Chris Cieslak shot and posted at the Cohort this very fine looking 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 hardtop coupe. It stirs up a lot of childhood emotions, as this big Ford was a bit of a challenge for me at the time when it came out. It had a lot of appealing qualities, in its large and solid appearance. Of course I could tell that it was just a ’61 with some obvious remodeling, mostly from the cowl back: A new Thunderbird formal roof and it ditched the little fins for a flatter and somewhat amply-rounded rear end. I would have been very happy had my father brought this home instead of the stripper ’62 Fairlane. And just why did the all-new Fairlane have those little finlets when the big Ford dropped them for ’62? Hmm…
But that’s all relative, as I was a devoted GM acolyte at the time. Having arrived in the US just as the all-new ’61 GM cars did, that wasn’t exactly a hard choice, given what Ford and Chrysler had on tap in ’61. And I guess I wasn’t the only one, as a look at the sales stats shows a very painful tumble for Ford starting in 1960. By 1962, full size Ford market share dropped under 10%, which had to be the lowest ever since the Model T first showed up in 1908.
Why did the full-size Ford drop so hard and fast starting in 1960, from 22.5% to 13%? (I prefer to use market share, as it doesn’t reflect the rather large jumps and drops in the overall market back then). Was it its new styling?
Not primarily, but it probably didn’t help, as it looked a bit too much like it was chasing both the ’59 Chevy and various Chryslers of the era. But there’s nothing really to suggest that buyers were put off by it, as it was very much in the idiom of the times.
This was the real reason. The 1960 Falcon was the true Ford that old-time Ford loyalists had been waiting for ever since the Model A went away. We’ve covered this topic lots of times already, but a very substantial portion of traditional American car buyers were fed up with the whole bigger, longer, lower wider business that really took off in the mid ’50s. And the Falcon was the answer to their prayers; a neo-Model A. Henry Ford had created a whole generation or two of loyal Fordists, and now Henry’s ideas were reincarnated: no bigger than necessary, and very traditional otherwise.
And the 1960 Falcon was a big hit, selling 436k times, for a 6.2% market share. Add that to the big Ford’s 13%, and you get 19.2%, or almost the same as the 1960 Chevrolet. But what about the 1960 Corvair? Didn’t it take away sales from the big Chevy in 1960? Probably some, but certainly not nearly as much as the Falcon ate big Ford sales. Because the Corvair was so different, with its rear engine and all, it did what it was supposed to do: steal market share from the imports. Import market share plummeted from 10.9% in 1959 to 6.4% in 1960, and Corvair apparently sucked up a big share of that, with a 3.6% market share. The rest probably went to Valiant, Comet and undoubtedly some to Falcon too, but the evidence of Falcon’s cannibalization of big Ford sales is all-too obvious.
The depressing numbers for Henry Ford were that despite the new Falcon’s great sales, overall Ford Division market share dropped in 1960 to 20.5% from 23.6% in 1959. It’s absolutely no wonder Lee Iacocca hated the Falcon; all that money for nothing. And when he saw the 1961 Corvair Monza become a genuine hit, it spurred him into action: cultivate a performance image and…the Mustang. It was the only way out of the bind Ford had found itself in.
And it’s no surprise that in 1962 the big Fords took another (but smaller) dive: the new Fairlane. A Falcon with a healthy dose of steroids, the new mid-sized Fairlane had a strong start too, with 297k sold, for a 4.1% share. But all that did was barely offset a similar 3% market share drop for the big Fords in 1962. Ford had become an expert at building new cannibals. Thanks to a drop in Falcon sales, the Ford Division suffered another market share drop, to 20.6% from 23.4% in 1961, when it had gone up some, undoubtedly because of the recession favoring low-price brands that year.
Meanwhile, Chevy was making hay. Thanks to a very good start for the new Chevy II (327k, 4.6% share) along with the best year ever for the Corvair (293k, 4.1%), the two compacts augmented big Chevy sales, which increased again (to 1.4 million) and a slight drop to 20% market share. All combined, the Chevrolet Division knocked it out of the park, with a 28.7% market share, a new record for the era. It was Chevy’s golden era, only to be disrupted by the Mustang in a few years hence.
So let’s take a closer look at what buyers found somewhat less than compelling. Well, the front is not its best feature, as it’s only very slightly changed from 1961. The grille was changed a bit, but the hood, fenders and doors look to be the same pressings.
The big change was the new roof, which now graced all models and body styles, except wagons and convertibles, of course. It was a big improvement, most especially so on the lower-end sedans, which had rather unfortunate greenhouses in ’60 and ’61.
Speaking of models, Ford did something a bit odd in ’62, dropping its lowest trim Custom 300 series. It reappeared in 1963, but for ’62 it was just a low-end Galaxie, the high-trim Galaxie 500. And as can be seen, the same roof graced the sedans as well as the hardtops. Presumably Ford was economizing, anticipating the reduction in big car sales due to the Falcon and Fairlane.
The rear end of the ’62 Ford is a bit controversial, as it’s generally seen to be the weakest of the ’61-’64 era. It looks a bit blobby; certainly not dynamic, and gives the ’62 a rather stolid and dull aspect. The ’63 really perked things up back there, as well as in front.
Lee Iacocca’s new performance image (“The Lively Ones”) drive started mid-year 1962, albeit a bit less than stellar. It was the bucket-seat XL, as well as a similar bucket-seat Fairlane 500. But both of them suffered from decidedly non-lively styling, so the goods were a bit well hidden. And certainly Ford could bring the goods, with a new 406 inch version of the hi-po 390, rated at 385/405 hp, depending on how many carbs sat on its throne. These FE engines were in a different league than their more prosaic brothers, with special heads and lots of other goodies, and gave birth the 427, the last of that genetic line.
You had to be a pretty hard core big Ford performance enthusiast to buy one of these. And there weren’t many of those left, as the bulk of them had found better pickings across the street at the Chevy dealer starting back in 1955. Proof of that was the standard 170hp 292 V8, the last year for the Y block in passenger cars. The engine that threw away Ford’s performance image to Chevy. It was heavy, slow and none too efficient. Nobody missed it. And Argentina was happy enough to take it off our hands.
Although the big Ford didn’t have a performance image to give it a boost, it did try to make the most of its halo car, the Thunderbird. And that’s the vibe the ’62 gave off, something of a Thunderbird sedan. Or at least tried to.
It’s a good thing Chris didn’t get close to the window and give us a really good shot of the interior. The seats and stuff were plenty fine enough, but the whole dashboard was still stuck heavily in 1960, and not in a good way. That was mercifully rectified in 1963, as was the highly embarrassing exposed column shifter rod. Really? Every time I saw that as a kid it reminded me why I spent my Saturdays at the Church of St. Mark of Excellence.
Still, as I said before, I’d have been happy enough if this showed up in our driveway. Everything’s relative. Even market share.
Note: a rerun of an older post.
I loved and still loved the Conservative lines of the 1962 Ford full sizers .
I had a wagon for some years, a near total stripper, it served me and mine very well indeed .
-Nate
Yeah although I have also a soft-spot for the 1965-67 full-size Ford with its stackhead headlights to go against Pontiac as well. 😉
Is it my imagination but I think the 1965 C-body Chrysler/Dodge/Plymouth have borrowed some design elements from the full-size 1962 Ford and the full-size 1962 Mercury as well? Maybe not, I guess Elwood Engel was still at Ford when they beginned to design the 1962 full-size Ford before he moved to Chrysler which might be not a coincidence.
“Blobby’ is a suitably succinct description of the 62 Ford. It’s odd, because the ’60 and ’61 were fairly lean in appearance – the ’62 just looks dispirited and overweight. 🙂
I had the impression that there were perhaps two competing design factions at Ford in this era. One faction did the 1961 and ’63 models, and the other got to do the 1962 and ’64. The alternate years look more related to each other, and less so to the adjacent years.
’62 Ford and Mercury looked kind of like a melted bar of soap, where GM improved on its already sharper ’61’s. I didnt realize Plymouth did not drop much for ’62. It was Dodge that took a huge hit as it continued to go down market and compete internally with Plymouth.
I think Paul’s description of the full size 1962 Ford was spot on. I have always liked the 1960 (daring), 1961 & especially the 1963 full size Fords. But the 1962 full size Ford was left wanting for character, OK if you wanted something that looked like a service vehicle regardless of how much chrome trim you added.
I like Paul’s comment “And just why did the all-new (1962) Fairlane have those little finlets?” Perhaps because the 1961-63 Birds had finlets and I am obsessed with the Bullet Birds. My 2nd best friend in high school drove a 1962 Fairlane 500 two door sedan, white with red/white interior while my high school car was a 1963 T-Bird. I think no Fairlane hardtops was a Ford mistake. His family owned Fairlane from new was optioned to the hilt. Perhaps if he hadn’t spent so much time keeping that car spotless, perhaps he would have graduated from high school on time. Only one time during my teenage years my parents were correct…he was a bad influence. The 1962 Fairlane is still lacking punch, like the full size Ford, but the changes in 1963 hit the mark. Ford should have offered a 1963 Ford Fairlane 500 XL trimmed convertible with a powerful engine (390?). That would have been special. If not a convertible, a two door hardtop would be collectable today.
Wasn’t ’61 an emergency facelift because the ’60 was too wide? That put the big Ford’s styling on the back foot for the rest of the design cycle.
Growing up our neighbors bought a brand new red ‘62 and towed a travel trailer with it on trips. Three on the tree and I believe a 6 cylinder engine. A 2 door with bench seats. We were driven to school many times. I usually sat in the back and was mesmerized by the radio sound. It had a type of reverberation system linked to the rear speakers. It produced a deep echoing sound that I’ll never forget. Wondering if anyone else was familiar with this setup?
What is going in the ad for the yellow Galaxie? It looks like some dude and his paramour are sneaking out of the house on a ladder, while some other guy is peeping out the window around the corner.
They were eloping, and the Dad was looking out the window.
This takes me back to when I was about 10 years old. Dad bought a used ’62 Galaxie hardtop as his daily driver and our second car. Like Mom’s chariot, a 1962 Mercury Commuter station wagon, it was painted turquoise, which gave us matching cars for the first and only time.
63 1/2 Ford Galaxie Fastback
My father allowed me to spec out a special order 1962 Galaxie 500 Town Victoria to replace our 55 Customline.
There were constraints of course and he had final approval on the order. I was about 15 yo and a car enthusiast so he
allowed some latitude in my selection of options….I specified a Raven Black exterior with a blue vinyl interior, 352 because I knew the 292 was obsolete, Cruiseomatic, am radio, deluxe wheel covers, wwt, and air conditioning. I was denied approval for power steering and brakes and power windows or seats. “Too many frills” was the curt explanation for denial lol. It was a good solid automobile and served us well for about 8 years. I thought it looked elegant for a “low priced” car.
Thank you for the memories Mr. Paul.
Yeah, everything’s relative. I think the ‘62 Ford is positively lean and athletic compared to the 1964, which (to me) was the low point for 1960’s Ford styling. 1963 and 65-66 are my favorites, though the ‘61 is growing on me as I age. Conversely, the ‘68 which looked great to 11 year old me, is fading fast. However just today I saw a ‘65 Chevy which makes all these Fords look dull.
A neighbor ordered this exact car, black with red interior, only difference being a 352 and overdrive. One year and two accidents later he figured the car was bad luck and bought a brand new ’63 Fairlane hardtop with the 260 V8.
I too have a love-hate feeling about these ’62s, and aside from the roofs, I think the ’61 design was better and crisper, albeit that’s a relative term compared to what Chevy was doing.
Because they stole the mid-range Fairlane name for the intermediates, I guess they felt they had to make all big Fords Galaxies, and ironically Plymouth would do the same thing three years later.
that rear shot made me realize I’d seen it before, in one of Elwood Engel’s alternates for the Stiletto Studio T-Bird that became the ’61 Continental. The original design had a forward rake before being formalized. (And Engel would return to that theme with the ’64 Imperial.)
Which is fitting, as old Henry was into waste not, want not too. 😉
Yeah, I guess the guys at Plymouth saw what Ford did with the Fairlane nameplate and do the same for Belvedere. Dodge more or less imitated Ford when they dusted off the Coronet monicker for their 1965 intermediate.
Strange then Chevrolet didn’t do the same for recycling the Bel Air nameplate for then new GM A-body for 1964 instead of going with the Chevelle name.
Whoops, here’s the rendering from 1957.