, but I don’t have time to read all 40.
Guys. Let’s get real. These cars are for your wife to take the kids to scout meetings and for going to the supermarket. The little woman does not want a 4 spd. She doesn’t want a 3 spd. She wants a slushbox, and she doesn’t much care how many gears it has, so long as she doesn’t have to work a clutch pedal. The car will be equipped with an automatic, or your aren’t getting any for a long time. If you want a four speed you better plan on being a two car family.
Mechanically, the Mopars are by far the best of the bunch. Slant 6 and Torqueflight, and torsion bars. But maybe we know this mostly from hindsight, and it isn’t so obvious in ’62. The Mopars are so unrelentingly ugly that it’s hard to even consider them, despite the solid mechanicals.
The Corvair makes little sense as a wagon, given that the engine is under the load floor. Hard to work on, hard to service, can’t have a 3rd row seat. OTOH, it does have both a “way back” and a trunk up front. But really, if you need the cargo capacity, just get a Biscayne.
Chevy II is a good choice. Unibody and solid sensible mechanicals. Chevy is not experimental division, so no worries about untested technology. But again, this is ’62, and who really doubts the General’s technical capabilities? I don’t see a compelling and at the same time realistic reason for choosing one of the other GM wagons over the Chevy II. By realistic I mean your wife doesn’t want a Tempest with a 4 spd.
The Fords are solid and soulless miniaturized versions of the bigger Fords. Given the real purpose of these cars – PTA meetings, groceries, orthodontist visits – the Falcon/Comet is a good choice.
Stude is on it’s way out, and anyone paying attention in ’62 knows this. Who wants a car with no dealer support? Besides, it’s 9 years old while it’s sitting in the showroom.
The Rambler would make sense if one was in the market for a little bit bigger wagon, such as the Classic series. These can be rather nicely equipped -by the standard of the day- and make a nice alternative to the “cheapness” that seems to permeate the offerings from the other manufacturers. Unfortunately we are asked to choose not the Classic, but the American, and this car is also a decade, or more, old as it sits on the sales floor, and it just screams Cheap!
So, if I absolutely must choose among these offerings, I’ll go with the Falcon.
In real life of course, people don’t have to choose only cars within a particular “classification”. If I really need a wagon, then I really don’t need a compact one. I need at least an intermediate, if not full sized. Why don’t I just get a Biscayne with a straight 6 and a slush box? If I can’t quite pony up for a full sized car, I’d take a look at the new intermediate sized Fairlane. But if I’m looking at a car that size, then we are back to the Rambler Classic.
> Guys. Let’s get real. These cars are for your wife to take the kids to scout meetings and for going to the supermarket. The little woman does not want a 4 spd.
You didn’t read principaldan’s comment about his wife, did you?
Why not go to scout meetings in a Scout!
I still say Volvo amazon- it was designed with your wife in mind as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evy_yokfog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39qdhbkTko4
Willys Jeep Wagon. Even though it isn’t in the list. ‘Nuff Said.
Pic:
Our neighbors down the street bought the ’62 Tempest wagon, replacing a ’53-ish Ford. Our neighbors up the street bought the Lancer, but not a wagon (replacing a ’53-ish Chevy). They must have kept the Lancer a while because I remember driving it in high school: Slant Six and pushbutton transmission with the weird little Park lever. At the time, I really had a soft spot for Chevy II’s and after 50 years it has aged well. The Falcon Sprints (Monte Carlo Rally!) were cool, but the wagon just looks boring. But my vote would be for a Studebaker with the sliding top. In fact, I got one – a Matchbox version. My parents had a Volvo 544 in 1962, but replaced it two years later with a 122S (Amazon) wagon. No rear belts in the 122 wagon … we added them much later.
I hate to rain on your new car fever (1962 style) but you would have to wait till next year for a Stude Wagonaire. Those did not come out until 1963. We did one here.
http://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1963-studebaker-lark-wagonaire-a-real-vista-for-the-cruiser/
Suddenly that Valiant wagon looks like the most contemporary classic all. It contains so many 2012 design cues: the illogical C-pillar, narrower at the bottom; the irrelevant superficial doodles on the front and rear fenders. If you parked this between any Hyundai and a Nissan Juke, it would look like a multigenerational family of egregious overstyling.
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a stock Lark wagon before. It looks….melted?
My family had at different times a Falcon wagon and a Rambler American sedan. The Rambler was head and shoulders a better driving, better built, more substantial car. It’s the only car among half a dozen early/mid-60′s family haulers that I remember with something like respect. And yet it lacked a sense of mainstream style that seemed so important at the time.
Our neighbours, on the other hand, had a Volvo Canadian (122), sharing garage space with a Mercedes fintail. Definitely not mainstream at the time – in fact the cars and the neighbours seemed a little weird. I mean, they could have had a Buick for God’s sake. And the Buick would have been so much bigger! And then a few years later when I was in university I became infatuated with Volvo 544′s, owning two of them. They were my first experiences of real automotive bonding (and bondo).
These are the kinds of memories/experiences/emotions/lessons that can imprint you for life, for better or worse. So my personal fantasy is going down to the Volvo dealer and picking out a brand new 122 wagon, and still having it.
I was almost 30 when my Mom sold our 122 wagon (for the same price she paid for it new) in 1986. At the time, I was urging her to get a more modern, safer car (she bought a 240DL wagon) and had no interest in keeping an old car which had been in our family for 22 years (and I had owned my own 122 for a few years in college). Now I’m kicking myself for not keep that car in the family forever. My sister has been looking longingly at a 544 with a for sale sign in her area.
I have to go with the Lark wagon, though I’d be happy with any of these wagons. The Lakewood is my second choice.
My 1st car is/was a 63 Falcon wagon (long top as I refer to it as). I got to choose what I wanted. This was 1999. I still have the car today, its been off the road since 2002, but with pop’s retiring in January, he’s making it his priority to get “Bad Bird” back on the road for the 2013 summer crusin schedule.