Although it was marketed as an intermediate, the 1962–1963 Ford Fairlane was essentially a reinvention of the mid-’50s full-size Ford with more modern engineering. This carefully optioned two-tone stick-shift 1963 Fairlane 500 sedan, equipped with the optional 260 cid V-8 and overdrive, represents the Fairlane at its most sensible, offering decent economy and peppy performance in a reasonably sized package with very familiar exterior dimensions.
With a few notable exceptions, new car and truck models tend to get bigger with each succeeding generation. A 2026 Honda Civic is about the size of a 1990 Honda Accord; the last Ford Fiesta sedan was about the size of a ’60s Ford Cortina; and let’s not even talk about pickup trucks. This can be very frustrating for existing buyers who liked the earlier size just fine.
At Ford, this created a kind of Goldilocks problem. Between 1955 and 1963, the full-size Ford had grown by close to a foot in length and more than 500 lb in weight, which some customers found alienating. The compact Falcon, introduced for 1960, was substantially smaller, but also a bit too little and too self-consciously bitsy for people who really just wanted a brand new regular-size Ford.
For 1962, Ford introduced a new compromise: the intermediate Fairlane, which was also the Ford answer to AMC’s very popular midsize Rambler Classic.
The superficial resemblance between the 1963 Fairlane and the 1963 Rambler was considerable, which wasn’t surprising — these were direct rivals — but the Fairlane was actually bigger than the Classic. At 197.6 inches on a 115.5-inch wheelbase, the Fairlane was nearly 9 inches longer overall than the AMC, on a 3.5-inch-longer wheelbase.
The 1963 Fairlane was considerably closer in size to its 1955 predecessor, which in the mid-’50s had been considered a full-size car. The 1963 car was a mere 0.9 inches shorter overall than the 1955 car on an identical wheelbase, although unitized construction and newer engines made the “midsize” Fairlane about 200 lb lighter.
Although the midsize Fairlane was 4.6 inches narrower overall than its ancestor, more space-efficient construction meant that it gave up only about an inch and a half of hip room and actually provided slightly more shoulder room than the 1955 car.
Comparing headroom and legroom is a bit more difficult because these cars were packaged quite differently. Although the 1955 Fairlane was considerably taller, its rated rear headroom was meager; you sat lower with your legs stretched out, and the front seat was set higher to allow space for rear passengers’ feet underneath it.
The 1963 car had less minimum legroom, especially in back, but the rear seat was more upright — maybe a bit too upright — and there was significantly more headroom than in the ’55 Fairlane, even though the rear seat was higher.
In any event, in sedan or wagon form, the 1963 Fairlane offered a respectable amount of interior room (a full-size 1963 Ford was roomier, but not by as much as you’d think given its greater size and weight), within exterior dimensions that many Americans considered a good compromise between too big and too small. With either a six or the small V-8s, the Fairlane was inexpensive to buy and cheap to feed, with pretty good gas mileage on regular gasoline.
Given the emphasis on space and practicality, it probably won’t surprise you to learn that Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, was quite keen on these Ford intermediates. Their preference was for the Mercury Meteor version, which had a better ride and a slightly bigger trunk, and they favored the smaller 221 cid V-8, which they thought offered “a blend of power and economy very close to ideal for an intermediate.” However, CU approved of the Fairlane too. In most respects, it was their kind of car: sensible rather than sexy.
The original buyer of this Fairlane 500, which was ordered in May 1963 from Frontier Motor Co. in Albuquerque, New Mexico, selected a modest but very sensible array of options. On top of the $2,407 base price of a four-door Fairlane 500 sedan with the 221 cid V-8, they paid an extra $51.50 for the bigger 260 cid V-8 and $108.40 for manual 3-speed plus overdrive. The “Challenger 260” V-8 was in its second year in 1963, and it represented a vast improvement over Ford’s ’50s Y-block V-8: lighter, smoother, and more economical, with pretty good power and considerable hop-up potential.
In addition to an AM radio, which cost $58.50, the original buyer added the optional padded dashboard and sun visors (features Ford had first offered as part of its 1956 “Lifeguard” safety campaign), along with tinted glass and two-speed electric wipers with windshield washers. The MagicAire heater/defroster was standard by this time, and the Fairlane 500 trim level included various minor conveniences like a cigarette lighter, horn ring, armrests, and carpeting.
In addition to the $22.00 “tu-tone” paint job, the original owner spent $7.40 to upgrade to 14-inch wheels rather than the standard 13-inchers, and specified chrome wheel covers for an extra $18.60. (The whitewalls were added later; the buyer thought the dealer’s price was too high.)
Under the hood, the 260 cid engine was rated at 164 hp and 258 lb-ft of torque (both SAE gross), with a two-barrel carburetor and 8.7 to 1 compression to let it run on cheaper regular gasoline. I haven’t found timed acceleration tests for a Fairlane with this engine and overdrive, but I’d expect 0 to 60 in around 11 seconds — brisk by ’50s standards and still quite spry for a ’60s economy sedan — with decent city and excellent highway mileage.
Overdrive seems like a natural for a car like this, but it was specified on only 3.2 percent of 1963 Fairlane production. There were a couple of reasons: Overdrive was only offered with V-8 engines, not sixes; it cost enough extra to discourage all but determined skinflints; and the older 3-speed gearbox it came with didn’t have a synchronized low gear. For stop-and-go driving, the new all-synchro 3-speed might have been a better choice, although the overdrive’s “kickdown” was handy in less-congested traffic conditions. However, most buyers just ordered the two-speed Fordomatic, which was $189.60.
As equipped, this well-trimmed Fairlane originally listed for $2,678.10 plus destination (a relative worth of about $35,000 in 2025 dollars), a reasonable price for a reasonable car. It sold well too. Fairlane was the bestselling intermediate in 1963, with production totaling 343,887 cars — a bit more than the Rambler Classic. Ford would have a harder time once Chevrolet got into the game with the 1964 Chevelle, but for the moment, the Fairlane was on top. It was what a significant chunk of the American market had said they wanted, and buyers turned out for it.
Even with the V-8 and overdrive, I wouldn’t characterize this Fairlane sedan as an exciting car, but it wasn’t trying to be. If you were trading in a ’50s Ford, it gave you most of what you’d liked about the older car with some worthwhile improvements in engineering and economy, and unlike a new Galaxie, you didn’t have to worry about it fitting in your garage.
If you’re drawn to vehicles that offer pleasant, uncomplicated transportation rather than searing performance or maintenance-intensive luxury features, a Fairlane 500 like this still has a lot to recommend it. It’s not an ultra-low-mileage car (the odometer read 47,883 miles when these photos were taken), but except for the auxiliary gauges under the dash, it’s all-original and in remarkably good condition. It sold for $26,400 at Mecum Kissimmee Summer Special in July 2023.
Related Reading
Curbside Classic: 1962 Mercury Monterey Custom – No Respect (by J P Cavanaugh)
Car Show Classic: 1963 Ford Fairlane Sport Coupe K-Code (by Aaron65)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Ford Fairlane Sedan – XL – Size Falcon; XS – Size Galaxie (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1963 Mercury Meteor Custom – It’s the Little Things That Count (by Jeff Sun)
CC Tech: Ford Falcon, Comet, and Fairlane – How These Unit-Body Fords Were Alike (And Different) (by me)
For Australians, in 1962, 1963 and 1964, Ford Australia sold the Ford Fairlane 500 4 door sedan with a V8 and automatic transmission as its absolute top of its passenger range luxury car. It replaced the larger 1959 Fairlane 500 and Custom 300 4 door sedans which had also been Ford Australia’s luxury car offering until 1961.
From 1965, Australia started local assembly of the Ford Galaxie 500 which replaced the Fairlane 500 as its luxury car. Australia Ford continued with the Galaxie 500 until 1973 when it was replaced with a unique Australian designed Ford LTD.
It’s important to understand that to Australians in 1963 a Ford Fairlane 500 was pure luxury selling directly against Mercedes Benz 220SE, Rover 3 Litre, BMWs, Jaguars and other prestige luxury brands. GM-H sold a Chevrolet Belair 4 door sedan and Pontiac Laurentian 4 door sedan as its luxury cars while Chrysler Australia sold a Dodge Phoenix 4 door sedan as its luxury car.
All of these cars were promoted as luxury high end cars and not ‘family cruisers’. The Australian sales literature for these cars never featured children or family backgrounds. The cars were always shown in formal high end environments.
So when I read this article, I see a high end luxury ‘63 Ford Fairlane 500 with a manual transmission. Great article anyway!
Also, interesting to note the Fairlane was re-introduced in 1967 in Australia, and the Fairlane ZA didn’t have the stackhead headlights of the 1966-67 American counterpart unlike the later Fairlane ZC and ZD
https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1967-Ford-Fairlane-ZA-Brochure/slides/1967_Ford_Fairlane_ZA-08-09.html
https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1969-Ford-Fairlane-ZC-Brochure/index.html
https://www.oldcarbrochures.org/Australia/Ford/Ford/1970%20Ford%20ZD%20Fairlane%20-%20Australia/index.html
Another interesting tidbit is even though the American 67 Falcon 4 door and the Australian XR and XT Falcons appear to have the same exact sheetmetal, the rear door skins are actually sourced from the Fairlane, noted by a crease that continues across the door rather than terminating within the door like the US Falcons, which also makes the XR and XT quarter skins unique from the American counterpart.
I forgot to mention then Curbside Classic did a blog post about the Aussie Fairlane. 😉
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/australian-brands/a-visual-history-of-the-aussie-ford-fairlane-and-ltd/
Manual transmission is definitely the way to go, as the Ford 2-speed automatic was the absolute dog of its kind, significantly worse than the Powerglide, as confirmed in numerous tests. But I’d have taken the new top loader 3-speed over the old B/W 3-speed and OD, as the new Ford unit shifted very briskly, something the B/W was not noted for. With the 260, this would make for a decently zippy combination unlike our 221 V8 automatic ’62 Fairlane (the same combo was spanked by the Chevy II six in the comparison linked at the end of Aaaron’s post).
From a modern perspective, when every car has overdrive, having that gear seems like a no-brainer decision. But that obviously wasn’t so in 1963, given the 3,2% take rate. Automatic transmissions were on a meteoric rise, and 3-speed manuals were the choice of cheapskates and people who were scared of the newfangled automatic transmission technology.
Setting aside the difference between synchronized and unsynchronized 1st gear and any difference in how the transmissions shifted, $108 made O/D a fairly expensive option, and only the people who did a lot of highway driving saw the value.
From a perspective of people who were there, I’d say three speed manuals were the choice of people that knew how to drive them and saw no need to spend on laziness.
The standard manual 3-speed was relatively common on the Fairlane — it went into 34.2 percent of 1963 production, more than Rambler or Studebaker, a bit less than a Chevy II, Comet, or Valiant — so I think a lot of people just didn’t want to pay extra for overdrive, and if you were looking at a Fairlane six for economy, overdrive wasn’t available.
The other factor was that overdrive 3rd was really a flatlands-only gear. It normally came with the same 3.50 axle as other stick-shift Fairlanes, which gave 2.52 to 1 in overdrive. I don’t think the 221 would have been any too happy with that kind of gearing except on a completely level interstate highway. With the optional 3.80 axle, it was 2.74 to 1 in overdrive top, which was still pretty lethargic with a small carbureted low-compression V-8. Obviously, for hilly terrain, you could switch the overdrive off, and there was the kickdown for passing, but if you had to do that constantly, it tended to defeat the purpose, and it emphasized how limited the value of the extra gear ended up being.
Some cars are inherently more suitable than others for overdrive. Cars with big, lazy engines, V8s or big sixes, in particular, engines that have the low rpm torque to work well with the high gearing. But small bore engines like this little V8, which spins happily (and relatively smoothly) at higher RPM are not so well suited, especially without a lower (higher numerical) rear axle ratio, as you point out. I’m actually a bit surprised that Ford didn’t make the 3.80 gears standard with OD; that was the common thing to do.
Nice article. I had never thought of those two cars being that similar. The fact is, that ’55 Ford is a dead ringer for the one I drove in high school in the mid 60s. It had the 272 V8 and automatic transmission. It had a 2 barrel carb but also dual exhausts which got me a little attention from the local police. I really enjoyed that car and had lots of fun with it. Then I graduated from high school and decided I needed a newer car for the 22 mile commute to college. So I bought a nice ’62 Fairlane with the 170 six and stick shift. That engine wouldn’t take the abuse a teenage guy would give it whether he intended to or not. I blew it up twice and finally traded it for a nice looking ’64 Galaxie hardtop which turned out to be the worse car I ever owned. I think I would have been better off keeping the ’55 or finding a V8 Fairlane. A buddy of mine had one with the 260 and had no problems. After reading this I can really see the similarities between the two, although the ’55 always did seem like a larger car. This reminds me that when GM came out with the Chevelle they made a big deal about it being the same size as the ’55 Chevy.
I still find it fascinating to watch the way automakers in this era were looking for that Goldilocks-style just right size. The long wheelbase Lark Cruiser came close, but it was old. This Fairlane came close too, but it was a little narrow because of its Falcon roots. The 1964 GM A body turned out to be the answer and from there on became everyone else’s target.
This one really is the right size . my middle brother had one in the 1970’s, smooth, quiet and comfortable .
I don’t mind shifting so for me the three speed and overdrive makes the perfect combination, by passing the secone gear lockout takes care of the hills at speed problem .
I love the paint and upholstery combination of this car .
-Nate