(first posted 6/5/2014) Ford Galaxie. The name just rolls off the tongue, and is right up there with “Mustang” and “Thunderbird” in the best Ford model names of all time. Introduced in 1959 as the top-of-the-line Ford, it lasted all the way to 1974, though it was overshadowed by the LTD in its later years. Why Ford doesn’t utilize the name today is beyond me, but say “Ford Galaxie” and I am instantly transported to the classy sedans and coupes of the ’60s. Like this one.
1963 was a big year for Ford. The old 292 Y-block that had originated in ’54 was finally retired, replaced with leaner, meaner small-block 260 and 289 V8s. The full-sized Ford was treated to a handsome facelift, and the mid-year Sports Hardtop was the flashiest big Ford you could get.
While the show-stopping Mustang was still a year away, there was still much to enjoy in FoMoCo showrooms, including the lovely Thunderbird, dressy Galaxie 500s, and pretty little Falcon Futuras, among others.
And while the compacts and midsizers were gaining traction (and that would increase exponentially), the full-size Ford was Dearborn’s bread-and-butter. A full lineup of two- and four-door sedans, two- and four-door hardtops, convertibles and six- and nine-passenger station wagons were available, with a long, long list of optional extras to make your Ford as dressy or as basic as you wanted.
Today’s CC is the mid-line model, and added a chrome side molding and twin fender-top ornaments over the base-level 300 trim, along with a much less taxicab-like interior. I believe that hubcaps were standard, and the full wheel covers and whitewall tires seen here were optional.
A Galaxie Six four-door ran you $2507, or $2616 with the base V8. The standard V8 was the 260 CID unit with 164 hp @ 4400 rpm and a Holley two-barrel. A 2 BBL, 195 hp 289 was the next step up, and beyond that were the big blocks, with a 427 sitting at the top of the heap. Galaxies were only available in a two-door or four-door sedan, and a total of 82,419 Galaxie sedans were made that year. That included both Six and V8 models, as the figures were not broken down by engine type.
A grand total of 112,754 Galaxies were made, which doesn’t sound bad at all until you see that the fancier Galaxie 500 sold 440,526 units. Of course, the G500 included a two-door hardtop, fastback two-door hardtop, four-door hardtop and convertible, but it is still rather clear than most folks wanted the nicer interior and added trim of the 500 model.
Even the top-of-the-line Galaxie 500XL sold within almost 20K units of the plain ol’ Galaxie, with 94,730 hardtop coupes, hardtop sedans and convertibles coming off the line. But the early ’60s were a prosperous time, and it seemed most people wanted all the gadgets, gizmos and extra chrome trim they could get! All 1963 big Fords sat upon a 119″ wheelbase and had a 209″ overall length. Standard tires were 7.50×14 bias plies except for station wagons, which received 8.00x14s.
And yes folks, this CC was for sale. Nice ’60s four-door sedans are so underrated. Everyone wants a GTO, Mustang or GTX with a big honkin’ four-barrel V8. And don’t get me wrong, I like those cars too. But they are a bit dear for most folks these days, and I am of the opinion that a nice Galaxie like this can be just as fun to play with and take to cruises in the summertime.
Before writing this car up I shared pictures of it with our resident 1963 Ford expert, Jason Shafer. I was of the opinion that $6500 was a little high for a non-500 four-door sedan. But thanks to Jason, I discovered that these plain Galaxies are a fair bit rarer than the more upmarket Galaxie 500, and given the car’s excellent original condition, the price is actually not bad.
Out back, Galaxies had simplified trim, consisting of a smaller garnish panel with horizontal lines in lieu of the 500’s more elaborate version with “checkerboard” trim. Galaxies also lost the 500’s “gunsight” overlay on the rocket-ship taillights.
From the side, a simple mid-body side molding was utilized, and there were no rear-fender “gills” as seen on the 500. But even with the simple trim, a Galaxie such as this equipped with whitewalls and full wheel covers was still a handsome car. A good design will still look attractive even in the lower trim levels, and this car proves it.
In 1962, for one year only, the cheapest full-size Ford you could get was–a Galaxie. The Custom was discontinued, and all ’62 Fords were Galaxies, with the Galaxie 500 the mid-range model and buckets-and-console 500XL the top of the range.
However, it was short lived, and a Ford “300” appeared for 1963 to brighten the day for cheapskates everywhere. It was a one-year wonder, and instead of “Galaxie” script on the front fender, it said simply “Ford” to let everyone know what a tightwad you were! It appeared to have been a late addition to the 1963 lineup, however, as it was not shown in the full-line brochure.
So, with the 1963 Galaxie newly upgraded to middle-range status, the interior and trim was nicer, with two-toning and chrome trim on both the door panels and dash. An automatic was still optional, though, but this one does indeed sport the column-shifted Ford-O-Matic.
Out back, there was plenty of stretch-out room, and plenty of glass area too. You see, back then, automakers actually built cars you could see out of, rather than today’s cars with little storm-the-castle loopholes and A-pillars bigger than your head.
This was a nice car in its day, perhaps the 1960s equivalent to a Camry LE: nothing super fancy or flashy, but quiet, comfortable and competent. Perfect for Dad to drive to the office in, while leaving the Chevrolet Brookwood or Ford Country Sedan at home for Mom.
Even on a mid-trim model, this car had a lot of cool details, such as the tri-tone emblem on the wheel covers and those cool front fender ornaments. They are like tasteful jewelry; they enhance the looks while not overpowering the whole design.
I happened across this car just a few weeks ago. It was in very good condition and very complete. It also appeared to be very well cared for, as the paint appeared to be original, and all the chrome and polished stainless trim was extremely nice. Not a perfect car, but one that clearly had been loved by however many owners it has had over the past fifty-one years. I hope whoever purchases this car respects its originality.
The light yellow paint, full wheel covers and whitewall tires all appealed to me very much and quietly whispered early 1960s prosperity and good times. I missed the ’60s by about 10 years but cars like this–and reruns of The Andy Griffith Show!–give me a strong impression of what once was.
“Why Ford doesn’t utilize the name today is beyond me” – well, for several years now, Ford Europe has been selling Ford Galaxy (note different spelling) which however is as different from the 60s Galaxie-s as possible: the Euro-Galaxy is a FWD minivan (or MPV as Britons say):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Galaxy
I know “Galaxy” the correct spelling, but “Galaxie” is so much cooler…
And, they put the name on an MPV?! Oh well, it’s not much different than from Ford NA putting the vaunted Town Car name on a re-sheetmetaled Ford Flex!
Wow, I can’t remember the last time I saw one of these. 63 Fords were everywhere in my youth, but these were rarely seen. The Ford 300 was rarer still – I specifically remember seeing one around 1971 and its the only one I can ever recall seeing. Chevy Biscaynes and Bel Airs were much more common.
This shows us where so many Falcon and Fairlane buyers came from. But I imagine that this was Ford’s plan with no real base model big Fords in 1962 and until mid year 1963.
It would be interesting to know if this car has the 2 speed Ford O Matic or the 3 speed Cruise O Matic.The 3 speed was most common in the big cars, but it would not surprise me that the 2 speed unit was available in the big cars as a budget automatic.
Another thing – is this car yellow? Photos and lighting make it hard to tell, but this looks more like Ford’s Wimbledon White, which was always a very creamy kind of white.
I also assumed the car’s exterior is that wonderful, delicate pastel color of Wimbledon White, used by Ford during the 1950’s thru 1970’s.
Such a pleasant change from GM and Mopar’s refrigerator white!
I think “Wimbledon White” came later – ’64 or so. This was still “Corinthian White”, which is creamier and less harsh.
I think dad got the Galaxie 500 in 65. In 68 he got a new demo LTD and gave the Galaxie to my brother. it was white, gold cloth and vinyl interior. 260/auto.
By 1970 it was used as a “fishing” car…..where the smell in an old car wasn’t a problem!
Correct on the 2 different white colors (CW in ’63 and WW ’64) but this car isn’t white — it’s Tucson Yellow which became available in the Spring of ’63 for the ’63 models.
JP: Yes, the car was light yellow, similar to Colonial Yellow on ’80s Cadillacs but just a touch lighter. The cloudy day and my camera made it look white in some pics.
+1 on these being everywhere when they were new/lightly used. I grew up in a working class neighborhood and, mostly, the people who did not have a Bel Air/Biscayne in the driveway had a full sized Ford of some variety. There were some folks who had Plymouths and the occasional “rich” person with a Pontiac but for the most part it was Fords and Chevrolets. I suppose that over the years most of these cars got used up and thrown away; they were used as transportation appliances and considered disposable at a certain point in their lives.
Perhaps my memory is fading with the fast approach of my 60th year; but I recall the 2 speed “Ford O Matic” being used only on the intermediate and compact Ford models of of this time period; with the 3 speed “Green Dot” Cruise O Matic always used on the full sized cars?
I’ve never understood the popularity of the 1962-63-64 full sized Chevvies; when an engine/automatic transmission superior (and just as attractive!) Ford was available.
Tests of the time showed that the much better breathing and higher revving (as well as more efficient) Chevy V8 largely offset any disadvantage from the Powerglide. And the PG was much more efficient too (internal pumping/mechanical losses).
check this: “powerglide on the street”
I don’t know about this particular model but Ford O Matic was definitely available in the 1960-61 full size Fords; I speak from personal experience. Actually Ford had two different automatics known as Ford O Matic; the original from the early fifties actually had three speeds but started out in 2nd gear when left in Drive. You could take off in 1st gear if you moved the lever to Low but would have to move the lever to Drive to shift to 2nd gear. The other Ford O Matic dates from the late fifties and was, essentially, a modified Cruise O Matic, with two forward gears. The version in the ones I drove were the two speed variety, not much acceleration, especially coupled with the 223 CID six. I suspect that Ford had moved to just using the Cruise O Matic in the full size cars by 63-64 but I don’t know for certain.
The two-speeds didn’t work very well behind the 144 in the early Falcons either. I remember the poor little six screaming its head off in first, then – clunk – barely chugging along in top. Or so it seemed from the back seat.
In 1963 the Ford-O-Matic was still available in the full-size cars behind the small blocks.
I think that the Plymouth/Dodge with a 383 and torqueflite were perhaps the best for performance. The 61’s with dual ram induction 383’s may have been optimum though.
“This shows us where so many Falcon and Fairlane buyers came from. But I imagine that this was Ford’s plan with no real base model big Fords in 1962 and until mid year 1963.”
When the downsized ’62 Fairlane was introduced, I think Ford thought it would make the bottom rung of the full-size lineup (what had been the base Fairlane, the same market territory as the Chevrolet Biscayne) unneccesary, and maybe even cut into the rung above that (what had been the Fairlane 500, the same market territory as the Chevrolet BelAir). So they dropped the bottom rung, and de-emphasized the the next rung up by folding it into the Galaxie (creating the Galaxie/Galaxie 500 split). After a year and a half, they apparently concluded that this had been a mistake, and rolled out the 300 to fill in the vacant lowest rung. For ’64 they went back to a lineup similar to what they had in 1960-61, with the Custom/Custom 500 taking the place of the old full-size Fairlane/Fairlane 500, and the Galaxie name (now Galaxie 500) reserved for the top rung only.
IINM, a similar thing happened in the full-size wagon lineup. When the intermediate Fairlane got a wagon for ’63, I believe that the full-size Ranch Wagon disappeared, only to return a year or two later.
For 1963 The full-size Ford wagons were the Country Sedans and Country Squires.
In 1966 or so, my dad was able to afford a baby blue ’63 Galaxie 500 convertible with a 352 as a high school senior. Can you imagine a kid paying for his own three-year old Mustang convertible today? Times have changed for sure.
If one were to truly desire this car, I’d go in with 40 hundred dollar bills and see what the seller said. Buying a nice original car that few have messed with seems like a good purchase, but I think $6500 is too high. Didn’t they switch from the 260 to the 289 at mid-year? I would think the 260 would be a little outmatched by this car…back when my Mustang was a stock 289 2-barrel, it wasn’t fast by any stretch. Add a thousand pounds and it would be pretty sedate.
That’s all relative though. My 95-horse Corvair, Dynaflow Buick, and Slant Six Dart all keep up fine with traffic for the most part.
I’m with you on the price, but was thinking more like $3500. This would be a hard car to sell for any real money.
I agree with you – a 260 V8 with a 2 speed Ford O Matic would be a real slug.
The 260 was eliminated midyear for the 289.
For asking price this is fairly realistic; selling price is always a different story. My ’63 is insured for a value in this neighborhood based upon several old car guides. The three speed on my mine is a deduct which compensates for the lower trim on this one. I don’t always agree with these guides but you have to start somewhere.
There was one of these sedans that sold at Barrett Jackson a few years ago for over $100k. I would sell mine for that and then buy this one for $4k to $5k.
$100 grand??? Was it a 427?
352 or smaller. It was a Mayberry clone, but still ludicrous.
I find that literally impossible to believe, given how common those are. But if you say so……
I was skeptical until I saw the video of it. As PT Barnum said about a fool and his money.
“The 260 was eliminated midyear for the 289.”
We had an extensive discussion about this a few years ago, and this was the consensus. Some reference books don’t list the 289 as having been available in ’63s because it was a midyear change. It’s not clear to me if Fairlanes also got the 289 at midyear ’63, or had to wait until ’64; Falcons and Mustangs kept the 260 during the ’64 model year (aside from the rarely seen HiPo version of the 289 being available in Mustangs) and didn’t get the 289 until the 1965 model year.
Oddly, in that earlier discussion there were several of us (including me) who had been unaware that the 260 was ever available in full-size cars, but it seems to be well-documented that it was. Ford presumably felt that it was a better option than the outdated 292 as a stopgap until the 289 was ready.
What color was the breather and valve covers on the 289? Years ago I saw a ’63 in the salvage yard whose valve covers and breather were white, making me think it was a 260 version.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/car-show-classic-1963-ford-fairlane-sport-coupe-k-code/
You could get a Hi-Po in the ’63 Fairlane, but not a hydraulic-lifter version until 1964.
Jason, 289s until ’66 traditionally had gold valve covers and air cleaner. I’ve seen 260 with red and blue accessories, but not white as far as I remember.
Here’s the 260 in Mustang Serial Number 100001, at Henry Ford Museum.
The ’63 full-size Ford 260’s had red valve covers and air cleaner. The 289’s had white.
Mate o mine had one back in the 70s yeah it was underpowered but a 6 was unknown here, Cliff’s got a 302 transplant which improved the performance but it still didnt stop and steer too well great on good surface highway a nice cruiser but you really had to back off for corners.
Good find and another good read,thanks Tom.I love the afterburner lights,The 63 Fords have always been a favourite of mine,Ford was on top of the game when it came to style in the 60s(apart from the 67 T bird).We always had a rented Galaxy wagon for our American and Canadian holidays.Rather surprisingly the big block Galaxy had a lot of wins on British race tracks in the 60s despite it’s size and the reputation of full size American cars being built for comfort not handling.
I still kick myself for walking away from a Galaxy convertible I found for sale in the Marton area of Blackpool in 1981 or 82 for £450!
Those Galaxies that out ran Lotus Cortinas certainly werent the spec assembled in NZ a well tuned Cortina MK1 blew the doors off my mates Galaxie one night.
They certainly were, they were lightweight specials with aluminium bumpers, front panels, boot lid, etc plus stronger wheels, axles etc.
In Australian touring car racing you could only race 2-door cars in the small classes so Len Lukey got a 4-door sedan built as a lightweight with the 427, he won races but didn’t have a great deal of success with it. As with Norm Beechey’s 406 Impala there were plenty of issues to deal with.
I like the analogy to the modern Camry LE. Perfect.
Exactly Same for Chevy bel Air
I also like the analogy. On paper the two cars are indeed comparable.
But……
Although more than adequate for the time period and when new, the steering, braking and transmission shift quality of any Ford, Chevy or Mopar of 1963 cannot even remotely compare to the competence of a new Camry!
Nahhhh…..Chevrolet’s 2 speed “Slip ‘n slide” PowerGlide automatic transmission was inefficient, slow and ancient compared to Ford’s 3 speed Cruise O Matic and Mopar’s truly excellent, reference standard 3 speed TorqueFlite.
The PG had its shortcomings, but it was not inefficient, in terms of its pumping/mechanical losses; it was decidedly more efficient, in those regards, and is one of the reasons it’s still popular with drag racers.
Actually, the Ford automatics were known to be the most inefficient of the crop. I once read that a C6 behind a big block was once estimated to suck up to 60 hp, but I can’t find the source readily. The Torqueflite was relatively more efficient.
The difference in efficiency of the C6, TH400, and 727 are pretty slim, a couple of percent from best to worst, but yes the C6 is generally considered the least efficient of that group and the 727 the most efficient.
Of course a 1963 wouldn’t have come with a C6 from the factory. Ford used many different transmissions that were billed under the Cruise-O-Matic banner.
Yes, most likely one of the FX/MX/FMX units. Perhaps these were the ones that had such poor efficiency, as they were closely related to the 1950s Ford O Matic.
I don’t think the C6 came out until maybe 1970 or so.
jpcavanaugh did write – I don’t think the C6 came out until maybe 1970 or so.
The C6 was first put out in the 1966 model year FoMoCo cars and trucks. Just an FYI.
I don’t know about efficiency, but the first generation dynaflow was slow to accelerate unless one engaged low range. One problem with the Power Glide and Dynaflow’s was no passing performance to speak of, as the torque converters were mostly coupled by highway cruising speeds (50-60 MPH).
If you are talking about on the road, real world overall effeciency in as delivered vehicles virtually any 3sp automatic would be better than the Power Glide and any other of the 2sp automatics. There is a reason that mfgs are now building 27 speed automatic transmissions, and that is that because the allow the engine to operate more efficiently. All those extra gears and the bearings/bushings needed to support them increases the frictional losses in the transmission but that is more than made up by allowing the engine to operate closer to its peak efficiency more of the time.
There are power losses and then there is real world performance. A three speed automatic in the sixties had a “passing gear” so at a speed of 50 MPH a downshift would give you about 1.5:1 passing gear to about 70-80 MPH. The PowerGlide was in high gear with some torque converter amplification (~1.1:1).
I think you are mostly talking performance. I don’t know of any car automatics that are running 27 gear ratios. Continuously variable transmissions have greater power losses than planetary gear sets.
I think Eric said “27-speed” as hyperbole.
I like your 27-speed! 🙂
IIRC the highest number currently is a 9-speed. Driving behind one of those must be almost like a CVT. I can’t help thinking the engine must have an awfully narrow power band to need so many speeds. There must be quite a story behind how the engineers justified the cost and complexity of a 9-speed to the fi-guys.
I like it, and think the price is good assuming it doesn’t have major immediate needs.
Once again it’s a good thing this is located far far from me or I’d be tempted. However I have no time, haven’t done a thing on the VW this year and am embroiled in 500 Interceptor valve lash.
I spotted this Galaxie in a parking lot several years ago and have been drooling over it ever since. Fastback, hardtop, 2 door, with the fender trim, yes please! Powered by some flavor of an FE, I’d be in heaven!
That one is my absolute favorite, the ’64 fastback. However the ’63 was a solid design too, and this featured car looks to be in fantastic shape for 51 years young.
Also–I love 60’s interiors. I really do. The mid 60’s Thunderbird especially, but this Galaxie has a nice, clean design, with sublte two-toning and tastefully applied chrome. And the dash looks so delicate compared to today’s massive panels.
Agree, Chris.
Perhaps because I “grew up” riding in 1960’s cars?
This Ford’s interior, with it’s subtle two-toning, accenting chrome usage and painted metals appeals to me.
I’d take the interior of this Ford over the beige, bland, boring “melting bar of soap” interior of my highly competent Camry LE any day!
+1! Another sixties kid here.
I drove a 64 Galaxie 500XL with a 352 in high school in the early 1990’s. Yep, it was Heaven. Thankfully, Dad still has the car!
See…
Wow. Nice ride for high school! Cool that your Dad still has the car too. I found one for sale in ’97 for 3500…non XL, but a fastback hardtop with the 390, a little rough but running. No amount of pleading could convince my parents to lend me the difference between my meager savings and that price.
Nowadays that same car would probably be northwards of $10K.
A big block fast back roams the streets locally I cant seem to catch it for the cohort Ive never found it parked.
With a white painted roof and 70 Mach1 wheel covers, that was my first car! Red. 390, auto. in 1972.
A photoshop, no original photos.
I remember reading a quote from a used car dealer saying that he would take as many 60’s Ford Galaxies with 352’s as he could get. It was a boat anchor but it was as reliable as one. The ’63 styling was the best of the ’60’s IMO. Just a solid conservative but attractive car.
Personally I’m glad Ford doesn’t us Galaxie today. They don’t have a car worthy of the name.
I have own several Galaxies over the years. My favorite is the 1963 Galaxie 500XL convertible with a 427 and 4 speed. I bought it in 1968 just after I got back from Vietnam. I still own and drive it in nice weather.
So cool that you’ve kept your car that long! Any pics?
Looking at the interior shots, I recognize the chrome gear shift selector/indicator of the 3 speed “Green Dot” Cruise O Matic transmission.
As I recall, the 2 speed Ford O Matic shift selector/indicator was a simpler piece of transparent plastic, with small white letters, without any chrome trim on the top of the selector/indicator.
The Ford-O-Matic shift selector/indicator had the same plastic chrome frame as the Cruise-O-Matic on the ’63 full-size Fords. This picture is from a Ford 300 with a 289 and Ford-O-Matic. You can see the P R N D L and the chrome surround. The clear plastic and letters are the same size as the Cruise-O-Matic. Again, this is for the ’63 full-size Fords.
From this era, I wouldn’t even buy a Chevy four-door sedan. No sale, and grossly over-priced.
I really miss the “Galaxie” name, however. Ford screwed that up pretty bad by letting such an historic name lapse. “Galaxie” is a name that rolls off the tongue as beautifully as seeing the name in print! A perfect counterpart to “Impala”.
I thought that Ford should have brought back the Galaxie name for a Ford counterpart to the Mercury Marauder. In fact before Ford put the 4v 4.6 in a Panther I thought it would be a great idea to slip one of those engines in a Crown Victoria and rebadge it as a Galaxie 500 to complete the build.
That would have been perfect, but probably cost-prohibitive given how few Marauders they sold overall. True, it was mostly parts-bin engineering, but there were just enough model-specific parts that having to do a Ford version probably would have put it deep(er?) into the loss category. They only managed to move a little over 11,000 Marauders in ’03 and ’04 (though if they had bothered to actually advertise the thing, that might have helped).
Would have been a worthy use of the Galaxie 500 name though. Going even more over-the-top, they could have done a 500XL with the supercharged DOHC motor like in the “terminator” Cobras.
The ’63 is by far my favorite sixties full sized Ford. In addition to the rear lights, I like the grille. It is simple, almost delicate but clean and light looking.
Price is too much for a four door sedan – even in this nice original condition. An Illinois car – I wonder what it looks like underneath? Now if the same model in a two door sedan was parked with that asking price I would consider engaging in conversation with the owner. Wouldn’t need to be a hardtop, just a two door sedan and I’d like that.
As a Ford fan even back then I vividly remember my disappointment upon seeing the 1964 full sized Fords. How could such a good design go so bad in just one model year? Only the 500XL interiors remained attractive; the exterior became bulbous and ugly compared to the svelte ’63. Others may prefer the ’64.
What a nice sedan, however I find myself thinking it would be best if it had black wall tires and the “dog dish” hubcaps from ’63 to complete the look. It’s how I remember ’63s of this trim level. To me, 1963 Fords were everywhere, more so than the Chevys. The only place they weren’t used was for police cars in my hometown. They broke up a string of years of Fords and went with Plymouths, then went back to Ford until ’67.
Judging by the fact that the wheels are painted body color, this car originally had the “dog dish” hubcaps.
Great find!! Look at the room inside that car. It is so hard to find a newer car now that has enough leg room with the supersize consoles. I think the emblem in the grill was the hood latch. Such detail.
The first car I ever remember was our ’61 Galaxie 500 4-door (pillared) sedan. It was that light, powder-blue from that year. Bought new. I was two when my parents bought it, and that car is burned into my memories.
Only thing about it that was less than wonderful was its lack of air conditioning…something that (in South Texas) was pretty much a necessity.
We kept it until ’69, when my dad sold it and went to the other end of the automotive spectrum by buying a brand new Toyota Corona 4-door sedan. ALSO without A/C.
beebs: Must be a WWII/Korean war generation thing?
My Father detested factory Air Conditioning in his cars, refused to buy it, even refused to use it when it came with the last few new cars he purchased.
New Orleans Heat & Humidity is similar (if not worse) than your area.
Our 1960’s-70’s family road trips, thru Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma & Kansas, in various Ford & Mopar station wagons, were Summer torture time for me.
Finally, my long suffering Mother told my Father “No Air Conditioning, No road trips anymore”. (And I suspect no more other unspecified things also.)
Yep…he was raised in the Great Depression, a teen during WWII.
He eventually “saw the light” and caved, and once he did that was it…when my older brother was old enough to start trading cars every year or less for another model, the parents usually ended up with the choicer cast-offs. The ’76 Bonneville 2-dr Land Yacht bein’ my favorite.
Was this the quickest debasement of a nameplate ever? From top of the line in 1959 to the base model just three years later.
1963 was a great year for GM and Ford. The Impalas, Catalinas and the rest of the GM full-sizers were stylish and handsome and sold like hotcakes. The Galaxie 500 was not far behind. A friend’s parents had one and I have to say the interior was nicer than my Dad’s new ’63 Dynamic 88. The dash was great and a night everything lit up, even all the little switches.
One flaw was with the A/C Fords. Factory air on these cars was a hang on unit under the dash. This was at a time when GM and Chrysler had long since integrated the A/C ductwork and controls neatly into the dash. Ford didn’t do so until 1965.
IIRC, Chevy didn’t have in dash Factory Air Conditioning until 1965; the same year Ford did?
Mopars did have in dash A/C earlier than that. My Dad’s ’62 Plymouth Fury had in dash/top of dash A/C (not that he would ever use it!).
I do believe that Buick and Olds had in dash A/C before Chevy did?
My family had a 63 Impala sedan with A/C. It was factory with in dash vents. I do not remember anything unusual about it such as being under the dash.
Chevy and Olds had “in-the-dash” A/C in 1955, one year later than the 1954 Pontiac, which was the first car with true factory “in the dash” A/C with all mechanicals under the hood. Nash also introduced it later in 1954 with their Weather-Eye system. Buick and Cadillac stayed with their trunk mounted unit until 1957.
No a bad looking car, but Paul nailed it here:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2010/11/curbside-classic-1963-pontiac-catalina-the-sexiest-big-car-of-its-time/
The Galaxie was in another, much less desireable, universe compared to the superlative and relative bargain (given its features) 1963 Pontiac Catalina.
“That was the genius of Pontiac: for the price of a Chevy Impala, Ford Galaxie or Dodge 880, you could have a four door Grand Prix. Brilliant.
As is all too obvious, those bland alternative choices couldn’t touch the Pontiac’s deeply sculpted and original front end, never mind the rest of its handsome details. The ’63 Catalina exuded a poised confidence and sophistication that belied its price, which was exactly $100 more than a comparable Impala. What a deal, considering what else that one Ben Franklin bought: an additional one hundred cubic inches (389 vs 283), an inch longer wheelbase, and a million dollars’ worth of looks from the girls.”
I am pleased to see this article. Thanks to a great Dad, I was blessed with a 63 Galaxie 500 convertible for the last year or two of high school. It was a beautiful Chestnut color, solid 352, dual exhaust, as fine as any car I’ve had. As this mid-line example shows, Ford interiors were beautifully done. In my opinion, this trim level has aged better than the XL. What seemed wonderful when vinyl, chrome, and aluminum ruled now is now a bit much. AC hanging below the dash like an aftermarket unit and the lingering 2 shaft steering column/shifter were Ford oddities. These compared poorly to the integrated designs developed a decade earlier by AMC and followed by other makers. It’s as if the ghost of Henry Ford was still there keeping up with the past.
Hot dang, this is the best car featured here in about six months! Or maybe I am profoundly biased!
This car intrigues me from a compare and contrast perspective. Some of the interior trim is less dated while it is missing the armrests on the doors like mine has. This appears to have cloth seats while mine has the higher trim vinyl. The outside is certainly less cluttered than the 500 models.
Another trait of the ’60 to ’61 full sizers is that they were dearly loved by some in the demo derby crowd for the strength of the rear part of the frame. It appears it made a great ram.
There is a piece of the front suspension on only the ’63 models that can cause some grief. It is a piece that has a shaft coming into each side and it is offset between sides. With some age it can cause erratic handling. I wish I could remember more, but I’m away from all resources at he moment. Mine still has this piece and it still handles the way she did when I was 16.
The fuel lines on the six and small V8 were 1/4″ whereas the 352 and larger had 3/8″ fuel line although brake lines on the 352 are a hybrid of the big and small engined cars.
Tom, seeing one of these in a lower trim is a treat. Thank you.
406 and 427 cars had the 3/8″ fuel lines. Others had 5/16″.
I grew up in a such a GM centric world that big Fords just didn’t register on my radar when I was a kid. Over the past several years I’ve really gained an appreciation for ’62 through ’67 Fords – a 100% expansion over my prior appreciation for Ford’s Tri Sixes the ’65 – ’67.
“…and rolled out the 300 to fill in the vacant lowest rung”
Maybe Henry Ford II saw a 1962 Galaxie taxicab and didn’t like seeing the name de-based. Or fleet buyers said, “I’m not spending extra $ for a Galaxie”.
😉
This is a Nov. 1, 1962 ad from a New Castle, PA Ford dealer. I see the “300” was indeed available that early in the model year, and–as a stripper–it might seem like “a lot more car for the money” than the Falcon and Fairlane.
BTW, another mid-1963 Ford dealer ad lists a ’63 with the 289 (I’ll assume they wouldn’t have made a 260-vs-289 error).
“Equipped with heater, defroster, and antifreeze”
Times have certainly changed.
I imagine loyal Ford buyers who wanted a true cheap ‘big car’ demanded the return of the base 300. For $1997, it is psychologically a ‘good buy’ to them.
With Chevy Biscayne still on the market for same price, Ford had to match them, also. There wasn’t a true ‘full size Plymouth’ this year, too.
Perhaps it’s the lighting in the pictures, but to me, there appears to be paint issues (yeah I know, it’s a 51-year old car). By that, it appears in the full side shots you have, that the paint doesn’t exactly match. I’d almost venture to guess that both front fenders were replaced…and the paint job on ’em? Not so good, Al. 😉
That was probably a garaged one owner car for a long time. Maybe even the last car he or she ever owned. The mismatched paint may have been from repairs as driving ability dwindled. The 63 rocket exhaust tail lamps are pretty cool. The 64 has a high quality classy look to it, including the interior. Either one in a 2 door hardtop black or red with red interior and XL top of the line equipped would be a really fine looking automobile to own. Many prefer the 65 style, and while not at all bad looking, these years to me just look more solidly built with higher quality materials. Nice survivor, I do think $6500 is a little too high.
When you average looks, appeal, capability, quality and durability, the 63-64 Ford may be the best cars Ford ever built after the Model A. Some of the newer cars do better on two or three of these metrics, but not on all five.
6500 is WAY too high for this car. I bought my loaded rust free 68 Electra for 3500 bucks.
I grew up in the 70s in a neighborhood that was largely GM…my uncle was a Ford guy and he had about the only Fomoco products I was ever around. My parents were Oldsmobile people, the folks next door had big, stripped down Pontiacs, the people next to them both drove Cadillac Eldorados, on the other side, they had a Cadillac and a Lincoln (hey, there’s one Ford), the people beyond that had a Pontiac and a Cadillac, the next family had a Chevy and a VW Beetle. Across the street, Olds anda Chevy truck, Olds and Chevy, Chevy and Fiat, Jeep Wagoneer and Pontiac. There was a Ford store nearby, along with a row of dealers with Olds, Buick and Pontiac, then down the road was Chevy, and a Dodge store, but there were almost no Fords or Mopars in my neighborhood in the 70s. Very strange…it’s not like anyone was an autoworker, and the other brands were available, but that’s just how it worked out at that time. Now the same families all seem to drive imports.
I had an all-original 1963 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door Sedan for about 4 years. Just sold it earlier this year with 77,000 miles. It was 2-tone Viking blue with a white top. Probably the best car I’ve ever owned. It had a smooth running 352 v8 that had plenty of torque for climbing hills fully loaded, though it wouldn’t win any races horsepower wise. I put 11,000 miles on it and it never consumed or leaked oil between regular changes. Never once ran past 210 on the temp gauge, even in 90+ heat. The 3-speed cruise-o-magic worked reasonably well, though the shifts were not as smooth as the later C4 and C6 transmissions. The suspension could take bumps like no other, but without the bouncyness of late 60s-70s Ford Full-size cars. Power steering worked fine, though it had the notorious Ford leaks. Just had to top it off every so often. No problems whatsoever with electrical or the driveline.
The taillights with the gun crosshairs and reverse lights in the middle are awesome. The interior styling was about as beautiful as any car I’ve ever seen. Everything on the dash lights up at night. The seating was comfortable for six and I could fit my bass amp and equipment in the trunk AND my upright bass in the back seat! The gas milage was not great. I got about 11-13 MPG. Best I ever got was 15 MPG on a long trip going 60 MPH on the freeway.
The front drum brakes were always the main issue with mine. Despite redoing EVERYTHING in the brake system, the thing always would pull one way or another. If I had to do it over again, I’d do a front disc brake conversion and have saved myself a lot of grief. I’m not sure what Ford was thinking in ’64. IMHO they ruined an incredible design by only making it one year.
Still hoping and praying that one day I’ll get my hands on a decent 1963 convertible with a 4 speed… That would be my dream car.
My dad worked for Ford and I grew up a Ford kid. The new model introductions were kind of like Christmas every year. The excitement of seeing those new models was really something. I remember a September night in 1962 when my dad took me and my sister to see the preview of the new ’63 Fords. This was even more exciting to me because I would soon be old enough to get my driver’s license. Although we had a ’60 Ford and this was the car I learned to drive on. I finally got my ’63 in October 2002, 40 years later.
First car I owned was a 63 Ford 2dr sedan. It may have been a Galaxie 300 or just a Galaxie. For sure it wasn’t a 500, my dad had a 500 and mine had very little chrome on it. Car was originally a 406 4 speed car. When I got it it had a 352 short block with the 406 heads, intake and solid lifter cam in it. It ran fairly quick but burned oil like no tomorrow. Swapped a 390 T-Bird mill into it. Still ran pretty good but the T-Bird mill ran out at about 5 grand, valves started floating. Years later we took the 352 apart to rebuild it. We discover the source of the oil burning, almost all the compression rings were broken. The block had been bored out to a stock 390 bore, walls were straight, just a botched job on ring selection or installation.
The chart of all ’63 Fords includes a good example of Ford’s clumsiness with branding. At that time there were only two popular vans, Microbus and Econoline. The Corvan had failed, and Chevy’s new version wasn’t well known yet. Dodge wasn’t in the game at all. Econoline was already a generic word.
Logically you’d call the passenger vans Econoline 12-seater or something like that. People would instantly recognize it. Instead, they’re the Falcon Station Bus and Falcon Club Wagon.
Likewise, they had united all the full-size Fords under a single model nameplate way back in 1962 and then blew it with the “Ford 300” when it would’ve been so obvious to have the new stripped car inherit the no-suffix Galaxie name, call the mid-trim model Galaxie 300 and put that “The Ford” business in the past for good.
I always liked the Galaxie name too, but am hard pressed to figure out why. Usually misspelled words that have no real meaning leave me cold. But as Tom says, Ford Galaxie really rolls off the tongue. And it looked great in those big chrome letters across the tail.
Wikipedia suggests it was trying to suggest the glamour of the space race, but then why not call it Galaxy? Is an ‘ie’ at the end of a word somehow more sophisticated? Is Galaxie just a little more mysterious than Galaxy? Does the odd spelling leave room for other connotations to filter in? Glamorous? Sexy? In any case, a great brand name.
I bought this Corinthian White sport top coupe, an Arkansas car, out of Houston 1.5 years ago, auto with a 352. A Hemmings ad with no pic. It was dropped off at the restorer’s and has been in pieces most of the time since. But it’s out of the paint shop now – Porsche Sport Classic Gray – and being put back together with a new stroked 390 out to 445 ci, and +/- 500 hp. And a 69 Mustang Cobra Jet auto trans. Oh, it’s gonna be sweet. .
…..aaaaannnnd in Porsche Sport Classic Gray –
xxoo