Jack recently presented the story behind a certain 1968 Ford Galaxie 500 which brought out some interesting comments. Here’s a ’67 model with the same body style for comparison…
Let’s start with the controversial end of the car first. While I didn’t get a good rear 3/4 view, this straight-on rear view does give an interesting perspective and highlights the, well, length of the rear deck of the Galaxie.
Swinging around to the pointy end of the car, you’ll notice the ’67 has a fairly pronounced beak — much more so than the ’66, but somewhat less than the ’68. I kind of like the ’67 myself, but it also (if you squint a bit) does remind me a bit of a Cadillac hood. Maybe it’s just me…
I had to snag a dash photo from the interwebs (mine was a bit glarey), but I did want to point out that the ’67 took the first tentative steps toward making the interior a bit more friendly to the occupants in an accident. You’ll note the large padded horn button as well as the padded dash panels. The steering column is collapsible and controls are somewhat recessed on the dashboard. Shoulder belts were also a standard feature and the brake system was upgraded to a dual circuit system.
More importantly, an 8-track tape deck was now an option!
In 1966, you could order a Galaxie 500 “7 Litre” with the 428 cid Thunderbird V8. The Galaxie name was dropped from this engine option for 1967, and the 428 engine option was basically only a trim/performance option for the XL model.
This particular example sports the durable 390 V8:
1967 was also the year that the LTD trim level was divorced from the Galaxie name. It seems Ford was fine-tuning the brand positioning along with that front hood line…
I found this fine-looking Galaxie in front of a small-town garage I pass on the way to work, and it was gone after a couple of days. Having wrenched on a 390 in my youth (our ’68 Country Squire LTD), I have an idea or two why it might have been in the shop. It’s nice to see it well cared for, and I’ll hope to see it motoring around town sometime soon.
Very nice, thanks for sharing.
Actually, I believe the steering columns on ’67 Fords were not collapsible.
Instead, for that one year only Ford used a heavy pad in the middle of the steering wheel to meet the Federal Safety Standards.
They got collapsible columns mid-year.
From the mid 60s right up until Bunkie put those god awful beaks on them, the full size Fords really were better looking than the full size GM cars of the time IMHO. (Excluding Cadillac)
No.
Sorry but a car like a standard full size Pontiac from any year between 1962-1966 makes this look like the Elephant Man.
I owned a ’66 Tempest 4-door for a while, and at least for that car, I would have to concur (although I do like the Fords, too).
Amen!
From a Catalina up to a Bonneville, Pontiac was the style leader in the 60’s, everyone was playing catch up and trying to use some of the easier to implement styling cues.
This Ford has alot of Pontiac in it if you squint a little.
My feeling exactly. The real sticking point, I think, is that it looks sort of like a ’65 Catalina or GP — hardly bad, particularly seen in isolation, but likely to make the Ford seem immediately dated in its time.
What were you saying Carmine?
Ahhhh?
Sorry Dan, didn’t realize you don’t care for my comments either…I guess I will move from occasional comments to just a viewer.
Take care all.
I was just being a wise guy, taste in design is completely subjective. The fact that my random comment turned into such a passionate discussion about the designs of the 60s struck me as silly. It was a feeble attempt at humor.
Awww come on, I get the joke. The Ford is nice looking and clean, but there really isn’t anything that special about it, its just a nice mid 60’s car like many others.
I have a 66 Ford brochure that lists an 8 track system as an available option. Also, the literature I have indicates the LTD became a separate series in 1966 – it was a Galaxie 500 LTD only in 1965.
It’s funny, when I was reading the article, I said to myself, “I thought the LTD was a Galaxie 500 subseries through 1967, then became a separate model in 1968”. Maybe the separation was more of a gradual process over the course of two or three years than a clean break?
Shoulder belts were not standard in 1967 Fords. I spent a decade riding in my parents’ ’67 Ranch Wagon that didn’t have them. My grandpa had a ’67 Country Sedan and they were were not in that wagon, either. The steering wheel was called “Energy-Absorbing,” which I think meant the padding was supposed to be safer than a hard plastic wheel in case of an accident – or when stepping on the ultra-sensitive power brakes too heavily.
I never thought much of the 1967 styling when I had to live with that wagon, but now the ’67s seem much more sexy with their undulating lines. Maybe I should have bought that wagon off my dad when he instead sold it, still in pristine condition in 1981, to a neighbor for $500.
As for the LTD model as its own series, my source states that it was listed separately for the first time in 1967 – and it also shows the ’66 models with similar body/style numbers as other full size models (same numbers; each trim level had different letters following them).
Shoulder-belts were a mid-year addition in 1968. My old man’s “company car,” an early-run 1968, did not have them.
My mother’s car, just about identical, that he bought in late summer (knowing the company car was going away) did have them. Not that it mattered; those things were horrifically awkward, even to us kids.
At that point the shoulder harness had no retractor and plugged into a separate buckle.
And as a result, just about nobody used ’em. The lack of an inertia reel retractor made them very confiming and uncomfortable if adjusted properly.
Nobody AT ALL used them. NOBODY. NEVER.
I put them on once…I don’t even think the designers tried them out. There were in there because the law required it; not because they would ever once be used.
We tend to forget: it was the imports, Volkswagen in the forefront, that introduced the three-point belt with inertia reels. As 1930s and obsolete as my 1972 Super Beetle was…it had those; when no American car did.
And once I tried them…the two-reel sit-snap-start penalty strap on 1974 and later cars (the interlock mercifully deleted after 1975)…those belts were a GOOD EXPLANATION why almost nobody used seatbelts.
If you did try to use those late 60s shoulder belts (as I did in my 68 Newport), you would not be able to reach certain things at the far right side of the dashboard. Really, I cannot remember anybody actually using these when new. It was enough of a challenge to get people to wear lap belts. Every one of these I ever saw had the shoulder belts tucked neatly into their clips over the front side windows.
Yup, had them in my ’68 Newport too. They were awful, a good idea poorly executed if you ask me.
The lap belts were on reels, but they were tiny spring loaded units that simply allowed the strap to be rolled up when not in use and it just sat on the floor between the seat and door IIRC.
The tongue end was in the reel, the buckle was not, again IIRC. It’s been 30 years since I’ve sat in one. 🙂
As I recall, the early Chrysler shoulder belts were unique. Everyone else designed the shoulder belt like another lap belt, where a tongue would go into a separate buckle. Now, instead of 3 buckles across a bench seat, you had 5.
Chrysler built the tongue into the lap belt, and the buckle was put on the shoulder belt. Therefore, the shoulder belt latched onto the lap belt, so you could put the whole set on or take it off with a single buckling (lap belt only) instead of two. Edit – with more thought, I think you still had to work two buckles, as the tongue for the shoulder part was in the buckle half of the lap belt (that you would grab with the right hand). Still, it was 2 fewer buckles poking out of the seat to keep track of.
I owned the car in the mid 1990s and deal with auto accidents for a living, so I was happy to have the belt. I had to leave a little slack to work the radio/hvac controls, but it was tolerable. I think this makes me the only living person ever to have used these regularly. The 3 point belt with the inertia reel was a HUGE improvement.
You captured a good one, Ed.
Of the two, I do prefer the ’67’s. I think it must be the stacked headlamps that set the hook….
Yeah, me too. Up till 67 I find the full size Fords are quite attractive, 68 and up not so much.
Could be because I’m a 67 model myself..
Ford had been pushing safety since 1856. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1955-1956-ford-fairlane-crown-victoria4.htm
Dad’s 68 Ranch Wagon did not have that padded steering wheel and a different dash from this car. Sad because I thought the 67 interior was much richer looking than the 68.
They are in fact very similar. The 1968 had a padded surround on the speedometer bar; but the glove-box and the split seem almost the same.
I don’t recall the 1967 interior in real-time. From the photos, it seems it was over-done with 1960s metal plating and other images that scream “cheap.”
FWIW, I do recall the 1968 Chevrolet; and the 1968 Ford had it all over them in interior appointments. Even Popular Science commented on it in a review. The Chevy was the same painted metal, with a nod to the law in a padded dash. It somehow looked even cheaper than the 1966.
The other difference from 67 to 68 was the quality of the seat vinyl. Fords of the 1960s used some of the toughest, most durable vinyl material known to man in its seats. The vinyl will often outlast the thread that joins the seams on those cars. But starting in 1968, Ford started using a softer vinyl in the seating areas. It was more pliable and softer, but as it aged, it would split at every seam.
I could testify to that, the vinyl in my Dad’s 1967 Mustang is still perfect after 40+ years and has never been recovered.
Now THAT’S what a Galaxie SHOULD look like! Take a hint, Ford…please? Rename the so-called “Taurus” immediately and redeem yourselves!
With its semi-fastback roofline, the Galaxie was inspired from the ’65 Impala and the full-size Pontiacs while the LTD 2-door hardtop got a different roofline.
I believe that both cars shared the actual roofline, but the LTD version used a filler panel under the vinyl roof and a much smaller quarter window to create a much thicker C pillar treatment.
My very first car was a 67 Galaxie 500 convertible, so I am pretty familiar with these. By coincidence, my first (intentional) CC piece was on a 67 LTD.
I must correct you on the shoulder belts – those were mandated for 1/1/68, which would be why some 68 models did not have them. Also, the earlier commenter was correct – the fat center pad was Ford’s way to comply with the requirement for a collapsible column before the actual collapsible column was ready. Those hubs were in every 1967 FoMoCo car, from Falcon to Lincoln.
Another interesting factoid on these is that the 352 was no longer available. There was a really big gap from a 289 to a 390. Ford must have figured that there was not enough difference between a 352 and the 2 barrel/single exhaust/regular gas 390, which was 270 bhp (compared to 315 on the 4 bbl/dual/premium version). I believe that 1967 was the last year that you could still get the race-worthy 427 as well.
I think that these are the most attractive of this entire series. I always found it interesting how Ford could take the same basic car and do a 180 degree turnaround from the super-angular 65 to this fluid 67 in just two years. The 1965 GM line must have caused some major panic in the Ford studios.
A nice find of one of my favorite cars of the 1960s.
Having just spent a few days in a rental Taurus, I can concur that the powers-that be need to look at these older designs for inspiration. Look at not only all the leg room, but the center space! No stupid console in the middle! The Taurys is huge, yet when I sit in it in my 6′ 3″ frame, I could be in a frickin Mazda 3 or something. That massive central console takes up all the available knee room. Who decided that every car needs a stupid console?????
I totally don’t mind consoles, but I DO agree, they have gotten too big, making cars that would have spacious interiors more crowded than they need to be.
Reduce their bulk and I think you’ll see much less complaints about the consoles.
I would also say, increase glass area and lower beltlines to at least 2001-2003 levels so people can SEE out of their cars – especially when they are short or have short torsos.
Rather than replying individually to each of the gentle corrections everyone offered, I’ll offer my apologies here… Apparently, the internet *is* wrong every once in a while! As I as a youngster when we bought our ’68 Country Squire LTD, and in high school when we sold it (and not much of a car guy until a year or so before this), I simply am not that familiar with these, so relied on what I could find online.
That’s the cool thing about CC – there are so many cracks that commenters fill in with actual experiences – a wikipedia article just can’t come close.
Thanks for the corrections and for continuing to share your stories!
That’s one of the reasons when researching, I don’t totally rely on Wikipedia but try to find other sources on the ‘net for a subject if at all possible – in particular any local history museums and libraries with online portals that have the history available as it’s often the local sources that may be the most accurate – especially when it comes to local history.
But it IS a go to resource for basic info and I’ll often hit it first and then extend my research from there.
When I wrote up on the evolution of the FWD car, I had to use several sources to get the info right, or as right as I could get it and I recall some facts getting confusing depending on what source I was reading.
I’m not a fan of the stacked headlights, I miss the side by sides. I think the interior was decent enough on these cars but cost cutting was evident.
In 1967 I looked neat on the seat… the banana seat on my awesome bicycle.
Much better looking than the 68, both the front end and the roofline.
I always liked the stacked headlights on some 60s cars. Ramblers, Pontiacs. and Fords are the ones I best remember.
I’ve always liked these myself. A very handsome looking vehicle and loved these beaked front clips.
If you squint really, really hard, you can see shades of Cadillac, but only in the stacked headlights though and Caddy didn’t thrust them forward like Ford did. they were more vertical. Cadillac only did these through the mid to late 60’s, at least through ’67, if not ’68 and/or ’69 MY too.
We had church friends who had a turquoise blue ’67 Ford wagon, though I doubt it was the Country Squire as it didn’t have the wood grained sides.
I recall it had the AM radio, but with the way back speaker and a fader control. I rode in it once to the ocean, a 2 hour drive on a church group outing years ago.
They had it into the 80’s and it was still in nice shape though I think the paint had long lost its shine by then, but was all original and in good shape otherwise with NO rust to speak of.