(first posted 6/16/2014) I assume Ford just plain ran out of A-team stylists when it came around to giving the quite nice-looking ’64 Fairlane a re-skin. It’s the only way I know how to possibly explain one of; no, the worst car to come out of Ford’s golden sixties’ decade. The competent designers must have all been tied up with the new Mustang and big new ’65 Fords. Time to give the back-benchers an assignment: make the Fairlane look a bit more like the slab-sided rest of the family. The results speak for themselves, so keep the audio turned down. But there’s always a way to make every car lovable: nothing like a little patina and authenticity to hide a multitude of sins. And this particular ’65 Fairlane Sports Coupe is dripping with plenty of that; the puddles just finished drying out in the sun.
I’ve always had a grudge against the 1965 Fairlane, one of the dorkiest and clumsiest cars of its time. And its ’64 predecessor (above) had just gotten to the point where it was working well for me (ignore that cancerous growth on the hood please).
The ’64 had finally lost the silly little fins that the original ’62 Fairlane (above) was saddled with.
Actually, the ’63 (above) already was making nice progress, with a particularly tight front grille, which very much matched the big Ford’s grille that year (my Fairlane collection is getting very complete indeed).
Of course the handsome new stacked-headlight ’66-’67 Fairlane redeemed itself, but 1965 was the throw-away year indeed. And in my mind, that’s what I’d done to all of them, until I discovered this one. Its unvarnished authenticity is just a bit too compelling, even for my deeply ingrained antipathy.
So while all the others all got a grille that has a decidedly ‘lil brother aspect to the senior Fords, this Failane gets a grille smacked on to its front end that might have been cribbed from the Moskvitch at the 1964 Moscow Motor Show.
But there is redemption in hunting old cars. Curbside Classic is like purgatory: I’m forced to wander the streets of Eugene until I find just the right example of a car, which then instantly washes away my decades-long smoldering grudges I’ve held on to so tightly and meanly. How could I not fall in love with this one? It’s just such a rolling time capsule: every time I see it, it just evokes 1971 or so, when these cars were cheap rides for young kids, and they spent every extra dollar on cheap mag(ster) wheels and all day Saturday with the Bondo and cans of gray primer trying to stave off the effects of the inevitable terminal rust.
Well, those memories are from when I was still in the Midwest and East Coast. Here, where the rustworm-free land of automotive immortality, 1971 is today! And this perfect example of my former object of scorn and derision is now the object of my devotion; at least for the moment. That’s the beauty of CC; I can fall in love with a car and the next morning… No, the effect is a bit longer, even if I didn’t hunt down the owner with my check book.
Ironically, I did find the owner; actually the owner’s husband. I wouldn’t have guessed it, but this daily driver is owned by a woman. Of course, being married a long time does tend to have its effects on both parties, or maybe she always liked ratty old rods.
Anyway, this Fairlane Sports coupe is a regular visitor during the days not far from my neck of the town, and I had a mental picture of its owner: a young guy who picked this up because its a cool old car; which it is indeed. Like so many other ratty cool old cars in the hands of young guys discovering their joys.
But when I discovered the 1953 Ford with the slant six under its hood in a very different part of town, there was this Fairlane too. Why yes; it’s the wife’s ride, and she works over my way. What else would a guy like Robert have his wife drive? A Camry? Hell no. Anyway, if I keep this up long enough, I’ll eventually meet the owner of every CC I’ve shot; it’s that kind of town.
Since I was there, Robert popped the hood on the Fairlane to show off its hale and hearty four-barrel 289. The Fairlane’s best asset was always under its hood, provided it had the V8, of course. The very first of that fine line of motors started in the ’62 Fairlane, with a weak-chested 145 hp 221 CID version. Why they ever made the 221 is beyond me, since the 260 already showed up at mid-year during the 1962 MY.
And the definitive 289 came along in 1964, including the very potent 271 hp hi-po version. Finally, Ford was going to give the Chevy small block some competition. Of course, Chevy upped the ante with the 327; that must have hurt a bit in Dearborn.
Back to the ’65: the only thing the Design interns left mostly untouched was the Ford’s patented hardtop coupe roof, which graced so many of their successful cars during its nine-year reign. Starting with the ’57 Skyliner, it was adopted by the ’58 T-Bird and ’59 Galaxie, and then handed down to the ’60 Comet, 1962 Falcon, and of course the Fairlane Coupe. And this marks the end of the road: it was well past its sell-by date, and its magic worn out. Or was it still the best thing about this ’65? More likely so; “Mess around with the rest of the car, (non-whiz) kids, but leave that roof intact!”
Here’s a (parting) shot of the interior. The dash is a dull and dreary thing, but I did always like the ribs on Ford’s center consoles of the time; they seemed a tad higher quality than the General’s. That’s the kind of thing you notice when you stare at cars on the way to school in the morning. And Ford’s rather nice buckets of the era have here been a bit tampered with; a bit of a home re-upholstery project?
Having created the mid-sized class in 1962, by 1964 the poor Fairlane was swamped by GM’s four-division strong assault (CC here). The Fairlane’s fairly strong initial sales wilted by 1964, and the beautiful ’65 didn’t do much to help. Ford started the mid-sized war, but never regained the upper hand. That the 1965 would be the low point is somewhat pre-ordained: the Mustang and the big Fords stole its thunder in house, and GM stole the rest. Maybe that’s why Ford didn’t exactly put much effort into the ’65: instead of a Fail, can we just give it an Incomplete?
don’t know why they don’t make 2 dr hardtops anymore. must have something to do with structural integrity / safety. i think modern day coupes would look so much nicer as a hardtop…
The high-end Germans still periodically offer pillarless hardtops — both Mercedes and BMW. I can’t think of any American or Japanese examples since the seventies.
There was an old set of posts on Autofiends by Jack Baruth on JDM four-door faux-hardtops on the 1990s, which weren’t exactly the real deal, but speak to the desires of many, even carmakers of pillarless glory days.
http://www.autofiends.com/tag/bahamas/
A fourdoor 65 Fairlane could have been my first car. if not my dad had decided ‘he didn’t want any wrecks in his yard’. It was a rust free car with widened rear tubs and a shortened 9″ rear, and fiberglass front fenders and hood. Complete stock interior and no engine or transmission. Even if it might be one of the most forgettable designs of the 60’s, I think it’s still a clean and balanced design, like a cross between a late 60’s Dart/Valiant and an early 60’s Chevy. Remove all badges and no-one will even guess what car it is. The same kind of timeless design Germany is now famous for 😛 And it reminds of many of the European Taunus’ I grew up with in Norway. Not sure I would have any feelings for it had it not been part of my teenage years like it was (I was hoping she could be my Christine) Maybe it’s a good thing I never dragged home that ex-streetracer, maybe not. I’ll never know.
I have to come to the defense of the poor little 65 Fairlane. 1965 was just a wierd year for intermediates. Chrysler was selling its former almost-full-size car. Both the Plymouth/Dodge and Ford were in the last year of a body cycle that started in 1962 for each of them. Both had to make it to 1966 where new mid-sizers could directly challenge GM’s highly popular entries. While Chrysler did an admirable job modernizing a difficult to disguise body, Ford did even better.
I agree that the 64 Fairlane was starting to look dated, but so was the 64 Galaxie. Both cars had a strong family resemblance as they had all along. 1965 was going to be a problem – how do you keep a strong family resemblance between the new knife-edged 65 Galaxie and the early 60s Fairlane that used a completely different design language?
I always felt that Ford did a masterful job of bridging the gap between 1964 and 1966 with this car. They couldn’t have had much of a budget for a single-year restyle, yet they managed to square the car up and add as many 65 Galaxie-ish touches as possible. But this car brings a mystery – how come the over-under headlights were used on the 65 Comet instead of on the Fairlane. The Comet looks much more like a mini 65 Galaxie than the Fairlane does. I supect that the Comet was still sharing the Falcon body which was new for 64. But still, if they were putting new fenders and a new hood on the Fairlane, why not the stacked headlights to keep the family resemblance?
BTW, funny you mention 1971, because this was the year that a cousin’s best friend was driving his dad’s maroon 64 Fairlane Sports Coupe with the 289, buckets and a 4 speed. That was one cool car. The kid was in high school and decided that the fastest way to get the sound of a glasspack was to crawl under the car and punch a bunch of nail holes in the perfectly good muffler. Dad sprung for a new glasspack a few days later. Kids.
I always really liked the ’65 Fairlane, especially in 2 dr HT form, white with red interior like this one.
I see a bit of Imperial in the nose and Buick Special/Pontiac Catalina in the flanks. The fact that it “doesn’t fit in” with the rest of the 60s Ford lineup is what makes it interesting, I guess. And the lines are handsome to me, though not glamorous like the ’66-’67. It’s got its own thing going on. 🙂
My first thought when seeing this ’65 Fairlane, a car that I don’t even remember, was that Chrysler did the same thing.
I learned to drive in 1969 on my mother’s 1965 Dodge Coronet with a 318 and Torqueflite.
That car was a total one-off. It was the 1964 Dart with different sheet metal.
Virtually no relationship to the ’66 Coronet that was to show up a year later.
I always found the interior and exterior styling to be rather weird.
I agree, I think the ’65 Fairlane would had fared better if it had got the vertical headlights. It could be interesting to see a photoshopped picture of a 1965 Fairlane with vertical headlights.
What was truly strange was that the Falcon’s Mercury sister, the Comet, did get stacked headlights for 1965. Along with a much more svelte roofline, it looked pretty damn good, too.
Then, in 1966, the Comet moved up a size and was the counterpart to the much better looking Fairlane of that year.
It’s almost as if Ford moved the 1964 Comet front end over to the 1965 Fairlane for just that one year.
How’s this? I think it’s a distinct improvement myself…?
Right on the money here, I never really liked the 65 much, but shown right next to the 64, boy did they ever mess that up, particularly the horns on the front fenders.
On the other hand, there’s not much chance that someone will try to make a half hearted Thunderbolt clone out of a 65, you must have shot that 64 at the cancer clinic.
“We can remove the tumor, and treat the hood with chemotherapy but radiation will not be required”
Actually Ford made two 1965 Fairlanes for drag racing. One a D/S car 289 and the other a Thunderbolt with a 427. Look up Darrell Drokes 65 T-bolt from Downey Ford
The rear isn’t too bad but the front is just tragic. Almost looks as if the real car was damaged and someone rummaged through a pile of random parts then duct taped them on to get it back on the road.This example has the patina and the hardtop working for it but the four door sedan is dishwater dull.
Here is dull two door I came across a while back. http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveseven/2406081373/
“The rear isn’t too bad but the front is just tragic. Almost looks as if the real car was damaged and someone rummaged through a pile of random parts then duct taped them on to get it back on the road.”
That was my thought too–the front of this car looks like a generic replacement grille was ordered from JC Whitney to replace the original that was ripped off.
That’s the same thing I thought the first time I saw a ’73 Newport on the road–that someone had adapted an Impala front clip to a Chrysler. Though this one is more generic than derivative, it still looks totall mismatched.
The patina on this example is cool though. Some things do get better with time.
This does look like a “French Ford” Its got dorky proportions. They have almost disappeared from the roads. I cant Remember the last time I saw one. I guess After selling 500,000 Mustangs and Numberous Falcons in 65′ there were only so many budget minded buyers looking for something a LOT less cool than a Mustang in 65′ . What a Bad choice in 65′ it would have been to favor this car.
Now it only looks cool because it is a rare survivor. Its Amazing Just How many Coupes Ford Sold in 65′ In Addition they also sold Thunderbird & Many Full Size Coupe Models, What is that well over a Million in 1 year alone? Now The Total Number is However Many Mustangs They sell in a given year.
This looks like a square car for someone who was too conservative to drive a Mustang.
As a kid, I remember thinking that it looked too COMPACT to be an INTERMEDIATE. I was 6 when it came out, but I had A Passion for the Mustang at the Time, I must have looked at this model and thought the equivalent of WTF.
I always forget this model when viualizing past Fords. The First Fairlane I was ever semi- interested in was the 1968- 1970 Torinos…. But those have all but COMPLETELY Disappeared too.
Paul nailed it exactly. 1965 was the year of a (rare for Ford) all-new full-size car; six months earlier the Mustang was launched. The Ford team had more on their plate than they could handle; and failure in the high-visibility, high-stakes lines (Mustang and full-size) would have brought the wrath of the seigneur down on their heads. Iacocoa, in particular, used a lot of political capital in pushing the Mustang past an obstinate Hank The Deuce. If it had failed, Lee would have…have gotten what he did get in the end, only sooner.
So, the Fairlane of that year was not only neglected, it was INTENDED to be a dowdy frump. The kids and the sports would shop elsewhere; pay overblown prices for a gussied-up Falcon or the first of The Brougham Age.
The Fairlane was intended to be the Aunt Maggie car. Something the church ladies (the ones not buying Studebakers) could buy with pride. No blushing at unseemly curved fenders; no airs from long doors and long hoods and Ford badges with crowns over them. No, it was the Anti-Status Special.
And it was perfectly suited; but as the next year’s presentation revealed, the intermediate line was more suited to the Youth Market than other segments. Ford moved the Fairlane upmarket there; and left the church ladies to the Falcon.
Ithat front end always reminded me of the last of the étude baker sedans.
“But still, if they were putting new fenders and a new hood on the Fairlane, why not the stacked headlights to keep the family resemblance?”
My guess is it was decided not to spoil a new design theme by putting it on an old body, this would have prejudiced customers for the “all new” ’66 redesign. Better a mild refresh to hold the fort for one year.
Ford really didnt try with this one, I allways liked the 63and64 and under neath was more Mustang than Falcon so they didnt fall apart.
A few months back I came across one of these on Craigslist. I was looking for something from 65-67 as a toy/driver. It was local, it ran, had minimal rust for the rust belt, and was at the low end of my price range.. I just couldn’t do it. It’s a nice enough looking car overall but that nose turned me off in a way I can’t explain.
The 1965 Fairlane is an exceedingly rare beast, even for the 1960s — it is one of the very few post-war American cars that received a substantial reskinning that would be in production for only one year.
Would Ford do that merely to maintain styling continuity throughout its lineup? I doubt the bean counters would have agreed to such an expensive move without some other extenuating reason. The best I can come up with is that Ford was petrified of losing its leadership in the mid-sized field. Ford got a two-year jump on GM when it downsized the Fairlane for 1962. However, GM responded aggressively in 1964, when four of its brands offered a mid-sized nameplate. The Chevelle outsold the Fairlane by a comfortable margin.
I can only speculate as to what Ford knew about GM’s intentions at the point when the 1965 redesign was commissioned, but presumably Ford was fearful that the Fairlane body would need an unusual boost to still be competitive.
Part of why the reskinning didn’t work so well was because the Fairlane’s body had Robert McNamara’s fingerprints all over it. The original design was almost Rambleresque in its upright practicality. In addition, flat side glass, which by 1965 was fairly rare, accentuated the Fairlane’s dowdiness.
Ironically, the sharper sheetmetal creases of the 1965 worked against the basic body design by making it look square — literally and figuratively. The 1964 Fairlane, in contrast, had some nice curves that, while not as modern as the Chevelle, looked decent.
I always preferred the 1964 Fairlane to that year’s Chevelle, even though the Chevrolet is the more “modern” design. The Fairlane just looked right, while the Chevrolet was too plain – especially the front. But Ford really messed up the 1965 model. The facelift managed to make the car look both plain and awkward at the same time. Even that year’s Mopar intermediates were better looking (particularly the Plymouth Belvedere/Satellite).
At least Ford redeemed itself with the 1966 Fairlane.
I think then Chrysler also knew about GM upcoming offering, working on a all-new C-body for 1965 to fix the mistake of the “plucked chicken” ’62, but know seeing the need for a mid-size line-up, they recycled the full-size Polara/Fury into a mid-size Coronet/Belvedere for ’65 until the new mid-size body was ready for 1966.
I’m pretty sure the ’66 Mopar B-bodies were a pretty thorough re-skin of the ’62 core, whereas the ’68s were a new body. But I could be wrong. In any case, Chrysler was able to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and get into the intermediate game on the relative cheap.
My uncle bought a 4-door Fairlane new and used it as his daily driver for years. He was probably the last person I know who had one. He may have been the only person I know who had one. As far as looks go, it was reliable…like a blind date whose description is “a great personality”.
Bad or boring looks can kill a car just as definitely as poor reliability, and I don’t doubt that there were scads of ’65 Fairlane owners who ended their relationship thinking, “I’m not going to spend another hundred bucks on that homely box.”
Having said all that mean stuff, I think the 2-door hardtop has possibilities, especially Btrig’s thumbnail shot of the white car. It has a nice roofline. And I was always a sucker for Wimbledon White.
I wonder if the 221-inch displacement of the initial Ford small block was intended as a homage to the company’s first flatheads, or a happy accidenT?
/
\
I loved my 1965 Ford Fairlane Sports Coupe. It was two tone – pale yellow bottom (not the bright canary yellow) with glossy black hardtop. Black interior; bucket seats in front. Paid $910.00 for it in 1970. Unfortunately tangled with some ice on a Northern Minnesota highway in 1971, colliding with a tow truck for semi trucks. My car was a total loss…minor injuries for me fortunately. Enjoyed that car best of all cars I’ve owned since.
My son was surfing the net and came across this website.He had been looking at pics of 66-67 Fairlanes as we have recently bought a 67 as a project car. He was shocked when he came across the picture of the 66 fairlane that you have on this site as it is his moms car. She has had it since 1984
Why the Ford 221 “Windsor” V8, with the 260 (then the 289) right around the corner?
My personal theory is that Ford, developing its “thin wall” casting technique, wanted to really “get it right,” accuracy-wise, in full-tilt mass production (221’s 3.5″ bore) before going with the 260’s bigger bore (3.8″) and then the 289’s 4-inch bore (same stroke in all three before slight lengthening for the 302). Whaddya think?
I don’t know. I think there were two other factors: One, the Fairlane was kind of a return to the size range of Ford’s ’40s cars and 221 cubic inches happened to be about the same size as the older Ford flathead V-8. Second, the Fairlane’s initial targets were likely the GM “senior compacts” — the Buick Special, Oldsmobile F-85, and Pontiac Tempest — which had the 215 cid aluminum V-8 (and of course in Pontiac’s case the 195 cid slant four). A 221 cid engine gave the Fairlane just enough of an edge to advertise that they had a bigger engine than Buick without sacrificing the Fairlane’s original economy mission.
The 260 I think came about because the 221 really didn’t produce any better performance than some contemporary sixes and the 289 was originally created because Ford wanted to replace the old Y-block 292 in the big cars and found that the 260 didn’t really have enough torque.
65 is OK, BUT a 1966 Fairlane Convertible GTA…..with the 390ci….Whoa baby..
The 221 is perfect for stockcar racing not the tedious parade on your super speedways, NZs style of full contact motor sport it fits the capacity rules just fine.
Did the 221 last longer down under? Ford only sold it here for a couple years, and only in an ultra-wimpy “economy” version. Most American sixes at the time were more powerful, as was the enormous Pontiac four that AUWM mentioned above.
No it didn’t. Not that there are many 1962 Fairlanes around, but I don’t know that I have ever laid eyes on one that still has a 221 (usually replaced by a 302 or similar).
This is still my answer when people say rhetorically, “Wow, were there any bad-looking cars in ’65?”
A while back I spotted a car very similar to the photo car (same color and same body style), but in much better condition and with a black vinyl top. So, for anyone who wondering if maybe this body would look better if it were just cleaned up a bit, I would say,
“Ehh, not really, no.”
Yes, and I will never say again “Were there any bad looking cars in 1965?”!
Have to agree on the 65 Fairlane – it had a strange ‘dead on arrival’ look to it, especially next to the handsome new Galaxie.
On the other hand, the ’64 Fairlane Sports Coupe seemed more successful than the ’64 Galaxie, doing a much better job of carrying on the good styling cues of the full size ’63 Fords.
The Fairlane was a fairly frumpy Ford from its beginnings until 1966. Picking up on the design language of the full size, frumpy enough itself in the early ’60s and generally getting a bit better each year, the Fairlane had a way of extending the dated full-size look for another year or so.
JPC’s comments about the ’65 Fairlane from a few years ago are spot on. The ’65 Mercury Comet was a better looking car, and would have fit in with the ’65 full-size much better.
Frumpiness was sort of the early Fairlane’s DNA. I always though the name was lacking competing with Malibu, LeMans, Skylark, even Comet. The Fairlane name was taken from Henry Ford’s estate; Fair Lane. Naming a car that was targeted at younger folks not yet needing a full-size car after an old rich dead guy’s estate may have sounded nice in the Ford board room, but it didn’t work so great in the show room.
It’s no oil painting especially compared to the Mustang,Falcon and Galaxy but I’d take one over a 67 T bird any day.The 63 Fairlane was a very attractive car,my brother still kicks himself for not buying a 63 V8 because it was just a bit too much compared to the 62 6 cylinder 4 door sedan,again a very attractive car but not as nice as the 63
Maybe that’s me supporting the underdog as I’m one of the few fans of Edsels,70 Coronets and Mk4 Zodiac/Zephyrs!
Not a happy car. Looks ‘fair’ by itself, but park a ’65 Malibu next to it and there is no contest. I never did get the body-colored headlamp bezels.
It’s easy to jump on the ‘it’s ugly’ bandwagon, but when new I liked these, since a neighborhood family had one for a few years. When i got to pick out a model car one time, in 1969, I picked a ’65 Fairlane for this reason, familiarity. I added the ‘custom’ front fasia to it though.
It’s rare since it’s a ‘one year wonder’, nearly no relation to other mid size Ford looks. Boomer nostalgia overshadows anything not a Mustang, so again easy to be dismissed.
“Ford started the mid-sized war, but never regained the upper hand. ”
Well, there is this one car called the Taurus 20 that arrived years later, once the #1 selling car, so Ford was not always ‘underhanded’. GM hasn’t had a Top 10 selling middie since Lord knows when?
Cutlass Supreme?
yep, and how long ago was that? He He
The difference between the 1964 and 1965 Fairlane reminds me a bit of the transition between the 1966 and 1967 Chevelle, except the ’67 Chevelle came out looking a whole lot better than the 1965 Fairlane.
Everyone refers to ’55-’57 Chevys as ‘shoebox’ cars but, for me, the most literal interpretation of a shoebox is the 1965 Fairlane.
Too much hate for these…. Homely cars need love too 😀 . I’ve always liked ’65 Fairlanes, maybe out of sympathy. Make mine a wagon.
Actually, a wagon fits in better with the squared-off, box front end. Even the four-door seems like it would be better than the ill-conceived hardtop. What’s really strange is how the car simply doesn’t fit in with any of the other 1965 Fords. It’s kind of like Ford’s version of the ’62-’65 Dodge Custom 880.
You really don’t notice how bad the ’65 looks until compared with the immediate prior or later year Fairlane, either.
Sure it looks a bit frumpy, but nearly 50 years later it looks alright.
Yeah, Im not feeling this either. The whole car just looks kind of dumpy. The front clip looks like they were knocking off some of AMC/Rambler’s more mediocre efforts.
The overall shape is pleasant, and it looks really good from the rear. But that front end! No brand identity to be seen with that grille. It looks like it was designed for a truck! It’s good to see a well loved example though. My hat’s off to em’
I don’t have much of any opinion on a ’65 Fairlane back when it was new, but in 2014 I have to say I kind of dig the featured car.
Newspaper puff piece, spring 1965, makes the marketing strategy clear:
Notice the angle of the car in the photo. Even back then they were ashamed of that fugly grille.
I’m surprised that almost no one seems likes these. I’m actually a pretty big fan! The front end does look very appliance-like to me, but not in the same kind of cheap and thoughtless way that later Falcons fit that description. Cars like this were appliances first and foremost, after all, and I like this for the same reasons I like the more handsome Ramblers from the mid-60s. I can’t ever remember seeing a ’65 Fairlane sedan, so maybe that would temper my enthusiasm, but with this classic roof and the fairly sleek, no-nonsense body, I think the Sport Coupe looks great. The light yellow color is perfect for it, too. If only it had a full set of those ridiculously cool “MAGSTER” wheels… good luck finding an extra pair of those in 2014. They look to be 13-inchers, too!
This seems loke a good place to point out that this Fairlane doesn’t look any worse overall than the 65 Chevelle. The Fairlane still has perfect proportions but falls down a bit on the details (like the grille and the side trim). The Velle gets the details right but the proportions are off. The 65 Satellite is looking quite good to me today.
Truly a dud from a decade when Ford rarely missed. As for it’s appeal today, I’m reminded of Noah Cross’s (John Huston) comment in Chinatown: “Of course I’m respectable. I’m old. Ugly buildings, politicians and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.”
Has there ever been a CC: on one-year restyles? Good topic.
I can think of three one year bodystyle cars, this one, the 1958 Impala and the 1969 Camaro. I’m sure the CCcognoscente can think of a few more and have enough for an in depth article.
The 1962 Plymouth and Dodge could about qualify, given the massive sheetmetal changes that came in 63. Also the 1964 Cutsom 880 that was all new in the rear.
Yep. And they changed from Exner’s boat-deck cowl to a flat cowl on the B-bodies in 1964 – probably because they were already planning on making the b-body an intermediate.
We only got the 4-door sedans from ’62-65, and I confess to not liking any of them. The proportions just don’t work for me – they all look like small cars trying to look like big cars but without the benefit of a tailor.
Frumpy, frumpy, frumpster.
Could not agree more – and the Moskovich comparison is spot-on…….a major miss for Ford…..
The 65 Fairlane was a complete mess, probably worst styled midsize car of the entire decade (although the 65 Ramblers and Dodge Coronets came close).
GM outclassed Ford and Chrysler with the Chevelle Malibu and its B-O-P cousins. Miles ahead in style, fit-and-finish and overall quality.
It’s because of cars like this that I disliked Ford in the 1960s & 1970s! The most basic Chevelle 300 sedan out-classed this abomination by light years!
Now you understand why Studebaker went out of business – their 1966 model sedan look even stodgier than this!
One nice thing about CC – we never have to guess what Paul is thinking.
I owned both a ’66 (500) & a ’67 (XL) Ford Fairlane. Both had 289’s and were quick and reliable. Great styling for 2 door hardtops.
Man, what a deuce of a design. Reminds me of the star trek space hippies episode. As if the writers/stylists never looked at the character/model history. This grille is awful and seems to share very little with anything else by Ford from this time. same for the tail, the heavy look from the side and the blecch inst panel. Everywhere my eyes move, i lose, except for the roof pillar. That is easily and pleasingly identifiably ford.
I grew up in 61,63, 68 &69 full size Ford wagons. Bought a 63 galaxie 4d hardtop for my first car in 85. This really is a low point in 60s Ford design. Even confronted by this in the real living steel, i doubt it would ever grow on me.
I found this on the internet a little while ago…
NOW we’re talking!
…and this one…
Yep they definitely need the roughed up look like mine….
Pics of two of my favorite Fairlanes (’64 and ’66) and two of Ford’s worse sixty’s designs (’65 and ’62 Fairlanes).
I can’t really add anything to the negativity about the ’65 design quirks, but I’ve never liked the odd front end design of the ’62. It really lets the car down.
The car from the front tires back was more than a nod to Ford’s ’57 Fairlane 500. With the side trim, fins (ok, a newly styled ’62 car with fins?) and round tailights, the stylists were playing it safe. Five year old styling, but safe!
But that front grille, stepped hood and bumper and goofy triangular trim piece coming off the headlight and overlapping the fender (missing on the car in the photo), it was a mess.
Ford proved it could do better on the next years design.
Do you ever suspect they make a car uglier just so it gets more attention when it is made better looking again?
I once had a worked at a nationwide industrial support company, and we were supposed to occasionally make a minor mistake on purpose so that we would get noticed by the customer fixing the mistake quickly.
This sudden and brief uglification of the generally-attractive Fairlane makes me wonder just a little.
What about a 65 Comet?
Do you like big plastic sunglasses that match an outfit?
That is what these cars were wearing. What makes them look frumpy is the fact that the headlight bezels match the colors of the exteriors. They end up looking like big plastic sunglasses. They look cheap, flat and goofy.
The colored bezels don’t work. They don’t appear to be a part of the fender. They just sit on the front end, rectangular and overly noticeable. They don’t blend in.
Then the rear end. Cheap. Looks damn cheap. The Falcon’s rear end styling looked better and the earlier Fairlane looked better too. Ford mocked their own tail end treatment here. Looks like an imported knock off. A fake designer look.
This is an unattractive car. When you fail at the front end, you fail. Sure, the Chevy looked cheap and dull as well – but at least it didn’t look stupid.
Fail Ford, fail!
Well I prefer this over the previous Fairlanes, mainly because I never liked the early models.
So not saying much.
But it looks great today with it’s Magsters and nose in the air stance.
If ever a design was misinterpreted by everyone, this has to be it. It’s not my favorite by any means, but I personally would nominate the 62 As the ugliest Fairlane. It looked like a mashup between a 57 and 62 Full size Fords. If you look at the details on a 65, you begin to see what was happening here. They were trying to continue continuity with the full size cars, which were all new, but doing it on an older design. That grille that everyone hates is a smaller, narrower version of the 65 Galaxie, those headlamp frames are similar in concept to the Galaxies but turned sideways and painted body color. The side sculpting that dips downward also mimics the full sized cars. The taillights faintly imitate the full sizers also. This Continuity with cues from the bid cars would continue on through 1969. It was an unfortunate instance for the 65 Fairlane that the stacked headlamps weren’t used. Had they done that, I think the Kinship with the big cars would’ve been more obvious. The only 65 Fairlane in my neighborhood was still around in 1976. It was a white bottom of the line 2 door sedan. In 1975, the original owner had the lower body painted brown and the roof painted beige. He also removed the full wheel covers and put those satin gray hubcaps from an F150 in their place. I’d have to say he turned a mediocre car into a pretty ugly beast by doing those things. Incidentally, I can’t remember seeing another 65 in the metal since.
I never cared much for these Fairlanes. Too dowdy. Give me a ‘66 or ‘67 any day – preferably a coupe with a V8 and 4-speed.
As a high school kid growing up in the late 60’s, us church kids were ferried around in a multitude of cars. The youth pastor had a 65 Fairlane with a six and a stick. One of the youth sponsors and his wife had a 67 Malibu that was nothing special, but it was a nice car. Another had a 69 Firebird 400 with a four-speed. It was really nice. But the general consensus was that poor Ford was a tin can. Of course, youth pastors didn’t make any money in those days (still don’t), and he drove it enthusiastically.
In the ignorant cruelty displayed by teens everywhere, we probably asked him why he drove such a piece of junk. It was what he could afford. When I eventually bought my first car, it was a 65 Chevelle (with a six and a stick), and it was a whole lot more car, although I don’t think it matched the 65 Belvederes.
My Grandfather had a ’63 Fairlane up until he bought his ’72 Chevrolet Biscayne. In the mid 60’s, my Dad was still buying mid-sized cars, he’d started with two Rambler wagons (’61 and ’63) and after the last one was totalled he bought a ’65 Olds F85 wagon which was the last mid-sized he was to buy…in ’69 he traded it for a Country Squire wagon, with the 351 and front disk brakes, but otherwise pretty basic.
I think my Grandfather’s Fairlane had the 6, as did both my Dad’s Ramblers, but the F85 had the 330 (had to have a rocket V8 in the Olds) as did every subsequent full sized wagon. He kept buying wagons through his ’78 Chevrolet Caprice, but after it too met it’s demise in an accident switched to 4 door sedans (an ’84 Pontiac Sunbird, then an ’86 Dodge 600) and that’s all he bought the rest of his days. My Grandfather kept his ’72 Biscayne until he died in 1986, after which my Uncle took it over (and I drove it a few times after flying up to visit them, since we didn’t get a rental car on such trips)
I am looking to buy a 65 Fairlane 2 door sedan. Only because a 63 cost too much. What is odd about it is the back roofline and the rear window. This one seems to have a shorter window from the glass to the roofline. Say 2 inches more sheet metal. Kinda cool. also, the 4 speed console has a tach like factory installed and Fairlane GT badge in the center. a Am FM puchbutton radio and a separate balance/fader panel underneath.As far as the grill, I would relate it to the 66 to 67 Barracuda styles. I can’t wait to rev out the A engine.