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.
In these times, the most stressful of my rather long life, having the writings of Paul and all of the other contributors to look forward to every morning is a benefit of incalculable value. Thank you, all.
Agreed.
Same here. I’ve checked in almost every day since 2012 or so. This site accompanies my morning coffee or breaktime at work.
Love this Ford. Really reminds me of the ’62 Monterey my folks had for awhile. I remember getting in trouble as a kid by pulling all the chrome buttons off the radio while Mom was shopping in the store.
Ditto on the morning coffee and CC. It’s a welcome escape, especially in Spring 2020. Stay safe and be safe, everyone.
I had never before thought about the odd rear end collection on the 62 Ford line – 2 with little fins, two without. With no discernible pattern, either – one of each on the two biggest and highest priced, and ditto on the low end. And there was no discernible direction – the finless Falcon was the oldest design and the finned Fairlane the newest. Odd.
I continue to maintain that outside of Studebaker buyers, nobody was more old-fashioned and conservative than Ford buyers in that time period. Just look at this car – a high trim Galaxie 500 hardtop with a 3 speed stick. How many Impala or Fury hardtops have you ever seen with a 3 on the tree – not very many. But with Ford it was not terribly uncommon.
And yes, the poor old 292 in its last year of passenger car service. It’s a little unfair to beat on it in its final iteration – both Ford and Chrysler abandoned their small-cube V8s to basic lo-po 2 bbl versions after 1957-58, concentrating all of their performance efforts on bigger blocks. It is interesting to contemplate whether Chevrolet might have gone along had there been no Corvette. The Vette gave Chevrolet every reason to keep developing an already excellent engine during the crucial 1957-60 period while Ford and Chrysler had zero reason to try to improve their own efforts in that class until smaller performance cars became a trend (and after McNamara had moved on, in Ford’s case).
Good point about small V-8’s during that period.
In August 1988 my father purchased a base 1962 Galaxie at an auction. So for several years it sat in the shed next to the ’63 Galaxie I still have.
The differences were indeed significant. Even with both being three-on-the-tree cars, the exposed shift linkage of the ’62 seemed hokey and the dashboard were indeed worlds apart.
That ’62 also had a 292 and it was, well, underwhelming. But the one we had was screwed together quite well and drove fantastic.
Looking at the instrument panel of this black ’62, I’m wanting to say one of those knobs to the right of the steering wheel is for the overdrive transmission. That makes the driving experience of these totally different, making for an outstanding interstate cruiser.
You may be correct about the overdrive knob, but in my family’s 64 Country Squire the knob for the overdrive was below the others on the dash, and shaped differently from any other knob. Whether that was to keep drivers from accidentally engaging overdrive, or if it was because that particular car was one of the last to have optional overdrive….I can’t say. Where we lived in mountainous northeast Pennsylvania, that overdrive (as far as I know) was used less than 4 or 5 times, with once being my father demonstrating it’s use. I think I might have used it once, too, just to see if I could get it to engage.
My family owned several 60s Fords (a 60, 64, 66, 68 and 69 and 3 first generation Mustangs), and 1 thing that always bugged me was the dashboard knobs looked and felt too similar.
The overdrive on my ’63 is below the dashboard, so what you say about your family’s ’64 makes sense.
The only time I’ve seen a ’62 with overdrive was at a Galaxie convention in Tupelo, Mississippi, several years ago. It was on a stock, original owner car.
One of my uncles once owned a ’62 Galaxie, and my parents at the time owned a ’62 Impala. I preferred the Galaxie all over the Impala. It drove better, my parents car had the stovebolt six and powerglide which was not exactly an endearing combination. I also thought the interior was much better and the seats much more comfortable. My uncle only had the Galaxie for a couple of years, he said he didn’t like the chassis. I should have asked him what he meant by that, unfortunately I never did.
I like the 1962 Impala 409 motor WITH 409Hp WITH 2 4 barrel carburetors
Subjectively, Ford may not have had much of a performance image, but after Henry II decided to supporting racing mid-year, the Galaxie had a pretty successful second half of the season in NASCAR. Which in those days was arguably more representative of stock cars. And in fact Ford went on to win the manufacturer’s cup for almost a decade. But even as kid I didn’t like that rear end, like a worn bar of soap. On the other hand, as a kid I remember being amazed at the “405 HP” emblazoned on the hood of the NASCAR Fords … hard to imagine compared to the 90 HP of our family Volvo.
You remind me that as a kid I made an HO slot car trade which resulted in me adding a Jag XK150 and a 62 Ford hardtop much like this one, only red with a black top. I forget what I traded away, but I loved that stupid 62 Ford – it stood out from the rest of the slot cars you could buy by around 1970-71 like a sore thumb.
In .late ’68, my brothers and I stayed with our grandparents in Saginaw Michigan, while our folks were house-hunting in Virginia. My grandfather had a red ’62 Galaxie.
I even have a black& white photo of it somewhere that I took with a cheap little Hong-Kong camera.
He totaled the Ford a few years later and replaced it with – a Chevy Vega!
In defense of that old-school, manual column-shift linkage, The few I’ve driven worked and held up better than the integrated manual column-shift that nearly all American vehicles adopted – once dried grease and excess wear of the pot-metal collar made shifting a major ordeal!
Happy Motoring, Mark
My grandpa worked as a Ford mechanic at the ford garage in Darlington wisconsin, and had a 62 galaxie two door box top that was ember glow inside and outside which was a very rare combination. I think his had the 352 or 390 engine option. I do remember riding in the car several times it was pretty fast for the day. The 390 and 406 fords were cleaning up at the drag strips, whipping the shit out of the slower chevys of the day. I always wanted a 62–63 ford. Oh well maybe one day.
The first time I heard on the pages of CC that the Falcon was the big Ford’s undoing, I had my doubts. But, this write up closes the case affirmatively for me.
I have a very young recollection that is subject to inaccuracy. But, here goes – my Dad brought home a local gas station service loaner, a very tired old Ford. Likely a ’62. I don’t recall it seeming to be a stripper from the outside, it was likely a two door hardtop Galaxie 500, and definitely a standard transmission as I recall my Dad working it. We had all automatics at home, so I had never before seen the work to master such a beast, which likely also lacked the power steering my Dad had become accustomed to.
The dash as certainly was primitive, almost foreboding, the black knobs, open column and dull aluminum trim were very different to me. I was mostly used to a ’67 Caprice, ’68 Impala and ’72 Olds Delta 88 which had dashes that seemed bright, elegant and friendly by comparison.
For many years, I really had no feel for big Fords from 1960-1964. They were frumpy old cars in my GM centric world.
I do have much more appreciation for these now, and can see some bright spots in packages that no longer have to directly compete with GM in my mind. I like the ’64 Ford a lot, a Galaxie 500 XL four-door hardtop, especially with power window switches on the consol is way cool to me.
And, I have an appreciation for the ’62 as well. Maybe it is just nostalgia. I saw the ’62 big Ford brochure cover some years ago, and I can sort of see my parents in it, although they had just bought a Falcon at the time. The big ’62 Ford always seemed to get photographed from the rear 3/4, and it is probably its best view. The manicured privet hedge, raincoats, white umbrella and pumps were my parents in the ’60s…..
I was partial to Fords of this era. I especially liked the ’63s but the ’62s were good too. I liked the big, round tail lights. But I didn’t know much – certainly not what was revealed here.
Paul mentioned the decent interior of the Galaxie and the introduction of the XL with buckets and console. I remember the XL interiors on the ’62s through ’64s and they were very impressive indeed – more striking to these eyes than corresponding Chevy SS ones. I think one could get a four door hardtop or even a Country Squire with those buckets & console. Nice vinyl with great trim/patterns. The door handles were special upgrades too and there was plenty of brushed aluminum, like a T-Bird. Make my XL interior red.
I think this car looks terrific! The black, red and chrome works so well as a colorway, something current manufacturers should take note of, as black and black on black doesn’t always look as upmarket as planned.. I grew up in the early sixties staring at Austin A35, A40 and Beetle dashboards, or taking the bus, so this dashboard would have been a grand vision, all relative I guess.
“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.”
Ford had tried that approach before. The ’58 also cribbed ‘bird styling and the result was as equally unsatisfying.
Actually, it’s the ’59 models who cribbled ‘bird styling.
True of the Thunderbird roofline that first appeared on big Fords in 1959 but the 1958 full-sized Ford did use a number of styling cues from the Squarebird, perhaps not very effectively, as Matt suggests.
And the Thunderbird.
Locally, many hot rodder’s removed the bars from the front grille which gave the car a Tbird mouth. Many did not like the four tail lights, but again, Tbird territory. I had a dozen ’57 Ford’s (one Canadian Richleu 500) and 10 58’s. The best and my favorite was a 1958 Fairlane 500 Sunliner in the red/white combo. I thought it quite beautiful, and with the 352 Interceptor, Cruise-O-Matic, and full power and accessories, was fast, and lovely. I haven’t seen anyone comment the T bird style roof was very evident on the 1960 Galaxie 4 door sedan and hardtop, as well as the 2 door sedan, the roof was available on the same 1961 models plus the Victoria 2 door hardtop. In 1962, because the Tbird style roof was less aerodynamic for Nascar, a Starliner style roof was made available for convertibles, and made solidly for Nascar use. The roofline on lesser ’60-’61 Fairlanes was also used on 1960 Edsels, including 4 door hardtop’s, with the large rear window was a pretty car. I had 3 1961, 1 1962 and 1 1963 Sunliner convert’s, never liking the ’62 style as much, loved the ’63 with 406, 3×2 bbls, console 4 speed, with the 1956 Mercury wheelcovers with 3 bar ’63 spinners so they fit the larger 15″ wheels
I was never a fan of the 62 styling myself, it’s just so buttoned up and conservative looking despite its “practical Tbird” aspirations, it actually reminds me of the Box Panthers in many respects, from the generic front end styling, to the sloping taillights/trunklid, to the upright and somewhat disproportioned sedan roofline, and of course the boxiness.
But it looks like a supermodel next to the first gen Panamera in front of it.
As a kid, I was just like you Paul; enthralled by early 60s GM cars. I remember peaking in a 1960 Impala for the first time. I was amazed by the metal and chrome. As I got closer to 16, I swore I would find a 62 or 64 to make my own. I was really close a couple of times (this was the mid 90s), but never could make it happen. And I turned down a really nice black 65 ss with red interior because…it just wasn’t what I wanted. Somehow, I ended up with an Alfa GTV6 as my first car, but that’s a story for another day.
Now, after all these years, I still love the 62 and 64 Impalas, but I’d take the 65 over both today. However, knowing now about the x frame, and the prolific use of the PG; I don’t think I ever found one with a manual, I’d pick a Galaxy. I really like this car, exposed column shifter and all.
These Fords were nice looking cars. The styling of the front ends lagged that of the Chevys by a few years, but the back ends were quite nice. The best of the ’61 to ’64 era from Ford full sizes. Ford just could not decide where the taillights looked best – below the body line, above, or in the middle. The racing car set I had as a kid has one of these Fords, and a Pontiac of the same year.
If given a choice, I would take a 1959 over them all.
I think they got the tailights just right in ‘63. Beautiful.
If Bob Newhart was a car, he would be a ’62 Ford.
I have had 63’s , 64’s an 65’s , id give my RN for a good drivable 62
Just finished my 64 Galaxie 500 xl code z. Have owned seven show rides over the last 25 yrs. Mine is not stock but it is like btchin. It is the first ride I can drive and not worry about it. It will also present itself in a show in the future.
Have something of a fondness for ’62 Galaxies. My grandad had a ’62 Galaxie 4-door when I was a growing up. Beige with a beige/brown interior. Bought it new from O’Shea-Rogers Motors in Lincoln, NE. Looked just like the one in the “The 1962 Fords” ad above. Never knew what was under the hood, other than it was probably whatever was the standard V8 at the time. 292 perhaps…? He always parked in the street so my grandma could park her new-every-other-year Olds 98 in their one car garage. It always seemed to start right up in the dead of winter. We spent a lot of time together in that beige Galaxie bumming all around town until he traded for a new slant six ’71 Dodge Demon. Some 4 years later he would be gone.
What a nice surprise to see today! Thanks for posting the pics, Paul.
My shots never look quite as Chicago as Joseph’s, but this was taken at Wood and Division in the Wicker Park/East Village neighborhood. Sorry for the far-away interior shot, but I’m still a little self-conscious about touching the merchandise, especially on a major street 🙂
Ford’s market share reminded me of a Steve Jobs quote. From the Isaacson biography:
“One of Jobs’ business rules was to never be afraid of cannibalizing yourself. “If you don’t cannibalize yourself, someone else will,” he said. So even though an iPhone might cannibalize sales of an iPod, or an iPad might cannibalize sales of a laptop, that did not deter him.” Although, in this case, with a general decline in total market share, it looks like it was a better plan for Jobs than HFII.
Of the 61-64 big Fords, my favorite is the 63, hands down. The featured 62 is in very fine condition though.
In the lead photo, an artifact of the angle and a trick of the light do an interesting thing together. Look just ahead of the aft lower corner of the rear door glass: the rear seatback stripe is placed just so as to create the illusion of a kickup in the doorskin metal at that corner, just like the one on the ’63-’64 Plymouth-Dodge cars. From that little illusory detail I suddenly see much more clearly the great similarity in the greenhouses (and proportions, and profile) of those cars and that of the ’62 Ford.
Elwood Engel, on arriving at Chrysler from Ford in late 1961, had time only to make some changes to the ’63 cars, not do them from scratch. I don’t know the extent of those changes, but the ’63 Mopars strike me as much more akin to this ’62 Ford, sheetmetallically, than to the pure-Exner ’62 Mopars.
I recall doing a dive into the 63 Chrysler and coming away convinced that there simply wasn’t time for Engel to do anything other than trim details on any of the 63 cars, if even that. The 63 Plymouth/Dodge hardtop roof was very similar in concept to the 63 Chrysler hardtop roof.
That’s well documented. The ’63’s were ready to go when he arrived, and he was quite happy with them. “What’s the problem?” he said, obviously referring to deposed Virgil Exner, whose job he just took.
Exner’s problem is that his leash was let too loose; when Lynn Townsend tightened it way up for the ’63s, the result was quite palatable to even conservative tastes.
Is one of the catalog photos of a couple eloping? If not that, what? Who walks down a ladder forward? What were they thinking?
Totally agree, I just saw that and thought what on earth are they doing? A fire escape? Eloping? Don Draper clearly had too much that day!
None of the ’62 “low priced three” are my favorites, styling wise. Ford and Chevy both went with a “formal” roof for the two door hardtop, giving a “heavy” appearance, but did help shade backseat passengers. I would have gone Impala with the new 327 and new aluminum Powerglide that year. It is interesting that even Plymouth did not have a severe drop in market share from ’61 to ’62.
With the Chevy though, if you chose the Bel Air 2-door hardtop, you could still get the light, airy bubbletop used in ’61. As discussed recently here, the ’62 was the last year in the US that the Bel Air was available as a hardtop.
Hard for Plymouth to drop much from it’s pathetic 3% market share in ‘61.
Plymouth is currently at 0%.
To me both Ford and Chevrolet bulked up in 1962, looking less graceful than the 1961 cars. For that matter, so did the Pontiacs. All the coupes changed rooflines that year, which may have been part of the same process.
The 292 was part of Ford’s Y-block family, the engines which replaced the venerable flathead. As a source of motive power, they made wonderful boat anchors.
wow i did not c pontiac on that chart like the pontiac catalina, Bonneville, and the grand prix and for small car 63 lemans , tempest that little car with trans in the rear was ahead of its time with 50/50 weight distribution
These are comparisons of the “low priced three”. Pontiac was a step up.
Had a 62 Ford convertible for a short while. Car was ten years old, 352 2 barrel auto. It was a real sled. Must have swapped that cast iron trans two or three times. Low oil pressure light came on at an idle when worm. Trans had to be manually shifted into low for take off other wise it would take off in second. Dumped it after about 6 months and got my 63 ford back in running order, that lasted for about another 6 months and that went back to the back forty, purchased a 68 cougar xr7 428cj, Amazing how driving a ten year old car now is so much better than it was back then.
I had a 1962 Ford Galaxie XL Convertible for about a year and a half. Beautiful car but the gas mileage in that 406/4spd…ugh!
Guess I’m in the minority in that I actually like the ’62 Ford styling…although not enough to prefer it over a ’62 Chevy. And then when you factor in the powertrains and resale value, Chevy had it all, it seemed.
Today, the F-150 is the franchise and what GM puts out there to compete hasn’t swayed the public. Even Ram is a bigger seller…a first.
Say what you will about the extreme GM cars of 1959, but what that year did was show buyers that GM wasn’t a dowdy corporation. While the lost a beat in sales that year, GM more than made that up when they toned their cars down during the following four years. Thanks to the 59 space ships, GM had an edge for the next four years. Buying a GM car was reaching for the stars.
Compare that to Ford. Everyone knew what a Ford was. Their 1959 design was ridiculous. It was a square car with gewgaws decorating it. The 1959 looked like a 1957 with chrome and spittle. GM did too much, but Ford didn’t. Ford won the sales war that year when buyers shunned the gaudy GM designs. Yet, those buyers would return during the next generation, thanks in part to those silly fins from ’59.
1959 revealed to buyers that GM was progressive, and Ford revealed themselves to be staid. A generation of WWII veterans in their 30’s-40’s were ready for the Jet Age. GM caught that spirit, but Ford didn’t. Ford’s halo car was a space machine fit for two, four in a pinch – the Thunderbird. That car did well for Ford. Yet the rest of their auto line was as staid as the last generation of buyers. Ford was styled safely in a time of excitement and hope.
Chrysler’s role? Freaky designs by Exner. Gargoyle cars with iffy engineering. The Valiant looked like a Martian potato. During this time, Chrysler couldn’t even find a leader that didn’t look corrupted. Ford buyers weren’t convinced that Chrysler would survive. GM buyers couldn’t get over the Exner styling abominations.
Ford succeeded in wagons because parents value staid over flamboyant. The Thunderbird we love today, went into sale doldrums during the third generation, barely surviving. Ford Falcons filled driveways with their staid frugality, earning little profit. Their intermediates created new markets, but with dowdy designs. Thank heavens Ford had Iacocca, who understood what Ford needed to stay competitive.
So let’s not write off those goofy sales flops GM unleashed in 1959. What those cars did was renew interest in what GM had to offer for the next five years, much to their profitable advantage.
I don’t know what it means but “geegaw” is the spot-on word to describe ’59 Ford styling. “Martian potato” is equally impressive. Well done.
Reading your post awakened me from my home-way-too-long, cabin fever stupor. Ugh.
Unfamiliar to me, of course, so I can only learn from the commentary and comments on its virtues against the 61 and 63, but I’d take it over the Porsche Panamera next to it in a shot.