(first posted 3/21/2011) That could be me sitting in that barber chair, for two reasons. Well, that is the exact chair I sit in when I get my hair cut. And I could see myself having driven there in my ’61 Falcon, like the owner of this one did in his daily driver. I’ve always had a soft spot for the Falcon, despite its certain limitations. It appeals both to my left brain, for being so pragmatic and rational, as well as my right brain, where I’ve spent way too many hours mentally building the perfect 1961 Falcon, as if there was such a thing. Didn’t Ford get it right in 1960? It certainly won the compact war that launched that year.
There’s always room for improvement though, and Ford and I both improved on it for ’61.
The story of the Falcon is that rare triumph of rationality in Detroit. The Big Three all committed themselves to finally building compacts for 1960, after having dithered about it ever since WW2. GM came extremely close with their Cadet in 1948, but decided it wasn’t worth trying to build a small car since they could barely keep up building big ones. They all kept compact programs on the back burner, and the very nasty recession that started in the fall of 1957 sealed the deal. Ramblers, Larks and imports were all hot, and the time had come to do what had to be done. The question was how each approached the task.
In somewhat typical GM fashion, it used its love for technical overkill and radical approaches to come up with the air-cooled rear engine Corvair. We’ve covered that huge story lots of times here at CC, but let’s just say that in its initial form, it wasn’t quite what economy compact car buyers were looking for. But its improvements came soon enough and turned it into something rather different, and quite successful at that.
And Chrysler? Their prowess for engineering excellence within more conventional parameters led to the Valiant, technically superior to the Falcon in just about every way but quite spoiled by Virgil Exner’s challenging styling. The ’60-’62 Valiant may rightfully enjoy a cult following, but it was utterly out of the mainstream styling taste, and its poor sales proved that conclusively.
The Falcon was conceived under the reign of Robert McNamara, that paragon of the rational and pragmatic manager. He oversaw every detail, and the end result speaks for itself: a very compact car that weighed a mere 2400 lbs. yet could sit six (slim) adults in an interior not all that much smaller than a big Ford. Its 20-25 mpg was a huge improvement over the big cars too. No frills anywhere, and a sub $2000 price to go right up against the imports. Take that, Volkswagen!
Some have thrown aspersions at the Falcon, that it was designed to be a “disposable” car. How do you explain this fifty year old daily driver? Old Falcons are easy enough to keep running forever. Yes, the Australians decided to beef up a few suspension components after they started building it there. But Aussie roads in 1960 were hardly representative of typical American conditions. Yes, the Falcon was no more rugged or over-engineered that necessary, but that’s what McNamara rightfully deemed as the only way to eke out a profit on the Falcon. And the obstacles to that were very substantial.
Detroit’s solution until 1960 was just to sell de-contented full size cars to those looking for a cheap car. A 1959 Ford Custom cost only some 25% more than a VW, and had four times the horsepower, about twice the interior room, and about ten times the luggage space. Keep the same lines running with one basic car, and make the big profits on the options and high trim models: a recipe that Detroit was hooked on since the Model T and GM’s up-selling magic.
Chevrolet knew it had a problem with the Corvair within weeks of its launch in the fall of 1959. It just wasn’t selling as strongly as expected and they realized that the Falcon had the winning formula for a compact economy car. So Chevy did two things: they quickly started development of the pragmatic Chevy II. And they turned the Corvair into a sporty car, almost by accident. To promote the new coupe version, they created a spiffy one-off for the auto show circuit, giving it wire wheels, bucket seats and a few other goodies and called it “Super Monza”.
Car show attendees fell in love with it and their enthusiasm encouraged Chevrolet to rush it into a production version, the Monza coupe, available as of May, 1960. It turned out to be one of the great strokes of genius, or just good luck, as the Monza defined a new category of American car that would have a huge impact on the market. Turns out that a whole lot of new car buyers would rather buy a well-trimmed small car that was fun to drive than a big stripper that wasn’t. Why this very obvious fact had been lost on the Big Three for so long is a very good question; Nash had come that that same conclusion ten years earlier.
The Falcon sold much better than the others; in fact in 1960, Falcon sales were about equal to Corvair and Valiant sales combined (436k, vs. 250k and 194k). And in 1961, it dominated even further, with sales of 474k, some 8.3% of the market. Unfortunately there was a painful flip side to this equation: it would appear that a very large percentage of Falcon sales came out of the hide of full-size Ford cars, whose sales went down in 1960 almost the exact same amount as the 1960 Falcon’s sales. Ouch.
Lee Iacocca knew he had a serious problem on his hands; although the Falcon sold well, the Monza was selling very briskly and unlike the Falcon, seemed to be bringing in former import owners and import intenders. New customers, in other words, and youthful ones with good income demographics. The ultimate solution was going to be a few more years off, but as a stopgap, Lee had the Falcon gussied up with brightwork, bucket seats and a console.
But no floor shifter yet; that would have to wait until 1962 when an optional UK-sourced 4-speed manual arrived, which perked things up a fair bit in terms of the Falcon’s zest along with the also-optional 101 hp 170 CID six.
That’s not to say that the Futura was truly sporty, by any stretch. The Falcon’s handling would never be confused with that word. It rode reasonably well enough in its effort to emulate the big cars. And due to its inherent lightness, handling was actually better than the typical big Detroit barge of the times. But that’s not saying a whole lot. It was not in the same league as the Corvair or the imports.
That’s not to say an old Falcon couldn’t be fun to drive; it was just a matter of adjusting expectations, especially if they had been honed on European cars of the time. The somewhat similar in concept Peugeot 404 that also arrived in 1960 had accurate rack and pinion steering, and a killer ride. Of course, that cost about 15% more than a Futura, and was hardly in the mainstream public’s eye.
The key to deriving any driving pleasure from a Falcon was this: avoid the automatic transmission, most especially with the small six. The two-speed Ford-O-Matic was inherently a power-sucker and sapped any semblance of response from the little six. Teamed with the original 85 hp 144 CID (2.4 L) engine, it was an exercise in painful frustration, with the 0-60 (non)sprint taking some 23 seconds. Falcon six automatics bleated and whined and moaned their way down the road for what seemed like an eternity before they finally shifted into Hi, and then it started again, never to end until it was finally and thankfully shut off. They always sounded tortured, or at least put upon.
Their personality was quite transformed with the manual transmission, even if it was somewhat more subjective than objective The 170 six with the stick had a semblance of direct response, and with its light weight, performance was not bad, in the context of either the times or with the appropriate point of view, today (0-60 in 17.5 seconds). Especially with a less restrictive muffler, a Falcon six with a stick gives off a pleasant little baby-growl, not unlike British sixes of similar size like the Triumph 2.5 or ? If I had my way, every automatic would wear the sad-sack 1960 grille (left), and every stick would wear the happy-go-luck 1961 grille (right).
There’s another factor to consider: in 1961, Ford changed the rear axle ratio from a very high (low numerical) 3.10:1 to a 3.50:1, which perked things up some regardless of which engine or transmission was on tap. Every little bit helps.
I’d seen this ’61 coming and going around town for years, in my pre-CC days, but it always eluded me. There are plenty of other Falcons around, but not a ’61 two door, the perpetual object of my mental Falcon building. My obsession for that vintage goes way back, right when the ’61 came out. I’ve always found the original ’60-’61 body style to be the most appealing, but the ’60’s grille struck me as a bit sad.
I had it all specced out in my mind: a ’61 Futura, with bucket seat and the rare four speed manual option. That combination, with a two-barrel carb added, preferably on a swapped-in 200 six, some Koni shocks, decent tires, and the closest thing to a conventional European sedan was (sort of) in reach. Unless you were applying the same kind of attention to a Valiant, that is. We’ll play that game another time.
Old Falcon sixes of this vintage have an enthusiastic following. Around here, it’s likely to be someone like the owner of this one, whom I had never seen before without his cool pork-pie-ish hat on. Have to take it off to get one’s hair cut, though. The Falcon is an integral part of his look, as are most folks’ cars. I’m a chameleon: this Falcon would work for me, some of the time, built to my specs, but certainly not all the time. But that’s hardly the Falcon’s fault. Now if it had that hot new aluminum cylinder head that is now available…
Related posts:
Ford’s 021c Concept: The Falcon Reincarnated
How To Make Your Falcon Six Generate 350 HP
The other big part of the U.S. Falcon story was the Futura, which arrived in ’62. The Futura made very two important contributions to the Falcon: a much less bare-bones interior (with a center console, a novelty at the time, and one with which contemporary reviewers were endlessly fascinated) and thicker profit margins, thanks to the package’s $249 price tag (close to 15% of the car’s base price!).
ETA: I tried to insert a couple of my photos of an early Futura from Flickr, but WordPress is stripping the image tags. The set is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/argentla/5369586236/in/set-72157625858415374/
In the mid-80’s I restored (sort of) a 1964-65-66 Mustang (it had parts from all three, plus miscellaneous Maverick, Mercury, whatever). I tossed out the C4 that came with the original car and replaced it with the 3-speed stick from a ’64 rustball that I bought for parts. It was the same 3-speed as the Falcon and, I think, the Rambler American. It was non-synchronized in first and reverse, so there was a little learning curve. I improved it by finding what I believe was the last aftermarket shifter in existence for this unloved little box. Behind a freshly rebuilt 200 six, it was actually kind of fun to drive.
I had a chance to buy a ’60 Falcon, and a similar model Ranchero, both of which could have been had for a song! But I already had my hands full with the Mustang, so I let them go. They both went to the crusher. It’s sad, but that’s the circle of life. To paraphase the old saying, “A car once, but scrapiron twice”.
Rambler (Nash, and Hudson both) always had their own manual transmissions. Automatics over the years ranged from the Hydramatic, the UltraMatic from Packard and Borg-Warner units such as the Flash-O-Matic in the early to mid 1960s. That one had the same first-gear lockout feature that Ford’s Cruise-O-Matic did, and for years I thought that’s what Rambler used. I’d love to know the real, definitive story behind both. AMC’s last automatic offered was the Mopar Torqueflite from around 1968 ’til the bitter end.
I’ve been roaming through the Motors section of eBay and clicking on any 1st gen Falcon that pops up for quite some time now. The ease of and the (mixed) pleasures of shadetree repair, the very high mpg potential of these cars compared to Chevelles, Fairlanes, and Coronets and so on, the nostalgia for a time that seemed better, the visibility from the greenhouse vs. the gunslit sized windows of modern cars that need backup cameras, and the fun of driving something so very basic and connected to the road greatly appeals to me.
I’m pretty sure you’re mandated to wear a Pork Pie hat if you drive an early Falcon!
I was never a big fan of the early models. The 60-63 just seems frumpy to me, like they designed it in a way that would keep people from buying it. Like Chrysler actually did do. Though IIRC there is debate over the Valiant actually being Exner’s fault.
The 64-70 cars seemed more visually appealing, even in “stripper” form. I actually like the 64+ Falcon more than the 64-68 Mustangs.
Awesome Barber Shop shot BTW.. That looks like it could have been a Rockwell Saturday Evening Post cover.
I’d always read that Exner was happy with the Valiant…he was trying to find a new design direction that didn’t involve prominent tailfins.
His disappointment came with the downsized 1962 Dodges and Plymouths, which were originally supposed to be longer and wider and feature curved side glass, sleeker rooflines and better overall proportions (although they still would have had the unusual side sculpturing and staggered headlights).
Also didn’t the design of the 1963 Valiant and Dart was mainly done under the supervision of Exner? This is where the duo Dart-Valiant beginned to get an higher share of the market.
Virgil Exner was responsible for design of the 1963 Dodge Dart and Plymouth Valiant.
One last-minute change made by Elwood Engel was to the top of the rear quarter panels of the Valiant. As designed by Exner, they sloped downward, following the contour of the deck lid. Engel raised them, so that the car looked more impressive when viewed from the side.
Engel’s ‘finlets’ on the top of the 1963 Valiant quarter panels were something of an irony, when you think how Exner, whom most consider the father of the tailfin, going away from fins, and then Engel is putting them back on an Exner car!
No, just a fedora like I do.
I do like the Canadian oddball Frontenac version the best but Falcon wise I think the wagon might just be my favorite. Probably a rare beast then with a manual gearbox never mind now.
Yes. Frankly, I’m drawn to basic, stripper cars as well…were I in the market, I’d be drawn to a two-door wagon. The rarity; the utility, all appeal…
But I’m not. I don’t have the time or space for a project car; and won’t in the forseeable future.
Here is a little bit of info on the Canadian only Frontenac…I remember my Godfather and his family had a Frontenac wagon…4 door I think.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/car-life/classic-cars/ford-frontenac-a-one-year-wonder/article1719370/?service=mobile
These old Falcons have some good points especially now as its easy to swap in later model parts. Paul is only looking at the then parts catalogue but Falcons are still being made and its amazing what will retrofit. that they fell to. pieces new isnt a problem now. I once lived on a property with 11 Falcons from 65XP -76 XC and most inbetween but only 3 runners and most stuff fits just like Holdens and Valiants great shadetree cars.
Bryce is right. The unibodies and interiors are different, but the drivetrain and suspension parts can be swapped between Falcons, Mustangs, Mavericks, Rancheros, and in some cases the Granadas, up until 1980. I know he’s talking about the Australian versions, but the U.S. models interchanged like crazy, too.
People who say Ford didn’t make any money on the Falcon don’t consider that the basic architecture survived in modified form until the Granada’s demise in 1980. All that time, Ford was cranking out these little tower-suspensioned sleds and ringing that cash register. What that says about Ford innovation in that 21-year period, however, ain’t too nice.
Do you have any photos of those Falcons? If you do, put them on the Flickr site. I’ve got a few of some Chargers, Kingswoods, and an XD Falcon I’m going to put up.
There’s something left out, in describing the appeal of the Falcon: the F O R D badge on the front of it. Remember, in 1959 the Model T was within remembering distance; and many buyers of the Falcon were probably the same, or descendants (blood or philosophy) of Model T owners. Ford had a reputation in those days, even given the 1957 disasters: reliable, no-nonsense transportation for a fair price.
GM had the opposite philosophy and reputation (witness the radical, Smokey-Stover Corvair); and Chrysler…nobody knew WHAT they were up to. The Valiant had to stand up on its first impressions; and those were not good.
Some of this comes home to me. My old man was a Ford guy…his first car was a Model A; but he’d bought a 1957 and was completely disgusted with the build quality and premature rusting. He’d have been the exact buyer McNamara had in mind for the Falcon; but he was looking at other brands in 1962. A relative (by marriage) swore by Nashes, owning a 1961 Classic. So he went and bought the “Miracle Car” instead, a 1962 Rambler.
The Rambler offered, on the showroom floor, more bang for the buck…standard front buckets, carpeted station-wagon load area and an interior far upscale from the dowdy Falcon. But, alas…the Falcon is still going strong at 50; while it was a “miracle” that that Rambler made it to six years before collapsing of rust and internal ailments.
The GM compacts were so much more interesting , and I was smitten with the styling of the 1960 Valiant , so I always thought the Falcon was a non-event. However, Ford built a handful of special competition ones for rallying,(with V8 power, naturally) and one or two of these ended up as saloon racecars in England.
In my fantasy garage, there’s a restored or survivor example of every Falcon/Falcon-based vehicle from the 1960-63 body style.
2-door sedan
4-door sedan
3-door sedan delivery
3-door wagon
5-door wagon
2-door coupe/hardtop
2-door convertible
Falcon Ranchero
Econoline Falcon (passenger) Van
Econoline Van
Econoline Pickup
I’m especially partial to the Ranchero and the Pickup.
I see you are just as crazy as I am! Congratulations! In my garage, I would throw a few 64 and 65 models into the mix because I really like their more substantial styling and all of them are available for 64/65. Falcon really had it going on!
P.S. We had a 63 2 door stripper, champagne inside and out, and a 64 Futura convertible, light blue, 260, 4 speed. Valiants after that!
The Goldfinger Special.
https://autouniversum.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/the-cars-of-james-bond-ford-falcon-ranchero/
I drove a 61 Falcon 4 door with automatic trans regularly for driver’s ed class in high school during the Fall of 1961. For that purpose it was a pretty ideal little sedan. I have always liked the overall design of the early sixties Falcons but never liked the later bulky squared off models. I never ever liked driving or riding in a Ford six cylinder for any serious traveling. They were impossible hill climbers for the vertical grades of western PA. Our family car at the time was a 56 Ford Ranch Wagon with the Thunderbird V-8 and stick shift. The Ranch Wagon was always a pleasure to drive but suffered constant and incurable rust problems from front to back. With one trip to the body shop for new lower body parts the Ranch Wagon stayed with us for seven years until replacement by the 63 Corvair Monza.
Paul, I’m just the opposite when it comes to grilles…I prefer the 1960 grille to the ’61 and up. But that’s me. If I had a ’60 I’d do some parts swapping and build a nice little 4.6/5-speed equipped car that could be enjoyed daily.
A great article that really captures the essence of this car. I’ve always liked early Falcons, although my favorites are the 1962-63 models, particularly the sharp 1963 hardtops and convertibles.
What’s interesting about ALL of the Big Three compacts from 1960 is how small they look in real life. The Corvair and Valiant are also very low, which makes them seem tiny compared to even a new Focus or Civic.
Popular Mechanics surveyed owners of all of the Big Three compacts in 1960 (the old Owners’ Reports are very interesting and a great idea – one wonders why the magazine discontinued them). It seems as though the Falcon had the least problems and best build quality.
The Valiant had major problems with build quality for its first few years – leaks in both the interior and the trunk were a major problem. And I’m not talking about minor leaks – it was not uncommon to take a Valiant out in a steady rain and discover pools of water in the trunk or on the floor of the back seat. Chrysler had severe build-quality problems in the early 1960s.
The Valiant was also hobbled by Chrysler’s divisional structure and dealer network. Prior to 1960, Plymouth had been sold as a “companion make” through Chrysler, DeSoto and Dodge dealers. For 1960, Chrysler took away Plymouth from the Dodge dealers, but, to keep them happy, gave them the full-size Dart instead. The Dart was a low-price Dodge based on the Plymouth body…Dodge even advertised it as being competitive with “Car C,” “Car F” and “Car P.” Thus, two divisions were directly going after the same customer base! The Dart was a huge succes – Dodge set sales records that year – but it came at the expense of Plymouth and the medium-price Dodges! Thus, Dodge lost its image as a step up from a Plymouth.
Meanwhile, the Valiant was not sold as a Plymouth, but as a separate marque, available through select Chrysler-DeSoto-Plymouth dealers. Chrysler even advertised it as “Nobody’s Kid Brother.” Buyers were confused as to which division sold the Valiant, and I’m sure that many buyers interested in the Valiant went to the old Dodge-Plymouth dealer, but discovered that it was no longer selling Plymouths, and didn’t have any Valiants to sell. The dealer wasn’t about to direct a potential sale to another dealer, so he probably pushed the new Dart very hard. The results were record sales for Dodge, mediocre sales for the Valiant and terrible sales for the full-size Plymouth. Chrysler later included Valiant sales with Plymouth sales for 1960, as that was the only way to keep Plymouth in third place. Otherwise, it would have fallen far below its usual position.
The Valiant-Falcon story for 1960 shows how bizarre styling, bad build quality and confused marketing can overwhelm very good engineering, and lose out to conventional, clean styling and focused marketing and product development efforts.
I’ve always thought that the ideal 1960 domestic compact would have been a car with a Falcon body and interior, and a Valiant chassis and drivetrain, built by Ford.
I have a ’62 Mercury Comet as a weekend driver/project car(sadly more often the latter than the former). It has inspired in me a great love of the 60-63 falcons & comets. They are simple cars that do everything you need a car to do, and nothing else. Mine has a ’71 Maverick 200/C4auto/8″rear swap, and a scarebird front disc brake kit(uses custom hubs & brackets but all the wear parts are off-the shelf stuff). It is a fun little car and driving it, or just seeing it in the driveway always makes me happy.
My g/f wants a classic of her own down the line, I’m tryign to get her interested in a ’63 falcon convertible, she likes them, but her heart belongs to the ’65 mustang convertible. Much like the buying public in 64/65, oddly enough.
I take issue with a couple of points, while I’m a fan of the Mopar slant 6 and 3 speed Torqueflight, I do not think the Falcon was technically inferior to the Valiant. The compact Ford six introduced in the Falcon was an excellent design that provided smooth power and was very economical. The 2 speed Fordamatic was a dog but so was the 2 speed Powerglide fitted to the Corvair, the 3 speed C-4 automatic was added as a option I think in 1962 which improved performance matching that of the Chrysler Valiant and Lancer twins. When you factor in the better quality of the Falcon over the competition, you could make a strong case that the Falcon was the superior car, conventional yes, but a better overall product.
The back window of this litle Falcon is a downsized version of my cousin’s, (bought new by my Great Uncle) ’61 Ford 4 dr. I remember a girl in 1980 who drove an early rounded Falcon and could get 2nd gear rubber with it. It was just a little bark, but it was 2nd gear rubber none-the-less. Impressive for a little car like that, and a little 6 cylinder. I always thought a little 289 in a 4 dr. Falcon would make a great sleeper car.
One of my biggest automotive buying mistakes was not buying a ’61 Falcon Ranchero for $500 when I had the chance. In my defence, that was about $400 more than what it was worth at the time. But not now.
I was dismayed when my father bought a new, 61 Futura, 170 automatic. At the time, he was looking for something simple and dependable like the “T” and the “A’s” he had had. The build quality was impressive, but these were primitive cars. There was no comparing their drive trains or handling qualities with the competition. The younger generation of drivers viewed the Falcon as a joke.
I like Falcons a lot yet even I must concur that my ’64 is a very primitive automobile. Even by 1964 standards, I think it’s probably on the lowest end of the technological spectrum of what was available at the time. However, that’s the part of its charm that has grown on me the most. It’s just soooo simple!
I’ve been reading a lot of your articles this afternoon, and I have noticed your tendency of disliking the Ford-O-Matic 2-speed automatic transmission.
I have to tell you that I have a Ford-O-Matic 2-speed automatic transmission in my 1963-1/2 Sprint Convertible, and I love it. It does not sound like it’s straining or sputtering — it sounds like a fricking hot rod. The darned thing rocks from side to side at stop lights, and sounds awesome when accelerating.
Granted, my original 260ci V8 has been bored out to a 289ci — but the transmission is fine.
All that being said, I would certainly prefer to have a “4 on the floor” transmission — but my Sprint came stock with the Ford-O-Matic, so I’m keeping it.
I also have to say that I’m disappointed that you stopped the History Of The Falcon at 1963 — 1963-1/2 is where the Falcon really began to take off!
It makes a big difference when the FordOmatic is behind a 144 inch six or a bored out 289! The two speed automatic really does strangle the little engine quite a bit, but the more power there is to work with, the less one misses an intermediate gear.
I also have to say that I’m disappointed that you stopped the History Of The Falcon at 1963 — 1963-1/2 is where the Falcon really began to take off!
Not in terms of sales! Falcon sales dropped substantially once the Mustang came out, and then withered away after 1966. How did it “take off”?
And we have done posts on later Falcons. Here’s one, among others: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1964-ford-falcon-plain-and-simple/
Nice Sprint!
Hey there — thanks for you super quick response!
When I say Falcon’s “took off” in 1963-1/2, I simply mean that’s when they got really good (with the addition of the V8 engine), which then became the Mustang.
I wouldn’t say the problem with the Ford-O-Matic is the transmission itself — it’s the underpowered I6 that Ford paired with the Ford-O-Matic transmission. The transmission itself is fine. 🙂
I have no criticism with the humble 2-speed Ford-O-Matic that’s mated with my ‘170’. However, I’m also not a ‘performance guy’. As long as it shifts like it’s supposed to I don’t care about anything else. I know I’m not going to outrun anyone with this engine/tranny combo!
Paul is so very “Real World Correct” with his opening paragraph/reply!
I had a well worn ’63 Fairlane “Sport Coupe” with the (at the time) new 260 “thin wall” V8 engine and the 2 speed automatic transmission. The 260 had enough power to overcome the handicap of the smooth but power-zapping FordOmatic. Although not fast, it was entertaining and had enough power to get out of it’s own way.
On the opposite end of the spectrum: (Yes, alert readers here will recognize me repeating this tale!) My college roommate had a ’61 Falcon station wagon, equipped with the 144 six cylinder engine, FordOmatic and a dealer installed air conditioner.
Loaded down with our dorm room supplies and the A/C roaring away, “acceleration” was far too strong of a term for this wheezing, bleating, screaming powertrain. It just gathered momentum, all too slowly.
Merging on Interstate 10 was a slow debacle of automotive futility. My roommate, a more timid and non-car freak guy than I was/am, flat out refused to drive his wagon when loaded down like this. Greg would beg me to pilot this beast the 50 miles back to college.
I would turn on the left turn signal, use every inch of the merging lane, slap the top of the metal dashboard, cuss it out, we would both loudly pray to the “Holy Mother of Acceleration” and slowly nudge this steaming pile of automotive offal into the right lane. IDK how we didn’t get rear ended by the Louisiana tailgaters on I-10!
A careful right foot was needed to keep the gas pedal mashed down at 98% of the way down. Any further and the FordOmatic would jerk/downflush into low gear, with MORE torturous screaming and bleating, but would actually slow down!
Once finally up to speed, any faster than 50 mph made this loaded down, huge compressor, dealer add on A/C wagon’s water temperature gauge most past the 3/4 range scale.
Our term for the ’60 Falcon with a 144 ci six automatic was ‘gutless wonder’. It couldn’t pull a sick hen off a nest or the hat off your head. A real ‘flatlander’.
When the three major compacts were introduced, Chrysler put out an allegedly objective study by an ‘independent’ testing agency, entitled ‘We Family Tested All Three!’. Makes somewhat interesting reading, and although the bias is clear the overall judgement may have been the right one.
http://www.corvairforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=377
A fun read. Makes me want to go out an buy a Valiant. Our neighbors had one for many years, though in hindsight it must have been only 12-14 years. Not long by modern standards, but by ‘73 or ‘74 when they sold it, it looked so dated. I got my license in 1972 and drove it once or twice and if felt pretty old too. Then and now, I’d have taken a Falcon Sprint
This reminds me of the short-lived NASCAR Compact Class of 1960-61. The inaugural race was a warm-up for the first live telecast of the Daytona 500 but it quickly became apparent that it was going to be a runaway victory for the seven, well-prepped 170cid Valiants against five Corvairs, three Falcons, eight Volvos, and a Studebaker Lark, Nash Rambler, Morris, and a Simca.
It ended up being nothing but watching all the Valiants driving around the track for 50 laps and was so bad that CBS pretty much cancelled the series right then and there (although it technically lasted for another year).
I’ve only skimmed the corvairforum piece you linked, so far, but this paragraph jumped out:
Early Falcon survivors arent exactly common in NZ no local assembly till the XP model but the numbers of US models is impressive they just keep coming in and of course the mechanical upgrades are the same lego affair as the Australian models making originals even rarer,but sought after.
The Falcon was the bechamel sauce that Iacocca made all kinds of gravy with for the first half of his career (the K-car filled that role for the second) but as I’ve said elsewhere, besides that these initially-fullsize-sales stealing conventional compacts freed up the big cars to get even bigger and fancier and go after the market that really wanted them without incurring the kinds of complaints (from societal critics as well as auto experts) the ’58/59s incurred.
The only issue was that they should’ve been more aggressive about culling the full-size base models and pushing police and taxi fleets into smaller cars. It wasn’t until the malaise era that they found out those will take what they can get, it’s not as if they’d have hot-seated their ’59s into the early ’80s…
Flacons Valiants and Holdens were taxi favourites here for many years, Ford AU built a taxi pack as a factory model and took the entire Aussie cab market.
What a difference the grille makes! The later one looks much better to me as well.
I only drove a Falcon once, in the 90s. It was my first and only time driving a column-shift manual. It was a charming little car and the most basic vehicle I ever drove.
It was for sale for cheap, but it sold quickly before I could get the cash.
Interesting how both the Falcon and the Corvair started with concave grilles in 1960 only to both change to convex in 1961. . (well the Corvair’s isn’t really a grille, but you know what I mean)
Why could they not have called the Fusion the “Falcon” instead? It’s a fantastic name with no negative connotations.
What were they “fusing” anyhow?
Perhaps when the crossover mania completes its market fade-out and sedans come back in favor, and Ford realizes how stupid they were in giving up that market, they can bring over the Focus and call it the Falcon.
The prototype of the Ford Flex was called the Ford Fairlane.
“Perhaps when the crossover mania completes its market fade-out and sedans come back in favor,”
When would that be? And why?
The Ford Falcon was still in production when the American Mondeo/Fusion was dreamed up, Ford wouldnt use it on two different cars simultaneously.
I’d happily adopt a first-generation Falcon and look after it for the next guy.
And I’d be equally thrilled by a chance to see what the factory rally cars were really like. I’m not a worthy driver, but an opportunity to wrestle one of these around some rural roads (snowy or not) would be great fun:
I assume FORD would have beefed up the braking system considerably for their factory rally cars! I’ve driven my ’64 on rural dirt roads and in the snow and one must be careful . . . or you’ll end up in ditch!
Interesting to contemplate how Ford’s future would have played out had McNamara not been tapped by JFK for his defense administration and instead served a long career as president of Ford (the whole Vietnam War thing may have turned out differently too). The Mustang probably wouldn’t have happened. The LTD Brougham, Continental Mark III, and Granada Ghia were pure Iacocca-mobiles that would have been anathema to McN’s uber-rational mindset. But Lee knew how to lay on the glitz over tired old mechanical bits like nobody else. His only real attempt at a McNamara-mobile, the Pinto, sputtered when compared to the real thing like the Falcon.
Paul, I wasn’t certain which “early Falcon” CC writeup to post this on; I’ll drop it here, but you’re welcome to re-use anytime.
For the Falcon’s fall 1959 launch, Ford imaginatively staged this dramatization of the Falcon’s weight differential vs. a (presumably) fully optioned, top-of-the-line Galaxie. Very clever!
Cute! This is why the Falcon sold so well; folks were asking themselves why their cars needed to be so heavy and uneconomical.
Paul, I enjoyed reading this again here in 2025 (we all seem to use the word “hipster” far less nowadays), and getting a first-generation Falcon as a “fun car” is still an ambition.
A trivia tidbit turned up yesterday. The car’s first-year 3.10 axle was indeed biased toward economy—-but Popular Science, in May 1960, tells us Ford had then already started installing higher-ratio axles in Falcons destined for above-average hillclimbing: