No Ford Falcon is rare; they were wildly popular when new and that popularity hung on for the entire first half of the 1960s. Some Falcons, however, are so bafflingly optioned (or not optioned) that you have to wonder what the original owner was up to, and this is one of those cars. It’s the “fancy” Futura 2-Door Sedan, which in itself isn’t uncommon at all, but it has exactly one option: the Fordomatic. Buying the bucket-seat Falcon with the base 144 and an automatic was an interesting choice, but here’s evidence that it happened, and it’s up for auction with no reserve on Hagerty Marketplace in Blue Ridge, Georgia.
The seller has kindly posted the original window sticker, showing us that the Futura was indeed ordered with nothing but the sluggish two-speed Fordomatic. Why the original owner spent the extra money on a bucket seat Futura I don’t know, but I’d like to. The car was built in Lorain, Ohio, and delivered to Schlenker Motors, Inc., in Hamburg, Pennsylvania.
And it was delivered to Mrs. Violet Kercher, who also ordered undercoating that was certainly applied by the dealer. Notice that she was a Ford lady, trading in a 1953 Ford, which earned her a $494.35 trade-in allowance. That seems like a strange number until you see that it dropped the before-tax price of the car to $1,990, right under two grand. I’m guessing that Mrs. Kercher had a price in mind and stuck to it—good for her!
Unfortunately, she also stuck with the painfully slow 85 horsepower 144, which teamed with a Fordomatic was about as fast as a Clydesdale pulling a hay cart. Motor Trend timed one to 60 in a glacial 24.5 seconds; the quarter-mile actually passed more quickly in 22.7 seconds, but the top speed was a pitiful 76.4 miles per hour. With no other changes, the manual-transmission car got to 60 five seconds quicker and had a top speed of 82. The Fordomatic was truly a millstone.
One interesting fact: The Motor Trend test car had 3.10:1 gears, but this car has 3.50s, which was listed as standard in the 1962 Falcon brochure (both the August 1961 and the March 1962 printings). It would be interesting to see how that would have affected acceleration and top speed. The seller posted that the original radiator sprung a leak and was replaced with this aluminum unit, but the original will come with the car in case the new owner would prefer to get it recored.
One reason why Mrs. Kercher may have decided to step up to the Futura is the interior, a lovely red bucket-seat upgrade from the standard Falcon. Combined with the Raven Black paint, it is about as nice-looking as a Falcon “Tudor” Sedan will get.
And Ford did consoles better than almost anyone in the early 1960s. This Thunderbird-like ribbed mini-console is perfect, and while the Corvair Monza came first in the sporty small-car field, it never had a nifty console like this one.
Obviously, almost nobody was cross-shopping a Corvair Monza and a Falcon, but I’ll bet this neat-but-dog-slow Falcon nonetheless gave its original owner great service. Who knows, maybe she traded it in on a 1970 Ford of some sort, but regardless of Mrs. Kercher’s next move, buying her Falcon might not be a bad move now.
Related Reading
Curbside Find: 1962 Ford Falcon – Birdie Num-Num (by Tatra87)
Curbside Classic: 1962 Ford Falcon Sports Futura – Ford Sees The Future; At Chevrolet (by Paul N)
Those seats look three times more comfortable than those in my $35k RAV4 which are made from recycled water bottles.
I was just talking about this with my sister. The seat in her 2010 Honda Fit gives her back pain after an hour. The seats in both my 2008 Honda Fit and my 2000 Acura TL were also not comfortable for more than an hour. In contrast, the seats in my 2018 VW Golf, although they don’t look so inviting, provide all day comfort. It seems that Japanese makers can’t design a supportive, comfortable seat.
I can attest that the Japanese can design a good seat when they set their minds to it. I drove my Mitsubishi Montero for 23 hours straight from Nebraska to Ohio and never got uncomfortable.
I really want one of those consoles. It is what is holding me up from putting buckets in my Ranger!
The thing about the Futura is that it was reasonably complete in terms of standard trim and features, especially since the heater was standard for 1962. It came with most of the available dress-up stuff, including the wheel covers — the main omissions from a functional amenities standpoint were backup lights and windshield washers, which would have been an extra $24.40. Also, obviously Pennsylvania wasn’t yet one of the states requiring seat belts in 1962! (The Falcon did have provision for them, and adding some would seem like a good idea.)
One thing I’ve learned by reading the posts of both Aarons is that when a la carte ordering was common, people ordered some very odd combinations.
Not odd in the least for a woman who wanted a nice interior on a low price economical car and didn’t care about modest performance. I instantly assumed it was a woman buyer when I read how it was equipped. Women placed a high value on nice interiors for obvious reasons.
A 1962 Chevy Corvair Monza had a similar sized engine (145 ci) which produced 84 horsepower with Powerglide. Not much difference in performance but the Falcon has a better heater.
CC has covered a lot of old road tests that show that the Powerglide was a lot more efficient than the Fordomatic. I don’t have my Corvair road tests in front of me right now, but I believe 0-60 times were generally under 20 seconds for even the base-engined cars with automatic.
I will agree as a Corvair and 1965 Mustang owner that Ford heaters in the 1960s were amazingly powerful.
Road & Track tested a 1960 Corvair with the initial 2.4-liter six and Powerglide and got 0 to 60 mph in 17.5 seconds, the quarter mile in 21.5 seconds, and a two-way average top speed of 85.5 mph, which was decent enough for a contemporary economy car.
The Autocar tested two Falcons in 1960, one stick, one automatic. The stick got 0 to 60 mph in 18.6 seconds, the quarter in 21.3, and a two-way average of 88.3 mph. The automatic needed 22.9 seconds to hit 60 mph, requiring more than a quarter mile, and topped out at 82.3 mph with the 3.56 axle.
I have had a couple of Corvairs, including my very first-64 Monza sedan, with PG and they ran just fine. I loved the little shift lever on the dash.
Compared though to my 2.7 EB F150, what dogs they were! But, who would have thought back in the day that a base pickup would have 325 hp!
I have a genuine soft spot for these early Futuras, but it would have to be with the 170 six and…the optional (UK sourced) four speed with floor shift. That’s the way to go with these.
I imagine parts availability for the Dagenham transmission would be pretty spotty, but maybe there are some UK sources since Zephyrs and Consuls (I think) used them.
Dad leased a 64 Falcon. A baby blue fastback with the 170 six and a 4 speed. A good looker but not much of a runner. As a kid, I longed for the 8 cylinder engine. Nonetheless, my buddies all admired the shifter, which looked exactly like the one in AC Cobra, just not installed backwards.
A slow car without a/c. I can understand how it has survived after 60+ years. You drive it on rare occasions.
I had a 63. When I had to drive it, I often had a ping of regret because it took forever to get up to speed. I drove it when I had to, not because it was fun. Sure, on a sunny comfortable day when traffic was nil and I could cruise at 50-60 mph, it was cool to have, but otherwise not so much. I bought it for very little when the teen whose father bought it for her as her first car, just didn’t love it.
It’s one thing to like a car that is appealing as this one – but another thing to own it and use it. I discovered that these cars are from another era.
so this Falcon gave US “peak malaise” performance years before it’s progeny, the Granada, officially delivered it during the actual malaise era – “peak malaise” = the nadir of perf
what Ford lacked in product, it always seemed to make up in marketing
I like it, and it could be a great “hobby car” for me. Can’t be too much slower than some of the ‘malaise’ cars I drove, I figure.
Popular Mechanics tells us that 1962 Chevy II axle ratio got tightened from 3.08 to 3.50 for “stick shift fours,” and here’s PM reporting on Falcon the same time (spring 1962):
That quarter mile time is on par with the Mack dump truck that did a 30 second quarter with a 55 mph trap speed. It’s also pretty close to the performance of a 1200 Beetle. It’s a nice looking car but I would be looking elsewhere in 1962, or at least checking different options like a big 6 and a 4 speed. But I’m not Mrs. Violet Kercher
How do we know she ordered it this way? She could have chosen it because it was the only Falcon on the lot with a red interior. The combination of a Futura with only a Fordomatic is odd but the dealer might have wanted it so that he had a loss leader that he could put in the newspaper in a bait & switch tactic.
In ’62 a Falcon Futura with 144 six was available only with FordOmatic and 3 Spd column shift and the latter would have been cheaper as a loss leader.
An older woman as Mrs Kercher undoubtedly was would have been unconcerned with performance, and clearly just wanted a nice looking car, which it was.
The optional 4-speed manual (with floor shift) was available with either engine.
Any idea on the number these sold? No fire breather even with the 170, but certainly better than the Ford O Matic!
No. I’ve long been fascinated with these, available on the sixes only in ’63 and ’64. Never seen one in the flesh; I suspect it was quite uncommon. It was sourced from Ford’s UK ops.
I love that interior! My mom’s first car was a 62 1/12 Futura in Rangoon Red with the three-speed column shift. I was born in ’65 and we had the Falcon until my parents traded it in on (gasp!) a ’74 Vega GT hatchback in ’76. I’m fortunate to have some scans of pictures my folks took of the Falcon so I know how nice it looked on the outside.
It seems like a perfectly logical combination for perhaps someone of a certain age & gender, who wasn’t fussed about getting to 60 miles an hour in 10 (or even 20) seconds but liked the idea of a nice interior in a sensible, economical car with an automatic transmission. It’s a brilliant choice in its way. Mrs Kercher was an independent thinker.
Chevrolet learned a lesson from both the Falcon and the Corvair. When the Chevy II arrived, even the lowly 4-cylinder was larger than either. The 194 ci 6-cylinder was a lot larger and had 120 horsepower. By 1964 the 230ci 6-cycinder with 155 horsepower was available. Even little old ladies want SOME power.
I can see why the buyer bought the Futura, as the interior was much nicer than that in the base Falcon. As for the 144 six and Fordomatic, well, it seems this lady didn’t much care about speed. Even with glacial 0-60 times, it could still keep up with contemporary traffic, so not much of a handicap for her.
Nice car, shame about the powertrain! Or should the be “powertrain”? Some of my most miserable car trips as a child were in a neighbour’s 144/auto Falcon; the engine seemed to rev much higher (and noisier) than in Dad’s 170/3 speed before dropping into 2nd/top. Theirs had no heater either; Dad’s was definitely the better car.
Futuras were a very rare sight down here, most folk were content with the Deluxe.
“Powerdrain”?
I’d think anybody who wanted the Futura, especially with a slushbox, would step up to the 170, but quite obviously, there are real outliers when it comes to car shopping. Still, if one chose the 144, their priority obviously wasn’t speed, and I’ve heard the 144 was a real pain to get going smoothly without a lot of clutch slip or stalling.
I found what George Ferencz posted above interesting – that the original Falcon came with a 3.1 axle. The reason for the tiny engine and relatively tall axle had to be Ford working hard to match cars like the Beetle in economy, even if it meant squeezing blood from a turnip. Ford obviously designed the 144 with room to grow (all the way to 250, a 73% increase), so I don’t think the expansion to 170 was that much of a knee-jerk. Also, at the time, a lot of people never went over, say, 50 MPH, so more power was more of a “nice to have.” Now, combine that with steep grades and power loss at elevation – like if you lived in the Rocky Mountains – and you might call it dangerously underpowered. But for most drivers…
Finally, I would speculate that the 144 got the same mileage as the 170 combined with the slushbox in typical driving, and for aggressive drivers, the 144 could only help by acting like a governor, essentially. In fact, at certain speeds the 144 might get worse mileage if it were running nearly wide open where a 170 or 200 might be in the mid-range enough to still have some vacuum and not activate the power valve.
I learned to drive in my mother’s car, a ’60 falcon, white with fawn interior, 144 3 speed, with heater, and vacuum wipers. Hard to get going? Not really once you got used to the hair trigger clutch – her mastery of it made me respect mom’s skills.
Didn’t the “Futura” have those ribbed, metal, trim, things on the lower back fenders? Perhaps they were part of an “appearance, package”? I wonder how long the lady drove this car. Certainly has been cared for.
The Futura didn’t have the bright trim behind the rear wheelwells.
The 1961 Futura had three horizontal slats on each rear fender, but the 1962 Futura instead had the full-length side spear with the simulated front fender vents.
That trim piece was a separate option. At least it was in Australia.
Such a neat car. Thanks Aaron. The radio was standard equipment? Nice.
Good call! The radio was not standard, so someone must have added it later on.
An interesting note about these Futura bucket seats. We went to the Seattle World’s Fair in 1962. Ford Motor Company had an exhibit you rode through called “An Adventure in Outer Space” in which you sat in the Futura bucket seats. As a 12 year old car nut I started yammering about that important fact and nobody seemed to care until a staff person at least vindicated me by confirming it. IIRC the seats were an ice blue color.
We drove our 61 Falcon Deluxe four door, 144 and manual across the country to the Fair and back – over 5,000 miles. Only radio was my Sears portable. Lots of people drove cars like this (Falcon sales were through the roof) – expectations were lower in the early 60’s before LBJ pushed JFK’s tax cut through Congress and the economy took off – and his military industrial complex fed off the war in Vietnam and put more money in the pockets of many. By 67 Dad was driving a Thunderbird.
The first Futura I saw was a new 61 in our town, purchased by a young secretary, white, red interior, 144 with Fordomatic, radio and whitewalls. As Paul says, not an unusual choice. That Kookie, newly upgraded from parking lot attendant to detective, drove a 62 Futura (with the giant mobile phone antenna) in 77 Sunset Strip seemed a little off:-)
Mrs Violet S bought it this way because she had absolutely not a clue what “144” or “170” might mean, only that – as Aaron mentioned – she had $1,999 to spend and (perhaps) wanted a heater. And certainly automatic. It’s like me buying anything tech-related today: I have lost interest in what the salesperson is saying in 11 seconds or less, and only hear, or see, what I want to. I literally don’t understand or have any desire to. (Luckily, I have learned to forestall my idiot complacency by the accompaniment of wiser kids or other advisors). I want it in red and black, I want certain features, and I want that one, and out.
Still pretty cars, these early Falcs, but I could not abide the sounds of badly-blocked trumpet and the mournful rates of progress that actually driving this thing would entail.
What a much more peppy and enjoyable car this could be with the transplant of the 200 “sprint” six cylinder engine and the 3 speed “Green Dot” automatic transmission, donated by a first generation Mustang, this car could be!
The black exterior and the red Thunderbird inspired interior is most pleasing to the eyes.
I’m gonna call you on that “ Obviously, almost nobody was cross-shopping a Corvair Monza and a Falcon,” comment; many folks did, at the time, cross shop the Monza and the Futura, my maternal AND paternal grandparents among them.
Dad’s dad actually ended up with a Dodge Lancer (the A904 3 speed automatic won that argument) and my Moms mom narrowly picked the Monza over the Futura. (The rear engine appealed more to her after 5 winters of trying to coax a flathead Rambler American up Pittsburgh hills.) And that Corvair was a much better drive than the 1969 Valiant Signet that replaced it…😉
Interesting. I can write only from my own experience growing up in small town Midwest – what I recall well is that our friends, family, and neighbors were much more brand loyal back in those days. My Dad was a Ford man for a long time (after being a Nash man for many years until that brand was no longer viable) and when he bought two new Falcons in 1961, he wouldn’t have dreamed of visiting a Chevy dealership. Same with our neighbors who were a Buick/GM family – they ended up with a 1960 Corvair and a 1962 Buick Special. Also, what I do recall is that there was cross shopping between the VW Beetle and Corvair. Falcon shoppers tended to shy away from non-conventional power trains – I think that is what Aaron is focusing on. Kudos to your grandparents for being more creative and broad-minded in their car shopping.
One of the cars, besides the VW Beetle, that broke the brand loyal tradition wide open was the new Mustang in 1965 as initially GM and Chrysler didn’t have an equivalent car (Barracuda shared more outward appearance features with Valiant whereas while Mustang was Falcon underneath its body and most of the interior looked all new). I remember so many Mustangs in our town bought by folks who’d never owned a Ford product.
I love that car except for the 2spd auto, which I’m sure was a dog.
I think people misunderstand the engine though, thinking because it was a 6 that it should have had more power – if it had been a 2.4L 4cyl from that time what would have been expected of it? With Ford’s new thin wall castings and various other cost savings (the log intake, etc.), they could make a 6 that was as light and probably close to as cheap as most of the 4 cylinders of the imports. So you got a smoother engine, but I doubt the intention was to have a 6 for more power.
Yeah, and warmed up 7 main bearing 200 with a 4 or 5spd would be fun in that car!
In the early 80’s, i had a friend of the family that had a 61 Falcon with a 144 and 2 speed.
It had a blown head gasket and I was taxed with replacing said item.
After getting back together, I took it for a test drive to verify the completed job. I spent a full day trying to figure out why this thing wouldn’t get out of it’s own way. I triple checked the tune and even went as far as jacking it up on jack stands to check for brake drag.
The next day, the owners came over and I explained how low the power was and I could not figure out why. They took it around the block and told me it had more power than prior to the head gasket blowing.
Amazingly slow combination.