We’ve paid homage to the early Falcon on quite a few occasions. But they’re rather irresistible when encountering them at the Cohort, like this wagon shot in B.C. by robadr. Why? Because it was so simple, clean, honest and functional compared to what came along later? Was there ever a compact wagon made by the Big Three that can equal it on those qualities? Me thinks not.
So that warrants another look.
Just how many of these “best selling compact wagons” were sold in 1962? Some 111k, a solid 28% of all Falcons. Rambler pioneered the compact wagon market, making them the hot item with young families in the late ’50s. And the Falcon was perfectly situated to capitalize on that momentum in 1960, especially with its wagons. The boomers needed something to ride in, and here it was, even if there was no third seat. That was a luxury back then.
The 1962 Chevy II wagon did offer a third seat in its wagon, unlike either the Falcon or the Valiant/Dart. I doubt it sold well, as by this time, compact wagon buyers were largely buying on price. I’ve never seen one.
The Chevy II did sell well in its first year, nipping on the Falcon’s heels with 327k vs. 377k. And in 1963, the Chevy II solidly outsold the Falcon 377k to 328k. I don’t have breakouts for Chevy II production by body style, but Ford’s claim for the Falcon being the best selling compact wagon was likely moot by ’63.
The Falcon got it first styling refresh in ’62, with a new front end. Other than that it was largely the same, until the 1962.5 Futura came along with its new T-Bird style roof. Engines were the familiar standard 85 hp 144 six and the 101 hp 170 six. Nothing to get excited about.
BUT: along with that new Futura roof, starting in mid-year 1962 there was an optional four speed transmission (from Ford’s UK plant) with “floor mounted ‘short stick’ shift lever with shift pattern on knob”. And it was fully synchronized, unlike the standard three-speed column-shifted manual. I’ve long fantasized about a Futura coupe with the 170 six and that four speed. Never seen one, but I know some were sold, and it was available on all models, including the wagon.
No such thing here. Instead it’s the unloved two-speed Fordomatic. Hopefully it at least has the 170 six, as the 144 teamed with the Fordomatic was pretty marginal.
I can just hear it now, that distinctive nasal whine of a Falcon six leaning against the torque converter of the Fordomatic. Oh well.
I had never much thought about 3rd seats in compact wagons – the lack of one in my family’s 61 F-85 was a feature, not a bug. The cavernous cargo area made for a great place for kids to roam freely around in during those days when seatbelts were a curious afterthought. I suppose a seat might have been a plus had any kids in our family been over the age of 5 – my age when we got rid of it.
And yes, Falcons have an irresistible quality about them. They are kind of like the beagle of cars. Who doesn’t love beagles?
Like this?
I bought the Chevy II. As I recall it cost $1.49 plus tax. Other similarly priced cars I bought in 1963 included a ‘49 Mercury, a Model B Ford and a Galaxie 500 hardtop. Here’s something like my Chevy wagon, though I think mine was a “ 3 in 1” not an “Easy Assembly Curbside-style [!] kit”.
I loved AMT models. My first was a 1965 Corvette someone gave me as a Christmas present. I later got some 3 in 1 kits, a ’59 l Camino and a ’49 Ford among them.
Round 2 (current owners of the AMT IP) actually retooled that kit, it had been so heavily modified into a funny car that it was easier to start over. One big difference is that there are now separate clear headlight lenses. Another is that there’s a telephone – a Model 500 desk phone on the transparent-red parts tree along with the taillights – and a squirrel as easter eggs, but no custom parts. Not even a roof rack as mentioned by George Ferencz a couple posts down.
And it’s selling up a storm, from what I hear from my American and Canadian friends. AMT’s not telling what’s coming up, as usual, and I wouldn’t expect them to. But looking at the parts breakdown of this kit, it’s not hard to figure there’s a full-detail one with engine in the future, since they’ve already molded the hood as a separate part. Hopefully that’ll be the Chevy six, not just another SBC. If they don’t add a roof rack then, I’m sure the aftermarket will step in.
I’d love to see them do a 4-door sedan of the ’75-79 Nova, perhaps modified from the AMT coupe body (which has and always had a too-squared-off roofline) since they’ve reissued the coupe from the MPC tooling (with its’ correct roofline) recently.
In ’62, if you wanted to seat 7 in a compact wagon, and liked weird cars, you could buy a SAAB 95. I bet sales figures were around 1% of what the Falcon wagon sold.
I’ll not hear a harsh word said against the Falcons–I love JPC’s comment about the “beagle of cars.” It seems like a natural for Ford to get Peanuts/Snoopy for their marketing.
I’m happy current owner is keeping this one going, but said that he (?) has to worry about theft. Those roof racks are a hot thing now on 50s-60s wagons, but I hardly remember them at the time–was I not paying attention?
FWIW, Here’s NY Times in March 1960, noting that the Rambler led the way:
I see Snoopy *was* right in there with the “World’s Most Successful New Car”:
My father’s first car when he moved to the U.S. in 1963 was a used 62 Falcon wagon. He had it until December 1969 when he traded it for a 1970 Fairlane 500 wagon. I think the Falcon had about 90,000 miles when he traded it but was running on only 4 or 5 cylinders. I know it had a 3 speed manual, but I don’t know which engine. I was only 5 when he traded it. I have a few pictures of the Falcon, and it is in some of the home movies.
I hope the owner has added an anti-theft cut off switch. Those “Club” type devices are easily defeated by a professional thief.
I don’t think a professional thief would be too interested in something like this. For this you just want to stop joy riders.
I think a cut off switch is even more easily defeated than The Club, with an old fashioned ignition like these.
I’d use a metal wheel clamp or boot as a highly visible theft deterrent, they’re widely available and more difficult to remove than a Club.
Frat mate had his dad’s Comet (different badged Falcon) station wagon at school. 144 cu in and 2 speed Fordomatic. He tried every trick in the book including a full throttle drop ii into low start, couldn’t get it to churn gravel in the parking lot, let alone lay rubber on pavement, Another frat mate had a Falcon wagon with the 144 engine and stick. Much more satisfactory combination, actually accelerated decently for a car of that time period,
Patina, schmatina, this car is too nice and complete to not get a proper repaint. It looks like all the chrome is there and the interior is in decent shape. Were it my car, I’d consider dropping something (anything) more powerful and fuel injected in order to keep enjoying it, but . . . that’s probably why it isn’t my car. The Falcon 6 was reputed to be bog slow when it was new so what it would be like to try to keep up with modern traffic ugh.
I think “the beagle of cars” should go down with “cockroach of the road” as a classic phrase.
Fascinating that Ford learned enough by mid-’62 to offer the four-speed it should have had from the get-go; I hadn’t known that. (My Comet was the 170 and, I think, the 2A.)
And then Ford, even after CAFE was invented, went and forgot to put a decent modern manual (by then, a 5-speed) in a new compact all over again for the Escort only eighteen years later!
The 4 speed is the standard fitting in the UK Ford Zephyr MK3 which sold against Falcons in NZ not so much in OZ as Ford there promoted their locally made car but the Zephyr Zodiac twins from the UK were better cars but still with some old fashioned features they could have done without.
I drove a Falcon Sedan, 1964 model, starting in 1966 after a gentleman weighing 300 pounds had used it for two years. The seat was shot! It was always an uncomfortable daily driver. When the Falcon would have engine trouble, which was periodic, I was given a 1964 Rambler American 300. What a difference! it drove better, had better visibility and, of course, was comfortable. U.S. Automakers forgot about compact wagons. So, when the 1996 Aspen and Volare were introduced, despite allocation to wagons of approximately 28% of production, Chrysler had to up the wagon to 50% of production. Americans were starved for a compact wagon.
It was interesting how everyone abandoned compact wagons for a while when they had been fairly popular in the early 60’s. Meanwhile in some alternate universes they did build wagons out of those compacts.
I’m sure that the success of the Aspen/Volare wagons helped ensure that the Fairmont wagon made it to production.
The early midsize models weren’t that much bigger outside or more expensive than the compacts, and offered a lot more space in wagon form which was why compact-wagon demand faded in the ’60s to the point Chrysler dropped theirs after ’66, Chevy after ’67, and Ford at midyear ’70 (after having gone to a compromise wheelbase for ’66 with one wagon bodyshell for Falcon and Fairlane alike).
AMC took 1970 off and reappeared with the Hornet Sportabout for ’71 which made bank as the only game in town. Chrysler surely looked at that, on top of the F bodies being planned to replace both A and B.
By the time that Brazilian coachbuilt Maverick wagon appeared the Fairmont was well along in development.
If Ford had made a Maverick wagon for the US, it seems likely they would’ve just made the beltline straight and high behind the rear door, to match the ’72 “mid-sizers”.
Not exactly alternate universe or parralel universe. Keith Kaucher once did a rendering of a 1970 2-door Chevy Nova.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/94434923409189906/
One should include AMC in these comparisons, as AMC had multiple wagon options in ’62, and a high percentage of their cars sold were indeed wagons! The ’62 American wagon was small and an old design, but it also offered 125 hp and a 3-speed automatic (not to mention the famous reclining seats). The Classic and Ambassador wagons would be considered ‘large’ compacts. In my opinion, the Falcon wagon paled in comparison to them. The buying public liked them a lot!
Great find, though I think Ford Australia’s front end was nicer.
My Godfather had the Canada only Frontenac version of this. Sold for 1960 only at Mercury/Meteor Dealers…different grille and trim.
The Frontenac always makes me think of what the 1959 Falcon would’ve looked like if they brought it to market a year sooner. Just a little less International Style, just a little more Googie.
I’ve commented in the past that Chevrolet production figures during the period from 1958 to 1970 are often a mess, with different sources having different sets of numbers that are often incomplete, overlapping or just plain inconsistent. That having been said, piecing together the data in the Standard Catalog and Encyclopedia, I think there are the correct numbers for U.S. Chevy II station wagon production:
1962 – 59,886
1963 – 75,274
1964 – 35,700
1965 – 21,500
1966 – 21,400
1967 – 12,900
The 1962-64 figures are exact totals, while the 1965-67 totals are rounded to the nearest hundred. Note that Chevy II production dropped off sharply for ’64 across the board due to the introduction of the Chevelle.
For 1963, the Standard Catalog reports that production broke down to 67,347 two-seat wagons and 7,927 three-seat wagons. That was the only breakout between the two that I could find. How long were the three-seat wagons available?
I drove a ’64 Rambler American 220 Wagon through college (and on…). A friend across the street had a ’63 Falcon. It is subjective, but the Rambler seemed to be put together much better – things like the feel of the door closing. Mainly the interior was quieter in spite of having no carpet (both cars had rubber flooring material). Personally, I would say that the American was a superior car.
I suppose the ’62 does qualify as a restyle as the front fenders and hood were different from the ’60-’61. ’60 and ’61 did have different grilles and turn signals. ’62 and ’63 were closer as the only real difference was the grille and the change from white to amber turn signals.
Falcon wagons were the start of my automotive journey. My parents had a ’63 four-door DeLuxe wagon. Which I trashed a week after getting my driver’s license, while driving on a curvy park drive. The neighbor 3 doors had a ’61 two door wagon. It lacked a driveline as he had started to put a 392 Hemi in but gave up. For $10, it was mine. The 170 ( and Ford-o-matic) from the ’63 was transplanted into the’61. A year or so later, I spyed a ’63 panel delivery ( former gas company) languishing in an apartment parking lot a mile or so from home.
That came home and sat while I searched for parts to swap a V-8 in. A ’63 1/2 Sprint Coupe donated parts ( idiot!) and lots of junkyard visits. The Sedan Delivery finished with a 260, Cobra high rise, Holley 600 CFM, 3 speed manual,JR headers and the 8 inch rear end from the Sprint. If I’d known ( at 17) how many Mustang parts could have been used, it would have been a lot nicer car.
Building that car introduced me to a community of Ford people. I do remember a family that had a turbocharged Pinto, a couple of ’56 Ford stock cars. One son had a Pinto wagon that I learned to drive a manual transmission. They had one of those Dagenham 4 speed transmissions squirreled away for the right car. Playing with Falcons on curvy roads was not a loss. It lead me to the next car – Sunbeam Tiger. That’s another story.
The Chevy II’s internal competition. 26,920 Lakewoods sold in 1961 dropping to 6,351 in 1962 according to Hemmings, who also supplied the picture of this Monza version:
“I’ve long fantasized about a Futura coupe with the 170 six and that four speed. Never seen one, but I know some were sold,…” Oddly enough, my maternal grandfather drove one, white with red interior. His last car. Grandma traded it in on a turquoise Buick Skylark, automatic, of course.
Actually, the Comet wasn’t a badge-engineered Falcon but an orphaned Edsel compact from when that marque was pulled in November 1959. The 1960 Comet floundered on its own for one model year before FoMoCo assigned it to the Mercury stable. It was several inches longer and a few wider than the Falcon. Not quite a Falcon, not quite a Fairlane.
My dad’s boss in 1962 bought a Falcon-based Ranchero with a 170 and four-speed special order, given all the farm hauling he did. Dad told me it was quite the hauler. (They worked for Eastern States Farmers’ Exchange/Agway, if anybody remembers them.)
The Comet was totally based on the Falcon. Yes, it got different external panels, and a wheelbase stretch (for the sedan), It was created from the Falcon’s basis to provide Edsel with a compact for 1960.
The Comet didn’t flounder in 1960; it sold quite well actually. But it didn’t make sense to keep it as a separate brand at Mercury stores, so it was fully integrated with Mercury for 1961. The same happened to the Valiant in 1961, when it became branded as a Plymouth.
The Comet wagon was identical to the Falcon wagon except for the front clip.
The roof skins, glass and whatnot was shared, as were door skins, that’s why the 64-65s both have the distinctive coves those years. In Australia the the XP Falcon used 60-63 Comet fenders to distinguish itself from the American design.
They were successful though, like Paul said. They’re well distinguished in spite of how much is shared, much more so than the Fairlane derived Meteor, which did flounder.
My mom had a red four door wagon white roof in BC as well. What a pce of junk. The car was in the shop more than out. V6 pce of crap