(first posted 3/23/2013) Ford may have been first to the intermediate dance (among the Big Three, anyway), but GM came fashionably late and better dressed. Styling, they say, sells cars, and GM’s mouthwateringly crisp, taut lines across its new 1964 A-body line suddenly made Ford’s fast-selling Fairlane look frumpy. Annual freshenings of the 1962 body did no good, and a 1966 restyle helped only a little. So Ford tried again for 1968, presenting this fresh, clean result.
Ford’s new Torino nameplate bowed that year atop Ford’s intermediate line, relegating the Fairlane 500 and Fairlane names to respectively lower rungs on the trim ladder. All Torinos came with V-8 power, in 302, 390 and 427 guises. Fairlanes also could have any of those engines, but as an upgrade from the 200-cube six. Having never so much as sat in one of these, I can’t say for sure, but word on the street is that these things handled well only in a straight line on dry pavement. If you want to become well acquainted with body lean and understeer, just throw one into a turn.
Ford’s new coupe had an equally pretty sister, a new fastback. (This one’s a ’69, and a Cobra.) I suppose Ford was hoping buyers would be so charmed by the new body’s good looks that they’d forget about the dreadful handling.
And then, GM showed up to the 1968 intermediate dance in this sexy all-new sheet metal. Sexy always gets more dances than fresh and clean, except at the kind of dance where the chaperones remind the dancers to leave room for Jesus. Unfortunately for Ford, this dance wasn’t so chaste: Chevy sold almost 423,000 1968 Chevelles, while Ford moved just over 172,000 1968 Torinos and Fairlanes (Correction: some 291,000 – Ed.).
While GM’s 1968 intermediates boasted all-new underpinnings, the Fairlane and Torino still rolled on the 1966 platform. The wagons even carried over the 1966-67 bodies from the cowl back. I’m sure that made Ford’s accountants smile, at least until they saw Chevy’s sales numbers.
Despite rolling on carryover wheelbases, the new Fairlane and Torino were about four inches longer and 200 pounds heavier than the cars they replaced. Body parts probably are hard to come by today, but given this car’s Falcon origins, many mechanical parts ought to swap with those for the Mustang–and those parts should be available approximately forever.
And so I was quite happy to come upon this one, in generally good cosmetic condition, on U.S. 50 in downtown North Vernon, Indiana. Both bumpers are a little dented, and there’s a rust hole on the passenger rear-quarter panel. I’m not crazy about the gunslit-style windshield tinting and the higher-than-stock rear end, but what can I say, I’m a sucker for all-original. But this old girl is still at the dance, and she looks ready to go.
I somehow prefer the black notchback to the fastback. Maybe the notchback just has a better background.
I agree with the notchback being the cleanest looking of the 2 versions. That fastback may have been great on the Talladega and Daytona tracks, but I thought it was just too big, too long, too flat.
Now, this notchback has a tough look to it. I think a set of American Torque Thrust rims would set it off about perfect. Nice catch!
I had the 1969 version of this car, mine was originally dark blue, and the first set of wheels I had on it were a set Anson slotted dish mags. I later scored a set of original American Racing Torque Thrusts, they looked fantastic on this car!
What was interesting of the ’68-’69 Ford intermediates is that the coupe/fastback was actually cheaper than the coupe. But, yeah, the coupe was better looking.
Also interesting is that only Ford products were supposed to be used in the classic chase scene in Bullitt, meaning it was originally intended to be a 2-door Fairlane or Torino used instead of the black Charger R/T. While it would have been much easier for McQueen’s Mustang to keep up, I can’t imagine watching a Torino bouncing and flailing around the corners (not to mention that a Ford wouldn’t have been nearly as menacing as the Dodge).
I’ve read that, too. That menacing black Charger looked like the car Satan himself would drive. A Fairlane? Not so much.
It would have been easy, unless they used a 427 or 428 Torino.
Maybe the cleanliness of the lines is what is drawing me to the notchback. It’s proportions are much more balanced than those of the fastback.
If I were offered both, I’d take the notchback too.
Me three.
How the 1968 Fairlane/Torino did vs the Dodge Coronet and Plymouth Belvedere (the Satellite name beginned to outcrowd the Belvedere monicker) who was also redesigned with more “coke-bottle” design except their wagons as well where the roofline still use the 1966 sheetmetal?
Meanwhile AMC redesigned for the 1967 model year, the Classic who morphed into the Rebel, wasn’t lucky in sales.
Beautiful and overlooked.The trouble was there was some serious competition from Mopar and GM
This is very similar to my very first car. I had a 1969 Ford Torino, 390 4bbl/4 speed, Traction Lok, with a bunch of other goodies. When I saw the first pic in the post, I thought it was my old car, in it’s original dark blue.
Mine was no handler, but for the late 70’s, it was something of a rocket. The only car I owned back then that was faster was my 1972 442, and that car was better in every measurable way. I used to burn through the old Uniroyal bias plys on that Torino like crazy, not hard to do when close to 70% of the weight was on the front wheels!
My brother had purchased the car from a truck mechanic who worked for the same company we did. The mechanic had warmed up the motor a little when it broke early in his ownership; when he sold it to my brother he unhooked the linkage to the second two barrels on the carb, ostensibly to save fuel. When I bought the car from my brother, I hooked the linkage back up, ostensibly to burn rubber. And I did…
By the time I owned the car, rust was taking its toll, and the motor was getting weak (in relative terms). That combined with high fuel prices and an increasingly wonky electrical system, I chose to sell off the car and buy a leftover 1980 Mercury Capri RS Turbo, which is another story for another time.
Not too long after I sold it, I last saw my Torino at a service station with the front clip and interior charred. I stopped and spoke to the tow truck driver and according to the new owner, something under the dash started smoking, causing them to stop the car. While they went to find a phone (this was in 1981, long before we had cell phones) they came back to find the car on fire.
I guess I got rid of it just in time. RIP, Torino.
Our ’68 Country Squire LTD had the same engine (390, 4bbl) and caught on fire twice, once in the driveway, where it was quickly extinguished, and once on a rural Georgia road with just Mom and us kids. Another driver flagged us down and got us out of the car to safety. A trucker saw the car and stopped to offer his extinguisher, so they got it out, but not quick enough to require Dad having to rewire and replace a bunch of stuff under the hood.
When these came out, I thought that the 68 Torino fastback was one of the coolest cars I had ever seen. I still love its lines. The notchback coupe, on the other hand, looked too much like a 68 LTD coupe – sort of formal, sort of sporty, but not really nailing either look.
Ford was pretty good with platform sharing then, and there is a lot of similar stuff between the Falcons, Fairlane/Torino and Mustangs. On the handling, I had understood that these were not bad handling cars, given proper shocks and tires. However, this may have only been the 302 cars. The heavy 390 probably weighed way too much for the car.
I think that where these fell behind was in powertrains. I cannot imagine that more than a handful were made with the 427. This left you with the old 390 for performance. As much as I love the old FE engine, it was no match for the hotter Chevy, Pontiac or Mopar competition. Today? I would love one, but would prefer the fastback. A very nice find.
Ford did fix the powertrain deficit about halfway through the year with the legendary 428 Cobra jet. There were a few around in my hot rodding days and they were competitive with the GM and Mopar big block cars. I have seen several of these coupes with the 428CJ over the years. The rest of the car wasn’t competitive though, horrible wallowing barges even by the standards of the day. And you’re right about the 390, it was a stone compared to a 383 or 396. Great truck or station wagon engine though.
Was the 428CJ based on the FE block 428 that went back to 1966 or so in TBirds and big Fords? If so, I guess they finally found a way to make the FE scoot. I have always found Ford’s engines of that era to be somewhat confusing.
Yes, it was a warmed up version of the FE 428. It used cylinder heads from the 427 among other tricks. Ford rated it at 335 bhp, but it made a lot more and was a torque monster to boot. It was a strong runner and really the only time Ford got a street performance engine “right”. In our little street scene Fords were considered also rans at best, but everyone respected the CJ equipped cars that were around.
You could also get one in a Mustang, but like all pony cars with big blocks it had major traction problems. I don’t know why Ford didn’t go this route a couple of years before, the 390 just wasn’t enough given what the competition offered.
The evolution of the FE was a curious thing. In 1961, they already had HiPo versions of the 390 rated at 375 and 401 hp (like my Dad’s Starliner 🙂 ) These engines had special big valve heads, wild cams, solid lifters, header-style exhaust manifolds, and had a 6000 rpm redline.
But this development work on the hi-po 390 led to the 406, which already had a special block with cross-bolted mains, as the standard FE block couldn’t take the power reliably.
And the 406 led directly to the 427, whose block was even further developed for primarily racing purposes. Undoubtedly, the big valve heads and other work done on the hipo 390 were the basis for the 406 and 427 heads.
It would appear that the basic 390 block wasn’t up to the task of absorbing higher power outputs. Keep in mind that the FE was a relatively thin-wall casting for its time, and weighed less than typical “big block” engines. (it was really a “medium block” engine, especially compared to Ford’s really big engines (MEL, 385).
And the plain 428 was mostly a bored and stroked 390, without the good stuff, and tuned for max low end output. So there was a big hole in Ford’s performance engine line-up,which the CJ 428 rectified.
Ford put too much emphasis on racing-oriented engines, which were very competitive, but neglected the bread and butter cheap performance market, which GM and Chrysler exploited so effectively.
Too bad then Nascar forced Ford to drop the SOHC version of the 427 alias “the Cammer” who got a second life in NHRA competition. We could wonder what if Ford had continued to make the Cammer?
@ Stéphane: The OHC 427 would have been more of what Paul is saying — a racing engine that would probably never have been available in significant quantities (the reason, as I recall, that NASCAR wouldn’t accept it as stock) or at attainable prices. It’s hard to see it being any more common than the Chrysler 426 Hemi or any cheaper. I don’t know how desirable it would have been for the street, either, since the OHC engine was even heavier than the standard 427 and was biased toward top-end horsepower.
The 428CJ had heads that were unique to the CJ and not identical to 427 heads. Most of the 427’s were meant for high RPM work, hence the cross-bolted block and the high-riser heads that worked best at the top of the RPM range. With the 428CJ, Ford finally gave their street performance engine dedicated heads, intake manifold and exhaust manifold that flowed enough air to be competitive, but they used a garden-variety block and crank to keep the costs reasonable (427’s were much more expensive to make due to cross bolting and more race-oriented heads/intakes/exhaust).
The 428CJ proved that the basic FE block design is a very good one, though heavy due to the deep skirts on the bottom. The only difference between the CJ block and the regular 428 and 390 is some extra cast reinforcement down by the crank saddles.
Ford definitely missed with the 390GT that they put in the Mustang, Fairlane, etc. starting in 1966. It had the garden-variety heads that every other FE had at that time, a poor flowing intake as well as some very poor-flowing exhaust manifolds and a small camshaft. Chevy’s 396 was far better out of the box.
In my 1965 Galaxie I built a 390 out of the 352 that has a stock 390 crank and garden-variety block that makes an easy 425 HP with aluminum heads that are a near copy of the 428CJ design and a solid lifter camshaft that is not wild. Ford could have easily had a performance 390 if they had invested some R&D in the 390GT.
I agree with you; the notchback is trying too hard to be a mini-Galaxie, whereas the fastback has its own personality. Also, the fastback reminds me of the days when the “S” in NASCAR still meant something.
This is not a GT. That trim level was reserved for Torinos starting in ’68. Buckets were offered in Fairlane 500, as kind of a poor mans Torino GT.
It’s possible that this owner added the GT badge to the grille to tart up his base Fairlane. Ford literature calls out GT only on the Torino line, but other sources describe Fairlane GTs. So I gave this car the benefit of the doubt.
As I understand it, the Torino replaced what had been the Fairlane 500XL. The GT had been based off of the 500XL, so it became a Torino.
I don’t know if Ford made any acommodation for a “poor man’s GT” in the Fairlane or Fairlane 500 lines, but there was certainly growing interest in that type of thing around 1968-69, thanks to the Plymouth Road Runner. Up to this point, intermediate muscle cars had typically been based on top of the line models (like Plymouth’s own GTX), but the Road Runner blazed a different trail in that regard.
The base Fairlane was dropped after 1969, and the Fairlane 500 name was last used in 1970, with the trim level that it represented being absorbed into the Torino line for 1971. For 1971 only, what had been the Fairlane 500 became the base Torino, and what had been the Torino became the Torino 500. From 1972 on, the two levels were Torino and Gran Torino.
Sorry to double-comment, but this car reminded me of how much I always liked the look of the thin chrome trim around the window glass on FoMoCo hardtops and convertibles. I think Ford went to frameless glass shortly after this car. I think Ford was maybe the last to keep the metal trim around the glass on pillarless cars. I don’t know why I like it, I just do.
I agree. I lamented the loss when Ford stopped doing it.
One of the best looking Fords ever.
When the fastback Torinos and Cyclones came out, I thought it indicated Ford had not been paying attention to the market. Slapping a fastback on a mid size car failed for Mopar (original Charger) and AMC (the Marlin) and it didn’t really work for Ford, either. They already had a more attractive fastback option in the Mustang.
These cars failed because they were out of fashion before they were even released, although I will admit David Pearson’s NASCAR success gave the Cyclone some cache with gearheads.
Ummm this isn’t a Fairlane GT. That’s just a GT emblem/trim in the grill, borrowed from a 68 Torino GT.
You mentioned the 427 FE that it DIDN’T have, but not the 428 Cobra Jet FE that it DID have……as shown in the 69 Cobra. BTW the only FoMoCo product to receive the 427 in 1968 was the 68 Cougar GT-E. Ford was late to the Big Block Muscle car game. Although the mighty and mythic (and expensive) 427 was offered in the 66-67 Cyclone/Fairlane they were extremely rare. Ford offered the Hi Po 390, but it wasn’t up to it’s full potential (small carb. crappy exhaust, etc.)….or a match for a SS396, GTO or Roadrunner. Enter the 428CJ in April 1968. Tasca Ford, Winter Nationals……..the story has been repeated many times!
A decent set of T/A radials will make them handle reasonably well, along with gas shocks.
The myths around Bullitt are rampant. No the Charger didn’t walk away from the Mustang (see the Collector’s Edition Making of Video…….track time is interesting). They picked a Charger (originally blue) early on. They didn’t want all the cars from the same manufacturer. Although all the trim on the Mustang was removed, Ford must have been a sponsor for all the background cars.
A lot of people must have stuck GT badges on their Fairlanes, then, given how many a simple Google search turns up out there. Help me out on the 427 vs. 428, as a 1968 Torino brochure I found online says that this car could be had with the 427, but makes no mention of the 428. Here:
http://oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Ford/1968_Ford/1968_Ford_Torino_Brochure/1968%20Ford%20Torino-18.html
Mid year option as I understand it. Ford must have had a tough time convincing prospective muscle car buyers that the 390 in a Torino had what they were looking for.
I know that the 427 was Ford’s NASCAR engine. I knew that it was last available in the Galaxie line for 1967, was unaware that it was still in the Torino line for ’68. I looked up the brochure after reading your piece, exhibiting one of my wife’s least favorite traits of mine – “you didn’t believe me.” 🙂 )The 67 Galaxie version was (IIRC) rated at 425 hp with solid lifters. I see that the 68 Torino version was either detuned a bit or rated lower for insurance purposes. I don’t think Ford ever built them in high volumes. The brochure for the 69 lists the 428CJ. Paul did a nice summary on Ford’s big block family up above. I wonder if any other company had engine sizes so neatly arranged – 427, 428, 429 & 430.
As an attorney, isn’t it endemic of your nature to double check to be sure? 🙂
Hmm. Now you’ve got me wondering if the cars I recall were in fact ’69s. It was a long time ago. I do know the CJ was available in a Mustang for ’68 but maybe not in the Torino. An interesting aside, if I’m not mistaken the 427 was really 425 cid, Ford thought “427” sounded better so that’s what they called it. When the 428 was developed it really was a 427 but Ford “added” a cubic inch to avoid confusion.
Back in the day, there were all sorts of now valuable and rare muscle cars running around in my neck of the woods. The late ’60s and early ’70s were boom times in Western Canada and a fair number of such cars were sold for such a sparsely populated (By US standards) area. Hemis, LS-6s, Z-28s and CJs were not everyday cars but they were around in daily use in the late ’70s. One engine I never did see was a 427 Ford. We heard about it, but that’s all. I don’t think many were sold.
According to the bore and stroke specs on Wikipedia, the 427 is in fact 425.8 while the 428 is a hair under 427. On the other hand the 429 is actually 428.8ci.
It comes down to how precise you are about bore and stroke measurements. Spec sheets for the 427 often quote a bore and stroke of 4.23 inches and 3.78 inches, respectively, which would give you 424.9 cu. in. or 6,964 cc. However, I’ve also seen the bore and stroke dimensions listed as 4.235 and 3.784, which would be 426.3 cu. in./6,986 cc. (The difference may have been between the nominal displacement and the maximum allowable tolerance to keep the engine legal for racing purposes; the NASCAR limit was 7,000 cc.) I’m not sure where the 425.8 cu. in. figure would have come from.
The 428 has a nominal bore and stroke of 4.13 and a stroke of 3.98 inches, which would give you an actual displacement of 426.5 cu. in. or 6,990 cc.
Aside from sounding better, there was the matter of branding. The Ford 351 (Windsor or Cleveland) is actually 351.8 cu. in. (5,765 cc), but Ford called it a 351 presumably to distinguish it from the earlier FE-series 352. Similarly, from 1970 on, Chevrolet advertised its 402 cu. in. big block as a 396, since they’d spent so much money building the SS396 brand. So, that sort of thing wasn’t at all uncommon.
I’ve just learned something that I didn’t know before, or forgot: Look at the specs for the 1968 Torino 427 engine: 390 hp, “self adjusting valves” (hydraulic lifters) and a 10.9:1 CR. This is a detuned 427, not the solid-lifter, 11.1:1 CR 410/425 hp version built in 1967.
And here’s the oddest thing of all: it’s only available with the C6 automatic. 4 speed not even available! That’s a total reversal from 1967, when only the 4-speed was available, and not the C6.
I have to wonder whether this odd 427 was really built, and if so, how many of them were actually installed. No wonder the 428 CJ replaced it in the spring of 1968 (which is why it’s not in the brochure).
BTW, there really wasn’t a Fairlane 500 GT in 1968.
I forgot the image from oldcarsbrochures:
A little further digging reveals what I suspected: No 427-powered ’68 Torinos were ever built, largely because the UAW strike in the fall of 1968 (Update: fall of 1967) forced a number of changes to the Torino line as actually built, and the brochures differ in a number of respects: http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2006/10/01/hmn_buyers_guide1.html
And the 428CJ was available in the intermediates as of April of 1968.
Thanks for getting to the bottom of that!
Very interesting link — someone has exhaustively researched the ins and outs of 1968-69 Ford intermediates.
The article mentions a UAW strike in the fall of 1968, but I assume they mean 1967, or it wouldn’t have had a big impact on 1968 model year production.
I was under the impression that in ’68, only the Falcon and Mustang retained the 289, and only for 2bbl applications. 2bbls in other Ford lines, and 4bbls in all lines (including the Falcon and Mustang) switched to the new 302. I apparently picked that up from a reference book that followed what was stated in the brochures, not what actually happened. According to the article at the link, that was the original plan for the intermediates, but the strike caused Ford to bring back the 289 2bbl (if I follow, both the 289 2bbl and 302 2bbl were offered; maybe the strike caused a shortage of 302 blocks?). I wonder if the same was true of fullsize models as well.
Earlier, I had wondered if Ford made any accomodation for a “poor man’s GT” in the Fairlane or Fairlane 500 lines. It looks like Ford’s answer to the Road Runner was the Cobra, which appeared in 1969. According to the Wikipedia article on the Torino, there is apparently some ambiguity over exactly what the 1969 Cobra was. It is often referred to as a Torino, was actually based on the Fairlane 500, was neither badged nor referred to in Ford literature as either a Fairlane or a Torino, and was not the subject of a specfic production breakout. In 1970, it apparently definitely became a Torino subseries.
As a brochure collector, I can tell you that 1968 FoMoCo brochures have more revisions than most others. Mustangs have 3. The early one with the 427, the 2nd version without it, and a very late one that covers the 428-CJ. Here are the Torino ones.
First , early.
Late
That engine was available on the ’68 Mercury Cougar and I think at least nominally on Mustangs. They weren’t very common.
I don’t know for sure, but if I were to guess at the rationale, it might be that Ford still needed to build a certain number of 427s for homologation purposes until the 429 was ready. It’s possible that the de-tuned, hydraulic-lifter, automatic-only version is the only expedient way to get the engine to pass 1968 federal emissions standards without a major reworking.
Thanks to the cornucopia of information provided by Kevin Marti, via his Marti Reports, we now know that no 1968 427s were ever installed in anything other than Cougar GTEs. The original plan called for availability in Mustang, Fairlane-Torino, Galaxie and Mercury Cyclone as well, but the strike monkey wrenched those plans.
Interestingly, at least on Galaxies according to the brochure, there was still the usual prohibition on power steering and AC, even thought the C-6 auto was mandatory.
Thanks to the cornucopia of information provided by Kevin Marti, via his Marti Reports, we now know that no 1968 427s were ever installed in anything other than Cougar GTEs. The original plan called for availability in Mustang, Fairlane-Torino, Galaxie and Mercury Cyclone as well, but the strike monkey wrenched those plans.
Interestingly, at least on Galaxies according to the brochure, there was still the usual prohibition on power steering and AC, even thought the C-6 auto was mandatory.
Thanks, Roger — I had wondered about that.
There was a 427 available in the 68 Fairlane 500, there was one in Western Iowa where I grew up and was for sale at a local Chevy dealer in 1972 when I worked at a packing house. Almost traded in my 55 Belair sport coupe for it, I remember the car and the 427 badges from when it was new. Also badged as a 427/390 hp under the hood. Still kicking myself for not buying it. Wimbledon white fastback with a C6 on the column, bench seat and full instrumentation, white rims with blackwall tires and dog dish caps.
It always impresses me that this look looks just generic-right on the Fairlane/Torinos but when it was blown up a size for the ’68 big Fords it looks so bad.
Everything back of the coupe doors is awfully bloated. It makes the front end seem disproportionately delicate somehow.
I remember the wagons, sedans and fastbacks, but I feel like this is the first time I’ve even seen a picture of the notchback hardtop.
Im told F series 390 will accept 427 heads for more power and theres quite a bit of parts juggling can be carried out amongst that engine family. Havent seen one of these live just another car we couldnt get and with no cornering ability its not much use here either, might of been ok in Aussie with their long straight roads but after 19 years there I aint seen one yet.
I think the 427 heads will fit, but if you get carried away, I think you’re pushing your luck on the strength of the 390 block and the limits of its oil system. I suspect that’s why Ford did the CJ treatment to the 428, rather than the 390 — so that the extra torque provided by the larger displacement would give good street performance without going too far in the search for high-end power.
The non-CJ FE 390/428 block does start to have some durability issues at 500 hp, particularly around the crank saddles. The 428CJ has some reinforcement down there that help alleviate cracking of the block.
390 will accept the heads from 427 or 428 but the smaller bore 390 (4.05″ vs. 4.14″/428, 4.23″/427; ) makes valve/bore clearance an issues with 427 heads on a 390; 428CJ heads fit a 390 not problem. Most aftermarket heads for FE started with the basic 428CJ design; higher end ones are closer to 427 heads with wider valve spacing and work with the larger bores.
I always thought that these had really clean lines, and the bloat set in a bit later with the various Torino’s and Montego’s. Having said that, I can hardly recall seeing any in Quebec back in the day. Is it possible that a fair number of sales were scavanged by the larger Ford line, especially when a few options were added? Once you’ve added a V8, PS, PB, automatic, it might have pushed customers into a Galaxie.
I loved a 68 Fastback Torino That lived at the top of my street, it was dark green. But I Loved The Name, the sound, how shiny it was kept. The Notchback was a school secretary’s car. But That Tunnel Back as they called it, wow, Chrome accents worked well on it to. I also loved the 1970, But never again Would I be a fan of Gran Torinos. Hard To believe Mom’s 73 Tbird was one of them underneath..
I like the fastbacks too, but something about this particular car, in this color, with those wheels looks absolutely amazing to me. The only thing I don’t like is the ridiculous windshield tint (wtf?) Otherwise, it’s pretty much perfect.
Normally my big 3 bias gravitates more towards Ford on average but I’ve never really lusted after these. Not only do I see a lot of Galaxie styling trickled down into these but I also see a lot of it’s shortened platform mate, the 66-70 Falcon, as well. In particular with this coupe, as the rear profile is very similar. I think If I were a car shopper in 1968 I’d probably opt for the fastback just to not have it mistaken for a lowly Falcon.
The 70/71s are really the only intermediate Fords of the era that appeal to me as much as GM or Chrysler though. The 68-69s just don’t quite have that timeless quality to them.
Of course there were a lot fewer separate makes and models to choose from in the US in those days, but I think the ’68 intermediates from the Big 3 (sorry, I wasn’t much of an AMC fan as an 11 year old) were all pretty special. Oops, bad choice of words, as I didn’t care for the Buick version of the GM A Body, but the blended C pillar/beltline of the Chevelle and Cutlass, the curves of the Mopars, and the long horizontal lines of the Torino looked great then and for the most part still do. However, since GM was officially not involved in motorsports at the time, my memories of the NASCAR Fords and Mercuries, Satellites and Chargers leave me with the perception that they were “higher performance” than the other intermediates.
My 1962 Galaxie 500 XL with the 390 excelled in two things only-rotting out exhaust systems due to my very short commute distances and leaded premium, and towing ability. That was really the whole purpose of the 352 and 390 engines-station wagon duty. These were torquers. With my motorcycle trailer on the back at 90 mph I never knew I was towing a load. A Chevy 327-300 had no trouble at all eating my lunch, but probably also had no problem when asked for towing duty. Compare the early-mid ’60s engine choices with today’s pickup truck engines and you will probably find that the pickups get marginally better gas mileage than the mid ’60s cars, but not by much. But in 1969, with gas going for 32 cents per gallon, who cared?
I love the old Fairlane. A ’63 is on my bucket list.
Nice article on a car that doesn’t even show up at car shows much these days. Plenty of 1968-69 fastbacks are always on hand at the Carlisle All-Ford nationals, but these conventional hardtops are rare birds.
I don’t believe that Ford only sold 172,000 intermediates in 1968. According to ateupwithmotor.com, Ford moved about 380,000 Fairlanes and Torinos in 1968, which sounds right.
GM, Ford and Chrysler all restyled their intermediates for 1968, and all of them sold very well. The 172,000 figure is far too low – that is about the annual sales level of the Plymouth and Dodge intermediates during 1966 and 1967, and I believe that even they easily beat that figure in 1968.
By the late 1960s, Ford was almost guaranteed a certain amount of sales for its car lines, much to the frustration of not only Chrysler and AMC, but also Ford itself. Chrysler and AMC were frustrated because they had a tough time gaining on Ford, while Ford was frustrated because it had a tough time gaining on both GM and Chevrolet. Chevrolet probably lost more sales to the Pontiac Tempest/LeMans/GTO and Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme than it did to the Ford Fairlane/Torino.
I think the 172,000 figure is just Torinos, not counting Fairlanes. The Hemmings link that Paul provided upthread claims total ’68 Ford intermediate production of about 371K.
That number is wrong. My Encyclopedia says about 200k Fairlane/500s, and 171k Torinos, for a total of some 371k. I should have checked that; my apologies.
You’re right about the handling. I drove a used one in 1973, thinking I might buy it. Even by the standards of the day, it was a mess dynamically. I passed.
Have to say I’d much rather have a ’66, the ’68 front end does nothing for me. The hardtop style is interesting, roughly half-way between a plain 2-door sedan and a proper sporty fastback like the previous model – let alone the extreme 68 fastback.
On the handling front I’d expect a big block would spoil these, given the extra weight of a 351 over a 302 produces a noticeable difference in a Falcon which is the same mechanically bar a few inches of wheelbase.
In Argentina, the 1968 Fairlane body (only available there as a 4-door sedan however) was sold until 1981. Here one 1980 ad http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/4773217959/
and one 1974 Argentinian ad http://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/6845014987/
The Fairlane/Torino hardtop is by no means an unattractive car. However, next to the Chevelle and the unappreciated Fairlane 500/Torino GT fastbacks, the formal hardtop looks dowdy…like the kind of car your dad would buy.
On the other hand, I saw the Montego MX twin of this car for sale awhile back and I was very intrigued by it. I think I’d prefer a Ford intermediate over the GM offerings at this point if for no other reason other than the rarity.
My 68 fairlane, it only has the 302 but almost all original.
I wonder what the take rates by body style worked out to for the Fairlane vs its’ GM and Mopar competitors. The wagon was half a size smaller being on a Fairlane/Falcon compromise wheelbase while all the two-doors had faced internal competition in the same showroom from the all-conquering Mustang since mid ’64, so I wouldn’t be surprised to learn Ford sold more of its’ midsizes as four-door sedans than the rest.
Wow. That takes me back to a 69 Torino formal roof hardtop a friend had in the Early 70s and kept until 77 It handled and rode like a buckboard, and even worse when he “Shackled” the rear end (remember that craze, as shown on the featured car. Of having you car look like a was kicked in the arse. Made it go faster…Riiight! He worked at the time at his dad’s independent car lot. Now owns the place,
“… GM showed up to the 1968 intermediate dance in this sexy all-new sheet metal…”
But, was forced to keep it one extra model year, 1972, and Ford’s all new Gran Torino stole the show from GM’s “outdated” mid size cars.
Yes, the extra year of the ’68-’72 GM A body turned out to be a boon for car collectors decades later, but when brand new, the “classic muscle car” look was out of style.
Has such a cool look all wet by the curb. Would’ve been cool for Mel Gibson in Payback. My favorite line is when James Coburn, annoyed that Gibson has shot holes in his suits through their suitcases, says “That’s just mean! That’s mean, man!” I like Gibson’s movies in spite of his personal flaws, just as I like cars in spite of their manufacturer’s often unethical behavior. I don’t need to know how the sausage gets made, just that it tastes good…
As a student employed by the university, I managed a transport fleet in the 1979 timeframe. We had 1967, 1968 and 1969 Ford Fairlanes; 1968 Plymouth Belvederes, and one 1970 Plymouth Belvedere.
The 1967 and 1968 Ford Fairlanes drove and handled basically the same and both were a (substantial) step below the Plymouths. They “handled well only in a straight line on dry pavement. If you want to become well acquainted with body lean and understeer, just throw one into a turn.”
They rode smoother than the Plymouths, though.
One day out in the field, the driver of a 1968 Plymouth went home for the weekend in someone else’s car, which would have been OK, as we always had plenty of weekend volunteer drivers available…but he forgot to turn in the keys. I hotwired it by unplugging the wiring from the back of the ignition switch, and jumpering the “run” contacts with a paper clip and the starter solenoid contact with another one, temporarily.
All had small V8s but the 1970 Plymouth was everybody’s favorite, since its 318 engine was stronger than the rest.
It is really fun for me to go back to read the comments from 2013, a time when I was so busy I didn’t have time to read them. I see a lot of love for big blocks, but as usual, I am the odd man out. I have never enjoyed driving pedestrian cars with huge engines in them, especially of this era. Ford cars handled so badly they were (in my opinion) scary to drive at times. Cramming a 390 FE boat anchor into the thing isn’t going to do much except make the understeer even worse, the brakes more feeble and the ball joints will wear out in no time. The 14″ bias plies are bad enough with a 302; imagine it will a 390 which was like 300 lbs heavier.
The GM stuff of the era was far better and had a much better suspension set up. A 1968 Chevelle with a regular fuel 327 and Powerglide would be a nice car. However, the 1968 Valiant would by my purchase due to its front disk brakes.
I had a 1968 Ford Fairlane 500 with the notchback. A clean attractive car inside and out. It had a 302.
Problems – rust. The floor disappeared. The trunk disappeared. It rode on it’s frame.
Problem – front end. The front was heavy. It had a lot of overhang and the front end alignment was always a problem. It handled poorly, the steering was innacurrate.
An attractive car, but not one I’d trust. I sold it and about six months later, it got a flat tire on the Dan Ryan at nigjt in Chicago. Luckily the owner had left the car for assistance when the car was rear-ended. Without a trunk or floor, the Ford accordioned like I had never seen before.
Great find. Ford really lost the plot on a segment they pioneered, and not only to GM.
In ’68, Ford and Mercury combined for 506,520 intermediate sales (389,038 Ford; 117,482 Mercury) while Chrysler moved 561,607 B-Bodies, including 96K Chargers, which I think are fair to include (242,940 Plymouth; 318,667 Dodge). Figures are from allpar and club sites, so may not be accurate.
Interesting that Dodge outsold Plymouth. Pretty sure this was the case throughout the B-Body era, or at least most of it. Like Pontiac, intermediates masked the decline in full-size sales for lower mid-priced brands.
A recent article in Collectible Automobile on the cars of 1969 noted that Chrysler was second in the intermediate class, after GM. This was because of both the Charger and the Road Runner. If I recall correctly, Plymouth sold almost 90,000 Road Runners in 1969! The figures you quoted are therefore likely accurate.
Chrysler’s problem was that after the muscle car market collapsed, its intermediate sales withered with it. The swoopy 1971 and later models never really caught on with customers.
Having spent time in these I would argue that the 1966-70 Mopar B body cars were far more satisfying vehicles than the 1966-71 Ford intermediates. The Mopars were larger cars and felt like it (and feeling like a larger and heavier car was a General Motors specialty back then). These Fords, on the other hand, felt lightweight and thin and smaller than they really were. They did not really feel all that substantial and their Falcon/Mustang bones made the cars feel like they were 6th graders playing in a 7th-8th grade league.
Back then every manufacturer had its built-in fan base and Fords was much bigger than Chrysler’s. But for the unaffiliated shopper it was not hard to see why they would break for either GM or Chrysler in this class. GM and Chrysler put a lot more money and effort into this part of the market and the result showed.
And say what you will about the Road Runner and Charger skewing the numbers, Ford had every opportunity to compete in this market with the Fairlane GTs and Torino fastbacks. They had their appeal and their fans, but no street cred until the 428 CJ came along.
With the 1971+ Mopars and the 1972+ Torino/Montego, the situation turned upside down and now it was Ford with the more substantial feeling car while the Mopars felt thin and lightweight.
Chrysler’s intermediates are the perfect example of turning lemons into lemonade. The 1962 platform wasn’t competitive in the full-size market. (That doesn’t meant it was bad – it just didn’t offer enough of the qualities that most buyers in that segment were seeking.) With a few changes for 1965, however, it was perfect for the rapidly growing intermediate market.
The positions of Chrysler and Ford in the intermediate segment show how fast the market had shifted in the early 1970s. The emphasize on performance boosted Chrysler’s fortunes in 1967-69. Ford wasn’t that strong in the segment, and, as you note, its performance offerings were duds. But by 1971, the muscle-car era was rapidly ending, and Ford was there with Torino Broughams that appealed to people seeking big-car luxury in a slightly smaller size.
GM sailed on, thanks to the overall goodness of its A-body platform and some rare market leadership. The Pontiac LeMans declined, but the Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme easily filled that gap.
Meanwhile, the 1969 Pontiac Grand Prix and 1970 Chevrolet Monte Carlo brought the personal luxury concept to the intermediate class, and opened up what would be the hottest segment of the 1970s.
For the final year of the ‘muscular’ body style, the best selling ’72 LeMans trim was new top of the line Luxury LeMans. [Per Collectible Automobile]. With fender skirts and side chrome that looked like the old “Silver Streaks”.
But, yes, IMHO, the mid size Grand Prix took sales from GTO, to trendy buyers.
I had no idea this vehicle existed. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and photos.
I have always liked these. I compare them directly to the Torino, which was my favorite Ford of the late 1960s.
I would still choose a Chevelle, any day though!