I love to find unrestored cars at the Mecum auction in Indianapolis every year. Except for one repaint and possibly a couple performance tweaks to the 289 V8, this ’67 Galaxie 500 is just how Ford built it. That includes the combination of power steering and unassisted drum brakes, which seems odd now but was probably not that uncommon then.
The ’67 lost the wicked cool tail lights of the ’66. But the Galaxie two-door gained this great fastback roofline, so I call it a fair trade. I know design is subjective, but to my eye this gracefully flowing two-door body is the most beautiful of all the 1965-68 full-sized Fords.
This generation of full-sized Fords shared a platform, but you might never know it if you only ever saw the Galaxie two-door hardtop from year to year. The pillared sedan and two-door roofs carried over all four years, though. Even then, those squared-off roofs were made to blend well with the big changes in each year’s lower body, from the straight-edged ’65 (top), through the more elegant ’66 (middle), to this ’67, and ending with the fluid ’68 (bottom). Were Ford’s designers ever more on their game?
This car is painted in Sauterne Gold, but it looks more greenish-gray to me. When cars like these commonly roamed the streets, I didn’t think much of colors like these. But as an ambassador to just the kinds of cars Ford was building 47 years ago, it is just right.
Related reading: a ’67 Galaxie 500 two-door in red, a ’67 Galaxie 500 two-door in yellow, and a ’67 LTD sedan.
A nice selection from the “peak styling” years in Detroit. I tend toward extremism in my styling preferences; i.e., give me pure, straight lines or real, uncompromised curviness. But in reality, subtlety and moderation usually make a nicer shape; it just makes for less amusing discussion.
Still impressive they could make such dramatic changes each year. I’m partial to the elegant ’66 and the fluid ’69 for opposite reasons, but the ’67 here looks sleekest.
Given a choice, I prefer the 66. From a styling stand point, Ford led the pack in the late sixties.
Nice example of an unrestored 69. Up here in rust country, such a vehicle is next to impossible to locate. Sheet metal rust killed the Fords. The GM body metal would hold up slightly better. Frame rust would kill the GM’s.
Huh-WHATTT??
GM products rusted MUCH MORE around the windshields and back windows than Fords did in this era.
We had to drill “drain holes” in the trunk of almost every GM car we had from the 1960’s and 1070’s; they rusted so badly around the back window.
This Ford invented frame rust with this generation, I believe they then licensed the process to GM. 🙂
As a Ford fan it pains me to agree… and Ford perfected frame rust for the ’69 and ’70 model years. Lordy did those frames rust, I remember seeing 4 year old LTDs and Galaxies with rope holding the rear bumpers up… sad, as those two model years were quite the attractive cars.
Living in Buffalo I noticed that Fords rusted much more than GM. A friend of mine had a 1970 Torino that had holes in the fenders in 3 years….Contrasted with the GM a-bodies, especially the Skylarks which lasted 2-3 times longer.
Even contemporary Fords like the previous generation Tauruses rusted quickly around the rear wheel wells.
It was well known in Canada that Fords of this era (late 60’s to mid 1970’s) were the worst rusters. Ford of Canada at least covered some of the rust issues with the “secret” J67 rust warranty.
IMHO, this ’67 is the best-looking of this handsome group of ’60s Fords. I had forgotten how beautiful and well-proportioned they were.
The MY 1969-1972 FoMoCo product line was EXTREMELY rust-prone due to the composition of the steel that they were using during those years. This was such a big problem that FoMoCo issued a bulletin, or some such directive, that they would cover the cost of repairing rusted vehicles that were still on warranty, and would pay for part of the cost of said repairs on off-warranty vehicles on a pro-rated basis.
FoMoCo never advertised this policy. The only way that the owner of a FoMoCo product from those years would know about it is if they took their vehicle to the dealer and complained.
I know about it because my dad was one who took his ’72 F-150 to the dealer and complained.
Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets greased in a good way.
Given that Ford still had the steel making operation at the Rouge plant during these years, one wonders if it was Ford-produced steel produced that caused the rust problem.
Ford had invented the E-coat process, which ensured more uniform coating of bodies with rust-proofing material, but it did not immediately install the process in all of its North American plants. It was installed at the Wixom plant immediately, but it took decades until all Ford plants had the capability to use the E-coat process on new vehicles.
GM, meanwhile, paid Ford a royalty for use of the process and had it installed in all of its North American plants. Aside from the Vega, the GM cars had a much better reputation for rust resistance. Unfortunately, the 1971 GM full-size cars and the 1973 Colonnades did have a worse reputation compared to their immediate predecessors in that regard. But they were still better than their domestic competitors.
I can’t imagine how bad the others must have been if GM was “better”! In the mid-70s at my father’s Pontiac-Buick store in Canada, it was not unheard of to submit rust perforation (yes, perforation) warranty claims on new, unsold units still in inventory. Indeed the collonades were the among the worst–IIRC the Buick A-bodies from the Framingham, Mass plant were the worst of the worst.
The 66 coupe with the concave rear window is just beautiful. I love every detail on that car. My aunt kept her 66 LTD coupe for ten years in IN and it didn’t rust. However, it was garage kept, washed frequently, and driven less in winter (I think it only had 30K when traded for a new LTD in 76 or 77).
My Dad’s 65 Thunderbird had virtually no rust when traded @ 1970 – Wixom plant = better steel/assembly?
Nice looking Pontiac.
A two year old Pontiac at that.
+1
One of my friends in high school had one like this. That car took more abuse than a rented mule; full throttle reverse drops, and he would immediately rev it to the floor after startup to hear his dual exhausts with Thrush mufflers even in the dead of winter. It never missed a beat. One of the many cars he totalled and walked away from.
’67s are just plain pretty, even the 4 door sedans. Not a bad line on them, especially the 2 door hardtop.
I always liked the 67 Fords. Not particularly original, but nice integration of the styling themes of the time. Don’t know what happened on the 68….Ford felt they needed to have significant changes every year in the 60’s. 68 is the only year I don’t like.Would have beautified American roads if they’d kept the 67 as is for another year!
Agreed; this is the best looking of the ’65 to ’68 era Fords.
What I find really nice is that you can see the evolution of design thought from year to year in this period; the designer clearly was working on an idea and kept trying to perfect it… as opposed to a designer producing different design ideas from year to year, hoping something will stick. There’s a purity of design aspiration here.
I think something got lost with the ’68s, though.
I agree, the 68s were a little weak, especially the el cheapo versions. The best looker was the XL, and it relied a little more heavily on added-on adornments than purity of form.
The ’68 design looked rather nice with the hidden lamps, especially the 2-door . The exposed-lamp models…not so much. It made quite a difference given how plain the “standard” grille was.
The best word to describe the ’68 exposed-headlamp grille would be “frumpy”. It’s like the stylists ran out of ideas.
Yeah, but look at the rest of the ’68. The body shape is terrible… heavy, arbitrary, unathletic. The designer needed to move on from the ’67, but didn’t know where to go. The hidden lamp front is a cool feature, but it’s really just a distraction from a very flawed overall shape.
@mFred: +1
The ’68 Ford coupe: everything you will soon hate about the Maverick, and more!
I have tried to like the ’68 Fords, but I still can’t get over the frumpy styling. I really like the 65-67 Fords, but in 1968, the styling just doesn’t work for me. I always liked the flowing fastback for the 1967 Galaxies, much like I also liked the 1967-68 Impalas. When done properly a fullsize fastback looks great.
I wondered how the 1968 full-size Ford would had looked if it had kept its stacked headlights? Didn’t a CC article recently showed some illustrated renderings from late car magazines like Road Test or Car Life (unless it was Car & Driver or Motor Trend) where they imagined a 1968 Ford Galaxie/LTD keeping the stacked headlights?
Interesting that Pontiac and Ford both reverted to horizontally placed headlamps the same year. In Pontiac’s case I can see how this was necessitated by the choice of a big vertical nose – you wouldn’t want stacked headlamps surrounding such a thing – but the Ford result just looks plain, even with the headlamp covers; the ’69 is a much more satisfying variation on that theme.
I have to be the lone dissenter. My favorite from this period is the ’68 LTD 4 door hardtop. In the ’80s, I had neighbors with this car – white vinyl top over a light teal body – and I thought it was very handsome. My neighbor’s car was in beautiful shape, but idiots finally got to it. It was first slammed into just sitting in the driveway, but was saved with considerable surgery. Next, some jerk tossed a brick off an overpass and hit the leading edge of the roof; this time the insurance totaled the now 20 year old car. A shame.
Viewed from certain angles (like the front 3/4 view) and in certain dark paint colors, the ’68 Galaxie with hidden headlights is possibly my favorite post-1963 Ford product. But the full side profile (and in white) is awful. It’s always hard to pull off the fastback shape with that much rear overhang, but the stubby rear passenger window (the ’67 roofline flows so much better) and the squared-off shape of the wheel well (compared to the ’66 above it) leave a huge wasteland of sheet metal. Frumpy is right.
I much prefer an FE powered version to the 289. Nothing against that motor, there just isn’t enough of it for one of these. The natural habitat of that lazy old slow turning lump of torque FE is the engine compartment of this. Also, small block versions had the wimpy little Dana-type WER rear, as opposed to the 9″ we all know and love.
As a kid we road tripped across Canada and the US northeast to see Expo ’67 in Montreal. Vehicle of choice-’67 LTD 2 door hardtop, complete with disc brakes, wide-ovals, factory tape player and vacuum locks. 390-4V dual exhaust powered.
You went to Expo’67 too? My family went via a ’62 Checker Aerobus 😀 . I was only 4 but I do have some foggy memories. Our trip wasn’t that long though, we lived in Brook Park, Ohio at the time.
These 67’s were designed when full sized performance cars were selling OK, and NASCAR ran them. Looks styled for Daytona.
The ’68 Galaxie face was ‘normalized’ and I used to think was an all new car, it looks so different. Far removed from the ‘total performance’ era and more ‘great uncle’.
by 1967 NASCAR was using the Fairlane and not the Galaxie
That makes sense, without the pressed breaks in the sheetmetal, I’d expect the 1967 roofline would have performed worse that the 1966. And given that the fastback roofline was instigated for the Nascar ovals in 1963, it would seem that the stylists have immediately taken advantage of the opportunity to change.
I like these, but to my eyes they show how much Ford was following the styling lead set by GM.
How could the same company make a beauty like this then turn out an ugly sister like the 67 T Bird?
The best looking year ever for the Galaxie. Ford really nailed it in 67. Original or not, it’s hard to argue with the result.
I’m not a big Ford fan, but I love the roof line of the 67…very sporty. Hard to believe that the same company would go on to produce the ugliest full sized domestics in the mid 70’s….the 73-78 models were ponderous and very poorly detailed.
“…this ’67 Galaxie 500 is just how Ford built it. That includes the combination of power steering and unassisted drum brakes, which seems odd now but was probably not that uncommon then.”
Dad’s 1966 Impala sports sedan was also equipped that way: 250/Powerglide, AM radio, power steering, unassisted drum brakes, no A/C, fire engine red w/black cloth& vinyl interior.
Thing is, cruising with all windows down, vents cranked out all the way and radio blaring, that car was a real beauty, and you felt like a million bucks driving it!
Back to the Galaxie: A brief time in Ford’s history that I actually liked their cars, 1965-1968 Galaxies, 1968-69 Torinos and 1967-68 Mustangs. To me, they got real ugly after that!
The 1967 above is a beauty, too.
Living in New Orleans, LA, USA I have avoided much of the extreme rust ya’ll in the northeast have had to endure.
Yayyyyyyyyy!
There is a lot to love about Ford’s tri sixes; ’65, ’66, ’67. mFred is quite right about the ’68s.
From stripper to sport to brougham, these cars always looked good.
Frame rust was a terrible problem, I learned 1st hand as my ’67 suffered from it.
In the late ’60s power steering without power brakes was fairly common on low priced makes. My parent’s ’68 Impala was equipped that way, as was my ’67 Galaxie 500. Manual brakes were easy to get used to – at least for a big 20 something male when I had mine.
Mine was a 390 automatic with factory air. The frame rot caused me to sell it.
I was surprised at how many of these cars, even in LTD trim, had manual drum brakes. Every one of my dad’s 65-69 Fords had power, and the ’67 and ’69 had power disc. We skipped ’68, actually they were all company cars. Ford was an early purveyor of disc brakes, making them standard with power brakes in ’68, across the whole line. The reason they were able offer this cheaply was that they stopped using the 4-piston Kelsey-Hayes caliper and used their own cheaper, single piston unit.
Not only that, but the KH caliper required unique wheels, upping the cost even more.
That’s a great looking car, primarily because it obscures my biggest beef with the ’67 full-size Ford, and that’s the pointy grille (I guess it was some sort of homage to Pontiac). The similarly styled ’66-’67 Fairlane had a much better looking grille without the ‘point’.
’67 will always be my favorite year of the full sized Ford’s, especially the Galaxie 2 door hardtop, I thought that was Ford at its peak, I would prefer mine to be equipped with at least a 390 myself.
After the 1963, the 1967 would be my favorite big Ford – especially in two door hardtop form like this one.
The one big design flaw in the big ’67 Fords (all Ford ’67 cars for that matter) – the steering wheel hub. Does anyone here remember that one year only, big wart thing in the center? Cured for 1968 but by then the rest of the car didn’t look as nice. Safety, I guess.
The federal government began mandating safety equipment for all cars beginning with the 1967 model year. The big hub in the steering wheel was Ford’s way of meeting the requirement for safer steering columns.
GM, Chrysler and AMC used the collapsible steering column developed by GM, but Ford, for some reason, didn’t adopt it immediately. Ford’s temporary solution was that big padded hub in the middle of the steering wheel.
I kind of like those wheels. FWIW Ford had their own collapsible column by mid-67, they chose to develop their own rather than use the GM part. I always thought it was corporate truculence
over using your major rival’s parts, but it didn’t stop them from putting Saginaw tilt columns in ’65-’66 Mercuries.
Having unassisted drums in my Mustang I wouldn’t want them in a car that big. Thank god it has power steering or the dealer should have thrown in a neckers knob for free.
Wonderful car and I hope it goes to a nice new owner who will look after it. My favourite of these is the 1965 – something about those straight lines – I shall call it “elegant severity”. I like the Mercedes W 108, also released in 1965, for the same reason.
Looking at these cars and the comments I wonder which, if any, of todays cars will excite similar passions in 2064? Do any of todays offerings have the potential to still excite people in 50 years time? Assuming of course cars as we know them are still around! There is a highly regarded Mercedes restorer here in Brisbane (Australia) – one of the few recommended by Mercedes themselves – who reckons hardly any cars by any manufacturer made after 1970 are collectable. He puts this down to electronics. I wonder if he is right?
It’s so sleek it looks smaller than it is.
I’d rather have power steering and unassisted brakes than the reverse, which my ’76 Dodge van had. Steering was a chore, to say the least.
“unassisted drum brakes, which seems odd now but was probably not that uncommon then.”
In reference to the above statement, drum brakes are “self energizing” Which means once you push down on the brake pedal the drum brake shoes push out on the inside of the brake drum, and the motion of the rotating drum helps pull the shoes farther out. So once applied drum brakes have a form of mechanical assist.
Disc brakes (obviously) do not do this. So vacuum assist became more common in cars when disc brakes became more common.
My 1968 Volvo 122 Amazon has a vacuum brake booster, but it only works on the front disc brakes. The rear brakes are drums, and don’t need any help.
Even better would be twin-leading shoe drums, but I don’t imagine these cars used them because they require two wheel/slave cylinders.
My Peugeot 404 wagon had really big drums, with twin-leading shoes in front. Best brakes ever! Powerful, but very linear ans sensitive to the foot. Liked them much better than the discs on my 404 sedan.
Like Hillmans they had twin leading shoes up front from when they went hydraulic and they work fine. Holdens however had single leading shoe front brakes in heavier cars with more power and were rubbish but with great fade.
Actually, assisted drum brakes tended to be grossly over-boosted for just that reason. Didn’t like them at all; one had to really be gentle with the pedal.
My problem with hardtop and convertible Fords of the 1965-68 era is that although Ford switched to curved side glass, just like the 1965 full-size Chrysler and GM cars, only Ford retained the full perimeter of brightwork along the glass edges. This gave the Ford hardtops (and the Lincoln Continental) a sort of old-fashioned appearance relative to the competition, irrespective of sheetmetal aspects of the design, because all three companies had generally used this sort of perimeter brightwork in the flat-glass era that had (largely) just been left behind.
Good call on the heavy chrome trim around the frameless hardtop windows giving the Fords a much older appearance than they really were. More than a few people have tried to guess the last Fords with the chrome window trim as models from the late fifties.
What’s worse is that the chrome trim had a real bad habit of actually lowering the windows by themselves (while the car was stationary, no less).
So around the same time Ford were putting curved side glass in Fords, they were removing it from the Lincoln Continental!
My garageman had one of these in the teal/white combo like the one shown in the letters above, complete with 390 4V. Great car.
(He once decided to pull the 352 from his wrecker and overhaul it. His brother came in with a disassembled engine and they put it together in a day — turned out to be a 428. Have you ever seen a wrecker pop a wheelie? 🙂
Every year, I go to the Ann Arbor Bicycle Swap Meet (I love old bikes, too), and one of the vendors pulls a small trailer from New York with a teal ’68 LTD sedan with a vinyl top and a 390. It looks like it’s in great shape, too. He must use a ton of gas, but it must be fun.
With that being said, ’68 is my least favorite sixties Ford, with the ’67 right behind it. The featured car above would have to be one of my favorite examples, but I’ve never gotten used to the grille on the ’67. The rear view is much better (on the ’67 and ’68).
I am on record here as a 67 Ford fan. My convertible had a 390 and power drum brakes which were touchy as hell. I never much cared for this color though, one of the few I ranked below my car’s lime gold.
Another kid in my high school had a very nice sedan in this color. These were all over into the late 70s then quickly became very scarce as the frames rusted and broke.
I always wondered why Ford drooped its taillights down into the bumper only twice in the 60s, the 62 being the other.
“I always wondered why Ford drooped its taillights down into the bumper only twice in the 60s, the 62 being the other.”
’68s did too.
Good point, but I always figured they were too cheap to change the bumper.