(first posted 4/11/2011) There’s a reason this is the very first Mercury at CC. It’s the same reason why pretty much the only Mercurys at the old site were the Comet, Bobcat and Cougar: big Mercurys are mostly a sad tale. There are some exceptions, and we’ll get to one of them as soon as I catch that ’64 Breezeway outside of its carport. But the Mercury story must be told, and this ’61 is a key player, even if it’s song is in a minor key.
Ford and Chrysler perpetually faced the same problem: GM. More specifically, the mid-upper brands at GM, which perpetually dominated the charts. The Ford and Plymouth brands could give Chevy a real run for the money, but otherwise made very few serious dents against the Pontiac-Olds-Buick-Cadillac juggernaut. Ford made its one and only really serious attack in the 1957 – 1960 period, and staggered out, bloodied and blood-let.
Ford’s very ambitious mid-fifties plan was to go mano-a-mano against GM, with five full divisions against theirs: Ford, Edsel, Mercury, Lincoln and Continental; I don’t have to tell this crowd how that turned out, but let’s just stick to how Mercury was involved and battered. Although Mercury survived, it was never a really serious player again.
From its birth until 1957, Mercury had always used Ford bodies, except for the ’49 – ’51 period, where it used a body originally planned for the ’49 Ford, and shared with the low-end Lincolns. In 1957, Mercury got a separate bigger body, to be shared with the upper-end Edsels. This made Ford a three-body company, a la GM’s A, B and C bodies of the times. (Update: the basic frame and chassis were largely all the same, except for Lincoln. The Mercury and senior Edsel had a longer wheelbase and used a rear axle with wider track.)
With the crash of Edsel and the whole ambitious Ford scheme, for 1961 Mercury went back to what it would remain to the end of its days: a slightly tarted up Ford. At least the 1963-1964 reverse-slanted rear window Breezeway models looked a bit different than the Fords; this 1961 Meteor 800 requires a closer look to distinguish it from the Galaxie. Pretty sad indeed.
On the other hand, 1961 was a good year to downsize, as everyone else was doing. The 1959-1960 Mercurys were huge, and without any of the GM pizazz to sell them. Sales were abysmal, and they’ve been rare on the streets for decades.
This 1961 lives the life a of a daily driver for its owner, who used to live a few blocks down the street from us. It’s fun to see it coming and going, although I imagine $4.00 gas may have something to do with not seeing as much anymore. Or maybe like so many of the vintage daily drivers, it succumbed to a malady and is awaiting the time, energy, parts or money before its burble once again graces our neighborhood.
I know this one has a V8, as its fairly hard-driving owner makes all too clear. Normally, one would never have to even consider whether a full-sized Mercury had a V8 or not. But here’s an interesting trivia fact to add to your list to impress your friends: the 1961 and 1962 big Mercurys were the only years ever when a six was even available. Mercury was deeply associated with being a slightly more flashy and powerful V8 Ford from day one in 1939, and never again would a six sully the biggest RWD Mercuries again.
This Mercury has one really significant upgrade over the Ford: a fully enclosed steering column.
No wonder the big 1960-1962 Fords sold so poorly; their naked steering column with that exposed shifter rod looked so…1947. Ugh.
That does make this 1961 a serious low point in the Mercury story; helps make everything afterward look a bit more cheerful, eh? Good thing then, because this one sure looks like it could use a bit of cheering up.
Related reading:
Curbside Classic: 1962 Mercury Monterey Custom – No Respect
Curbside Classic: 1963 Mercury Monterey Breezeway – The Cure for the Heatwave
The ’61 Ford was a great looking car and won some design award as I recall. Clearly the same wasn’t in store for the tarted up Merc.
The Mercury does look sad and the rear overhang is ridiculous; the Galaxie wears it better.
And I remember the Breezeway models when I was a kid. I always thought they were rather eccentric looking, with the opposite angle rear window that would roll down.
(am I remembering that correctly?)
IMO this is an ugly car. The Ford was much easier on the eye. The mid 50’s Mercs were nice looking cars. The styling from 1957 (Turnpike Cruiser) seemed very contrived, and continued down hill until the mid 60’s in spite of the fact that they did indeed have their own bodies through 1960. I think, but I’m not sure, sales followed this same pattern, starting a downhill slide in 57 and perking back up around ’64 or ’65.
Mercury was always the up market Ford though over here post ww2 they both had the ‘big bore’ flathead so there was little to differentiate them just a bit of trim That reverse slant window was also featured on english Anglias and the Consul Classic and other than the early Cougar Mecurys have little to interest. Seems Im not alone in that reguard.
IMO the “Quicksilver” Ford that this car is based on was all wrong. It is the Ford that was (reportedly) rushed into production on a crash basis because HF II saw a concept car and was smitten.The original (Ford) was bad , the copy (Mercury) is atrocious. Every line on this car is an error ,every detail a mistake. I remember these from my early youth. Even as a 10 year old , I felt sorry for the people that drove them. By the time I was in high school,poor build quality had pretty much done them in.
Oddly enough, the 1960 Edsel was based on the same bodyshell as the 1960 Ford and to these eyes , was the best looking car of the lot. The market didn’t agree: After about a month and a half and less than 4000 units,Edsel closed up shop,never to return.
I agree about the 1960 Edsel. The 2-door hardtop and the convertible were almost elegant. Sadly, the make was flatlined by the time they were introduced. You have to wonder what would have happened if the Comet had been a bit faster to market and sold as an Edsel.
The 1962s to me faired a bit better because they ditched the furrowed brow look compared to the 1961s. What is most amazing to me is that Mercury retreated so far out of the middle of the Market in 1961. I assumed the unique bodied Park Lanes from 1960 were at least supposed to compete in price and prestige with Oldsmobile 98s?
I think the problem wasn’t solely the B-O-P mid market juggernaut, a lot of blame can be put on the Squarebird T-Bird as a unique upper crust offering somewhere in the middle of Mercury’s intended price range that stole a number of sales from upper middle crust prestige machines. Didn’t it sell like 90K copies in 1960 alone? That’s definitely more than all of the Park Lanes sold that year, and if I bothered to look at sales, probably trumped Olds 98 sales that year (and definitely Chrysler Saratoga or New Yorker sales, for instance).
Another call me odd, but the 1959-60 Mercurys are some of my favorite Fords for being solely Unique, and having some odd mishmash turn of the decade eccentricity to their designs (particularly the 1960 with the grille mounted headlights and those weird oval taillamps). But even in 1961 I would have went for the weird of a Dodge Polara over this sad frowning Mercury.
You’re right on; Ford really stole Mercury’s thunder with the Squarebird.
I Think I remember that point being made in Disaster in Dearborn:The Edsel Story that the Squarebird and Ford not moving Mercury properly up into Buick/Chrysler territory + the 1958 recession is what killed Edsel/Mercury’s chance at a Unique identity.
I think the price charts even show Citations being more expensive than Park Lanes for 1958 if I remember correctly, even if Edsels were more or less aimed at Dodge/Pontiac in theory. That put a Edsel and Mercury model squarely in the market segment dominated by the Buick Super and Olds 98 and (Maybe) The Chrysler Saratoga, or against a New Yorker with no options. At least Chrysler boxed Desoto in well enough that it’s prices never moved too far out of sync with comparable Oldses.
Add in that the Squarebird bought hipness-new motoring concept and (subjective) better styling to this section of the market where Mercury had become a baroque afterthough, especially by 1959 (much as I like them) It’s easy to make the case that Ford never really understood the ladder system of prestige that General Motors and (to a far lesser extent) Chrysler did.
Imagine if the Squarebird had been released as a Mercury.
And of the low-priced three, Ford was the only one with any upper-class cachet to pull off Squarebird/4 place T-Bird, going back to the Model A Station wagon, which could be found at many a country estate.
For some reason I thought that the Meteor line was a Canada-only thing… just an alternate trim of Ford products to be sold at Lincoln-Mercury dealers. Kinda like the Mercury Frontenac (Falcon), and like GM did with Pontiac dealers selling the Acadian Beaumont (Chevelle). In the 50’s in Canada, I think the Mercury dealers wanted a lower cost model than the Mercurys, and so the Meteor was brought in at a lower price point. (The Canadian market has always been more price-sensitive).
I do recall early 50’s Meteors that were just Fords with a different grill, sold alongside the “real” Mercs at the Mercury dealer. Maybe by 1961 the Meteor models were implemented in the US as well, in response to the economic conditions of the time.
P.S.: Ah yes… just checked Wikipedia… “Initially, Ford used the Meteor nameplate in 1949 when it created a stand alone brand of vehicles that used Ford bodies trimmed using Mercury parts for sale specifically in the Canadian marketplace. Meteors were produced and sold in Canada until 1961, and then reintroduced again from 1964-76, after the US model using the name was discontinued.”
This was the only year for a full sized Meteor in the US. For 1962-63 the Meteor was a slightly redesigned Fairlane. It was actually a very attractive car, particularly in S-33 sport coupe form, but it was too close in size to the Comet (which was stretched vs. the Falcon). When the Comet was restyled to look more upmarket in ’64, there was no more need for the Meteor.
The Canadian Meteor wasn’t the same car. It was Ford based-and had much different appearance.
Canada is huge, and much of it is sparsely populated. But all the Big Three wanted to offer most or all of the U.S. choices up there back when foreign cars sold in Canada got hit with a big tax penalty. Pontiac-Buick, Dodge and Mercury dealers were at a disadvantage (in terms of sales volume) in not offering anything from the Low Priced Three price range. If they were the only dealer for three hundred kilometers up in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon, that would place the whole corporation at a disadvantage in that area.
So, Pontiac-Buick dealers sold GMC trucks, and Pontiacs came with Chevy engines (including Stove Bolt sixes) and offered Biscayne-cheap models. You may look at a Laurentian or a Parisienne from that era and think it’s a Catalina or Bonneville, but it’s more plain, and almost always had less than 389 cubic inches under the hood. Chevy dealers also sold Oldsmobiles, and Pontiac sold the Chevy II as the Acadian. Likewise, affordable Plymouths were fitted with Dodge grilles for Canadian Dodge-DeSoto dealers, Chrysler-Plymouth dealers got Dodge trucks wearing the name “Fargo”, and everyone sold Valiants. For one or two years, the Canadian Valiant 100 was the little U.S. Valiant and the Valiant 200 was the roomier Dodge Dart with a Valiant front end.
Except for during the very short run of the Continental and Edsel divisions, Ford didn’t have enough divisions in the U.S. to do this stuff. So, Ford made special Mercurys called Monarchs to sell at Ford dealers, put Mercury badges on Ford trucks for Mercury dealers, who also sold Fords rebadged as Meteors. It was an amazing amount of work just for the Canadian market. Some of them are interesting. I don’t like the grille of either the 1960 Ford or Edsel–never have–but the Canada-only 1960 Meteor actually has a pretty face. Things got interesting in 1961 when the U.S. Mercury went to the Ford body. In Canada, the same body wore Ford, Monarch, Meteor and Mercury grilles! Some of them were pretty ugly…
You often see Canadian Meteors advertised in the U.S. as Mercury Meteors or Mercury Monarchs, but the fact is the Meteors were badge-engineered (disguised) Fords, and the Monarchs were only sold at Ford dealers.
Ford OZ used a Mercury Meteor grille to give a styling update in 58 to the 56 Ford they still had in production, seen few stashed away in sheds usually grandads last car being kept around with a view to restoring it.
My folks got a new ’61 Ford Sunliner convertible, black with white top and the 352. Sharp car and we loved it. Summer trips to the ice cream shop, the whole family out for a drive with the top down.
But what they really wanted was not the Mercury convertible. They wanted that gorgeous new 1961 Thunderbird. (Confirming your observation, larsupreme.)
That’s what started Mercury’s long decline. FoMoCo let their little 2-seat answer to Corvette grow into an high-end high-status Ford. When GM finally responded with the Riviera, it was a Buick, not a Chevy.
LTD may have launched the Great Brougham Epoch, but not single-handedly. The revolutionary 1958 Ford Thunderbird broke down the class system. Too bad for Mercury.
I always am amazed how narrow the track is on some cars from this era. The huge gaps between the tire and the fender on the horizontal make the car look very clownish to me. Pontiac had it right as far as how it helped how the car looks, nevermind any handling benefits.
Nothing looks as woebegone as a license plate hanging by one bolt.
Looking at the windshield wipers, I’m guessing that this beast still has the vacuum-operated system with an air motor on each side. When the switch was made to electric wipers, the passenger wiper moved to the centerline so both wipers worked on a common linkage to one electric motor.
Years ago I helped my dad work on a early-60s Ford C-Series cabover with the vacuum wipers. I had never seen one before and was fascinated. How did it work? I asked him. He smiled. “Good until the first air leak.”
You’re probably right about the wipers. I see from the sales brochure vacuum wipers were standard on all series of the ’61 Ford, with electric wipers optional. The Mercury brochure doesn’t seem to specify, but I would bet it’s the same.
I was 7, and starting to get interested in how cars worked (as opposed to just thinking they were pretty cool beasts), when my Dad bought his ’61 Ford with vacuum wipers (the only options he was going to spring for were radio and heater). I always thought it was the goofiest damned thing that the wipers slowed down when he accelerated away from a stoplight or the car climbed a hill, then resumed normal speed once the load was off the engine.
Thanks for the illuminating info. I had no idea that Ford actually offered electric wipers as an option over the standard vacuum system. I assumed that they just went from vacuum in one year to electric the next.
Love that shot of the dashboard. I believe that Ford must have cornered the international market on conical black control knobs in the early ’60s. The cabover C-Series had them too! With chrome inserts for the cars and white inserts for the trucks. I love the simplicity.
The other detail worth noting is that the steering column is fully enclosed on this Mercury, whereas the Fords still had that crude exposed linkage on their columns. That seemed really out of date by 1962, which I think was the last year for that. (hard to see in this pic)
Murilee Martin took some pics of a ’62 Galaxie recently that showed the exposed shift linkage clearly. And people say there’s no difference between Fords and Mercs!
“And may I point out, Mr. Smith, that this Montclair has the latest in shift linkage technology, unlike those crude devices down the street at East Side Ford.”
Hah! I had forgotten all about that bit of my Dad’s ’61. Now that you mention it, that was freakin’ cheap, like something out of the 40’s. Kind of like when you see cars from the 50’s or 60’s without a radio (hard to imagine a time when ads had to specify “R&H”) there’s a plate covering the opening where the radio should be. It just screams, “You cheapskate! You couldn’t afford 50 bucks for a radio?”
Don, regarding radios – my Dad wouldn’t have one in a car, saying they were a distraction. But if the horse races were on, he’d have the tranny sitting up on the dash of his Falcon. Not quite sure how he reconciled that…..
I always liked the 1961 Ford, which was a huge improvement over the rushed-to-market 1960 model in every way from styling to build quality. It measured up well against that year’s Chevrolet, and was much better looking and better built than the 1961 Plymouth.
This Mercury, though, was completely outclassed by the 1961 Pontiac and Oldsmobile Eighty-Eight. Fortunately for Ford, the 1961 Dodge was so downright bizarre that it made even this Mercury look good.
Mercury was the forgotten stepchild in the Ford family after 1960. It also seemed as though Mercury received the styling ideas that had been discarded by the Ford and Lincoln studios.
The 1959-60 Mercury had received its own body, but Robert McNamara wanted Ford and Mercury on the same body for 1961, to save money and rationalize product offerings. By 1961, every Ford passenger car shared its platform with a car from a sister division – Falcon-Comet, standard Ford-standard Mercury and Thunderbird-Lincoln.
The Thunderbird and Lincoln Continental showed the right way to do this. Ford got two very distinctive cars from one platform. The standard Mercury, however, was too obviously based on the mass-market Ford to really be a step up from its corporate sibling.
You’re right about the T-bird and Continental, but they were a special case. They were Ford’s first unit-body cars, and the main thing they shared was the firewall and cowling assembly. If I understand correctly, each car was two main components–the common forward section, and the unique rear section. The two were completely different aft of the A-pillar. The two components were built separately and joined on the assembly line.
This was a boon to my dad, who did body-and-fender work and had a friend who ran a junkyard. His friend managed to find two ’60 T-Birds, one wrecked in front, and one rear-ended. Daddy bought both, cut them at the main joint, and spliced the two good ends together. And that, my friends, is the first car I remember as a child–vaguely.
“I know this one has a V-8.” It’s in the name. Meteor was the low – end Mercury at that time (Low-end Mercury???) under the Monterey, replacing the Montclair. The Meteor 800 was a V-8, while the Meteor 600 was a 6.
Do you share a special interest in the 1961 Meteor 600 and 800 as I do?
Tom
Okay, I had to go back and check out the brochure for the ’61 Merc again.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1961%20Mercury/1961_Mercury_Full_Size_Brochure/dirindex.html
Check out the very first interior pages. “… priced right in the heart of the low-price field!“. THEN WHAT’S THE POINT? You’ve already got Ford covering the Chevy Bel Air and Impala and Plymouth Belvedere and Fury. Why have Mercury covering the same ground? Sounds like the two Meteors had the Ford Fairlane 500 and Galaxie covered, too. At least the Monterey maybe was a bit more upscale than the Galaxie. Paul’s right (as usual); this set the pattern for Mercury for the next 50 years. Comparably equipped, Mercury was no more expensive than the facing Ford; it’s just that Mercury didn’t have the price leader models that Ford had. Only in the full-size cars did Merc ever have a trim level Ford couldn’t match.
There were a few occasions when Merc managed to distinguish itself (Cougar vs Mustang in the 60’s, when Cougar had the full-lux leather interior XR-7, and in the mid-80’s when Thunderbird went full aero while Cougar went for more of a GM vibe), but for the most part Ford wasted millions upon millions over the years on design staff and divisional staff to support a car line that just wasn’t that much different from Ford.
I think that the point was that from 1958 through about 1962, the bottom fell out of the medium price field. The economy was in a prolonged funk (like now). All of the action was in the lower price ranges, and Mercury (under the ever-practical McNamara) chased the fat part of the sales curve down into Ford territory. Not that it had much choice, as there was not much to recommend Mercury over a nice Galaxie other than the concealed shifter tube as has been pointed out elsewhere.
Oh, by the way, I look forward to Paul’s post on a Breezeway Merc, or (I can only hope) a 1st gen Monarch. I’ll have lots of comments.
The ’61 Canadian Meteor bridges the (admittedly tiny) gap between the US Ford and Mercury, and in the process ends up looking, especially in the rear, like it might have started out as a design for a 1961 Edsel:
hello. any leads on parts for a car like this? my roof line is a typical sedan. I am in need of hood and trunk letters METEOR and door script that reads MONTCALM, and a bunch of other stuff. any help would be appreciated. thank you, Greg MacVittie
What a great story (series) the demise of the Cougar would make! From the glorious gen 1 muscle to the joke T-bird clone in the late 70s, to a very good Fox body sports coupe in the 80s, to a complete disgrace with a pseudo-Caddy looking Old Folks Car in its 90s iteration. And then a final twitch before giving up the ghost completely with the 00s clean sheet design. Oh how I fear that Lincoln will follow Mercury’s path… they are killing it right now with idiotic marketing and what currently has to be the most blatant badge-engineering in North America.
Mercury Cougar is an interesting case. It started out being a lengthened Mustang (and as Mustang grew, it was just a badge-engineered Mustang. Then it became a badge-engineered Ford Gran Torino Elite. When that Ford disappeared, it became a badge-engineered version of the new Thunderbird. The XR-7 kept that up for some time, even as the demise of the Montego led to Cougar sedans and wagons based first on the LTD II and then on the Granada for a short while. Finally, it wound up as a Ford Probe.
Mustang, Elite, T-Bird, LTD II, Grenada and Probe. Is there any other car that shared bodies with such a wide variety of models from the sister division?
I’m not sure if it’s quite the same thing, but the endless amounts of vehicles that the LeBaron and Cutlass names were slapped on might come close
I can’t say that I remember any of these cars prowling our neighborhood in Northeast Ohio, but I may have mistaken them for Mercurys instead. I remember our 63 with the Breezeway rear window, and our series of Montegos. But like many other posters, I’m disappointed by the continual mis-handling of the Mercury brand over the decades, to the point now where it’s been cancelled.
However, it would make a great story. Tell it Paul. Let me know if I can help.
I was bored on a recent road trip. I remembered that my parents bought a new 61 Olds F-85 wagon. I started into a mental exercise, and wondered what I would have bought instead as a young family man in 1961. I came to the conclusion that 1961 was a really dismal year to go shopping for a new car. Think about it: other than the Continental and T-Bird (and maybe Cadillac), what did you buy then, particularly if you wanted a wagon on a budget? This Mercury was about par for the year – a not very appealing car competing against other not very appealing cars. Personally, I would have swallowed hard and bought a Dodge Dart wagon, but not with much gusto. But at least the Merc came with the FE engine, avoided the fragile GM transmissions and the bizarre Chrysler styling. Maybe this Meteor would have made my cut in 1961 after all. Hard to say.
A ’61 wagon on a budget: Chevy Wagon with four-barrel 283 and either four speed stick or three speed and overdrive. Wanna’ race?
An interesting suggestion. Personally, I could never stand the driving position of every 61-64 Chevy I ever drove. Low seat and high steering column that made you feel like an 8 year old in your own car. Add the shuddery X frame and an automatic transmission that was short a gear compared with everything else out there, and the Chevy was a no-go for me, despite the attractive styling and willing engines. Any station wagon that makes a column 3 speed look attractive is suffering from a severe handicap in my book.
When I am having trouble sleeping, this is what I do instead of counting sheep. I start at a given year, usually 1955, or 1960, and I go year by year forward thinking of what two cars would fill my garage each year, assuming I replace them each year, color and all.
By the Time I go forward 3 or 4 years thinking of all the available models, I usually have fallen asleep. As a car nut, try it and see if it is as effective on you as it is on me.
For 1961, aside from the obvious Three favorites you mention, I liked the 1961 Pontiac, preferably Bonneville, Convertible or if need be a Wagon. I would also assume Corvettes & Imperials are out of the question or I would choose them.
A more economical choice, I always liked the styling on the 61 Impalas, unless I could score one of the few Desotos that were produced IIRC… I kind of liked the
Mercury Comet Taillights that year, did that come in a wagon? I also actually liked the cats eye Taillights of the Original Valiant as well.
I actually liked the 1961 Styling way better than the rather rounded 1962 styling.
I spent much of my youth doing that during the day, but not at bed time. Other fantasy thoughts tended to predominate then. For me, it was picking a particular car, and obsessing about every detail for days or weeks on end, and modifying it in great detail, thanks to JC Whitney. Especially during school. No wonder I bombed out of high school!
I am so glad I found this. My father, for reasons I still don’t quite understand, bought a ’61 Mercury Meteor 600 to replace our ’57 Ford Fairlane. Of course I was 6 at the time, so my memories are rather fuzzy, but I seem to recall the Ford making some awful noises and vibrations, and apparently the needed repairs would not be worth it. The ’57 was a distinctive 2-tone – I think cream and gray – and probably one of Ford’s best designs. Unfortunately I don’t remember it that well, but I recall my father coming home with this new car that was red with a white top (which he claimed caused people in the city to hail him as a taxi, in that pre-yellow cab era). The Meteor was our car until I was 12, but met a sad end when traffic came to a sudden stop on a curve at the Queens end of the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge and it was sandwiched. The last time I saw it, my dad took me to the shop where it had been towed, to get our things out — it was totalled. I cried, and he cursed and said he shouldn’t have brought me. So I still have a warm spot in my heart for that nasty grill, and seeing the interior photo brought back a lot of memories.
p.s. For most of my life I’ve had an inexplicable obsession with Edsels. I only just found out that the ’61 Meteor was essentially supposed to be the ’61 Edsel, and I was riding around staring at an Edsel dash for 6 years! I don’t think my father ever knew that either. I just know that every time he went looking for parts for the thing, he was told he was crazy because there was no such thing as a ’61 Meteor. Anyway, thanks for posting!
hi there my name is trevor i live in australia , i own and drive a 1961 mercury meteor 800 sports coupe , i have read a number of your comments and found them to be untrue , everytime i take my coupe out it draws a crowd and i’ve only ever had one dick ever say he thinks it a peace of shit !! , you have to knoew the guy he’s a real dick himself lol , my coupe travells along like a cadi , its powerful i can get 70+ miles an hour out of first ,rides very good , a real pleasure to drive , the 61 coupes are very rare only about 2600 were built , mine is colored in summer rose … with black & white interrior , all original condition not restored one new sides painted about ten years ago , the good thing about these l.a made coupes is the parts are easy to find usually nos , and ford made .i have put a video on youtube for you all to see , also will try getting some pictures up loaded as well , thanks for looking at a fine coupe , as i always tell my friends its not common like fords,and chevs ectra , lol cheers from australia.
this is my 1961 mercury meteor 800 sports coupe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSP9TJDc77w
That is a beautiful old Mercury you have. I have always had a thing for the 1960-62 era Mercurys just because they were always so rare in the States. You have latched onto a really nice one. Thanks for sharing it with us.
thanks so much for your comments on my rare coupe , i took it to a local car show other week in uralla nsw australia , had a lot of people like the old girl , you know what i really like about a 61 mercury is you just dont see them around , and most people just love them ah , cheers from trev in aussie :O)
this is my 1961 mercury meteor 800 coupe , something you will notice is the height of the car they sit lower than most cars i’ve been to car shows & have to tell them that its original not hot rodded low rider lol .
Nice car!
hey for any one looking to buy a 61 rare coupe i found this one for sale in usa cheers trev from aussie http://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/dealer/mercury/monterey/1412660.html
Trev,
While my favorite Merc was my ’64 “Anniversary Silver” Park Lane convertible I know I was drawn to it in part by that tail fin and three lamp rear configuration so well executed in your ’61 Meteor and some Lincolns before it. Be proud and don’t let the turkeys discourage you. You own a handsome and unique automobile!
My best friend in high school had a 1961 Mercury Meteor 600 in seafoam green. I never realized at the time how few were made with a 6 cyl., or how rare this car became.
I remember it had a three-on-the-tree and no radio. When it came to choose a car for the gang to go somewhere in, he never volunteered, and no one ever asked. A car without a radio was unthinkable in 1972 when EVERYONE had an 8 track.
Now, I appreciate this car, because it was an Edsel, even had the Mercury “man” pasted over the Edsel insignia on the dash…but we didn’t know that.
My friend always felt he had the worse car of the bunch, and his Dad had bought too cheap…..if only he knew how rare it is now.
And I remember it had flat, oblong tail lights that were turned on their side. That was different from every other Mercury or Ford and must have been designed to be Edsel tail lights. Very cheap looking rear and, and no back-up lights….rubber floor mats too….and vacuum wipers that didn’t work very well.
Here is my 61 Merc Meteor 600. I like the taillights better than the 800.
Nice! Yes, these are the taillights our red 600 had; I like them better than the 800 too. Those big tires and rims look a bit odd on it though!
They are only 15s. With the air shocks up I like the stance with the side pipes. Here’s one of the front.
Also the girl has a Ford 400 cammed with an edelbrock intake and 4 barrel carb. C6 three speed B&M shifter 9inch ford rear end with 3.73s in it with a solid rear end. A blast to drive and always draws a compliment when she’s out.
Here’s an interior shot just for fun. The interior in mine is all original and still in very good shape. All trim is there the only tears are on the piping for the drivers seat.
I remember those seats. Not that color — I think ours were gray, possibly with red stitching — but same pattern.
The so-called writer of this article must be an extremely negative guy? I’d hate to go around that way in life. He calls the story of Mercury “sad” and refers to the cars themselves and their design as “sad” as well. Quite frankly, I haven’t a clue how anyone could come to this conclusion?
Now it’s true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but people aren’t entitled to their own facts. The facts about Mercury is this. Although they aren’t around anymore as a brand, many of the brands they were fighting head to head died deaths well before Mercury. Oldsmobile, Pontiac, DeSoto, Nash and Hudson, Edsel, even Packard all upper middle price brands died before Mercury. Leaving only two domestic survivors, Chrysler and Buick.
With the exception of the war years, Mercury produced and sold car from 1939 to 2011, by my calculations, that’s 72 years. 72 years and millions of cars and happy owners and billions of miles driven. Some people have a negative myopic view that if a brand doesn’t exist, it failed. Dealers or 72 years made profits, manufacturing workers made money, vendors and suppliers got paid. Mercury didn’t go Bankrupt, they didn’t shut the doors, they just stopped producing cars with that badge. Those same Dealers still sell Lincoln cars, the employees still build Fords or Lincoln. It was a marketing decision.
For some odd reason which isn’t apparently clear from this Hack, he seems to think the solution to the problem was that Mercury should have had it’s own stand alone platform/body for a full sized car? How he comes to this conclusion seems to be pinpointing for some un-known reason the years, 1957 thru 1960. The blogger here seems to indicate that Mercury had it’s own body separate from other Ford Brands. If you actually look at facts, that’s not even true, but let’s say it is, what he’s saying is that all Mercury cars were “tarted” up Fords except 1960 where Mercury didn’t share it’s body with another Brand. So we are to believe that the “Sad” tale of Mercury’s down fall, the 72 years of history that ended in 2011 was all due to the conversion in 1960 of it’s own body to a Ford Body in 1961? One year out of 72? This guy ignores facts about how Car Companies work or Manufacturing Companies in General. He also seems to not understand the concept of Platform Sharing and Badge Engineering. There is a difference between the two. A Dodge Aries and Plymouth Reliant are badge engineered, a 57 Chevy and 57 Pontiac are platform sharing as an example of the two concepts
If you look at 1960, you had a few of Platforms at Ford, Lincoln Body, Full Sized Body A and wider B, and the Compact introduced in 1960 and the Thunderbird platform.
Fords plan for future years (not unlike any of the other manufacturers) was to share platforms. It wanted to offer an array of products in sizes and shapes while still maintaining it’s existing marketing structure. They went to shared platform because it limited resources. Resources being factories. You can’t build 20 different platforms for 20 different cars and maintain any kind of quality or economic feasibility with the factories they had. This was no different at every other car producer, GM, Chrysler and AMC.
In 1959 in North America, Edsel, Mercury and Monarch in Canada all shared platforms. Ford, and Meteor shared platforms in 59. In 1959, the Falcon was added as a platform to Ford, and more sharing occurred. In 1960, Edsel, Meteor and Ford shared the narrow platforms. Mercury in 1960 shared it’s wider platform with the Canadian Monarch Brand.
By 1961, Edsel was gone as a Brand, but Monarch, Ford, Meteor and Mercury were all still around and all shared a common platform. Comet and Falcon were out and they shared a platform and Lincoln and Thunderbird too shared a platform. By 1962, the intermediate platform would be added and Mercury and Ford both had a model based on them in their showroom, Meteor and Monarch both in Canadan vanished because the new intermediate platform filled that gap..
Although a car enthusiast can clearly see the shared heritage of the full sized Fords, Meteor, Mercury and Monarch brands in 1961, it’s doubtful that the average car buyer would see or understand that they were the all shared platforms. My Aunt Katherine wouldn’t have had a clue that her 61 Mercury was the same basic structure of a 61 Ford, in her mind, they were completely different cars.
This Wannabe Auto Writer makes other factual errors, he claims that Mercury had some interesting styles that were different looking than the Ford counterpart in 63 and 64 with the Breezeway Sedans, but totally ignores the 65 and 66 Breezeways as even existing and they too are very distinctive from Ford cars. Quite frankly, 67 thru 79, Mercury found it’s inspiration from Lincoln who shared a showroom with it. I’m not certain how this guy can claim that any Mercury from the 60’s or 70’s looks like a Ford or is merely “tarted” up.
In the end, this guy got what he wanted. Mercury was the only FMC brand sold to the public as a full sized car, and that car, the Grand Marquis didn’t share it’s platform with a Ford Counterpart. So maybe you should say, the idea of having it’s own platform killed Mercury in the end.
it’s doubtful that the average car buyer would see or understand that they were the all shared platforms. My Aunt Katherine wouldn’t have had a clue that her 61 Mercury was the same basic structure of a 61 Ford, in her mind, they were completely different cars.
Did she happen to be blind? 🙂
Seriously, the obvious badge engineering between the 1961 Ford and Mercury didn’t fool anybody. It was what it was; and folks at the time knew it.
The big difference between Mercury and the GM mid-premium divisions (Pontiac, Olds, Buick) is that they may have shared the basic underlying body shells, but their styling was more distinct, and they had their own unique frames, engines, transmissions (in some cases), suspensions, etc. Folks knew there really was a difference between a ’61 Olds, Buick and Chevrolet, and that was one of the key differences between them and the Ford and Mercury, which (with some exceptions already noted), shared almost everything.
Which all leads back to the same conclusion: for the most part Mercury was a tarted up Ford. That’s how Mercury started out, and that was the case for most of its life. And Mercury’s inability to help crack GM’s stranglehold on the mid-premium segment is history, in the sales stats. Opinion and emotions have nothing to do with that.
I don’t hate Mercury; I just felt sorry for it, most of the time.
It looks like I’m the ONLY one who loved Mercury for what it was, a Canadianised Lancia or Chrysler… Before you scream for a butterfly net let me explain. Mercurys were not supposed to be “tarted-up” Fords, it did its own thing and reaped the rewards! I was the proud owner of a 1969 Cougar convertible before I sold it because it was not OK to own one in the NW, tho’ I’d pick an Aussie Capri in a heartbeat! Canadian Mercurys had panache, and were stylish, taking a cue from Citroen, some had “air” suspensions that made them feel that you were riding on a cloud. All right, they had their bad years, most models did. But they made some serious comebacks, and they did it well, Mercury’s no exception. I’d buy one regardless of the “bird-brained” Ford quips, no matter what.
Paul,
1) ’58 Squarebird.
2) ’65 LTD.
You know this, apparently Mr. Bill (see what I did there!) doesn’t.
Of course platform sharing wasn’t the issue as much as the perceived redundancy that took hold as the years went by.
By the 80’s, what exactly was the compelling reason to choose a Sable over a Taurus? A Grand Marquis over an Crown Vic?
Mercury had become a Ford ALTERNATIVE. Not an upscale alternative. And since Ford had been slowly but surely taking their image upscale, what reason did Mercury have to exist?
Looking for a 1961 Meteor 600.
I guess I am the odd one out. I rather like it.
My ’62 Galaxies have the same dash, The trim around the speedometer is different, but as far as I can tell the dash is exactly the same. This dash was used in the ’60-’62 Ford, the ’61-’62 Mercury, the ’60 Edsel, the ’60-’61 Meteor and in the ’61 Monarch. Am I missing any?
Taste is subjective and all, but I’m unsure how anyone would look at this car versus the highest-trim Ford of the same year and then choose this one. It’s not that different, but the differences that are there don’t improve it.
When I was a kid, we would get rides to church with my foster grandmother’s neighbor. As long as I knew the guy, he only ever owned Mercury cars….probably 4 or 5 of them at least.
He bought them at a very small town Ford-Mercury dealership. My father, who was a classmate and lifelong friend of this neighbor, only ever bought Fords until 1975 when he bought the 1st of 3 new Mercurys he would own before going back to Fords.
And I agree with others here that Mercury should have added features to it’s standards list that Ford made you “add” to it’s cars (of course, they should have a higher price to go with the added features.)
On re-reading this, it is amazing that nobody seemed to figure out how to make 3 bodies successfully serve 5 car lines better than GM.
Ford went crazy in 1957-58 on separate bodies (short 116 inch wb Ford, Fairlane/Edsel, Edsel/Mercury, Lincoln and T-Bird). Chrysler had the same 3 bodies during the era but somehow made them all look almost alike.
Ford’s accidental brilliance here was in devoting real resources to the 58 Thunderbird. Thenceforth, a separate body for a unique car in the Ford lineup would be the moneymaker and would eventually leave GM scrambling. The 61-62 Mercury turned out to be the unintended predictor of GM of the late 80s.
Well, It may have taken on the appearance of the Ford, but at least it has Lincoln (1960) taillights!
I actually like this year of Mercury, but then I like the 59 model, too.
I’ll bow to the “experts” here, but The Encyclopedia of American Cars says that the 62 also had a 6 cylinder engine, albeit only on the bottom rung Monterey and the cheap Commuter wagon.
The article says “… the 1961 and 1961 big Mercuries were the only years ever when a six was even available”. I think that’s supposed to say “…the 1961 and 1962….”
Differentiation. There just wasn’t enough of it between the Fords and Mercurys. When your “upscale” Mercury isn’t even as nice as the counterpart Ford, then what really was the point? Would it have been all that hard to give Mercuries a much nice interior and electric wipers as standard equipment, to set them apart?
Most of Mercury’s history was a sad waffling between trying to be a tarted-up Ford and a Junior Lincoln. They just couldn’t seem to decide what it was supposed to be I guess.
It seems that most folks do not like the styling of the 1961 Mercury, however I have always like it. Maybe not as much as the 1961 Lincoln Continental of course, and maybe not as much as the 1961 Ford or 1961 Pontiac, for example – but I do like the rear styling. I agree that the design was too similar to the 1961 Ford and not as much up scale to it as it should have been. The 1964 was a very sharp look car, and the 1965/66 breezeway were nice looking cars – I have a very nice 1966.
This photo shows how sharp looking the 1961 Mercury can be, when in mint condition and in the convertible form. I missed the steering wheel column thing. I also thought the Ford column was out of date as compared to GMs.
Ford Motor Co. was probably still in a state of shock over the Edsel debacle and (after the 1960 presidential election) the departure of Robert McNamara. To be sure, the 1961 Fords and Mercuries would have been in production by the time McNamara left. I can’t help but think that he may have been the big reason the early 1960s Fords and their Mercury siblings give off, well, the sense of cheapness compared to GM counterparts (for instance, that exposed shift column on Fords. Really???)
I’ve read that McNamara was planning on phasing out the Galaxie and the V8 engines after 1961 and focusing on Falcons and Fairlanes. If he had done this, Ford would have gone out of business by 1970. Rambler tried this strategy and while it worked for a few years, it was not sustainable.
First time I heard of that story. I guess it might be part of McNamara’s plan to prepare for the upcoming Cardinal project then Lee Iacocca later killed. That decision would have made sense if the first oil crisis have arrived a decade earlier.
However on the other hand, wasn’t a move to add more differences between Ford and Mercury?
My dad worked at the Mercury plant in Hazelwood Missouri for thirty years
Mom said he never missed a day’s work Dad had all kinds of cars
even two Escorts He had a Grand Marquis when he died
There were lots of times when I was a kid when dad worked short weeks
It’s funny he never got laid off during the bad Merc years Ford just had you
work 15 hours a week its hard to pay the bills with that
Interesting how the ’61 was available with just about any motor EXCEPT the MEL. You can get a 6, a Y-block, or an FE. Strange, considering how even some squarebirds were available with an MEL.
No MELs in the T-Bird after 1960.
I wonder if Mercury in the US decided to use the ‘Meteor’ nameplate in 1961 simply to prepare the public for the 1962 mid-size model.
But if so, why? It seems odd they would choose to introduce a new name on a full-sized car for one year only, knowing that the the next year it would denote something completely different. Wouldn’t it tend to undercut the idea of the intermediate-sized 1962 Meteor being a truly new car? It almost seems designed to confuse their customers.
robadr:
It’s just a guess, but in 1960 the full-sized Mercury was available as a Monterey, a Montclair, or a Park Lane. Sales figures for 1960 show that the cheapest 4 door Monterey was their best selling model….and by huge margins. Perhaps the folks at Mercury (Ford?), seeing the market preference for the lower-priced cars in their line-up (Comet sold nearly as many units as all of the full-sized Mercurys combined in 1960) decided to go cheap. They cut from 3 full-sized trim lines to 2, and needing an available (registered with the trademark/copyright office ASAP) used the Meteor name?
In 1962, when the Meteor became a stand-alone model, the full-sized Mercury would go with what I would call 1 and 1/2 trim lines. In 62 there was the Monterey and the slightly more expensive Monterey Custom. A practice continued in 63, but with a few more “sub models” with the Marauder joining the new in 62 S-55.
The down-marketing of the 1961 Mercury line seems a copying of the 1960 Dodge Dart program that put a Dodge squarely in competition with Plymouth too. Mopar management might have thought two low-priced lines to counter Ford and Chevy a clever approach, but the unintended consequences for Plymouth were about what they eventually were for Mercury. Ford created direct competitors in the Meteor 600 and 800 without giving any compelling reason for people to buy one.
Whatever else the 1957-1960 Mercurys were, they had differentiation in spades from Fords. But, typical of Ford management, they only gave Mercury four seasons to become a blockbuster success in a segment dominated by B-O-P which had been developing over decades. Had Ford continued to support a serious Mercury conquest of the medium-priced segment, by the middle of the decade, it might have been a real contender. When no unique Mercury-branded personal luxury coupe appeared in the late 1960’s, it was obvious there was no long-term commitment to Mercury.
The business life of a Mercury dealer must have been a frustrating one…..
The ’60s were a very, very sad time. What was good then?
I now own the featured Mercury…..Have reupholstered it….doing body work…..will rebuild 390 this summer……I live in Eugene Oregon…..I’m 76 years old and this may well be my last project car…..
C:\Users\bill\Pictures\Mercury\20200220_151009.jpg
C:\Users\bill\Pictures\Mercury\20200128_105230.jpg
“…The down-marketing of the 1961 Mercury line seems a copying of the 1960 Dodge Dart…”
Maybe an overreaction to the 1958 recession?
While yeah, the ’61 looks too much like Ford, the brand stuck around 50 more years, 😉
The 1939 Merc was a fancy trimmed Ford, too, but make filled a gap for some time.
The obvious badge job 70’s Comet/Bobcat, with 80’s Lynx/Topaz were dilution of the brand.
I’ll step up in defense of the “fancy Fords” anytime—but won’t disagree with any of Paul’s analysis. In 1961, I saw Galaxies way more often than any Mercury. Still, for me, its styling “pairs” nicely with the Comet.
Today, the ads alerted me to a curiosity. The Mercury offers a “Cushion-Link” front suspension in the upper two of its three model ranges, said to be “exclusive” (which I’ll guess means “not on the Ford”). Here’s a road-test description—I’ll attach brochure illustration as a “Reply”:
Here we go (1961 brochure image):
Cushion-Link front suspension might have been exclusive in Mercury’s price range, but the 1961 Lincoln Continental had it, too.
At some later point, the full-size Ford got it. I seem to remember the first Cougar used it, also, whereas the Mustang didn’t.
Thanks much for all this info—I’m here at CC to learn. I guess the Mercury dealer could (for the ’61) point to this as a “step-up” feature, shared with Lincoln, etc. Neat!
I guess the fully enclosed steering column didn’t save them! LOL!
This was a poor choice for a Mercury selling point. Yes, you won’t find an enclosed steering column on a Ford, but you will find it on a Chevy or Plymouth. It was expected on even low-price cars by the early ’60s, so anyone shopping a Mercury wouldn’t be impressed the steering column and gear selector weren’t exposed.
1 57 Mercury made it to NZ it lived in my home burg metallic blue it really stood out and was a sunday go to church car, The owners had a Thames 400 van and a Mercury pikup from about 49 as daily beaters
That snazzy sedan had a chain drive RHD conversion I found out recently compulsory back then in new cars, its still around somewhere in poor condition an old mate looked at buying it but got a better almost as rare US car instead 1 of 2 that came in.
Well, “the end” came 50 years after this “beginning”, so actually did OK in the long run. 72 years, versus 3 for Edsel.
WOW! What interest in the 1961 Mercury Meteor. Growing up in NY (The Bronx) with summer vacations in the Adirondack Mountains, I would see many Quebecois on vacation in Lake George Village. I LOVED looking at the Canadian versions of the American automobiles. I viewed the differences with pleasure. On my first trip to Montreal in 1963, I had a grand time admiring Canadian vehicles because they always seemed to have some extravagance or panache that was not in The U.S. products. Over the years, and many trips to Canada from Winnipeg to Nova Scotia, I have continued my type of eye candy. Indeed, to meet the lesser market population, cars were combined, so to speak. Yet, the exterior and interior designs stand out. Great comments, gents and ladies! Incidentally, I would also see cars in Canada that never came to The U.S. of which I had only read.
What I think is interesting is that Ford pulled out all the stops for the “Big M” five years earlier and it didn’t work. Ford didn’t skimp building Mercury beyond what it had been. They invested millions into making it something special before the launch of the Edsel. So you can’t say that Mercury didn’t get a shot at something bigger than it ended up being.
That said, the best Mercury years ended up being the Brougham years, when boring cars with lots of glitz and velour became the thing. The Personal Luxury Epoch definately played to the best of what Mercury offers. When that faded – boom – Mercury went back to being just a Ford for geezers.
That was the Mercury thing – a Broughamified Ford. Yes, there was the great Cougar years, the great Capri years, and some other moments, but all in all, as far as I can recall, it was those Fancy Ford years from 1972-1982 that made Mercury shine.
Lincoln had its Continental Spare, but Mercury had Farrah Fawcett’s delectable padded vinyl covered rump on the Cougar XR7 trunk decks.
I mean – C’MON!