(first posted 7/20/2012) Today’s Fords, while competent and popular, just don’t have that “certain something” that their forebears had in spades. Witness: The classic round Ford taillights. Were they sharp? You bet they were. Ford was pretty smart to make a taillight so distinctive; even at night, when the rest of the car was hidden from view, you could definitely tell that the car in front of you was a Dearborn dreamboat. Sadly, this most excellent tail lamp would appear on full-size Fords for the last time in 1964.
Nineteen sixty-four was a big year for Ford. All their car lines, from Falcon to Fairlane to T-Bird, were completely redesigned. The full-size Ford was particularly attractive, although the family resemblance shared by the 1961-63 Fords was gone with the ’64– except for those trademark taillights. All two-door hardtops featured the semi-fastback styling that had been introduced on the “1963 1/2” Galaxie hardtop with an eye toward NASCAR competition. Aerodynamics aside, it was a sharp roofline. With the vinyl roof covering and chrome “top seam” as shown above, it could pass as a top-up convertible with ease.
There was a full lineup of full-size Fords. The Custom was a fleet/cheapskate special that came equipped with hubcaps, no chrome trim, rubber floor mats and a 223 cu in, 138-hp six-cylinder engine with a single-barrel Holley carb. The Custom 500 was only marginally fancier, with carpeting, chrome windshield and backlight trim, and abbreviated chrome side spears.
One step up from the Custom 500 was the far more appealing Galaxie 500 which, in the upwardly mobile mid-’60s, was the most popular series. Galaxies had lots of chrome trim, including chromed fender-top ornaments, window frames and a full length chrome strip whose aluminum front section contained Galaxie 500 badging. A second aluminum molding, which also featured a Galaxie 500 script, decorated the space between the taillights.
Naturally, interiors were much dressier, with most of them featuring two-toning. A wide variety of colors, including aqua, red, blue and white, were available–bright (in more ways than one) alternatives to today’s drab graphite, black and putty color selections.
As the volume line, Galaxies came in more body styles than the Customs, including two- and four-door hardtops and a convertible. The four-door hardtop, dubbed Town Victoria by Ford, sported a totally different roofline than the pillared Town Sedan.
The most glamorous ’64 full-sizers were the Galaxie convertibles, which were available in Galaxie 500 (bench seat) and Galaxie XL (buckets-and-console) versions. Not a stand-alone option package, the 500XL was instead a separate series of vehicles at the top of the line. They had all the Galaxie 500 features and also included, in addition to the aforementioned bucket seats and console, special door panels, door courtesy lights and a standard 195-hp, 289 cu in V8. Ford built 37,311 Galaxie 500 and 15,169 XL convertibles during the 1964 model year.
All in all, the Galaxie 500 attracted plenty of buyers, with over 326,000 finding happy new owners. While the admittedly nice 1964 full-size Chevrolet might be more frequently seen at car shows and cruise-ins these days, I prefer the Ford. If we’re talking 1962-63 Fords and Chevys, however, I would have to sit down and think about it.
Popular options included power steering ($86), power brakes ($43), AM radio ($58) and that ubiquitous dress up item, white sidewall tires ($33). As had been the case with Detroit iron for years, most power and comfort items (most of which we now take for granted as standard) were optional. If you bought a Custom or Custom 500 with no options, what you got was more or less a four-door F-100 with a trunk and rear seat. But at the same time, you could load options onto any model, whether a basic Custom or top-drawer XL.
The 1964 Fords were quite different from today’s models. The biggest difference is more choice – the ’64s offered a wide choice of body styles, colors and, especially, powerplants. And how wide a choice? How about no less than a total of eight different permutations of the 223 six and 289, 352, 390 and 427 V8s? Thus could the cheapskate who still wanted a well-equipped car get a 138-hp six in his otherwise loaded Galaxie 500, while the hot rodder with cash in his wallet could get a Custom 500 two-door sedan with the fire-breathing Thunderbird Super High-Performance “R code” 427-CID, four-barrel V8 that produced 425 hp at 6000 rpm. Oh, the possibilities…
Which brings us to our featured Galaxie 500 convertible, a dark green beauty that was until recently owned by K.V. Dahl. This one has lots of options, including whitewalls, wire wheel covers, fender skirts, Cruise-O-Matic transmission, and a 352-cu in, 250-hp Interceptor four-barrel V8. With other cars to tend to (including such former CCs as the ’60 Lincoln and ’54 Kaiser), Dahl decided to let this one go. It’s fully loaded, needs nothing, and is ready to rock and roll! And how can you not love those rocket-ship taillights?
This car has only one demerit in my opinion – that black interior. Sure, it looks nice, but cruising around in it with the top down would make things, um, a little unpleasant in the summertime. Love the green paint, love the white top, but I’d rather have a white or saddle tan interior. No matter the interior color, there’s tons of room there. The bench seats look ample enough to seat four across both in front and in back. We don’t need no minivan!
Not surprisingly, it sold at right around the start of convertible weather. I have yet to see it at the car shows with its new owner, so I don’t know if it is still in the area. Wherever it is, it will stand out among the 500 Camaros, GTOs, Corvettes and Mustangs you’ll see at just about any car show. Full-size ’60s iron is just not as popular as muscle cars these days. Shame, because these biggies ride a lot better, and with the right engine can more than stand their ground.
But that’s not all! At the Sycamore Mall cruise-in back in May, I ran across an XL four-door hardtop. A four- door ANYTHING with bucket seats and a console was very rare for a domestic car in the Sixties. Sales reflected the lack of demand; only 14,661 XL sedans were built. Even the XL convertible outsold it by around 500 units.
This survivor is really sharp, and the colors really complemented the car, but I could have done without those aftermarket spotlights. They may look alright on a ’50s car, but they’re a little out of place on a mid-60s Ford.
While the 1964 Galaxie had an all new look, it was a one-year wonder; 1965 would bring a much more more angular design with 1963 Pontiac styling cues, right down to stacked quad headlights. The ’65 clearly marked a new direction–the ’60-’64, ’65-68 and 1969 models were all quite different. They looked good though, one-year styling or not. I’m sure the new owner of K.V.’s green machine is enjoying it. Just watch out for those black seats when the top’s down!
Childhood memories. My Uncle Bob bought one of these in 1967 and the family drove it until well into the 70s. It was a maroon Galaxie 500 4 door hardtop with a sort of silvery beige interior. This was about the time that my grandma’s DeSoto went away, and the maroon Ford became my favorite car in the family.
It was a tough old car that at least two of my cousins learned to drive in. It was not babied. It eventually suffered (as all of these did in the midwest) from rusted out rear quarter panels, but that was really the only place that these got holes. The other problem these had was throwing wheelcovers. The normal wheelcovers (like on the two 4 door hardtops in the ads) had a very heavy center hub in an otherwise lightweight anodized aluminium disk. 64 Fords missing one or all of their wheelcovers was a normal sight.
One of my cousins once told me that he had the car out on a country road and got it to 97 mph on the speedo. All the windows were down and due to some weird aerodynamics, the center of the roof panel deflected noticeably down into the car. When he slowed down, it went back into its normal position. My cousins put an 8 track player in the car about 1971, and I cannot listen to music of the Guess Who without thinking of that 64 Galaxie.
The 64 is my favorite Ford 4 door hardtop of the 60s. Ford had long used the big chrome triangle stuck on the back of the door to hide the notch cut out of the glass which allowed the window to lower all the way. The 64 was the first one to ditch the chrome triangle and incorporate a sort of Hofmeister kink at the trailing edge of the greenhouse.
Ford had been on a quality binge in the early 1960s, and these 64s may be the most durable of the decade. The interior materials were first rate, except that the chrome plating on plastic knobs and radio buttons would wear off. These cars felt heavier than the 65s did. Thanks for sharing this one with us. These always make me smile.
This was the first brand new car my Dad bought, Three on the tree, 352 4bbl, I got to see the speedometer turn over back to 0. Pretty sure all he ever had done was a valve job. He put another 80,000 miles on it and when he traded it in a dealer must have bought it at an auction. I was walking home from school when I saw it for sale on a small car lot, To me it was our car so I jumped in it and was playing around in it when I noticed the speedometer was turned back to like 59,000. The owner of the lot told me to leave I was prolly 10 or 11, I asked him how the millage went backwards from 89,000. He got flustered told me never to come back to his lot. Told Dad about it but he never was one to say much so that’s the end of my story. Other than I learned how used car lots were crooked. I still love that year and wish I could find one for myself at a decent price and shape.
They were heavier than the ’65s. Also heavier than the competition, because the chassis design was old. But they even advertised it as an advantage: “200 pounds stronger in the chassis!” or some such. For ’65 they had a completely new, modern design, stronger, lighter, stiffer body & frame & no more leaf springs.
If you got it, flaunt it. If you don’t got it, flaunt that.
Ford has a sad history of advertising bloat and poor engineering as if it were a feature and not a bug.
Selling Pintos against Hondas, Toyotas, and such by claiming the Pinto had more “road-hugging weight”, for example
I’ve always liked those. The round taillights are also why I tend to like the ’62 Thunderbird over the ’65, even though the ’65 has the more attractive front end. It’s almost impossible to believe that the same company would go on to “design” (hardly seems an appropriate word) the taillights of the Fairmont and the LTD/CVs of the ’80s.
Probably my favourite piece of American tin ever.
Boy, do I have a confession to make…
Everyone knows my affinity for Chevy, but one of the very first cars that really caught my notice was a (cough) FORD! Namely, the 1960 Falcon, due to the ads about how the front lip of the hood was really curved so that a driver could see the road ahead a few feet closer to the car than any other model (so they said).
The next car that REALLY got my juices flowing and awakened my automotive passion was when I just turned 14 in spring, 1965. I was with my folks looking at cars as our 1955 Dodge was about shot and dad got tired of it living in the repair shop, so one evening we went to Costello-Kunze Ford in Ferguson, MO, near our home that I saw what had to be the most beautiful machine I have ever seen. Yes, you guessed it: a 1964 FORD GALAXIE 500 convertible! Red with red interior. Full of chrome inside and out. The top was down for maximum effect, and I once settled in the driver’s seat, I was immediately whisked away to another ‘galaxy’ entirely – the world of cars! My automotive passion had begun!
That Galaxie was simply the most gorgeous car I had ever seen and I wanted dad to buy it badly. I didn’t want to leave the dealership, I wanted to eat, sleep and live in that car!
I fantasized about that car as only a young teenager can for quite a while. When I finally did get out of the car, I walked around it examining every line, piece of trim, nook and cranny. The tail lights? I really wasn’t too excited about them, as so many Fords had large, round lights and you could tell a Ford from the next county, so to speak. I took in the entire car as a single entity and loved what I saw.
I knew the was no possibility of mom and dad being able or wanting to buy such a sporty machine, as they weren’t like that, but the dreams…
Now, a few weeks later, that 1964 Ford was all but forgotten when I came home from school one day in early May there was an incredibly beautiful 1960 Chevy Impala Sports Sedan sitting in front of our house!
My life began in earnest, and the rest is history…
I hereby credit Ford for awakening the automotive passion in me, and Chevy for my lifelong enthusiasm!
One final note: In California, I was able to directly compare my avatar above, a 1964 Chevy Impala SS convertible, with a 1964 Ford Galaxie 500 and I think the Chevy was the better car – in fit and finish, durability and overall design. Of course, that was just my limited experience/preference, and living in the Sacramento valley perhaps colored my judgment, but California was still “paradise” at the time, and my general optimism on life in my small world figures in, I’m sure.
All in all, these were beautiful cars, along with the mid-60’s Chryslers and the nation was at its peak.
Great job, Tom, and a very nice car.
I always thought the ’64 Ford was a beautiful car, especially the rear trunk/taillight area. The round taillights were so perfectly integrated into the slightly concave rear panel and the backup light lenses were real glass. Even though I’ve always slightly preferred the big GM cars, I’d take a Ford over any of its competition for the 1964 model year. Make mine a 4-door XL hardtop. Nice writeup.
It’s cool that Ford kept the center-backup light theme through ’69 though…and in the ’73-4 model years.
Agreed on the convertible black interior though. The black vinyl interior in my wife’s ’73 Beetle convertible is hellish (how can one car be so cold in the winter & so hot in the summer?)
I don’t know if I’d call the ’64 all-new; more like a heavily facelifted ’63. Look at the dash – identical to the ’63 except for the white-faced gauges. Yes, nitpicking is one of my hobbies!
I love any and all full-size convertibles.
One other difference in the dashes of 63 and 64 – in 64 Ford moved the ignition key from the left side of the steering wheel to the right. This would not have been a big deal but for that pesky Ford neutral-start switch that made you push the shift lever up just a bit before the starter would engage (at least once the car got a few years on it). So now, instead of holding the shift lever up with the right hand and turning the key with your left, you would reach across the steering wheel with your left hand and pull the lever up while turning the key with your right hand. Every once in awhile I will see an old tv show or movie where someone in a 64 Ford does the old 2 handed starting procedure.
I have always wondered why Ford did this. It seemed from my limited experience that Fords had put the ignition on the left side of the dash for years and years, when very few others did this. The only Mopar I recall with a left-handed ignition was the 69 Fury which had to find a place to put the key in the dash for the one year before the steering column ignition. Anybody able to shed light on why Ford finally moved the ignition key?
That funky neutral safety switch continued for quite a few years. My second car was a ’69 Galaxie 500 2-door with the Charger-style tunnelback roof (and the three-spoke rim-blow sport steering wheel – just like a Mustang!). It was a rusty $150 beater, but it had a 390-4 bbl with dual exhaust, just what a 17-year-old needs, right? It was the car I painted up for my high school graduation. Got it just before the Shah was deposed in the summer of ’79 and gas prices shot up to over $1.00/gallon. Timing is everything, right?
Anyhow, the only way you could start it was by putting it in neutral. I wonder if that’s tied to the infamous, um, how would I say it, park position detent problem that plagued Fords for many years and led to them issuing stickers to place on the dash. Every now and then you’d see on the news some Ford product that had slipped into reverse while running and was backing up continuously in a circle. To illustrate how many years this was a problem, the ’79 LTD II I got from my grandfather had one of those warning stickers on the dash.
I always understood that the big recall started with the 1970 model. I had understood this was when Fords switched from the FMX/CruiseOMatic to the C6. The park detentes were alwsays flimsy, I had a 67 myself, and it didn’t take much to pop it out of park. Was this more of a problem with the C6, or were the others just too old for the recall? Who knows.
I never personally experienced the universally balky neutral-start switch in anything made after 64. My 67 (at 10-12 years old) always started in Park with no problem. But my 61 TBird always reqired that the lever be held up a bit to start.
My 1993 E450 7.3 IDI Diesel has a balky trans lever that needs to be moved through the detents to allow starting at times. The more things change…
We had the same problem with our Galaxie 500. Our repair guy diagnosed it as worn contacts. The same happened with our old TV with the analogue dial. Besides putting the car in nuetral, the other way you could get around the problem would be to yank the PRNDL lever to left and hit a decent patch of contact.
A quirk in this vintage Ford I discovered when I was a kid – if you put your foot on the brake and pushed the hazard light halfway in, the accessories would work!
“yank the PRNDL lever ”
Wasn’t it PRNDD1 lever with a green dot on the Drive that started in 1st gear instead of the other one that started in second?
My friend, Bob, and I did the same thing with the brake and hazard lights. We would sit in the car and listen to the radio and never let his parents know we could do that. I didn’t believe that anybody else ever knew about that. Bob? Is that you?
When I was about 10 my friend’s dad had a silver ’66 Galaxie. One day while we were playing in the driveway next door he was fiddling with the carburetor, revving it, adjusting it, revving it adjusting it. All of a sudden we heard a tire chirp during a rev. We looked over to see the car shoot across the street backwards into the neighbors’ yard, smashing the mailbox and hitting a small maple tree. Tough old dude though. Only a small ding in the trunk from the tree which got fixed when it was painted metallic blue. Big excitement for a little kid.
As “new” as the ’63, was, and the ’62, and the ’61. Reskins of the existing design, but same basic car under the skin.
Indeed, this black with white top ’64 looks a whole lot like our ’61 Sunliner convertible. We had the black and white interior, and I do remember it got hot with the top down!
That’s a pristine white top – it won’t stay that way if it’s outside for very long. Dad spent long hours out at the curb with a scrub brush and Comet cleanser in a futile effort to keep our top white. Then somebody cut it and he replaced it with a black one. These cars look sharpest with black tops.
The whole look of the ’64 is rounder, especially with those fender skirts. These round taillight ’61-’64 Fords are the greatest.
the parents of one of my best friends in Annandale, VA had a 64 Custom 300 (?) four door sedan and a 72 Chevelle four door sedan. that Ford really showed up the Chevelle in my opinion with rusty quarter panels, dents and dings, and scratches, too!
Great article on a very cool car. FYI, however, the 260V8 was never offered in full sized Fords, the first small-block in the full size line was the 289, beginning in ’63, and the 425hp 427 had dual Holley 4 barrels
Not to be a smartass, but:
http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2004/12/01/hmn_feature20.html
Fifth paragraph down. It does say that the 260 was supplanted by the 289 midway through the model year. Personally, I didn’t know the 289 dated back to ’63; I always assumed it coincided with the availability in early Mustangs.
Wow, that is old. And didn’t a few 1964 ‘Stangs end up with 260s?
For some reason I’ve always found it noteable that Ford’s most popular V8s since the mid 60s were within a few cubes of each other. 289, 302, 281 (4.6ltr), 302 (Coyote 5.0).
Don’t forget that Ford moved a lot of 390s between 1961 and, what, 1970?
My understanding had been as follows:
1963 — The 260 is the only small-block, and it is offered only in Falcons and Fairlanes (not in full-sizes).
1964 — The 289 is introduced and small-blocks become available in full-size Fords for the first time. Fairlanes and full-sizes get the new 289, Falcons and Mustangs keep the 260 (except that the Hi-Po 289 is available in Mustangs, since Ford wanted to offer the HiPo in Mustangs, but there is no HiPo version of the 260 to offer).
1965 — Availability of the 289 is expanded to Falcons and Mustangs and the 260 is dropped.
Both suzulight’s understanding and the Hemmings article obviously contradict this, indicating that small-blocks were available in full-size cars in 1963, and that the 289 appeared that year at least in full-size cars. The Hemmings article also indicates that the 260 was available in full-size cars in ’63.
The Hemmings article indicates that the introduction of the 289 in ’63 full-sizes was a running change with the model year in progress. Perhaps this was done late in the year. Could the introduction of the 260 have itself been a running change earlier in the model year? What was the base engine in ’62 XLs?
The 260 (164 hp) definitely was optional on full size Fords in MY 1963, which I didn’t realize until recently. Here’s a snippet from the ’63 brochure. An unusually small V8 for a full-sized car.
But the 260 made 164 hp, only 6 less than the boat-anchor 292 (170 hp) it replaced, so it made sense.
The 289 didn’t go into production until mid-year MY 1963, and replaced the 260 in the full-sized Fords then.
Why the Mustang started out with the 260 V8, and then switched to the 289 after 9/24/64 is a bit of a mystery. But that was the only V8 available initially, except for the hi-po 271 hp 289, which was fairly rare. But it seems that was the date the 260 went out of production.
“Why the Mustang started out with the 260 V8, and then switched to the 289 after 9/24/64 is a bit of a mystery. But that was the only V8 available initially, except for the hi-po 271 hp 289, which was fairly rare.”
I think the answer to this question is simply, “Because it used whatever engine the car from which it was derived, the Falcon, was using at the same point in time”. As far as I know, the ’64 Falcon was available only with the 260, not the 289. The 260 was dropped at the end of the 1964 model year, so Falcons finally got 289s for 1965. Mustangs built during the 1964 and 1965 model years (other than examples ordered with the HiPo) tracked the same.
That doesn’t explain it at all. The 289 went into production in mid-year 1963 (see my other comment below). So there’s no reason the 289 couldn’t have been used.
The 221, 260 and 289s all shared the same basic block and other parts. Ford obviously chose to use the 260 in the first six months because they must have thought it to be adequate for the Mustang’s needs. But the horsepower race was blooming at the time, and they obviously changed their mind mid-year.
The 63 Ford brochure refers to the “new” 289 being available.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1963_Ford/1963_Ford_Brochure_2/1963%20Ford-a09.html
They had to have something to replace the 292 which made its last appearance in 1962. (confetti and champaigne corks everywhere)
Jim, that IS the ‘63.5 brochure (Brochure #2), with the fastback roof that came out atr mid year. That’s also when the 289 came along.
Check out brochure #1, the original: no mention of the 289, just the 260.
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1963_Ford/1963_Ford_Brochure_1/1963%20Ford%20Brochure-10.html
Also, the Encyclopedia of American Cars lists only the 260, and didn’t list the 289 until 1964. The 292’s last year was 1962.
Not to confuse the issue, but there was also a 221 V8. Only available on new small Fairlane/Meteor.
My dad had a 260 in his 63 Galaxie 500 4 door.
Another odd small block Ford is the 255….much later and nearly forgotten. The only reason I remember it is the new 302 HO in 1982 replaced it in Mustangs and Capris.
My first car was a 64 Galaxie 500 2 dr ht. Red/Red white painted roof, 390 4 bbl V8, Cruis-o-matic, FACTORY A/C under dash. I Bought it in 72 for $400. Solid as a tank. Really well built, NO rust (Minnesota!). Not as fast as my buddy’s 64 383 Sport Fury, but that was basically an intermediate.
Yes, our ’62 Fairlane had it. Used only on ’62 and ’63 Fairlanes.
I checked the Standard Catalog of American Cars, but it’s very inexact as to which engines were available in which models. Its overall listing of Ford engines for 1963 does not include the “regular” versions of the 289 (just the 260), though it does include the HiPo 289. The Non-HiPo 289s first appear in 1964. Despite the above, the text indicates that the 289 was available as an option in full-size models in 1963. There doesn’t appear to be anything indicating one way or another whether the 260 was.
I’m struck that several of us (me, suzulight, Paul) were unaware that the 260 was offered in full-size cars in 1963. This makes me wonder if perhaps it originally wasn’t, but was added with the year in progress. But it seems pretty clear that the 292 was dropped at the end of ’62; would Ford have really planned to go into ’63 with a huge gap between the six and the 352? Or did early ’63s actually get leftover 292s, until the supply was used up? Did some reference book just get this wrong years ago, and we all read it, or other works that used it as a source?
From the various sources cited in this discussion, it seems pretty clear that the 289 wasn’t available at the beginning of the 1963 model year, but went into production at some point with the model year already in progress, and was available in at least full-size cars during the later part of the model year.
It’s not that complicated. The 260 WAS the base small V8 for the full-sized Fords at the beginning of the model year (see my link to the Brochure 1, which was for the initial 1963 MY. It clearly shows that the 260 was available. The 292 was gone; what other small V8 would they have used?
Ford had very extensive changes across its lines for 1963.5. One of those changes was the substitution of the 289 for the 260 in the full-size line. That’s clearly shown in brochure 2, which Jim’s comment has a link to. It clearly shows the 1963.5 models, and refers to the new 289 V8. The Hemmings article also says it was a mid-year substitution. Makes lots of sense too, as the 260 was a bit small-chested for big-car duty.
Does that clear it up?
My theory is that the 260 started at the beginning of the year to replace the 292, and was found wanting and was not that popular. By midyear, the 289 was in and the 260 was out, relegated to the smaller cars. The 260 was just too small for that era. When Chevy offered the 283 and Mopar the 318, the 260 was just outclassed, and did not make up for its lack of power through significant fuel savings.
Edit – Oops – I’m late, and I think I just repeated what Paul said.
No, you’re right, I am making it more complicated than it really is. I was just grasping for an explanation of how three of us, in a place where knowledge of such automotive minutiae is taken for granted, could have possibly all been unaware until recently that the 260 was offered in full-sizes for one year and one year only in ’63.
IIRC, the 289 was the same engine as the 260, just bored out a little.
We owned a 1963 Country Sedan that came from the factory with the 260 V8. Yes they were available. Good little engine though strained to the max at times up a hill with a load of kids and camping gear.
I don’t know why Ford stopped using round tail lights on it’s cars. It would make the rear of the car definitive. Cadillac has used narrow vertical tail lights for decades. Everyone knows a Cadillac from the rear. If every Ford had round tail lights you’d be able to easily spot a Ford in traffic.
Actually, for some strange reason, the cheap-o 65s (Custom and Custom 500)got round lenses in the rectangular housings. The Galaxie 500 got regular rectangular lenses. Odd. They did not continue this for 66.
And I agree – they should have kept the round lights. Especially on some of the newer cars like the Five Hundred. It would be so easy to put a round light inside of a plastic housing. Every time I look at a modern Altima at night and see that big round light on each side, I think that should be Ford doing it.
That looks different, and not in a good way.
The LED tail lights on a few vehicles today do give some idea at night what it is. It is pretty easy to tell if you are following a late model Taurus with its near trapezoid outline tail lights or a Charger with its long racetrack. Or a Cadillac “strip” on the fender tip. Same goes for an Explorer and several German models. But yes, most of them are lost in the darkness…
Had forgotten about those. Odd too because neighbors had a beige one I saw daily for six ,or more, years. They moved when I was about 12-13.
Ford probably went to the rectangular taillights for 1965 to match the boxier look of the rest of the car. The Galaxies retained the round back-up lights in the middle of the taillight, which provided some style continuity.
I believe that the round lights in the 65s were limited to the Custom and Custom 500 models. The Galaxie 500, Galaxie 500 XL and the LTD all got the rectangular lights that filled the entire housing.
My father bought one of these – 64 Galaxie 500 4 door sedan, white, brown cloth interior, A/C, power steering and brakes, Cruise-O-Matic, 390 4 bbl. Nicest car we ever had and really, really fast. Sticker was $3900. Lots of fun. Not sure about the gas mileage but I think it was terrible.
That green of the featured car is beautiful. I wonder about that black interior with the white top. Perhaps the white top is a replacement? I haven’t seen too many convertibles on which the top and interior are different colors.
Totally off topic, Dan, but congrats and much happiness!
Am I remembering wrong or did the entire Ford line win the 1964 Motor Trend Car of the Year award?
You remember correctely. The Ford Motor Company won the award, presumably on the strength of the “Total Performance Fords”.
You are right. Motor Trend was snowed by Ford’s “Total Performance” campaign that year. Aside from new sheetmetal, these loads were the same under the skin as the ’61s, ’62s and ’63s. Any 327 Impala could smoke a 390 Galaxie. A 383 Satellite could do the same, especially with a Torqueflite.
In comparision tests in ’63 and ’64, the Mopars (Fury) did just that – regularly smoked the FoMoCo and Chevy competition. Chevy usually came in 2nd on those tests (I’m thinking the 1963 “Return to Riverside” which you can find on YouTube). In a lot of these tests (Mopar films), all three cars have base V-8’s and standard automatic transmissions. In the ’63 film, the Ford DOES HAVE a 260 2-bbl hooked up to Fordomatic Two-Speed.
If you got the hotter engines, the Mopars still were leaders of the pack, although Fords (and Chevies) with hotter engines were no slouches, but they didn’t have TorqueFlites hooked up behind them either.
On another note, I remember in my junior high years seeing a Maurauder Four Door hardtop, black/black (much like the Ford XL four door hardtop) with top loader four-speed at a budget used car lot (ca. 1972 in San Rafael). Boy, did I talk my Dad into trying to bring that one home!
The 1962-64 Plymouths were not true full-size cars, so they had a definite weight advantage over the Chevrolets and Fords. That helped them on the drag strip, but didn’t do them any favors on the showroom floor. In the early 1960s, people wanted their big cars to be big.
1964, My favorite full size Ford.
Around 1990, my Uncle encountered a yellow 64 4 door, 289 3-speed in the garbage dump in Water Valley Alberta. At the time it was common for people to abandon cars at the dump, but this was a dry climate no rust car, looked fine, all there including the keys in the ignition. By the time he rounded up a helper and a pickup truck to rescue it someone had smashed all the windows…
If it really was a 289, it was originally a US car. In Canada, you made the the jump from the 223 right to the 352-2 barrel from ’63-’65, according to Canadian sales literature. The Windsor engines didn’t appear in Oakville-built cars until 1966.
Even in 1966 there were differences. The 352-4V was still offered in the US, but not Canada. The US could get the 390-4V, Canada only the 390-2V. The engine lineups weren’t fully harmonized until 1967.
Full size Fords went from ‘Total Performance’ to ‘Quieter than a Rolls-Royce’ in one year!
When Men in Black III went back to the sixties, black ’64 Galaxie 500s were their rides.
“…the admittedly nice 1964 full-size Chevrolet might be more frequently seen at car shows and cruise-ins these days…”
Chevy’s full-size line outsold Ford’s by a wide margin in that era, but not by as much as you might think based on their numbers at shows and cruises today. Actual sales were probably something closer than 2-to-1, with full-size Fords being well behind their Chevy counterparts but well ahead of any other car line in America. But big Chevys likely outnumber big Fords by several times at those types of gatherings today. The Chevys are clearly more popular as enthusiast cars today, out of proportion to their initial sales numbers. (This is true in my cold-climate area in the northeast, anyway. In areas where ’60s cars survive as daily drivers, the Fords may be more numerous in relation to the Chevys, more closely reflecting the initial sales of the two.)
When I visited San Francisco in 2003, I noticed several 1960s Ford vehicles – including two 1964 Galaxies – in use as daily drivers. The Fords far outnumbered anything else from that decade when it came to old cars still in regular use.
Yup, the more popular Chevys tend to be restored and taken out of DD use, while the Fords soldier on. Fast forward a few decades and I see a lot more of the box Panthers still doing DD duty while the B boxes are almost extinct.
Rocket, or Jet exhaust tail lights for the win! I think the 65’s square lights are almost just as good, are fitting to the rest of the car and still remind me of a rocket exhaust nozzle.
I had, for a few months, a 1964 four-door sedan. Bought for $200 in 1982…typical Texas beater.
A 289 V8; Snail-O-Matic transmission. Always started; always moved; but the chassis was shot. Not a spot of rust on it, except in stripes on the roof where the paint had just weathered away.
Were it in better shape, it would have been a prime candidate for a partial restore to a work car. As it was…I couldn’t even afford the Prestone it so needed that winter, even in Houston.
I remember when my grandparents traded in a ’61 Mercury on a ’64 Galaxie 500XL coupe. The ’64 XL interior has to be just about the best Ford interior ever outside of some Mustangs. To a five year old in the mid 1960’s, it looked like something more suitable for taking off for the moon. Curiously, shortly after that one of our neighbors got the plainest Custom coupe you could imagine, with the base interior and 3 on the tree. So I was well acquainted with both ends of the ’64 Ford spectrum.
No joke, I just saw one of these on the road the other morning. It was still dawn, and all I could make out from the distance were the headlights, they were so far apart! I was expecting a later model car, and when it got close to me I realized it was a 64 Galaxie! By the time I recognized it, it was too late to try and catch a glimpse, I didn’t even see whether it was a 2 or 4 door car…
Friends of the family back in the day, had a 1964 XL. As a young kid in the early 70’s, this was nothing like my dad’s Mercurys, with 4 bucket seats and all. I’m a tad young to remember our Breezeway Merc with any kind of accuracy, as it would have been comparable. But that XL definitely made you feel special.
Great article!
My older brother owned a 64 Galaxie 500 xl convertible .
It had been bought as cheap wheels off a Ford car lot in 1973 or so.
One reason for its cheap $300 price was that its tired 289 would burn thru a quart of oil or more in 50 miles of driving.
A word of warning?…
The glass back window has to be unzipped , before you lower the top………
I wish you had gotten interior pics of the XL 4 door hardtop! Much cooler than the regular Galaxie 500 interior~!
Gorgeous ’64 on trademe at the moment. NZ-new and factory right-hand-drive, so is pretty rare. Instrument panel doesn’t match the USA ’64 Galaxie though, but does look familiar – can anyone in CC-land identify what Ford used?
The car’s here: http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/ford/galaxie/auction-484157525.htm
That instrument cluster was originally made for the ’59 Edsel…I guess five years down the road they raided the leftover parts bin. The base sheet metal dash hadn’t been changed very much since then…?
Here’s another interesting 64 Ford in NZ…….a 390 Interceptor CA Highway Patrol car!
Someone from down under please call and ask them to get it off the grass!
http://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/used-cars/ford/custom/auction-553798897.htm
Solid lifters and 330 HP
Oh, yeah! Maine State Police had these with 3 on the tree and overdrive.
Looking for a 1964 ford galaxie 500 complete taillamps
enjoy
Yes, we had a pair of jet tubes in the family. Here, the day before it came home from the dealer.
Still think the 1964 Galaxie 500 2dr HT is a x-lent style.
I would also include the 1960 Galaxie 2dr HT model, they are super rare to see even at car shows nowdays. To my eye they were ahead of other Fords of the Era in styling.
“Sadly, this most excellent tail lamp would appear on full-size Fords for the last time in 1964.”
Not QUITE true; they disappeared for good in the 1965 model year. All ’65 Galaxies and Customs went to the rounded hexagon taillight housings; but the base Custom series had round taillights within said housings. Just see any 1965 Ford police car and that is what you will see and get. See attached photo ~
I’ll give you this – the rear-end styling didn’t emphasize the round taillights as earlier years did; I think Ford designed this treatment for the Custom models to let their loyal customers know that “times they were a’changing.”
Does the unloved second generation Falcon count? They used the jet turbine taillights through 1967.
Sure they count! I love the round red taillights on my ’64 Falcon. The ’65 Falcons had chrome ‘cross-hairs’ added to go with the round tail lights. That look was ok, but I am more fond of the uncluttered appearance of the ’64s.
Ford had ditched the round taillights for the 1964 model Thunderbird in favor of rectangular tails. I don’t know why as there could be no improvement over those grooviest of round red tail lights by switching shapes. I honestly don’t find the ’64 T-Birds very attractive compared to the T’s from the earlier part of the ’60s. To me, the ’64s are ‘Meh’.
Possibly for the, even groovier still, sequential turn signals to be added in ’65.
Is the Falcon a Galaxie? – I believe the title of the article limited this to the Galaxie. I hear what you’re saying, though.
A friend of mine had a 64 Fairlane in this market local assembly model with 289 motor it was a nice car the upscale Galaxie and two door variants werent sold new in NZ but could be got used from the US in later years.
As a tip of the hat to the classic round Ford taillights, Ford used the concept again on the Ford GT when they brought it back out in the 2000’s….
The newest one too, in fact they took it a step further and routed the turbo waste gates through the centers!!!
I know a lot of purists have mixed feelings about the new one, but that’s nothing short of awesome.
Funny, I never noticed the Hoffmeister Kink on the sedans before.
Awesome story! I’ve always liked the 1964 Ford Galaxie. I’ve never owned one, nor do I know anyone who had. But I’ve always liked the front end appearance of the 64 Ford, and the “jet tube” taillamps. Lovely looking car. 🙂
My father had a 64 Galaxie 500 in blue with a white vinyl top. For the life of me I can’t remember if it was a two door or four door. Yet I think the front was a bench seat and I am leaning towards two door. All of that is very ironic. During the last week on May 1966 and the first week of June 1966 we drove from Catonsville MD to the San Fernando Valley and Canoga park our new home with Carnation Milk Company. Spent a lot of time in that car.
In that car was my father, my mother and then my brother and sister in the back with me at ages 12, 10, and 8. Also in the back were two goldfish in a styrofoam cooler that successfully made it to California. I had had them since 1963 and wasn’t going to part with them. The two eventually made it to San Diego in 1968 and into a large fish pond I got built in the backyard. Turns out they were male and female as they populated the pond in a few years.
This was the exact same blue.
This article brought back fond memories of a dark green Ford Galaxie 500 that I knew as a kid which made an indelible impression on me. My dad was a Chevy-Olds dealer when I was growing up and although we often had a new demo parked in the family driveway every year, my dad managed to bring home a large variety of used cars in between. His rationale was that he wanted to check out the trade-ins to see what might need fixing. Sometimes this was a good thing and other times, well, let’s just say my mom was not always impressed by what she was left to drive. One of the better ones, however, came home in the summer of 1970. It was a white over dark green Galaxie 500 4-dr sedan with a silver beige cloth and vinyl interior. I remember being surprised when my dad told me the car had a six cylinder engine under the hood because even at 11 years of age, I understood big American sedans should have V8s. I also recall being kind of fascinated by this car, since as a Ford, it was so different from the Chevys that I was more familiar with. I think dad must have liked this car quite a bit because we had it for most of that summer. It was taken on a 340 mile trip to Cold Lake, Alberta, incident free, with dad, mom, 3 kids, ham sandwiches and Kool-Aid. One other time that summer, we were coming home late at night after visiting relatives; I was laying across the Ford’s wide back seat, half asleep, only to be startled awake by a prairie thunder and lightening storm, the likes of which I’d never seen before. Dad said we were safe in the car. Finally, we got home. I had fallen asleep again, but I could hear the crunch of gravel under tires as dad pulled the Galaxie into our driveway. The big Ford with the six cylinder motor had got us home safely.
The car that made me a Ford Car guy forever. It was also Motor Trends Car of the year. 1963 and 1964 Ford just really nailed it.
My oldest brother bought a used Galaxie 500 just like above in 1969. First car in the family with A/C, automatic, power steering & power brakes, etc.
Mom was pissed because Dad (WWII vet) was still driving a car without any of the above creature comforts. The stubborn old man finally broke down and bought a ’74 Mercury Comet with A/C. But that’s another story;-}
My uncle had a ’64 Custom 2-door sedan that I remember quite well. Personally, I always liked the Galaxie – I’ll take either a hardtop or convertible with a 390.
Didn’t read all the comments so it may already have been covered:
according to The Encyclopedia of American Cars, the 260 was NOT available in the full-sized Ford in 1964. It was limited to Falcons and Mustangs in 1964.
My family had a 64 Country Squire with “3 on the tree” plus overdrive. Ours was the ubiquitous white with red vinyl interior, and blackwall tires with “dog dish” hubcaps. Two uncles had Country Sedans, BOTH were that medium blue-green with matching interior. Those cars were tough as nails, holding up better than an other uncle’s 2 1963 Country Sedans that were real rattletraps.
A 64 Ford or a 64 Chevy? Sorry, but I’d say it’s a real toss-up. The Ford does look like a nicer car, no matter the price level/model you chose, while the Chevy looks gaudy, at least in the upper price levels.
Finally, a 64 Ford DOES NOT need skirts.
You’re right about the 260. Text has been amended.
Every day I go to the office the used car lot across the street behind the car wash sits a Blue (Same color as the photo that tbm3fan posted.) 64 Galaxy 500 2 door hardtop. It looks very nice from my office( about 100 yards away) I dare not walk over there, I may drive back with a Galaxy. Last time I walked over there I almost drove back with a Souped up MGB.
Mehh, my feelings on the ’64 haven’t changed much in 43 years. I liked the ’62-63 Fords, especially the ‘63.5 fastback, but the ’64 looked pudgy. I still remember building an AMT 3-1 model of a ’63 which was sitting on the shelf our neighborhood “dime store” after the ’64’s had already come out. Our neighbor had just bought a new Volvo PV544 and took us for a spin in it, and we stopped at the dime store and I bought the model. A few days later, I took my finished model to school to show off and a bully destroyed it during recess. A short time later, a friend’s mom got a yellow with woodgrain Dynoc ’64 Ford wagon and I wasn’t crazy about it either, something banana-like about the color scheme.
In Canada, the engine lineup was less fuzzy. Here, you made the the jump from the 223 six right to the 352-2 barrel from ’63-’65, according to Canadian sales literature. The Windsor engines didn’t appear in Oakville-built cars until 1966.
Even in 1966 there were differences. The 352-4V was still offered in the US, but not Canada. The US could get the 390-4V, Canada only the 390-2V. The engine lineups weren’t fully harmonized until 1967.
I once bought a ’64 Ford Galaxie Station Wagon, dark blue, with the fake wood trim. I was driving through a suburban neighborhood on Long Island and noticed this car with a paper plate taped to the back window with $200 printed on it. I went inside and agreed on their price and paid them the $200. (This would have been about 1983). Except for rusted out quarter panels the car looked really nice in and out and it had less than 90,000 on the 352 V8. I normally won’t buy a so-called full size car or a car with a V8. I’m a small car person. But for the price I couldn’t pass it up. They said it ran rough and indeed it did. I was mulling in my mind how I was going to get it home, 330 miles away. While going through it, however, I noticed the plug wires were mismatched. I changed them around and the car ran like a purring tiger cat.
I got in and drove it home without a hitch.
As it turns out it is the only full size car with a V8 (out of about 110 cars owned) that I have ever driven, much less owned.
So a ’64 Galaxie is a rather singular car in my automotive world.
As good a place as any to ask, since it was mentioned in the article.
What was the deal with those add-on spotlights? Why did people graft them on to their cars?
’64 Fords seemed to be particular targets of “Dillard” accessories such as skirts, spots & continental kits . They all look like crap. Right at home in Macon county.
The ’64 has been my favorite classic ford since…wow. I’m not even sure. Since for a long time. Love the side profile, especially of the hardtop…love the grille with the three “v” ridges…love the side trim…and love, of course, the jet tube tails.
A 500XL 2-door hardtop with the 427 holds a very high spot in my fantasy garage.
The 64 Galaxie is nice but I still prefer the 63 with the jet tube tail lights filling out the whole side not tucked in like the 64.
I’d argue that the Chevrolet full size tail lights were more distinctive. Four of ’em told you it was a Biscaynne or Bel Air you were behind, Six said Impala
’64 was also my favorite ’60s Ford. Dad had a Custom 500 in Dynasty Green, and it was the 1st car we had with (underdash) a/c, so nice in the Baltimore summer! I was so disappointed in the ’65s!
As a little guy at the time, I thought these were absolutely the zenith of automotive styling.
’64 was perhaps the only model year where I thought that the full-size Ford was nicer than the equivalent Chevy.
Fond memories of my uncle’s ’64 XL. Medium blue with white ragtop and I think the 390; likely 4V as it had dual exhausts.
This was one of Uncle Bob’s (a priest) series of lightly-used big Ford convertibles.
The family car when I was born was a ’64 Country Sedan in Guardsman Blue, we had it until 1980 (replaced by a — Citation, my late father’s first and last Chevrolet. My first car at 18 was a ’64 XL hardtop. Wimbledon White over Dynasty Green (called Ming Green in ’63), but had been repainted all green. I loved that two-tone turquoise int. Personally I think the ’64 XL int. had it all over the SS int. of the same year, positively blah. I too would love to find an XL 4-door.