(first posted 11/22/2011)
me·te·or/ˈmētēər/
Noun: A small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth’s atmosphere, appearing as a streak of light. The problem is once they fall to earth they aren’t all that spectacular, or easy to find. So goes the story of yet another one of Mercury’s flops, and a Turkey to roast.
When the Meteor debuted in 1962, it reflected the adrift-at-sea mentality that plagued Mercury. It took what was basically a decent American car, the all new for 1962 intermediate Ford Fairlane, and put more chrome and Jet Pod tail lamps on it.
So what did you get for your few extra dollars and loyalty to the winged-messenger god of the Ford family? Besides those new tail lamps and that huge piece of trim on the lower quarter panel not much. No distinct models or engine choices from the Fairlane other than this S-33 model that did a better job of adding a sportier element to these rather beige looking/driving mid sizers than the Fairlane Sport Coupe.
Those engines weren’t anything to write home about to begin with. Your base choice was the 170 cube inline six with 101 horsepower that had a hard time wheezing through life in a Comet or Falcon, especially when paired with the 2-speed Ford-O/Merc-O-Matic. I would guess that it would have been absolutely horrid in the ever so slightly heavier Fairlane/Meteor twins.
One way the Meteor could have been seen as a value would be to offer the 221 Windsor V8 as standard equipment. But even at 145hp, it wasn’t exactly a ball of fire either, especially compared with the eager new Fireball V6 throbbing under the hoods of Buick Specials, never mind the aluminum block 215 V8 found in Specials, Skylarks and F-85 Cutlasses. In a Motor Trend test the 221 V8/Ford-O-Matic Combination was only good for a 13.3 second 0-60 time. Which is what a 225 Slant Six Valiant could do on a cold Monday. So out came the “Challenger” 260 V8 mid-year with a brazen 164 horsepower. Again, something that could have been a Meteor exclusive that had to be shared with the Fairlane.
The other nuisance sat in the same Lincoln-Mercury living rooms as the Meteor: The comparatively wildly successful Comet (above). One can wisely say the Comet kept Mercury from going the way of DeSoto in the early 1960s, even if it wasn’t formally a Mercury until 1962. The Comet was larger than the Ford Falcon, with a 114 inch wheelbase, on average only $100 more than a comparable Falcon but with better trim and appointments. The Comet was almost as much car as the Meteor, which rode on a 116.5 wheelbase, one inch longer than the Fairlane. The gap between the Comet and Meteor was anything but galactic, and since the Comet arrived first, the Meteor’s entry trajectory was almost invisible.
The numbers really speak for themselves. Although the Comet had a relatively down year in 1963, 122,000 made their way out the door. That compares to just over 50,000 Meteors, even with the addition of a lovely hardtop coupe and a station wagon model. Although, for 1963 the Comet also got its first hardtop, plus a convertible and the option to fit the 260 V8 between its torque boxes.
The unloved Meteor made it to 1964, kinda. It retreated to being a basic big body Mercury back in Canada. But it became a pointless detour of the orbit of Mercury in the United States. Which makes you wonder if Mercury was possibly the biggest Turkey of all American brands.
What could have saved the Meteor? An exclusive 289? A Convertible? Who knows? Who really cares? Other than those looking for a cheap way to own an early 1960s Ford Product. Just look for an odd piece of stone that looks like 1963, but you can’t exactly remember where it came from.
I came upon a Meteor last year. I was embarrassed that I had to look up what it was.
Laurence, I always look forward to you articles. Unique perspective and great pics. Thanks again!
+1. Laurence, please write some more.
He has his own blog now: https://dynamicdrives.wordpress.com/
Bookmarked! Thanks, Paul.
The Meteor nameplate was first used by Mercury in 1961 as a affordable full-size Merc before the mid-size come.
One guy imagined a “what if?” to imagine a ’64 Meteor http://www.whatifcars.com/gallery/What-If-Cars/64_Meteor?full=1
Then, in the Great White North, the Meteor nameplate survived longer as a “Mercury in Ford’s clothes” or a “Ford in Mercury’s clothes”. Here a couple of links to various pictures from brochures or promotionnal photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4803589899/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4799948074/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4799311805/in/faves-33723086@N02/
http://www.tweedcreative.ca/mercuryrising/mercuryrising.html
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/Canada/1970%20Mercury%20Meteor%20Brochure/dirindex.html
Canada’s ’61 Meteor has one of the weirdest quad headlight setups ever. What did that look like coming down the road I wonder? Hockey stick taillights, too. Strange car.
I’ve always thought that car looks like it was meant to be the ’61 Edsel, although I know there is no evidence of that.
Actually, the 1961 Mercury full size was what was intended to be the 1961 Edsel…before the Edsel formally got the ax.
Just had to Google what a ’61 Mercury looked like. Um…different.
The story I’d heard was that the Comet wasn’t supposed to be AN Edsel but THE Edsel and there would be no full-size Edsels after 1960. If that’s the case giving the new car a fresh start rather than saddling it with a brand that had become a synonym for failure was a wise move.
The Comet was supposed to be an Edsel. Covered in “The Edsel Story”.
Wow. I mean wow. That is one of the most insane looking cars I have ever seen (and I love insane looking cars. I think the 1960 Lincoln Continental is one of the most beautiful cars ever built). That car just jumped to the top of my list, if I ever find one of those for sale in the US I’m buying it.
By the way, that front end looks a lot like the 1959 Oldsmobile, which was probably intentional because Oldsmobile and Mercury were direct competitors.
Not a whole different from a ’59 Oldsmobile. There are/were a lot weirder cars than that.
That “what if” site is great. I’ve done a few sketches of alternate car designs, but never anything like those.
To Steve
I have a Meteor I am thinking about selling.
Stansfield2002us@yahoo.com
I wonder why the Meteor came out with the same wheelbase as the Fairlane. They stretched the Falcon’s wb to make the Comet, so why not do a similar stretch-job to differentiate the Fairlane and Meteor? A 118 (or even 117.5) inch wb would have been smaller than the Galaxie and a nice niche for a midsized Mercury. More upscale trimming could have made the Meteor a worthwhile step up from the Comet. But, with the hash that Ford made of Mercury’s midsizers over the next few years, it is probably a moot point.
I always kind of liked these cars. The 62 Fairlane (and Meteor) created a class into which every competitor soon had an entry. The 116 inch wb sedan became a staple of the US auto industry through the 1970s and beyond. Just think: had Ford thought the whole thing out better and executed on the concept properly, Paul could have written the Complete Meteor Chronicles (instead of the ones actually written about that runaway success, the Cutlass).
Laurence asked “What could have saved the Meteor?”. If anything could have, I think J.P.’s suggestion is on the right track. The Meteor’s main problem was that it overlapped too much with the Comet, a model that was already established in the marketplace, and that also had the advantage of being relatively distinctive from its Ford counterpart. A larger Meteor may have avoided all of this.
With the benefit of hindsight, though, I’m not sure this would have actually been enough to save the Meteor. While the Fairlane laid the blueprint for the American midsize car of the ’60s and ’70s, and the Comet was close enough to the Fairlane concept to adapt to it, no market ever really emerged for anything like what an “upsized Meteor” would have been. The idea of FoMoCo building an entire range of Mercury products that were all distinct from their Ford counterparts also would have increasingly become a nonstarter over time as the market continued to subdivide (the Comet itself would only continue as a modified Falcon until 1965, after which it would become a more straightahead adaptation of the Fairlane design). A larger Meteor may have done better, but I have a hard time seeing both a c.114-15″ wb Comet and c.117-18″ wb Meteor survive long-term under any circumstances. Maybe after 1966 they would have merged together as two trim levels of the same Fairlane-bodied car, lined up against the Tempest and LeMans.
As Laurence alluded to, the Meteor name had a much longer history in Canada, most of it as a low-priced standard-sized car offered by Lincoln-Mercury dealers to cover that market in areas that might not have enough population base to support both a Ford and Lincoln-Mercury dealer nearby. (It also served a low-priced full-size role in the U.S. in 1961 before being downsized along with the Fairlane, but that and ’62/’63 were the only years for U.S. Meteors.) A possible subject for a future “uniquely Canadian cars” CC — in the same vein as the recent Pontiac Acadian CC — assuming someone north of the border can find one to snap a photo of?
But did that bodyshell have the width to carry off a wheelbase stretch without looking out of proportion? I don’t know the answer, I’m just putting it forward as a point for consideration. Wheelbase-wise, you’d be getting awfully close to a ‘standard-size’ car.
On the other hand, a longer wheelbase Meteor would have been about the same size as the shrunken big Mopars for ’62. Now that would have been interesting!
This is nearly the same platform
This just goes to show that Ford couldn’t hang with GM in the style department, even though their sales were pretty good. To me, Ford’s products looked quite dated and ponderous until the 1965 Galaxie and later models for a few years.
For the most part, with a few exceptions until 1965, no Ford products have ever been on my radar and that has not changed since. Show me a 1965-66 Galaxie, a 1968 -69 Torino, 1967-68 Mustang and later, sleeker Falcons – now you have my attention.
I might be in the Minority but I think the 1962-64 Ford Full Sizers were more dashing than their Chevrolet competitors, especially the 63 1/2 “fastback” hardtop coupes, compared to a contemporary Impala Hardtop.
You could say GM once again “followed” Ford in roof design since all of the 1965 B bodies had swoopy roofs that improved on a theme Ford introduced.
Agreed. As a kid I always thought the ’63-64 Chevys looked weirdly long, the ’63 in particular looking very staid as well.
Definitely agreed. The ’64 Galaxie hardtop in particular may be my favorite “big Ford” of all.
I always thought that Ford did a decent job of matching Chevrolet in the style department, at least with the full-size models. A 1961 Galaxie Starliner is every bit as sleek as that year’s Chevrolet Impala hardtop, and the 1962 Galaxie is just as attractive as the 1962 Chevrolet. If anything, I prefer the front and rear of the Ford.
I agree with Laurence that Ford’s semi-fastback roofline on the 1963 1/2 models and 1964 models is sleeker than anything Chevrolet offered during those years.
The Corvair coupes, however, were more attractive and youthful than the Falcon coupes until the debut of the 1963 1/2 models with the semi-fastback rooflines.
Where Ford fell down was with Mercury. Until the first Cougar and the 1969 full-size models, it seemed as though Mercury was the red-headed stepchild that received the ideas rejected by the Ford and Lincoln studios. Mercury was simply no match for Pontiac in the 1960s (again, except for the Cougar and 1969 Marquis), or even the more conservative Oldsmobile and Buick offerings.
Moving up to a Pontiac from a Chevrolet really did get you a better (and more impressive looking, which is also important) car in those days. The Mercury from those years simply does not look like a step up from a Ford.
I know this is late, but you’ve forgotten the 65-68 full sizers “In The Lincoln Continental Tradition”. Those were built with the intention of rubbing off some Lincoln mystique on Mercury and the looked much less the glorified Ford of 61-64.
I happen to like the 1963 Ford and 1962 Mercury, they are two of my favorite cars for the same reason. Sure they are somewhat plain and conservative looking cars, but they both have fantastic taillights. Both the huge rocket boosters on the Ford (the best year for those, in my opinion since they both jut out and have no fins), and the smaller retrorockets on the Mercury.
I, too, think that in 63 fastback and 64 in general, Ford had the edge in styling. Ford was often competitive. Sometimes better.
I don’t remember ever seeing a meteor up close and personally. I was a young man stationed in Japan at the time and I do not recall seeing them on any base. When I had finished playing around on ships several years later one could suppose that there were not many left.
Curious. Looks just like a size I would have bought. Around Nova to Chevelle wheelbase and a small v8 available. Probably would have been very easy to slip in a 200-6 when they were available. The station wagon would have been perfect for a young serviceman who moved about a little.
My wife has owned two mercuries and neither seemed destined for a long useful life. I know what their purpose was supposed to have been because I remember the pre 1949 line when they actually were bigger than ford with bigger engines. I don’t think I see an advantage to anything built after 1954 unless you were just into paying more when the same thing was available as a ford.
Interesting anyway, and a good article.
The ’57-’60 Mercury was nothing like the contemporary Ford.
LJ- what equipment are you using to achieve that retro look?
(f you can tell us a little secret)
Nice article. If Ford had really “thought out of the box,” it would have killed the full-size Mercury, slightly upsized the Meteor from the Fairlane, made the 260 V-8 standard, given the interior the LTD treatment, and turned the Meteor into a Cutlass Supreme five years before Oldsmobile came up with the idea.
I actually drove an 62 Fairlane in the mid seventies and found it to be a fairly peppy four door sedan with bland looks.
I agree that they should have kept up with the stretch job. The rest of the line had longer wheelbases than their Ford counterparts so in addition to the different style and more chrome you actually got more metal and room for that extra money. But the Meteor with its Ford wheel base was just too close to the success that was the Comet. So they essentially were merged with the Comet name plate being put on what would have been the Meteor. So one could say that it was the Comet that died while the Meteor continued on with its name changed to protect the guilty.
I had a 63 Meteor with the 260 V-8. I thought it was better built than the Fairlane and the Comet wagons from 63 i also owned. Eventually I had the engine apart and found the rods were different from other 260s, and the pistons had a carbon ring cut above the top compression ring into the piston. The Meteor had gauges whereas the others used idiot lights.
I didn’t care for the grille design, I like the Comet better. If I could have a 63 Ford, it would be Meteor, Comet, Fairlane, Falcon in that order.
These cars look great, though at first glance I thought it was a Comet. I’ve only seen one in my life and it looked even better in person and way better than the beautiful Fairlane! I would take a Meteor over a Fairlane any day. Had I been looking for a Ford midsize in 1963, though, it would be a Comet due to its Falcon-like price and midsize spaciousness.
This got me imagining the 170/Fordomatic combination that my amemic 1961 Falcon has in a car that is hundreds of pounds heavier, especially when loaded with people and luggage.
As for how to save it, the only possibility would have been to discontinue the Comet. Still, even that could have backfired because of the Meteor’s higher price.
I remember seeing these around my town as a child, I was 4. We Had a great L-M Dealer, which generally allowed me to collect their catalogs, sit in every model on the showroom, years before I’d have my own license.
These were Librarian’s cars. Assistant to the Principal(Secretary) cars. Perhaps some rather quiet men drove these cars, church elders?
I do remember the corner taillights as being rather cool to me as a 4 year old. They Could have made it a baby Lincoln?
Actually an English teacher I had in High School had one, a 1962. The only new car she ever bought.
She’s probably dead now. I wonder what happened to the Meteor….. it was nearly 35 years old when I was in High School.
I’ve always thought the Meteor was a very attractive car, much sleeker looking than the 1962-63 Fairlane. I know the width and height are essentially the same as a Fairlane, but somehow the Fairlane LOOKS taller and narrower than a Meteor and hence stodgier. The S-33 hardtop coupe was especially sharp.
Did these really have a 31 cubic foot trunk? That is HUGE, almost double the trunk room of most modern sedans.
There was really nothing wrong with the concept. In 1966 Ford moved the Comet up to the Fairlane platform and de-emphasized the Comet name, switching it to Montego in ’68, and the cars sold well. The difference in ’66 was there was no slightly smaller Mercury competing against it.
There was a compact Comet in ’66: the 202 2 door sedan. It was quite a bit shorter than the other Comets.
The 63-64 big Mercs were cool cars, and were in NASCAR, when real stock cars were raced! So, no not all were ‘step-kids’
And can people please stop using overused,outdated, terms like ‘red haired step child’?
Compared to a Pontiac (which was supposed to be the target for Mercury), the Mercurys are underwhelming. The Fords from those years are better looking, more cohesive designs. The Mercury hardly seems like a step up from the Ford.
In this case, the term “red-headed stepchild” fits.
Strange reactions to this car! I am clearly biased – my family had a ’63 sedan, and Meteor was a well-known brand in Canada. I do remember there was some brand confusion when Meteors became mid-size Mercury’s in 1962, instead of being the slightly down-market full-sized Fords (sold by Mercury…) they had been throughout the 1950’s. A bit like when another actress took over the role of Roseanne’s daughter on TV (Hey, that’s not Becky! You can’t call her Becky!!). But, you know, the second iteration turned out to be better, in both cases.
I always thought the ’63 looked great in profile, and especially the rear / rear quarter view. The front grille was admittedly pretty poorly resolved. Overall it seemed a sensible package however, attractively styled. I loved those tail lights – they were very sculptural and fluid for a car of that era, and better integrated into the fender line than most cars of its time.
For many years I was puzzled by a Meteor seen during a holiday in Vancouver. It would have been more confusing if there was a Meteor Meteor
If there was a Meteor Meteor, that would be the car driven by Major Major of Catch-22.
Came across the OsbornTramain YouTube collection of commercials, which includes this one for the 1963 Meteor. This is how I saw the car. 🙂
I recently found a moteor 4 dr sedan with a small v8 that sounds good , front floors are rusted through but the rest of the body is pretty good. I would like to buy it but dont know what its worth, any ideas/
Actually, the Meteor is more than just a Fairlane with different taillights. They have a lower A-arm type front suspension (of sorts) where the Fairlane has a strut rod, and a “cusion link” on the front of the leaf spring instead of a solid mount. It also has some little extras like gauges instead of idiot lights and things like that. I really like the 221, remember this was before the muscle car era; GM had the 215 in the Buick/Olds/Pontiac, Mopar had the slant 6. I believe Meteors had the 200 I6 as an option in 63 as well. If I could change one thing about the drivetrain it wouldn’t be the motor but instead the Merc-o-matic transmission. Don’t get me wrong, they seem to go forever, but just aren’t as snappy to shift as a Powerglide, and having a C4 with one more speed would help too. If 0-60 time is what you’re after, you want a Meteor with a 260 and a 4 speed, both an option in ’63 and basically the same drivetrain that the earily Mustang had. Also, the Meteor does have a longer wheelbase than the Fairlane, except the wagon. There is a *lot* of trunk space for a mid-sized car, the trunk lid is about a foot longer than the Fairlane’s. Also remember, while the Meteor name was dropped in the US after ’63, by ’66 Mercury had dropped their compact line and made the Comet into their mid-sized car, based on the Fairlane, just as the Meteor had been.
Mercury dropped their compact line EXCEPT for the Comet 202. The 202 had an overall length of 195.9″ while the rest of the Comet lineup had an overall length of 203″.
I now own the 4 door Merc that is in two of those pics kinda odd just looking at pics and was like wow that looks a lot like mine. Lol and the licens plate numbers match.
Where were you located with the Mercury meteor? There’s one for sale here in Cincinnati it looks just like your picture. Alesia 5139691926
We bought a ’62 used in 1969. We added a hitch and wiring and towed a small Shasta for 6500 miles that summer. It had the 2 barrel V8, but I forget which one. In california we had Sears install an AC unit, a tranny cooler, Radiator overflow, and coil spring assisted rear shocks. We returned to the east coast by US route 10/ Rt.66. I always ran it on leaded hi-test and never had any problems except the four wheel power brakes wore out. We used it as a second car. I think we averaged 17 mpg on trips. Does that sound right?
Ahhh… the famous,fabulous Sears Booster shock absorber! The curer of many a mushy handler and/or sagging tail.
Back in 1964 my dad bought me a 63 S33 4spd v8 for my graduation gift and I really loved that car. The last time I saw it was about 1969-70ish it was in Conway AR and belonged to a student at UCA or Hendrix College. The car was a White/Red and if anyone should know of its where a bouts and if it is still in the not scrap metal world I sure would like to know about the car. Leave note or call 501-837-8029. please no junk.
I like it but I’ve got Mercury poisoning bad. They’re the first American cars I look for in magazines and shows
The front sheet metal arrived here in 65 on the front of the Aussie XP Falcon but I notice several Kiwis have imported the whole thing lately, never available here new there are quite a few on NZ roads now.
I’ve always liked the 1963 through 66 Mercury.
Both Ford and Chrysler kept trying to do the brand-identity thing but never caught the rhythm. Must have been frustrating for managers…. “GM can pop up brands in between brands and it works for them. Let’s do the same. It’s got to work for us.”
Nope. It won’t work because you’re not GM.
In ’63 terms, it’s like a nerd wearing a leather jacket to be cool. He sees the greasers wearing leather, so he thinks it will work for him. Nope. Won’t work because you’re not cool.
Some qualities are innate.
The Meteor probably took some sales from the Comet from reading the article. There was no real place for it in the line up with the full sizers.
The Meteor was 203″ long 116.5″ wheelbase. A full size 62 Monterey is 215.5″ with a 120″ wheelbase. Not a lot of space to increase the size of the Meteor there.
What makes the Meteor so interesting is the front and rear grille and those rocket tail lights.
But it would have had to out do both the Comet and the Fairlane in appointments, seating and distinction to actually give Mercury a product that wasn’t just “something to sell in the segment”.
Even if they had, though, I think anyone that wanted a Meteor in 62-63 got one. Market satisfied. Adding moar Mercury to it wouldn’t have done a thing for sales.
One suspects these intermediate Meteors were a marketing sop to the L-M dealers who would have balked at their Ford brethren receiving the Fairlane if they received nothing comparable. Comets were doing fairly well versus their competition but Comet was still perceived as somewhat-upscale but still a compact. Filling the gap between it and the full-sized Mercury probably made sense, since it entailed not much more than unique grilles, trim, quarter and miscellaneous sheet-metal appended to the Fairlane platform.
Recalling the era as a car-crazed kid, the Meteor seemed even to my unsophisticated perception a pointless exercise. At my favorite L-M dealer, Arkport Motors, Arkport, N.Y. well into late 1964-early 1965 sat a leftover ’63 Meteor sedan, plastered with promotional stickers advertising its rock bottom price and generous terms. The salesman even tried to interest my father in it during one of our visits, made at my insistence. Finally sometime in mid-1965, it disappeared from the lot, presumably finding a buyer who got one heck of a deal. As used cars, these hit the second line and back lots very quickly, priced to move. The local Ford dealer got stuck with a couple used as trade-ins, one a nice ’63 Custom hardtop, eventually seeing it leave driven off by a high school senior as a graduation gift.
All and all, L-M marketing should have just bypassed the whole intermediate episode, upgraded the Comet, spent the rest on better differentiation of the full-size Mercurys from Fords.
I’ve always felt that Mercury was one of the more inferior American car brands (though the Cougar and a few others I like). For years, I thought it was the entry brand in the Ford catalogue, but I was surprised to find out that it was the mid-brand.
I live in Canada, and we had bought a ’52 Mercury Meteor about 27 years ago with the intentions to fix it up (but never did). It was a really neat looking car. But even then, I still wasn’t the most thrilled about owning a Mercury.
The Meteor in ’62 suffered from looking too much like a Comet, Fairlane, or even like a Falcon. It’s one of the reasons why cross-brand platform sharing doesn’t always work, because sometimes the differences between them are just not enough to convince buyers to buy them. I’ve long felt that the entry level cars should be in the entry level brand, and then the higher end ones should be in the higher end ones. It’s one of the fatal flaws inherent when the big three had bought more independent companies, and then absorbed them into their own lineup. They’d bought off the competition, but then, the competition was themselves. The car companies learned this along the way, and instances like the Cadillac Cimarron (ie: otherwise a Chevy Cavalier) became proof that platform sharing could sometimes be a near suicide for a company.
The 1952 Canadian car was not a “Mercury Meteor”. Meteor was the brand/marque/make and they were NOT Mercuries, despite what many believe. The true names of these cars were the “Meteor Customline” and “Meteor Mainline”. Beginning in 1954, the model names were changed to “Meteor” (base model), “Meteor Niagara” and “Meteor Rideau”.
A friend of our family had a Meteor back about 1963 or so, I thought it was a Comet for a long time, until it was parked in the street one day when their garage door got stuck. It was white, with a dark interior. It stayed around a long time, with major rust, and their oldest kid learned to drive in it. The kid was a horrible driver, but dad was the one who killed it when he spun out during an ice storm and it was replaced with a new stripper LTD (almost all their cars were strippers), beige with a shit brown vinyl top. They continued with the bad/ugly cars until the wife, on her own by that time, bought the last one, a boring frosty blue Sable that drove her crazy with the “oval” dash.
That’s a Mercury eh?
Looks like a Rambler Classic to me. Maybe that’s why they didn’t do so well.
63 Rambler Classic
The Meteor came out in 1962. And what does a ’62 Rambler Classic look like?
The Rambler ‘Classic’ name was first used in 1961, it replaced the mainline Rambler Six. And to differentiate from the Rambler American.
The ’61-62 Classics still used the old body from 1956, with the reverse C pillars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambler_Classic
Yes, I’m quite aware of that.
I was rebutting john’s implication that the Meteor was copying the ’63 Classic, or looked too much like it.
Obviously, the ’61-’62 Classic looked very different, and old-fashioned compared to the ’62 Meteor. Hence, if anyone was copying, it was Rambler.
That’s amazing. Mercury started copying Rambler a year in advance!
Maybe its me, but I don’t see the resemblences discussed. But then, I grew up with 63-64 Ramblers and hardly saw Meteors, mostly Comets, in the day.
Tom, I agree. I was just rebutting his argument to the extent there was some vague similarity, which in reality was essentially none, except maybe the four headlights in a simple grille, which lots of other cars of the time had too.
Neighbor had a 61. Lord it poured out the exhaust on cold western PA morns!!
When my father was considering buying his first car I remember our family test driving a falcon. I’m speculating he thought it too small and likely used a neighbour’s Frontenac for comparison. We did look at a Fairlane sedan and later I remember he and I being in the showroom of a downtown Mercury dealership. Of course he would have looked at a Meteor but the final decision to buy a four door Comet was likely based on two things; the Meteor would have cost much more and would have been just too snug a fit in our single car garage. Even as a seven year old, to me the Comet looked better than a falcon. While the first generation Meteor wasn’t seen in great numbers on the street, the second generation was more popular in our area I think because it looked just as nice as a full-size Merc but less expensive than the full-size Mercury. It’s far easier to find a larger body Meteor even now including convertibles.
Just realized I should be saying the third generation of Meteor was a better seller in my area back in the day.
Nice, but if you wish to see updates of my latest finds, including the Meteor’s sister ship, check out new finds at Dynamic Drives:
https://dynamicdrives.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/found-in-outer-sunset-san-francisco-california-1965-ford-fairlane-500-sport-coupe/
There’s a fellow here in town who owns two Meteor S-33 hardtops. When I stumbled upon them a couple years ago, I’ll admit I was confused too–I knew it was a Mercury model but had to look up the year and where it fit into the lineup. (I’m a little shocked at that 203″ length–these things don’t *look* lthat big. That’s within a foot in length of a modern Crown Vic.) I do like the taillight design and the grille, while a little odd, is definitely interesting. Clean hardtop design too and the placement of the trim on the C-pillar is reminiscent of the ’64-’66 Thunderbird.
I see him around town frequently in one of them. Both of his are a *bit* modified. Here’s that one (it’s regained its hood the last time I saw it).
Yet another Meteor found on the streets of Alameda.
https://dynamicdrives.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/found-in-gold-coast-alameda-california-1963-mercury-meteor-custom-2-door-hardtop-coupe/comment-page-1/#comment-38
I’ve always liked these cars. I agree that the Meteor should have had the V8 standard. I really don’t know why it wasn’t more successful. You mention the Comet, but until mid-1963 the biggest engine available in the Comet was the 170 six while the Meteor had a 221 V8 available from the beginning and a 260 available from mid-1962, so I don’t see them as direct competitors. A question that will never be answered.
The midsize Mercury eventually did become a success, when the Comet was upsized from a compact to a midsize car in 1966. It just took a name change. In 1966, all Comets were midsize vehicles except for the 202 2 door post sedan, which was about the size of a Falcon, a compact. My first car was supposed to be a ’66 202 with a 289/automatic but it had a vinyl roof (a vinyl roof on the cheapest Comet available, a true bottom feeder?) and once we got it home and looked at it, we could tell that the roof had rusted through. It made me sick. It would have made a great car for a 16 year old. I ended up driving a Mercury when I turned 16, a 1980 Cougar XR-7. My “first” car was a 1962 Ford Galaxie 500 Club Victoria that I still have, but it wasn’t roadworthy when I turned 16 so my dad let me drive the Cougar. I had the Cougar from 1989-1992 or so and I still dream about it. As flawed as it was, I miss it.
That ‘eerie green” one in the pic, heading up the article is way more creepy then “Christine”. lol
The red “S 33 in the ad is cool..
My father had a ’63 Falcon Futura. One of my uncles had a ’63 Meteor and the other had a ’64 Comet Caliente. Very similar. The Meteor and the Comet were too similar when they gave the ’64 Comet 14 inch wheels and Caliente trim. Passed my driver’s road test in the Futura, drove the Comet fairly often. My uncle with the Merc lived in New Jersey and I didn’t get to see his that much. It was a beauty though. Top of the line black 4 door sedan.
Saw this one this past June.
My grandfather had a beige one of those.
Huge missed opportunity in my opinion. Could have gone after BOP and Mopar aggressively on this great platform. Internal politics at Ford after the Edsel debacle? Could have had a breeze way roof or at least a different one than Fairlane. Some Lincolnesque cues like real wood interior trim and leather on the high end models. Engine choices were not enough. Both the 6 and new V-8 were too small. Should have considered other engines that could fit from the Ford truck 6 and up at least as a stop gap.
Styling was a bit bulbous even for the era, but having been around a few of those early 60s Fords I focused on the drivetrain. Any engine, but especially a gutless one with the 2 speed auto Ford O Matic would drive you nuts. 2 speeds in an auto that sucked up power? Performance isn’t all to be sure, but some cars just feel slower than they are. I’m sure it was faster than a VW bug of the time, but they felt slower. MPG was terrible because you’d romp on it just to get to cruising speed. Once there it might not be too bad, but getting there was something else.
I don’t know if the Powerglide equipped Chevys of the era I drove just had that much more power or if it was that much better a tranny, but I don’t recall them being nearly as bad. And trust me, I’m not a GM fan.
My grandfather had a ’63 Fairlane he bought new. He only probably had it 9 years until his last car (a ’72 Biscayne) but to me as a kid, it seemed like he had it forever..his son (my Dad) didn’t keep cars very long, and probably had 4 cars in that same timeframe. I’m more like my grandfather, have had my current car 21 years this month. Neither of my grandmothers ever drove. His was robbin-egg blue, a color that was popular then but seems to really have gone out of fashion.
It was an OK car, but my grandfather always said it was “too light”. His next car was a Biscayne, so I would interpret that as he would have preferred a standard Ford to the intermediate Fairlane. I don’t know, I never got to drive the Fairlane, but after his passing I did drive the Biscayne…we were visiting on vacation (by then we’d moved 1600 miles away, and probably flew there since I didn’t have much vacation yet, but starting about 1990 we did driving trips (except for funerals)…when we flew, we would use one of their cars instead of getting a rental…as my grandmother never drove, it wasn’t being used except on occasion by my Uncle). But anyway the Biscayne was much larger, and couldn’t be considered “too light”.
Maybe my Dad was similar…he was driving a ’63 Rambler Classic wagon when my grandfather got the Fairlane, and by the time my grandfather had the Biscayne, he went to an intermediate (Olds F85) followed by a Country Squire and Country Sedan. Our neighbor in Burlington was into Mercuries, they first had a ’63 Comet, then got a ’68 Colony Park wagon….took my Dad another 20 years to go to Mercury, he ended up with 3 Sables (in a row).