(first posted 9/6/2017) Two door sedans are always popular fare here, so this ’64 Custom 500 sedan posted at the Cohort by chrisjcieslak gets its 15 minutes of fame today. And I don’t think we’ve ever had one here before. Well, what’s there to say about this? How about the fact that Ford spent the money to give this (and the Galaxie sedans) a totally new roof design. That’s certainly more than Chevy did for its cars in ’64, which were strictly carry-overs except for some new skin on its lower half. Maybe that’s why they even came up with the new name too, Custom, and Custom 500.
Here’s a ’63 base Galaxie 2 door, roughly comparable to the ’64 Custom 500. In 1963, all the sedans and hardtops shared the same T-Bird style roof, and it was a carryover from ’62. Of course, in the spring of ’63, the new semi-fastback hardtop roof appeared, which was a welcome break from what was getting a wee bit predictable.
Here’s a better look at the ’64 roof. The four door sedans were the same, except for number of doors, obviously.
Obviously, the sedan roof emulates the new four door hardtop roof. That was unique to the four doors, as the 2 door hardtop carried over the 1963.5’s roof.
So was all that new roof tooling worth the money? Well, it wasn’t just the roof alone, but these ’64 sedans did not work for me. I thought they were heavy and clumsy looking, unlike the much tauter, clean ’63 sedan. The ’64 can look pretty nice as a 2 door hardtop or convertible, but the sedans just leave me cold. The bulge on the front fender makes the front wheel look small and with too narrow a track. The droopy rear fender/wheel opening also contributes to making them look like they have chronically undersized wheels and tires, which makes them look undynamic. Compare them to the fine wheel openings in the ’63.
So maybe this is why we haven’t done the ’64 Ford sedans: Not much good to say about them, stylistically.
I’ve always thought that the ’64 Ford looked like it was drooping at the tail compared to the ’63 – I suppose that is due to the lower taillights and cove/bumper styling. The ’62 had something of the same problem.
Saw an awesome ’62 at a local car show last weekend. White on red 427 4 speed. Looked original.
GIMME that red ’62 ! .
-Nate
If a ’62 would have to be a 390 or 406 to be original.
True. My bad. And me a Ford guy…
Good observation. To me the ’62’s and ’64’s just look like they were designed together, having different but very similar profiles. The 63’s broke things up a bit..I actually like each of the ’60’s Fords.
I thought the ’61’s were beautiful and had six ’61 Sunliners over the years, it was just that every time I got one I realized because of the soft suspension I had a good chance of dying and sold them. I also thought the ’63 was gorgeous and had 2 Sunliners, the second being a 390 with hd suspension, I kept it for some time. The ’62 and ’64 seemed out of place styling wise. I did have Sunliners in each in buying and selling but had no desire to keep either
???…
As much as I do like the ’63’s, I’ve always loved the ’64. I thought they made the ’64 Impala seem a bit thin. I like the chrome bands just behind the headlights. Nice touch. Monetarily worth the change? Don’t know, seeing as it was just a one year only style. I guess Ford had the money to spend, so why not?
Almost made me choke on my morning coffee…
Reintroducing the “Custom” name when they’d had all full-size Fords united under the Galaxie nameplate proved to be a step backwards too.
Ford had a full-sized 300 in 1963. Pretty basic it was.
Or maybe it was a preparation of the upcoming move at Ford with the 1965 models and the upcoming of the LTD who was a top-line Galaxie model before it’ll be a separate model, same for the XL.
Ironic to see Plymouth, going the other way by dropping the Savoy name (except in Canada for 1965) to focus on the Fury name for its full-size line-up while Belvedere is re-assigned for its former full-size realigned mid-size/intermediate line-up).
While I like all Fords of the 1960’s, from ’60 to ’64.my two favorite 60’s Fords have always been the ’62 and ’64. Always thought they where way more stylish than the ’62 through ’64 Chevy’.
Compared to the other early 60s full sized Fords, the 63 was the outlier. It always appeared dumpy and blocky in comparison and the grille had that “Duh” center lip above the bumper.
The tail lights look less integrated than they did on the 61, 62 and 64, appearing perched above the rear bumper, rather like an afterthought, even though they were traditional Ford rounds.
The 64 was busy in comparison to it’s clean prior year versions, but it’s sleek in comparison to the blocky and anonymous 63.
No offense to 63 fans out there, it’s just what my eye sees. Obviously others see the 63 as the best of the era. They’ve never worked for me since I first saw them on the road and became aware of cars back when these were “late models”.
And any early full size 60s Ford with a 6 and 3 speed in it’s base level trim would blow my skirt up, so there’s that.
What a pleasant surprise to see this photo up this morning! This car was caught in the East Village neighborhood of Chicago.
I agree that the 64 Ford is one that looks better in higher trim levels. I have a fondness for the unique roof on the 4 door hardtop, but maybe because that is because of my youthful time with the one owned by my Uncle Bob.
I never liked the sedan roof on the 64. It wasn’t racy and it wasn’t formal. The 62 and 63 nailed the roof, in my eyes.
But I am liking that dark green paint. Also, those 1964-only dog dish caps were masterpieces. That center bar would catch the sunlight as the wheels turned for a great look. It is a shame Ford abandoned that look after just a year. And BTW the 63 you show has 1965-66 hubcaps on it.
I also just noticed that while Ford changed the roofline and back doors on the sedans, it left those on the wagon alone. One more reason to prefer the wagon to the sedans.
Nice! I like all the early 60’s Fords but the 64 is my favorite!
I also think the station wagon is the best looking model of the 1964 Fords.
That often seemed to be a FoMoCo standard practice, applied to several generations of the Ford Taurus/Mercury Sable wagons from 1986 to 2005. Change the sedan, leave the wagons the same.
That was common in many wagon lines from most manufacturers, especially in cases where the wagon roof was functionally different from the sedans. Combine the functional aspect of the roof along with the usual much lower volume of wagons compared to sedans, and carryover wagon rooflines, frequently used across a manufacturer’s brands, were the norm for both functional and economic reasons. The 1961 GM full-size wagon roof was used across 4 brands for four years. The 1965 GM full-size wagon roof was used across 3 brands for 6 years.
I’m surprised those center bar dog dishes were one year only. They made enough impression on me, despite their relative rarity, that you could have told me they were used for several years.
In my then GM centric world, they really stood out as something “Ford.”
My parents had a ’64 Galaxie 500 4-door hardtop in the same color as the above.
It was my first brand new car memory as a 3 year old. It replaced a ’60 Impala sedan.
It itself was replaced a year later by a ’65 in the same color. Even as a 4 year old I could see that the ’65 was a vast improvement. Everything about seemed clean and modern, and the quiet theme that Ford touted in it’s ads was not BS at all. I remember not being able to hear the engine idling with the windows up. After it came a succession of Galaxie/XL/LTD company cars.
60s Galaxie enthusiasts/collectors seem to be in two camps. One likes the ’64 & down, while others cotton to the ’65-up. You can place me in the latter group.
Also, CC effect, of sorts. In Monday’s finale episode of the Twin Peaks Return, Cooper and Diane “cross over” to a different dimension in a ’63 Ford.
A childhood friend’s parents also traded a 60 Chevy wagon for a 64 Ford, only in their case they went with the wagon. One day Steve’s father was doing some painting around the house, Steve decided to help, found a paintbrush and painted the sides of that year old aqua Ford wagon with black house paint. I don’t think they ever got all of that paint off of the car.
Ah, the power and impact of a woman’s words can stay with you for much of a lifetime.
In the fall of 1963, I remember when my dad took the family to the now long gone Burkett Williams Ford dealership in Cleveland to look at the new Fords with the idea of a purchase of a Galaxie which I knew he liked.
I will always remember what my mother said when she first saw the 1964 big Fords, and as she uttered with emphatic dismay, “That car looks FAT”, and how that broke my father up causing him to laugh and laugh. After my Dad’s tears and laughter stopped, he said, “You’re right”. The 1964 big Ford was “out”. End of discussion.
Then she looked at the 1964 Thunderbird, smiling. We left the dealership, but a week later returned to order a “diamond blue” 1964 Thunderbird hardtop.
So for decades, I have remembered the association of 1964 Fords and “FAT”, although I, like my Dad, personally liked the Galaxie.
We really enjoyed that T-bird which gave us many fond memories, so her choice really was quite good, and as my Dad said often, “quite agreeable”.
The power of words. The power and influence of a woman’s words, no doubt.
Hahaha, I love it! And I think your mother had a point.
I make a similar association every time I see a second generation Grand Caravan. After my wife test drove (and liked) a Ford Chateau Club Wagon, I decided that she ought to try a Grand Caravan because they were so popular. She drove it, liked it OK, then asked “So how much bigger is the extended version?” I had trouble keeping a straight face as the salesman explained “this *is* the extended version.”
Great story!
I consider the ’64 Thunderbird the ugliest car Ford produced for the 1964 model year. I dislike the taillights, especially. No more nice, round afterburners for the T-Bird . . . instead there’s those rectangular eyesores that pass for taillights. I find the front of the car ugly, too, as well as the sideview profile. It’s so darn unattractive to my eye in every way.
I do ♥ 1964 Standard Series Falcons from FORD (cheap as they are), but to this day I cannot muster up any enthusiasm for the looks of the ’64 T-Bird.
I like all 1964 Ford better than their 63 counterparts!
63s looks upright and stodgy compared to the low slung 64s!
In the late 80’s I was selling new Fords and some old folks traded in their 64 sedan for a couple of hundred bucks so one of the the other salesmen bought and we kept it around for lunch runs for a little while. IIRC it was a 354 and it sure sounded like a NASCAR stocker. It ran fast, but of course handled poorly and drank gasoline. It was fun for a while.
352 V8.
Another 64 fan here as well. Try as I might but popular opinion just can’t sway me towards the 63s, the front end/grille assembly of the 63s always looked cheap and tinny, especially as the blackout paint faded off, and overall the design was just kind of boxy and anonymous, much like the 1964 Chevy. 63’s greatest asset is it’s ass, that had the best executed afterburner taillight layout of the big Fords(followed by the 61) and the rooflines(the best of which carried over to 64).
The sedan roof I agree is kind of bland though, but it’s a fairly natural progression, the fastback was committed to being the new style leader over the Thunderbird roof, and the sedan was somewhere in the transitional middle. As far as the bulges, they looked much better in higher trim to contrast, as mentioned by other commenters, and in my opinion made for the best looking country squire wood executions of the era.
These do look much better as hardtops and convertibles. I prefer the 1963 models, but the 1964 models aren’t bad looking. But, much like the 1964 Chevrolets, they seem to be marking time for the all-new 1965 models.
I do remember that full-size Fords of this vintage were still a fairly common sight around our town into the 1970s. They were durable cars.
Supposedly this design started as a proposal for the 1964 Mercury. Someone, however, decided it would make a better Ford.
Being a ’64 model myself, and having always thought it’d be neat to own a car of the same vintage, I have to admit that nothing from that model year particularly floats my boat. It probably doesn’t help that all of the big three’s “standard” cars (as they were then called) were on their last year before a major revamping for the ’65 model year!
It’s always been my opinion (for whatever THAT is worth) that the ’64 Fords suffered from their clumsy, bulky face lift; that the ’63 Ford was a much more attractive car.
The front end reminds me a lot of the 60-63 Comet, which I like as well. Specifically the 63 with the grille dividers and larger headlight bezels. Curiously the 61 Comets even use those three dummy vents featured on the 1964 Custom trim.
And a 61 with the vents
While I like all of the early ’60s Fords, my own favorites are the ’60 and ’63.
To me, the ’64 styling looks somewhat fussy and bulky. While the ’63 just looks so clean and trim. I would have expected that ’64 body in ’63, and a cleaner, modernized body, like the ’63, should have been come out for ’64.
Happy Motoring, Mark
I’m not gonna take sides, and would proudly own either one today. Still, I’ve gotten a renewed appreciation of the trim “levels,” especially the stainless (?) window-frame cladding on the sedans–makes the painted ones seem to say to me “cop car” or “taxi.”
But to me they’re much-beloved cars ’cause I was a 10-11-year-old who then memorized all the (FoMoCo) model names, trim levels, engine options, and so on, even at the cost of not diligently doing homework. Lots of time spent bicyling to the nearby Ford dealer’s, gazing fondly at the new cars like Ralphie and his Red Ryder BB gun.
For the hell of it, the photo is 1964 assembly–Atlanta, I *think*, but maybe Cali….
O my what memories. I loved the Galaxies of the sixties and like George expended way too much mental effort as a kid memorizing names and trims and engine specifications etc. Ford brochures were considered cherished reading material. I cant explain my admiration for these cars except that I was a die hard Ford fanatic. I persuaded my father to purchase a black 62 Galaxie 500 Town Victoria. Sort of a working man’s Lincoln, at least in my eyes at the time. It was a nice car in its day.
Something I had forgotton about the ’64’s, their whistling antennaes. I live on one of the main traffic streets in town. You could always tell a Ford or Merc going by because of the antennae. The shape caused them to whistle in the air. Reason I remembered is the ’64 cream colored Galaxie 2dr ht that goes by every weekday between 4 and 5 pm, it’s still whistling.
The antenna on my ’64 Ford stopped whistling a few years ago when I accidentally broke it off by driving under a bushy tree on my property. I hit a solid branch with the antenna and off it went. I retrieved it from the ground and put it in the back seat. I was not a happy camper being such a clumsy driving arse.
The ’60-4 Fords were good cars. Just plain tough. Tough chassis, tough powertrains, tough interiors, tough bodies. IMHO, far more rugged than any of the competition. Even In the salt, ’64s weren’t near as rust prone as the competition or even Ford’s ’65s that followed.
As a final show of their toughness many bowed out as the demolition derby champs of their time. They could knock heads with the best of ’em. Competing wagons and Imperials were just something to yawn at.
Especially with a loose Y-Block or “heat resistant” Fairlane power nestled deep in the protective chassis, many would hang on through the worst pummeling long enough to wait the competition out of fuel or into meltdown.
If you live in this town long enough, your car will be hit. The drivers will get it driving, parked, and many times in your garage. My ’65 and ’66 Imperials have both been hit, the ’66 rear ended six times, the ’65 twice. One of the cars to hit the ’65 was a Galaxie 4 dr ht. The Imperial had broken tail lights (I keep a stock of them), The Ford front end was shortened almost 3 feet. The Imperial still looks fine.
JimDandy, Paul has taught me plenty about GM’s “X-frame” (not that all divisions were using it)—–and here’s Ford in 1961; it’s not too often that car ads would sell that sort of thing, but it sure looks more crash-worthy (including Demo Derby cars too, I reckon):
BIG TIME ~
n the 1970’s I had several Customers who ran early to mid 1960’d Fords in the circle and figure eight races, the hits they could take and keep on driving were amazing .
Old rusted out Fords and ex Police cars too ~ try the doors, they always close perfectly, unlike GM products .
I’ll still always prefer my Bowties but these old Fords are sturdy .
-Nate
George Ferencz, now check out Ford’s Sunliner version of the frame, with its massive X added to boot.
That’s gotta be hundreds of pounds there, lowering the center of gravity . I’ve forgotten, even with roof replaced with fabric, were/are convertibles traditionally heavier than sedans/hardtops? (Wagons heaviest of all, I always figured.) Thanks for the photo, JImDandy—the factory wouldn’t do it if it wasn’t needed. Did I read somewhere that Demo drivers are/were allowed to put convertible frames under sedans or wagons to get this bonus “X” stiffener?
The comment about the underbody rust protection in that ad is slightly ironic. Big Fords may have had stronger frames out of the factory, but those frames were notoriously rust prone. My experience owning a 1967 Ford made that all too obvious.
I agree with Jim that the 65+ Fords were more prone to terminal rust than the 64 and prior. My friend’s Custom 500 sedan was a northern Illinois car all it’s life, he had it since he was 15, and while it had some rust around the wheel openings and door corners, the frame itself and the internal body structure, including the floorpan even, was very solid
I barely see any difference between the ’63 and ’64 roof lines.
I’m always curious about manufacturers that make major changes in a car’s last year on the market.
I loved the 64 Ford styling. The little curl at the bottom corner of the rear side window on post cars introduced me to the Hofmeister kink before I really knew what a BMW was.
Kaiser had that “kink” at least 10 yrs before BMW. It should be called the Darrin kink, after “Dutch”
My late uncle and godfather (a priest… great choice for GF!) had a medium blue ’64 convertible, white roof and interior. I think it was an XL and a 390, but not positive. Beautiful iteration of the ’64 Ford. It had replaced a ’62 Galaxie convertible… all I recall about that one was the beige color. The ’64 was succeeded by my favorite in his long line of Ford ragtops… a loaded ’66 XL w/ 352, light blue/green with a white top and interior. His later ’69 XL and ’72 LTD just did’t measure up to the ’66, in my then-young mind.
I was just turning 7 when the ’64’s launched, and though I was perhaps a bit precocious, though no more than other CC-ers I’m sure, I wasn’t the only one of my contemporaries who looked forward to the new model announcements in the fall. And none of us liked the ’64 Fords. Definitely flabby compared to the crisp ’63’s.
Fat or not, looks good to me!
Agreed! Looks especially nice in this color combo.
A yellow one , otherwise, like the one in the ad” was “eye catcher” on the lot at “Bill Stirling’s used cars”.
Would a been round “1969”.
Direct punch to “cow belly” of frame and “bland roof” crush test. 🙂
In the modern era when just about all door glass is framed, these old sedans look both more attractive and normal to me. Back in day, a sedan with painted window frames shouted stripper from the highest point in town.
It is sort of impressive that Ford spent the money for this one year only roof, but I suppose rationalizing it with the four door may also have made economic sense.
Count me as a fan of the ’64 Ford. It’s crisp but busy styling was the trend at Ford with its higher line cars. It certainly blended in well with the new for ’64 Thunderbird in the showrooms. The four door hardtop roofline was probably borderline odd in ’64, but I now find it the most endearing trait of the ’64 line. If I could put any ’64 Ford in my garage, I’d pick a loaded Galaxie XL four door hardtop with its bucket seats, console and console mounted power window switches. Just way too cool.
the sixties fords beat you over the head with all the ”racing victory” ads
while chevy knocked their brains out in sales why?
is it that ninety percent of car shoppers couldn’t care less if the car they wanted to
buy could race up the side of a mountain this approach didn’t seem to work too
well for Hudson and Lincoln either I’m just asking
To me, the ’64 Ford looks like the natural progression of the ’62, getting rid of the extreme droop of the ’62. The ’63 should have been the ’64, and vice versa.
The ’64 wears jewelry well, the base trims suffer a lot without their makeup applied.
Still my favorite of the ’60-’64 versions, though the ’63 runs a close second.
The ’64 has always been my favorite of the 60’s Fords. Love the grille, and the semi-fastback roofline of the 2-door hardtop just looks right on that body. It does look better in higher trim levels, though–that bodyside sculpturing needs the stainless trim of the Galaxie to accent it.
Makes a fantastic wagon also.
Surprising Ford spent the funds to change the roof for a one year cycle but given that Mercury shared them, amortization wasn’t much of a issue. With a re-skin, it was enough to appeal to match the competition.
I learned to drive on a ’63 Galaxie, had experience with other ’62-’64 Fords and Mercurys, pleasant enough to live with though no desire to have another now. Did particularly like the ’64 four door hardtop roof styling, wished it had been available with the other ’63 1/2 models.
Agree. And the ’63 is my favorite full size Ford of the decade (with the ’67 close behind).
Also feel the same way about the ’64 full size Chevy – and Chevelle, for that matter. A step backwards. Plymouth was the only one of the low price three to improve, admittedly from a pretty low bar.
One small detail on the ’64 Fords I do like is eliminating the chrome triangle on the door – which hid the fact that the window was cut at that point. Much cleaner to keep it all painted sheet metal.
The CC Effect continues apace.
Mr B. ( on Hazel) swapped from the big red convertibles to a blue 4 door hardtop in the fall of 1964.
Dad had a ’64 Custom 500 in Dynasty Green and my first car was a ’63 Country Sedan in Corinthian White (a color name Ford used for years). I prefer the ’64’s design, the ’63 taillights were just too big and awkward, and I liked th more sculpted sides of the ’64. It might also have helped that the ’64 was our very first car ever with A/C, even if it’s SelectAire unit was hung below the dash… in the humid Baltimore summers it was heaven on wheels! I find the ’64’s design more interesting all around, but both were very good and dependable family cars.
1964.
In my early 70s college days I had a 64 Custom, black exterior, red vinyl interior,
3 on the tree, and the 223 six. Who needed anything else back then?
Solid, almost indestructible, extremely reliable. I could work on the engine with the hood up, my feet on the ground, and stay dry in bad weather weather.
Somebody near my college had a base 64` Custom 4 door sedan. White with a very basic beige interior and rubber floor mats. No radio or heater either. It was about 8 years old at the time. Maybe it was a out of service police car the owner probably picked up for a song. It always reminded me of the Mayberry sheriff`s car from ‘The Andy Griffith Show’. Maybe it was?
I’m not surprised that Ford did all the changes on the ’64 car. Every year the Big Three manufacturers were making changes. People complained about “planned obsolescence”. If you stood pat for one year with the bread and butter cars the competition would have ate your lunch.
As a side note the X-Frame reinforcements on Ford’s convertibles led to their unusual dual exhaust sound, the exhaust was a true split dual exhaust, no H pipe because of the frame design.