This cute little 1964 Ford Falcon Futura Convertible couldn’t have known when it was new that it was sitting on the cusp of irrelevance, as the new Mustang was patiently waiting for its April 1964 introduction to swoop in and steal most of the sporty convertible market. But how badly did the Falcon Convertible’s sales suffer at the hands of the pony car juggernaut?
Falcon first got its convertible top as a 1963 model, being introduced in two models at introduction time: Futura and Futura Sports (with bucket seats), while the Sprint option would be introduced midyear. In the October 1962 issue of Mechanix Illustrated, Uncle Tom McCahill tested a Futura Sports Convertible with the 170-cubic-inch “paper bag buster” six, which boasted 101 horsepower. He said the convertible was “as neat as Dacron hair and should sell like ten-cent whiskey in the Bowery,” and dated references aside, that was a good thing for Ford.
The convertible was spared the 144-cubic-inch six that was standard in other Falcons and got the 170 as standard equipment, which wouldn’t “cause Enzo Ferrari to lose any sleep” with its zero-to-sixty time of 16.1 seconds and top speed of 85 miles per hour. Still, Uncle Tom called it “an excellent buy if it [was] the kind of car you [were] looking for,” and buyers agreed. Ford sold 18,942 Futura Convertibles, 12,250 Futura Sports Convertibles, and 4,602 Sprint Convertibles (which were mostly powered by the new 260 small-block V8).
As we all know, however, the Mustang was introduced in April 1964. Although it had the benefit of a long first selling season, there’s no doubting its popularity: 101,946 convertibles were sold. That is a shocking number.
Those numbers had to come from somewhere, and inevitably other compact convertibles had to suffer, including Ford’s own Falcon Futuras and Sprints. I caught this really nice Wimbledon White Futura at Motor Muster in Dearborn, Michigan in June 2026, and I can’t help but wonder if the original owner bought it before the Mustang was introduced or simply didn’t like the Mustang’s styling for some reason.
Either way, sales took a hit, even though the Falcon Convertible had the compact convertible slot to itself in the Ford showroom for six months during the 1964 model year: 13,220 Futura Convertibles (such as our featured car) were sold, in addition to just 2,980 Sports Convertibles and 4,278 Sprint Convertibles. Was it the Falcon’s new styling for 1964? Or did sales drop off a cliff starting in April?
Things got even worse in the Falcon camp for 1965 (regardless of how nice-looking this Raven Black 1965 Futura with the newly-optional 289 V8 is), and the Mustang’s effect on sporty Falcon sales became plain. Just 6,191 Futura Convertibles, 124 (!) Futura Convertibles with optional bucket seats (they were no longer called “Sports” models), and 300 Sprint Convertibles were sold in 1965. As a result, this would be the last Falcon Convertible, as it no longer made sense to offer a car that clearly stood in the Mustang’s long shadow.
But that’s not to take anything away from our 1964 Falcon Futura Convertible, as I’ve long liked the refreshed, squared-off styling even better than the 1960-63 Falcons. The Wimbledon White paint on this Falcon highlights the Futura’s “red, white, and blue” trim themes (notice the fender badges and wheel covers). The black interior is a perfect counterpoint, but quick question: Would you prefer a red, blue, or white interior to black? I think I’d stick with the black interior with a matching black top.
Surprisingly, the 144 was still kicking around in 1964 (its final model year of availability), but the 170 (now labeled as the “170 Special Six”) was still standard in convertibles. The only other option in 1964 was the 164-horsepower 260 V8 (although the 200 six was available in wagons, according to the sales materials). The 170 still had the same rating of 101 horsepower as it always seemed to have, and it came with the Autolite 1100 single-barrel carburetor and Loadomatic distributor.
Ford’s engine color schemes were based on engine size and tune until 1966, and the 170 Special was painted black with a red valve cover and air cleaner. Almost nothing could be simpler to work on than this old Falcon with an inline-six.
Unfortunately, the Falcon was still saddled with the two-speed Fordomatic in its last year of availability (the C4 would be the only automatic available in the Falcon for 1965). We can see that this is the more popular bench-seat Futura, so there’s room for six if you’re not in a hurry. Anyone who has driven a 1965 Mustang (non-GT) will immediately recognize the instrument cluster, and aside from a bit of a wave in the dash pad and a torn seam or two on the driver’s seat, this interior looks outstandingly clean. Notice the “Futura” badge with its red, white, and blue motif atop the passenger inner door.
When it was a new car, the Falcon Convertible was clearly outclassed by its spectacular new sporty sibling in the Ford Division, but these days (and I say this as a 1965 Mustang owner), you see Mustangs everywhere. Therefore, it’s a treat to see a Falcon, and in a world where we could drive anything we wanted, I would happily take the keys to this fun and economical Falcon for a week-long test drive.
Related Reading
The Brain Is In The Carburetor? Understanding Ford’s Forgotten Loadomatic Distributor (by me)
1963 Ford Falcon Futura Convertible – Hot Fun in the Summertime (by Paul N)
Ford Falcon Memories: The 1960s Everyday Car In Vintage Photos (by Rich Baron)
But Fords ‘Falcon’ continued the develop right through to 2016! Along the way the Falcon became a world class passenger car, equal or even better than many North American or European luxury or sport cars.
The Falcon became a world class passenger car in every way, particularly from the late 1970s onwards. Today the 1971 Ford Falcon Phase III GT 4 door sedan rates as one the most followed classic cars. Original examples selling close to a million dollars!
Of course Ford America killed the Falcon off by the early 1970s, but this was NOT the end of the Falcon. Ford Australia took over and developed and developed it to levels no Mustang ever achieved.
While the first generation Mustang sold in serious numbers, it had nothing under its active coupe body to get excited about and was no where near as advanced as Chevrolets Corvair was, particularly the second generation 1965-69 Chevrolet Corvair. Just shows how Ford fooled the buying public!
Great article.
It’s been written here on CC that, although it might have appeared that the 1960 Ford Falcon was a stunning success that far overshadowed that of the Corvair, Ford’s success was not nearly as dramatic since sales firgures indicate it’s very likely the conventional Falcon cannabalized sales from the more profitable big Ford lines whereas the revolutionary rear engine Corvair did not. In that respect, GM played it right for their overall bottom line.
So, even though Falcon Sprint convertible sales were a fraction of the Mustang, Ford was undoubtedly very sensitive to ‘any’ sales the lower profit Falcon might have taken from the Mustang and goes a long way to the reason the Falcon became the dowdy, cut-down 2-door sedan version of the Fairlane from 1966-69. Unlike the earlier convertible (and hardtop), no one was cross-shopping a Falcon with a Mustang in the latter half of the sixties.
Likewise, unlike the Nova/Camaro or Duster/Barracuda, there was never a high-performance version of the Maverick that competed with the early seventies Mustang.
After all these years, I still can’t get used to the odd squared off looks of the North American Falcon for ’64-5. Not just because I grew up around the Australian variety. There’s something unsettling about the side cove on these: it makes the car look like there’s too much sheetmetal above the front wheel, giving the impression of a reverse wedge shape. I’m not surprised the Mustang took its sales.
I’ve never been a fan of the ’64-’65 restyle. It made it look like the original was hiding inside a big cardboard box.
I wonder if you could make the same case for the 1964-65 fastback-style Falcon 2-door hardtop (not the sedan).
One of my high school friends was a kind of a “motorhead”, and his car of choice was a hopped-up ’65 Falcon Sprint 2-door hardtop, He would always say that it was “better than a Mustang” because of its lighter weight,
I don’t think the Mustang was any heavier than a Falcon: the Sprint’s curb weight was 2,806 and the Mustang’s was 2,556 (the Mustang’s was taken with the inline-six though). I would say with the V8, the Mustang would be about even if not a little lighter.
But a ’65 Sprint would be pretty cool either way, and certainly a lot more uncommon than a Mustang. I don’t think I’ve seen more than a handful of them ever, and they only made 3,106 of them total.
I’d venture a guess that the reason some Ford mavens went for a Falcon hardtop drag racer, first and foremost, was due to a cheaper initial buy-in than a Mustang. Secondly, the Falcon, with its more conventional styling than the Mustang’s ponycar defining long nose/short deck, might have given the Falcon an advantage in weight distribution on the strip.
The biggest issue was the small engine bay of the Falcon meant it was limited to the 289 V8. Plus, for drag strip duty, seems like Ford shifted to the Mercury Comet Cyclone (this is exempting earlier drag-strip specials sold only to professional teams). From 1965 forward, Ford seemed to take a page from the Chrysler styling playbook, copying the stacked headlight Tempest/GTO for a several years.
There was also a quite limited A/FX drag-only special Cyclones, easily identified by scoops at the leading edge of the hood. Even getting a somewhat mundane 289 Hi-Po engine in a street-legal Cyclone was a special order proposition, unlike the RPO for the same in engine in an everyday Mustang.
FWIW, 1966 saw the birth of the first modern funny car with a Cyclone that had a full, fiberglass, lift-up body and a full tube chassis. Previous factory funny cars were mostly stock/steel bodied cars that had altered wheelbases which pushed the wheels/tires forward within the chassis.
I’d go with a red interior, which I always find works well on a white car; but realistically, I would have done like the other 100K persons and got a Mustang.
The price difference is so small that cannibalization of the Falcon convertible was inevitable;for just a few dollars more you could have the hottest little thing around in 1964/65, and if you had a little extra, you could go out and order one kitted out just like you wanted, which I reckon was another strong point of the Mustang
I keep seeing 1964 Falcons with the 1965 tail lights (like this one), and it always leaves me wondering; were the tail lights switched out on a ’64, or was the grille switched out on a ’65?
The owner should roll all the windows down. A convertible with the top down and the windows up looks incredibly dorky.
^^ THIS! ^^
And I KNOW that JPC agrees.
Yup.
I’ve never understood why some convertible owners leave the quarter windows up when they lower the top. Is it simply laziness or is there an actual, practical reason for it? Otherwise, it definitely ruins the look of any top-down convertible.
Further, IIRC, the owner manuals recommend lowering ‘all’ the windows prior to raising the top to insure proper weatherstrip sealing.
One of my strong automotive memories from this period was the participation – and success – of the Falcon Sprints in the Monte Carlo Rally. This made the Falcon actually seem sportier and more sophisticated than the Mustang when it instantly became so popular. Kind of like the Rolling Stones vs the Beatles. The Maverick, when it came along, was more like … well, I was going to say the Monkees, but I’ve come to appreciate them over the years, something I can’t say about the Maverick.
I love the story of the Monte Carlo Rally Falcons; Leo Levine did an excellent job recounting the program in “The Dust and the Glory: 1901-1967.”
Our public library had that book soon after it was published; I was in the 8th or 9th grade and just devoured it. But even before the book, in ‘63 – 65 I remember seeing pictures of the Falcons in newspapers. The whole Monte Carlo Rally thing was exotic and Ford’s PR machine got it a lot of press.
Yes, the Mustang made the idea of a sporty Falcon utterly irrelevant. And I can just hear the moan of that 170 six teamed up with the miserable Fordomatic. A GF had the same drive train in her ’64 sedan and it was such a drag.
I had a friend with a ’63 Futura six convertible, and I remember some fun drives to go swimming on some little rivers way out in the Maryland boonies. At least it had the three-speed manual, but even then it was hardly “sporty”.
Just saw one of these in baby blue with the V8 in a beach parking lot on Saturday as the family spilled out of it. Not small compared to today’s cars, but a cute beach car.
Was a Falcon convertible about the same price as a Mustang convertible or was there any significant difference to make someone really think about spending more (or less)?
In 1965, the Falcon Futura Convertible was $2,428 with bench seat ($2,481 with buckets), while the Mustang was $2,614, so it was a little cheaper (but not enough to make a difference, it turns out).
Subscribed for the good comments .
-Nate
My favorite early US Falcons are the 64/65s, 65 has the best grille.
I like the nose in the air stance that Ford had with these, accentuated by the rising side crease and molding. Make mine white with a red interior.
The 289 arrived late in 64. Had the mustang only been offered with a thriftower I6, this could have persevered. I do find it interesting that the comet received the C4 in 1964, but not the falcon.
The C4 makes some sense considering that the Comet was an “upscale” Mercury, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that the 289 became an RPO until the 1965 model year in Falcons. I have read some bench-racing sessions about it, but nothing positive.