(first posted 11/2/2017) This fine 1963 Falcon Sports Coupe was posted at the Cohort by mtwilda, and it caught my attention. It’s the non-Sprint version of the new semi-fastback hardtop coupe roof style that appeared in January 1963 as a mid-year introduction, along with the Sprint version. The Sprint has become more than a bit legendary, due to being the first of the Big Three compacts to offer a V8 and a beefed-up chassis to accommodate it. But it appears that the Sprint was initially planned to be strictly a six cylinder car. What caused the last minute change?
I hate to hijack the thread away from the Futura Sport Coupe, but when I checked out the Sprint in the Falcon brochures, I came in for a surprise: It was initially planned (and shown in the brochures) as strictly a six cylinder car. This is from a brochure revision dated 12-62.
The Sprint six is even featured on the cover of this brochure.
The Sprint is shown as coming standard with the “zest of the 170 Special Six” teamed up with a standard four speed floor shift transmission. That would be the same UK-Ford unit that had been available on the Falcon since 1962. This same power team was of course also available on the other Falcons, including the featured Futura Sports Coupe. Since there’s no interior shot, we don’t know what transmission it does have.
But the Sprint was also graced with a 6000 rpm tachometer mounted on the dash, as well as a faux-wood sports steering wheel. Oh, and a standard 4.00:1 rear axle ration, to perk things up some, given the 170 Special Six’s 101 gross hp. That must have kept it fairly busy at highway speeds. An interesting concept, but undoubtedly not ready to take on the Corvair Monza Spyder, with its 150hp turbocharged six, or the Valiant, which now had the 145hp 225 slant six as optional.
It appears that Ford decided to pull the plug on the six-cylinder Sprint at the last minute, as there’s no indication that any six-cylinder Sprints were ever built, at least not readily available information.
Instead what came out was something quite different, at least under the skin. The 164hp 2V 260 V8 was standard, and the brakes and suspension were upgraded, including 5-lug hubs and 14″ wheels and tires. essentially, the Sprint previewed the drive train and chassis of the 1965 Mustang V8, which would appear about one year later.
The Sprint arrived along with the new semi-fastback roof for the big Galaxie/XL, and a four-speed version of the Fairlane V8 coupe.
But the standard 4-speed was gone. A B/W T-10 four speed was optional, along with the Fordomatic, and a three-speed manual on the column was now standard.
A bit of further mystery: In the 12-62 brochure, there were two non-Sprint Falcon Coupes coupes with this new roof. The Futura hardtop came with a bench seat, and the Futura Sports Coupe had the same buckets and console as the Sprint.
This Futura coupe obviously has the bucket seats, and a later brochure shows just this version, so who knows. let’s just say manufacturers sometimes made last minute changes, and perhaps those 12-62 brochures showing the six-cylinder Sprint mostly ended up in the dumpster.
So this little Futura Coupe has taken me for a longer ride than I initially expected, right down a rabbit hole. So much for what I had planned to do this morning. But surely we find it more important to know that a six-cylinder Sprint was planned, even if never built, than building a little cottage that was planned but not yet built (actually, it’s making progress).
I remember when the first Futuras appeared, finally, Ford had a sporty compact…or so I thought at the time. Being all of 10-11 years old, I was not deterred by the Futura’s 6 cylinder engine or it’s Thunderbird like roofline, the bucket seats said sporty loud enough to overcome those shortcomings. Then, a year later, Ford sprung the Sprint on the car world… THE perfect Falcon.
I wasn’t aware that any Falcon before the 68 or 69 models had factory 5 lug wheels, not even the V8s. Also wasn’t aware that the Futura Sprint was a V8 only car.
If the price was right, I wouldn’t care if my Futura had a 6 or an 8, but it better have a manual transmission.
BTW, love the featured car.
A minor correction. The Futura was introduced in 1961 with the regular roofline, which continued until mid-1962 model year when Ford switched it to the Thunderbird roofline.
I love this car! For me the size is just right, such a desirable classic for now. Back in the early seventies I used to sit in my grandmothers garage sifting through her back issues of Paris Match from the early 60’s. The garage doubled as her Iris bulb storage area, she was a flower farmer. The aroma was intoxicating, and the magazines were dusty and a portal to another world. I used to stand at the garage door when she started her Commer van or Humber Hawk, and I would breathe in the undiluted petrol fumes..
I couldnt understand a word in the magazines, but everything was so chic.. Ford had a big advertising campaign for their USA import range in France at the time, and the styling was so right then and now, a bit like early Jaguars, sassy, sexy, a little out there.. this is one of my landmark cars..
I had a 1963 Ford Falcon Futura with the “Thunderbird” hardtop roof, six cylinder and three on the tree. Bench seat. Drove it to death and sold it to a collector in Kansas. Aqua.
It was an unsynchronized manual and slower than any other car I’ve driven, except a Beetle.
A pretty dull car. However, the V8 version I drove wasn’t a bit dull. To drive, that is. You could still fall asleep looking at it. Even with a red bucket seat interior with a stick shift in a mini-console, it was a snoozer until you took off.
It’s remarkable how different a Mustang felt although it had shared so much with the Falcon, isn’t it?
If you like vanilla cars, VanillaDude, you certainly picked the right car to drive by going with a Falcon.
My grandmother gave me my first car , a 63 Fairlane Sports Coupe with buckets, a T-10 4 sod (I had MOTION PERFORMANCE put in a Hearst shifter after the reverse cable broke in the shifter) center console AND A 289 271HP solid lifter V8. I raced it to death and then sold it for $100. I was a. Stupid kid!
The photos for the brochure were apparently shot on the French Riviera. It couldn’t have been cheap to ship the cars there. For a car that was not intended to sold in Europe. I suppose it made this Falcon look extra special if not exotic.
The similarities with the Ford Taunus (the Cardinal project) are striking.
They were playing up their success in the Monte Carlo Rally that year.
I was honored to head to CC at lunch time and discover you’d used my photos! I spotted that car in the parking lot as I was leaving work a week or so ago, and I almost didn’t photograph it just because it was late and I wanted to get home ASAP. But I decided it was worth the couple of extra minutes to walk across the parking lot and snap a few quick photos.
I was living in Sweet Home, Oregon when the Falcon Sprints first appeared. I fell in love with the car, and was ready to buy a black one with red interior and 4-speed. The next day I was laid off. It would be almost two years before I was in any shape to be buying a new car, and it ended up being a V8 4-speed black 1965 Barracuda.
The Falcon Sprint is the car that firmly fixed in my mind the idea that early Mustangs were overrated, overpriced Falcons.
I agree 100%, Pete M. It’s not that I harbor a dislike for early Mustangs, but I would ~much~ rather have a Falcon. Falcon ♥ has grown on me over the past 28 years.
Why would anyone want a 6 cylinder Sprint?
As the owner of a Pontiac 6 cylinder Sprint……
You and 4 other people, JFrank.
Actually, should have been ASK, not as, but…. there are more than 5 owners of those very, very collectable and desirable models. Pontiac OHC sixes were in Tempests and Firebirds, and with the 4 bbl were very performance oriented. Sixes are usually better on torque, faster off the line, less weight, yet cheaper to buy, insure, and maintain. There are, and have been, go fast items for the 6 cylinder crowd for a long time. I would guess that you have no idea on what the Sprint motors were, and how amazing they really are. I would suggest you read up on them before dismissing them.
Must be why Pontiac sold SO many of the sprint 6 models?
With gasoline so inexpensive, only wing nuts and devoted readers of #”Road & Track” magazine wanted the sprint 6 cylinder engine.
Everybody else wanted as big a V8 engine as they could get.
Exactly!
I still remember how disappointed I was reading about how this car fared in PopSci’s test of hot 1963 compacts. Their Sprint was a 2 bbl 260 V8 that put out only 14 horses more than the Corvair Turbo Spyder, and the Spyder was the only one the Falcon could beat. The V8s in the F-85 (Jetfire Turbo) the Tempest (326) and Super Lark (Supercharged 289) way outclassed the Falcon. http://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-1963-days-popular-science-tests-the-hot-compacts/
However, I could see that the Falcon would be (with the possible exception of a standard V8 Lark) the easiest one to live with on a day to day basis.
This has always been the ultimate Falcon to me. The 63 1/2 roofline was just perfect and the V8 made the car sporty and fun. Later Falcons lost some of their charm and earlier ones lacked punch.
I just now remembered that in the late 70s I worked with a guy who was still driving one of these that he bought new. Turquoise. I loved it and asked if he would sell it. As a stupid teen I was in love and looked past the fact that it was one of the rustiest cars I had ever seen still on the road.
Well, Ford purposely held back. The 271 K-Code 289 became available in the Fairlane the same time the Sprint came out, or shortly thereafter. Now that in the Falcon would have blown all those other compacts in the weeds.
Frankly, that test is hardly of equals. The Lark was some 20% more expensive, and the Jetfire even more, and it turned out to be a dud. Only the LeMans was really a direct competitor to the Sprint. It was fast indeed; quite possibly a ringer. And its swing axle rear end could get a bit woolly.
“…quite possibly a ringer.”
More than likely correct! Pontiac was later revealed as supplying beefed up, non-standard equipment, bigger engines & more aggressive final drive ratio cars to the various car magazines, during this time period, for road testing. Royal Pontiac, based out of Royal Oak, Michigan, was Pontiac’s biggest “skunk works” outlet.
The rear swing axle on the LeMans was quite abrupt in it’s change from benign handling to throttle liftoff oversteer; exacerbated by it’s engine’s torque.
I rate it about the equal of a Porsche 911 for “suspension surprises”. A same year Corvair, with properly inflated tires, was quite calm by comparison.
Interesting Mark. I dare say that without the weight of an engine the reaction would be worse too.
I bought one of these for $900 in 1980. Drove it for 25 years and sold it for $5000. Still with the original, unrebuilt six.
My ‘170’ six isn’t rebuilt, either. Still runs well. In fact, I’m sure it would like to go more places than I take it. It’s e-a-g-e-r! 😀
The 260 V8 was available as an option in any 1963 Falcon. My cousin and her husband bought a plain, white four door sedan, with the V8, as their first new car, shortly after they were married. It was still on the road several years later; I got some bootleg seat time in it, I’m pretty sure it was the first car I drove with a manual transmission. Obviously this was many years ago and I didn’t have much to compare the experience with but it was definitely faster than my parents’ 1960 Ford Fairlane with the 223 CID six/ Fordomatic combo.
Love this clean, connected design. The roofline makes it special. The rear half appearing very ’64 Galaxy like. But I would save the “Thunderbird” roof comment for the mid-year Fairlane. The T-Bird had a thick C-pillar in a very steep angle. The Falcon C-pillar looked more like the full size 2-door Fords.
The six cylinder coupe/hardtop was built in Australia, there was no V8 option out here
Yep, the closest thing was they cooperated with Sydney dealer Bill Warner who did some transplants, around 10-20 cars or maybe a few more. All the conversion work made them too expensive.
Ford was expert at marketing crap. Sad that the Valiant was so much better and that it took the better part of the decade for people to realize it.
Kiwis recognized the Valiant as a good car from the first ones, they have a great rep over here.
Wire service article, Jan. 4 1963—-no long at all after the “12/62” brochure. I new about the pictures taken in Monte Carlo, but not about the big rollout there:
Thanks, as always.
That pins down a date I was wondering about. I’m still stumped about the 12-62 brochure which shows the Sprint as only having a six cylinder. My guess is that the decision to build the V8 Sprint, enter it at MC, and then announce a production version was all a big rush. The real question is how long it took for the Sprint to start rolling off the lines.
It wouldn’t have taken too long, as its suspension/brakes were just borrowed from the Fairlane.
I wonder if it has to do with the changes in Ford corporate leadership in late 1960.
Robert McNamara – the “father” of the Falcon – was named President of the Ford Motor Company on November 9, 1960. Five weeks later, he left to become Secretary of Defense under incoming President John F. Kennedy, Sr.
On November 10, 1960, Iacocca was appointed Vice President and General Manager of the Ford Division.
I would imagine that the plans for the 1962 model year had been set in stone by this point, and a fair amount of planning for the 1963 model year had also been completed.
Iacocca and McNamara had very different ideas about the direction the Ford Motor Company should follow. McNamara had no interest in performance versions of the Falcon, while Iacocca wanted to dress up the car.
With McNamara leaving the company in late 1960, I would imagine that his departure freed Iacocca and others to start “spicing up” the Falcon’s image. The Sprint package itself was most likely part of this plan. (I’ve read that McNamara wasn’t too happy about the performance Falcons that were added after he left, but the success of the Corvair Monza had shown that many people wanted compacts with some style and dash.)
By 1961, Pontiac was making hay with a revived performance image. In the spring of 1962 the turbocharged Corvair Monza Spyder debuted, which gave the Corvair’s image a real boost. A Falcon Sprint with an inline six would have likely gone nowhere against the Spyder. Quickly adding a V-8 to the Falcon Sprint was one way to meet this challenge.
I’m not sure I’m following you. Are you referring to the last-minute decision to put the V8 into the Sprint? There’s no doubt in my mind that it happened very quickly. The brochure showing the Sprint 6 is dated “12-62”, presumably in anticipation of a January roll-out. The revision with the V8 is dated 2-63.
This was during a time when Ford was very much active again in polishing their performance creds, with projects like the Cobra, and others. I have to assume that there was a very late decision in the late fall of 1962 to create a V8 Sprint, and enter it in the the MC Rally.
In terms of the decision to create a Sprint at all, with the new roof and 6 cylinder engine, I suspect strongly that happened later than you might be thinking. There’s little doubt in my mind that it was a response to the success of the Monza coupe in 1961. It would not have taken very long to design and tool up for that new roof.
Contrary to some assumptions about the old days, new cars didn’t always take 3 years to go from design to production. The 1960 Valiant’s basic package (size) was not agreed to until either May or June of 1958, and the first one rolled off the lines in Sept. of 1959. That’s just a bit over one year from when final design and development began. It was done differently, in a “platform development” approach where the designers nad engineers worked side-by-side, but that’s an extremely short time-table for a totally new car, engine,and even transmission (aluminum case TF).
I assume the Sprint’s new roof might not have been signed off until the summer of 1962 or so. I suspect the Galaxie’s new 1963.5 new roof was a similar rush job in response to the fact that the 1962’s boxy roof was hurting it at NASCAR in the 1962 season (summer, mostly).
I wasn’t quite clear.
I was referring to the decision to the add the V-8. If the Monza Spyder debuted in the spring of 1962, perhaps that had some influence on Ford’s thinking regarding just what engine the Sprint needed to have credibility in the market?
Or would the use of the V-8 instead of the six have influenced the class in which the Falcon competed in the Monte Carlo rally? I don’t know how the cars were classified for that event.
Or maybe the six wasn’t strong enough to compete in the rally, and Ford wanted to sell what it raced?
I know Paul knows all this….but another wrinkle in the fastback-roofline issue was Ford having created a stick-on bubble/fastback roof for its 1962 convertibles, hoping here (May ’62) for NASCAR’s approval—evidently disqualified after one race. Would a hurried-up fastback program for “1963-1/2” have likely followed?
Undoubtedly the Spyder had some influence, although delayed, given the initial plans for the Sprint to have a six.
The 170 six would have been totally out of its element at Monte Carlo. As it is, the 260 V8 was substantially beefed up for more power; it was not stock.
There’s no doubt they decided they needed more muscle in the Falcon to compete with the other compacts. The decision to race at MC was undoubtedly a way to introduce the Sprint V8 with a PR splash. Up to that point, Ford had not really been active in rally racing, and this was seen as the appropriate venue for a hipo Falcon.
The history of Ford entering the Falcon Sprint into the Monte Carlo rally isn’t well documented by Ford themself, and digging thru the lead up reveals some telling information.
Ford apparently got the idea to do so because Ford Australia had entered their Falcons into previous year’s Safari Rallies, and for essentially being mostly stock, were achieving mid-pack results. Someone at Ford (I doubt it was Iacocca, as we learn later) got the idea to tackle the Monte Carlo. Competition Manager George Merlin was tasked with preparing the cars. Problem was, he wasn’t well versed in what would be allowable per the FIA homologation standards; as such, he equipped the race cars with a highly modified Fairlane 260ci V8, larger Fairlane rear end, and other pieces that likely wouldn’t pass muster when scrutinized by the FIA. When he presented the prepared cars to Iacocca, he was reportedly furious, and basically told George “You are fired if these cars don’t perform well”. That leads me to believe Ford was forced into making the Sprint into the car we now know to be, and there wasn’t intention to create such a car with the Mustang on the horizon. The ad campaign they were planning around the Monte Carlo participation was obviously already in place, so the need to rush a variant that allowed them to compete was clearly needed. It’s also now known the 950kg weight quote given to the inspectors at the time was grossly underrated, and the performance modifications were not sufficiently available to the general public then to make the cars truely legitimate to race. I doubt anyone in the FIA gave it much thought then, as the cars seemed to be completely at odds with previous winners on the event, and likely let the cars skid past real scrutiny at the time.
The following 1964 cars intentionally dropped nearly 1000 pounds over a stock Falcon thru large amounts of fiberglass panels and plexiglass because Ford knew there would be a much larger scope of criticism this go-round after the previous year’s relative success. Displacement handicap rules were also strengthend for the event that year in response to the “fast Fords”. Of also important note, Ford also dumped (“hid”) the previous year’s cars in storage after the event, likely to prevent meddling noses be able to sniff out some of the 1963 truths.
Interesting cjiguy. Small correction; George Merwin is the correct spelling. According to this source;
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=gsFQCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=george+merwin+ford+competition&source=bl&ots=LTVDOtns0a&sig=kazAI8GErmP1kIDx_RdxF7ZxbOs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_p9zWrqbXAhWGoZQKHTkaBVYQ6AEIRDAJ#v=onepage&q=george%20merwin%20ford%20competition&f=false
the idea of entering the Monte was that of Barney Clark – Creative Director at Ford’s advertising agency J Walter Thompson. The cars were prepped by Holman Moody, who had stuffed the V8 into “Falcon Challengers for endurance road racing in 1962”.
Another small point to add; Donald Frey had introduced Carroll Shelby to Iacocca in 1962. Shelby pitched the idea of placing the 260 into the AC body and I quote “With $25,000 I can build two cars that’ll blow off the Corvettes.”
Iacocca’s response (to Frey) “Give him the money and get him outta here before he bites someone.”
(quotes from ‘Go like Hell’, AJ Baime)
Henry Ford II’s announcement that they were withdrawing from the Detroit Safety Resolution was June 11, 1962. As Baime’s book describes it, FoMoCo’s entry into a consolidated racing effort under the ‘Total Performance’ tag was a disorganised and rushed affair.
Iacocca’s words to Merwin reflect the same words he himself was receiving form HFII.
Perhaps George Ferencz might be able to access this original article at readable size
And this curious image popped up when I was searching…
Thank you for then name correction, Don. Also, thank you for the additional information. It certainly seems those 1963 Falcon rally cars were very shady affairs, once they were eventually relocated, and explains why after the 1964 event at Monte (and the dismal Mercury Comet showing at the Safari that year) Ford USA washed their hands clean of rallying altogether.
Ford Challenger Car no. 9; Sebring 12H; 24 March 1962. Placed 36
http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/Sebring-1962-03-24.html
Thanks in return cjiguy. I didn’t know Ford Australia had entered the notorious weak-front-ended XK/XL Falcon in the Safari, nor that they had actually inspired head office. And that info about Ford hiding the first Monte cars is gold.
I just found new info about the 1964 cars; apparently the FIA put their foot down just before the start of the Alpine Rally that year according to Merwin himself. They deemed the performance parts “outside of the scope of a public consumer” and thus the rally program was halted dead in it’s own tracks. Irritated with what Ford felt to be unfair regulation, they walked away sore losers it seems.
Also, I can’t find a source, but if I remember correctly, the 1963 cars were whisked away to a random auto repair garage in the general vicinity of the Northwest Italian Mediterranean area, and were not rediscovered until 1967-68?
Thanks cji and Don for the additional info. I remember reading about it way back in the day, but I couldn’t remember the details. But you’ve refreshed my memory as well as added a lot of new info.
Don, that fastback Falcon is a new one for me. Wow. Shades of Dodge Charger 500/Superbird. Pretty wild stuff. When Ford jumped back into racing in 1962, they did it with both feet and then some.
Holman Moody Challenger III apparently. Chopped and channelled, but it looks like a vert with bubble top as per the 62 Galaxie racer. Can’t find a date, but I suspect it was created after the 63 1/2 semi-fastback.
cjiguy – the Monte committee were no cleanskins themselves. You will recall the successful Mini team being disqualified in 1966 for unsanctioned headlamps.
Paul, yet again your discerning eye and inquisitive mind opens up another opportunity for the CCognoscenti to delve deeper.
Don; no doubt the scrutineers of that era had a very cultural/political bias, but I would not go so far as to say the headlight scandal was unwarranted in a partially nighttime held event like the Monte back then. When the rules call for a dipped beam non-halogen lamp, that extra light was a real difference on corkscrew stages like the Col du Turini. It should be of note that BMC wasn’t the only team disqualified for using halogens that year…
cjiguy, you speak the black-letter law truth. The fourth car was a Cortina and the sixth an Imp – more of those damned angleterrians – both of which were also disqualified. The official winner, a Citroen ID.
Lol Don, you are also right. I forgot the exact others who got kicked to the curb, but your point stands equally valid. All those eccentric English and their nasty Anglo ways, indeed!
On a more serious note, and who knows if this is true, but it apparently was the press attempting to capture the event that set off questions. The night shots of the suspecting cars were basically washed out from the higher intensity of the bulbs from what I have heard recounted. That said, yellow French lamps would likely have less glare, so there is that. Firmly off topic, we are.
cjiguy, while I love me a juicy thread hijacking this one is on track – so to speak. The 64 rally was noted for the direct competition between the Falcon and the Mini. FWIW, the Cooper S won in 1964 and 1965, the suggested reasons for the exasperation of the French in 1966. And apparently the Citroen’s driver, Pauli Toivonen, was so disgusted with his ‘victory’ he never again drove for Citroen.
The start at Sebring, March 1962—our #9 Falcon at left:
Very interesting stuff. I’d expect the Monte Carlo entry had to be in a couple of months ahead of the event. The classes topped out at over 3000cc, then 2000-3000cc, so the V8 would have put the car up a class, but with less competition. For starters they wouldn’t have been competing against the Ford Zodiacs (that incidentally finished ahead of the Falcons).
Did the 1964 Monte Carlo Falcons end up with Alan Mann Racing and Frank Gardner in the British Touring Car Championship?
From what I can remember about the Australian Falcons in the Safari Rally is they had a few issues, although by 1962 the stronger Fairlane front end parts would have been on board. After the rally Harry Firth who had prepared the cars proposed some changes to make the cars more competitive in future, primarily the steering ratio, but the emergence of the Cortina rendered the Falcon unnecessary for rallying and indeed racing too.
Yes, at least one of the ’64s ended up in the BTCC, and did rather well.
For what it matters here in 2023, Paul, I spent a while this a.m. looking for a 6cyl 1963-1/2 for sale (either new or used) in the 1963-70 papers, and couldn’t find any. “Bravo” to you for having picked up on this production/promotion change!
Don, I keep coming up with stuff you (and the others) have already dug up. Here’s an intriguing tidbit: May 1964, Lawrence KS; “Holman Moody Falcon” on display. I wonder what it was, exactly?
Late October 1963 (Holman Moody Falcon Sprint, Mexico City):
Thank George. I wonder if the No 3 fastback pictured above was one of these Mexico cars – possibly, possibly not as it appears to be on a banked and walled track. It seems more possible the Challenger III was the display car mentioned in the May 64 ad you found.
Another:
Powered by a 289, which definitely dates this after April 1963
FWIW, details about the setup of the rally cars (Popular Mechanics, June 1963):
Popular Mechanics, part 2:
Popular Mechanics, part 3:
Popular Mechanics, conclusion:
That Popular Mechanic’s article is excellent in that it highlights the lack of a working speedometer; the short gear ratios combined with the Fairline rear end made the Falcon unit useless as was reported in the race cars. Also of note, they claim 235 hp, but the actual race applications were said to pack around 275.
Love this car! However I think Ford Australia did a better job of restyling the front clip of the original 1960 Falcon. As Bryce says above we got the 2 door hardtop the following year with the XM facelift, which wasn’t as good looking as the previous model, the XL. The next facelift, the XP of 1965, also could also be had in a 2 door hardtop, but they never sold well, Australians have always preferred 4 door sedans. The 289 V8 wasn’t introduced until 1966 with the XR redesign, and by that time the hardtop had been dropped. It made a reappearance with the XA of 1972, the model that looks like a scaled down Torino.
What a great article and an awesome car . I did not know they came with a tachometer .
I would really appreciate if some one could direct me to where I could get a part number for that tach or better yet a tach !
I would love my bone stock 63 fairlane 500 Sports Coupe 260 V8 4spd car to have a tach but have hesitated to install one for fear of loosing my Collector status . I might be able to get away with one of those .
Here’s one on eBay—but not cheap:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/REAL-1960s-FALCON-COMET-FAIRLANE-ORG-SPRINT-6K-TACHOMETER-W-CUP-MOUNT-289-HI-PO-/172356493090?_trksid=p2385738.m2548.l4275
Has Ford’s “Rotunda” logo, but otherwise seems identical: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Rotunda-Dash-Tachometer-41-77571-1/111995029522?fits=Make%3AFord%7CModel%3AFalcon&hash=item1a136c8812:g:ZCQAAOSwiONYNpn4&vxp=mtr
I think these are the best looking Falcons of all. With the 260 V8 and four speed manual transmission they would be perfect. The updated 200 cid six got the improved seven main bearing lower end first used in the 170. The 200 is probably the best of the Falcon sixes, more displacement, but not as thirsty as the expanded 250 cid version used in the Mustang. The biggest drawback to this design is the cast in intake manifold, not easy to add additional carburetors! I have a reprinted article from Hot Rod where A.k. MIller performs a series of hop up modifications including several different carburation set ups. Miller loved six cylinder motors. A couple of years ago I found a three carb setup at a swap meet but the asking price was 1,500 bucks, more than I paid for my car.
The 200 was the first with seven main bearings. The 144 and 170 were essentially identical except for displacement.
Yes, the 200 can be made very powerful. Now there is an alloy head available that breathes much better, and can make significant power.
That’s a neat carb set up. I wonder, was the head’s intake section milled open to handle the flow, or what?
Readers who may not recognize the carbs, check out the ol’ glass bowl “see through” Visiflow Holleys. At a glance it looks like the center carb’s float height may be set about 5/64″ too high. 🙂
Yes the original ‘manifold’ cast into the head has to be machined away.
After the 1958 – ??* recession, compacts and fuel economy were promoted. Then, things got better, and as with other boom times, gasoline was flowing again and “V8’s for everybody”, leading to the 1964 beginning of muscle and Pony car era.
Sound familiar?
*Heard of a 1961 recession, but don’t know too much about it.
These cars were and still are the right size for most people, and Ford knows this. Look at these numbers
1963 Falcon
Wheelbase – 109.5 in
Length – 181 in
2018 Fusion
Wheelbase – 112.2
Length – 191.7
I fail to see your comparison as valid. The Fusion is almost a foot longer, and has vastly more interior space, thanks to much better space utilization. The Fusion’s interior space is more comparable to the 1963 Galaxie’s.
Try sitting in the back seat of one of these; I have. Miserable, with that sloping glass cutting headroom; never mind the modest leg room. Nothing like a modern sedan.
I’ve never had the opportunity to sit in one, they were even gone from the buy-here, pay here places by the time I was old enough to get an interest in cars and I don’t know of any relatives who owned one.
The Fusion was the closest in size compared to the Focus and the Taurus.
My first car was a 1963 1/2 Falcon Sprint. My Dad helped me buy it in Feb. 1966. It was white with blue interior, although the seats and package tray had been changed to a roll and tuck type, the fender ornaments had been removed, and the FALCON letters on the hood and trunk had been removed. I remember that it had the spray on blue tinted glass that looked so cool, but when I went to get the car from the Chrysler Used Car Dealership – the tint had been taken off. I was saddened to learn that my Dad had told them to remove it. I had the car for about 2 or 3 yrs, but had thought about keeping it forever. Of course I wanted a used Ford Skyliner, so I sold it. Unfortunately I also sold the Skyliner later. I still have the gas cap and shit knob and owners manual and payment book (price was $1,095) and license plate that I keep. It was really a sharp and handsome looking car. But my friend with his used 1957 Chevy sedan with a 283 could out run me but I still got my share of tickets.
The guy I sold it to hit a deer on the highway. I saw it being repaired at the Chevy Dealership in about 1969-70. They even were replacing the extra set of headlights that I had my Dad help me install behind the grill. The last time I saw it, it had been painted the popular Pontiac green and had the rear wheel well arches cut out to half circles – down the street from my parents house at a shopping center. That could have been as late as 1972. Never saw it again. I even had installed a Sears radio reverberator (still have the box!) in it!
63 falcon sprint was the coolest falcon ever. my friend had a futura hardtop with the 260 but it had a 3 speed on the column still a good running little car. the literature with the white falcon with the black vinyl top was a handsome looking ride. only ford I ever really wanted was a 63 sprint!
A friend of mine had a ’63 Falcon Futura 2 door hardtop, with an installed 200 six cylinder engine and the “green dot” 3 speed Cruise-a-Matic automatic tranny powertrain, rescued from a wrecked first gen Mustang. It was Ford’s creamy, pastel hue Wimbledon white exterior with the red, upscale (for the time) Futura vinyl interior, with a swapped out first gen Mustang steering wheel
While, of course, not as peppy as the V8 models, it was a pleasant driving car that had no trouble keeping up with traffic or merging on Interstate 10. It was what the very first Falcon SHOULD had been!
After “experiencing” several 144 six/2 speed Ford-o-Matic tranny equipped car; this Futura was a revelation.
Installing 5 lug wheels and Fairlane compact balljoints must have helped, word must have made it back from OZ on just how fragile Falcons were, and lucky they had no power from the 6 those MK3 Zephyr gearbox casings warp from too much torque then wont stay in gear MK4 had a stronger gearbox and could withstand up to a 350/351 V8 transplant of which there were many to replace the horrible V6 they came with.
The Holman Moody Challenger references sent me down a rathole about a car I never knew. Especially as the photo of the black Challenger has the letters ASR on it, for. A Sports Racing, the top class in the the Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) for amateur racing of two seater closed fender cars. In 1963, those might have been some V8 specials or a front engined Ferrari; by the mid-late ‘60’s it would become mostly ex-CanAm McLarens and Lolas. It turns out that after a few pro events, Ford sold the car to a guy who raced it at the amateur level in SCCA. Lots more about these non-Mopar Challengers here https://performance.ford.com/enthusiasts/newsroom/2023/04/holman-moody-challenger-iii.html
Quite the variety of rooflines available for one model of car. Now you’re lucky if there is two versions available.
I think to this day Ford advertising it as a 6 cyl only was simply to get the jump on the competition when it actually came out as an 8. Simply to keep an edge over the competition for a few more months.
The reason the early 1963 Falcon brochure didn’t mention a Sprint six is because at that time, NO Falcon had a V8. None. The plan wasn’t for it to be a six cylinder only. Use your head.
Your comment makes zero sense. Read it again, in the hope that you’ll see that, but I’m not hopeful.