I can’t remember a time in my life when I didn’t watch NASCAR. When I was a kid, I’d religiously sit down on Sunday afternoons to The Nashville Network or ESPN and watch my favorite drivers and their nemeses beat and bang on the banked ovals of the Southeast. Dad and I would fight traffic to attend the August race at Michigan International Speedway, where in 1991 we saw one of the greatest finishes in the history of the sport. Of course, my interest in NASCAR in those days led me to study its heritage, and one of my racing heroes of the past had a heck of a year in a ’68 Torino.
Picture courtesy of NASCAR Archives & Research Center via Getty Images
It is my opinion that David Pearson, nicknamed “The Silver Fox” for his wily racecraft and salt-and-pepper locks, was the coolest guy in NASCAR history. Ranking second to King Richard Petty in overall wins with 105, Pearson’s accomplishments become more impressive when one considers that Pearson rarely ran a full season. Even so, he still managed to win three NASCAR Grand National championships, two of them behind the wheel of a fastback Ford Torino in 1968 and 1969. Ford had the hot ticket in 1968, as the Dodge Charger’s beautiful tunneled grille did its best impersonation of a brick wall out on America’s superspeedways. Of course, General Motors had distanced itself from racing (at least officially), so NASCAR was dominated by Fords and Chryslers until factory sponsorship dwindled in the face of the 1970s.
Out in the real world, the ’68 Torino GT that Pearson’s car resembled sold quite well, with over 74,000 fastbacks being built according to the Standard Catalog of Ford, 1903-1998. Most of those Torinos were undoubtedly powered by the small-block 302, but more than a few did their best impersonation of the Silver Fox’s favorite ride by concealing an FE big block under the hood. With the 351 Windsor still being a year away, Ford offered a 390 two barrel as a “gap filler” between the 302 and the 390 four barrel.
A far cry from the race-prepared 427, even this GT’s 390 four barrel had a bit of a reputation as a “stone,” at least according to every old magazine article I’ve ever read, including period road tests in Hot Rod and Car and Driver. Rated at 325 horsepower, quarter mile times in the low-to-mid 15s were standard equipment. It wasn’t until the 428 Cobra Jet became available that the Torino’s motive force was able to match its high-banked image.
None of this is to say that the 390 isn’t a good engine (it is), but Hot Rod went so far as to initiate a letter writing campaign to let Ford know that its street cars were doing their superb racing efforts no favors in terms of maintaining a reputation for performance.
Our featured Torino was a participant in the 2023 Pure Stock Musclecar Drag Race at the Stanton Mid-Michigan Motorplex. I don’t remember what times it ran, but its position near the front of the staging lanes suggests the mid-to-high 14s. Its nearly flat fastback roofline brought back memories of those many hours of watching old race footage from the 1969 NASCAR season on a VHS tape my parents got me for Christmas in the early ’90s. In 1969, Fords were called “The Going Thing,” and between the Torinos and the Mercury Cyclones, they had another outstanding season, with Pearson winning another title (as mentioned above). Even Richard Petty eschewed his normal Plymouth for a Ford in 1969, when Chrysler refused to let him switch to a Dodge Charger Daytona (their definitive answer to the sleek Ford fastbacks). Petty switched back to Plymouth in 1970 when they showed him the new Superbird.
Mercury’s Torino equivalent, the Cyclone (this one a 1969 model), sold for some reason a mere fraction of the number of Torinos Ford was able to peddle. Poor Mercury often found itself in this situation.
Picture courtesy of NASCAR Archives & Research Center via Getty Images
You can’t blame the lack of a NASCAR image either, as the Cyclone was well represented by drivers such as Hall of Famer Cale Yarborough, shown here beside his Boss 429-powered ’69 Cyclone, owned by the famous Wood Brothers, a team that’s still around today.
Picture courtesy of NASCAR Archives & Research Center via Getty Images
David Pearson himself famously drove for the Wood Brothers for the bulk of the 1970s, earning over 40 of his 105 wins in one of the most successful combinations in NASCAR history. The Purolator Mercury was certain to be up front in the big races, as Pearson ran a part-time schedule throughout the 1970s. Never again running for the championship, he settled simply for winning all the time. Indeed, his career stats show that he won almost 20 percent of the races he entered.
Our featured Torino may not have had the performance of its 427-powered (or later Boss 429-powered) Grand National champion contemporaries, but it was perhaps a nicer place to spend one’s time. Though Pearson notoriously had a cigarette lighter installed in his stockers so he could light up during caution periods, he certainly didn’t have luxuries such as a C6 automatic on the column. This particular Torino otherwise looks lightly optioned and mostly original, but that view over the long hood and ample big-block power must make for a nice cruiser these days, even when the owner isn’t out on the strip.
Today, it’s anecdotally rare to see a fastback Torino on the road or at a car meet. Although the sales numbers suggest that it was roughly as popular as the gorgeous (and now stratospherically priced) second-generation Dodge Charger, it’s the Charger that sits in everyone’s dream garage (including mine).
With that being said, the Torino’s beefy NASCAR vibe makes it a very worthy collector car. After all, if it’s good enough for the late, great Mr. Pearson, it’s good enough for anyone.
Great! And yesterday mr. Penske won Nascar again.
Yep, Blaney drove a great race, especially considering that the Fords were basically nowhere this year.
Torinos were incredibly popular as used cars for young men, I assume that’s where they all went .
-Nate
I had a 1968 Fairlane and the fastest thing about it was rust. The floor pan was gone leaving occupants carefully stepping on the frame. No trunk at all.
I really like the styling of all this Fairland/Torino generation. Very handsome cars. It had the only vinyl top I ever liked on any car.
IHad a 69. Yes rust was a real issue especially in upstate NY. Ours had the 351 2v it was a real screamer pinned u to the seat and the hood would suck down under full throttle. We sat on the hood of my 63 fairlane at the drive in Not on the 69. I think the rust issue was exacerbated by the thin sheet metal that made for a light but fragile body
Ever since his incredible feats on short dirt tracks in his battered 1965 Coronet I’ve always considered Pearson to be the best driver.
The problem with the 390 and all the FEs is that the non-hipo versions had heads that just didn’t breathe as well as the mopar B and the Chevys. The right heads and other parts existed since 1960 when the first hipo 352 came out, which was followed by the “Super thunderbird” 390 in 61 and then the 406 and 427. But these were all expensive race-oriented engines. Meanwhile the plain 390 and 428 soldiered on with their old heads until the CJ 428 came out with the 427s heads. It hurt Fords street cred.
A friend of mine owns and restored a 1968 Mustang GTA. One day he had it on the lift when I walked into his shop. The first thing I noticed was the small exhaust pipes. I asked him why the pipes were so small and he told me they were factory original and he wanted to keep the car bone stock.
I didn’t measure them but they looked 1 3/4″ in diameter. No wonder some of the FE Ford’s wouldn’t run.
I never got Ford’s rationale with that, Chevy and Chrysler never seemed to do that, obviously they had certain heads that flowed better, various cam profiles and what have you but for the most part if you buy a performance oriented package you got a performance oriented engine. The Roadrunner 383 with the 440 heads and cam is case in point. Ford had every single performance part for the FE at their disposal the day the first GTO rolled off the line yet didnt make a great street performance version of it until mid 1968.
Yup. “Total Performance” Not.
You could still order a 427 in these, but they were expensive and…only available with the less-than-stellar C6 automatic. I assume for emission reasons?
And I doubt many (if any) of the 427s were sold in ’68. I have no idea why Ford was unwilling to put together a decent performance package for so long. The FE was a proven performance engine when given the right heads.
On the other hand, this WAS the same company that produced four versions of the 351 (including the 352).
As per Marti, no 427s went into 1968 Torinos, or anything else, except for 357 Cougar GTEs. Although the early brochures announced the 427 option for Mustang, Fairlane-Torino and big Ford, it never made production.
In an engineering about-face, it was to have been paired (and was in the Cougars) only with the C6 Auto, as opposed to being 4-speed only previously. Also, this was a hydraulic lifter engine, as opposed to mechanical types previously. The chatter over the years revealed this to have been a less than stellar performer anyway. It was a big-bore-short-stroke design, unlike the more placid 428. As such, it’s peak power output was much higher in the RPM range, where the hydraulic lifters tended to float. There is no solid info as to why this program was cancelled, but my conjecture is the big 6 week long strike in the fall of 1967 played a part. There were all kinds of minor equipment changes
made in later 1968s when production restarted. Too many to list, but one example is the reversion to the 289 as the standard engine in mid-sizers, as opposed to the 302 , likely due to supply issues. They may have found themselves with only 357 427 engines, not enough to supply RPOs in multiple product lines, but perhaps enough to make one limited production special model. The Cougar GTE was that model.
Less than stellar C6? I disagree. Sure that old Car Craft article said is sapped more power than a TH400 or a Torqueflite A-727, but it was a great transmission. The power robbing is exaggerated IMO. Car Craft did not include its methodology. I’d argue it was Ford’s best transmission of the era and on par with the TH400 and the 727. The C6 was very durable and excellent shifting. Talk to a transmission man and they will say the same.
The reality is those that swap from a C4, which is weak but has low rotational mass, to a C6 might lose a couple of tenths in the quarter mile, but gain a lot of durability. Also period drag results of Fords with C6s compared to 4-speeds were not significantly different than GM or Mopars 4-speed vs their autos. The same cannot be said when looking at the 5.0L Mustangs when comparing the 5-speed to the AOD. The early AODs were a poor performance transmission and performance times suffered as a result.
Mea culpa. 🙂
I must have been thinking of the older Ford automatic. It consistently got rather poor reviews (slow shifting, etc.).
Update: I just happened to be reading a CL review of a ’66 Fairlane GTA, with the 390 and “Sportshift” automatic, which I assume is a C6?
They were not very happy with it. Screenshot below:
I forgot to add: they weren’t any to impressed with the 390’s power either. Not competitive to the GTO.
Ford’s transmission mix was kind of confusing in the mid 60’s, but I wonder if that test PN refers to of the 66 Fairlane GT/A 390 used the older FX or MX transmission that was the original “Cruise-O-Matic”. It seems that in 1966 Ford was making the FX, MX, C6, C4, and what you got depended on the model you picked and maybe some luck of the draw.
I just read that the 390 GTA used the new C6.
The 1966 Fairlane with a 390 used a C6. 1966 was the first year for the C6 and it was a one off. It was the “Dual range” or green dot model. It sounds like the article is discussing one of these variants. The C6 was revised in 1967 to be a “Select-Shift” with a new valve body. Regardless, I stand by my assertion that it was a fine transmission, but maybe the earliest version didn’t work as well as others. Every version I have driven shifted very well, comparable to a TH400. I certainly have never experience the issues they discussed with up-shifts or downshifts. It is still used by Ford drag racers today, unlike other Ford transmissions of that era that have become obsolete.
FWIW, I have a colleague that has currently has a 1968 Fairlane powered by a 428 that he drag races. He actually swapped out a 4-speed Toploader and installed a C6. His performance did not suffer at all while his consistency went up.
There were 2 C6s in 1966. The Green Dot version went into everything except the Fairlane GTA and Cyclone GT. Those did have the D-2-1 pattern. This was, of course, standardized in 1967.
You’re right Roger, I forgot about the GTAs not using the dual range. Regardless, I know the C6 was revised in 1967, and the 1966 versions are typically avoided. The behavior described in the article cited by Paul is atypical for this transmission. Here are a few other period quotes on the Ford C6 transmission:
“Hooked to the crisp shifting Cruise-O-Matic transmission, our 390 GT V-8 ran beautifully in traffic, and caught on quick to running acceleration tests.” Car Life on Test of a 1968 Torino GT with a 390 and C6.
“The automatic transmission accompanying the 428 Engine was in character with it. Shifts under full power came instantly, with force sufficient to spin the tires for a few feet. In traffic the shifts are still firm but not harsh.” Car Life test of a 1969 Mustang Mach 1 428 CJ equipped with a C6, which it also called, “The quickest standard passenger car through the quarter mile we’ve ever tested” running a 13.90 @ 103.32 mph.
Even Cars Magazines, who was big on performance and hard on Fords, said this of their 1969 Mustang, “Our test car was equipped with Ford’s excellent C-6 three-speed auto”
I’ve been watching some of the races NASCAR uploaded to their YouTube page. In 1973, Pearson started 19 or 30 races and still finished third in the championship. Out of those 19, he had 5 DNFs. Therefore, in the 14 races he finished, he won 11 of them, was second twice, and third once. The guy was a rock star. I couldn’t believe it when he didn’t make the first round of the Hall of Fame, because he’s the best ever.
Outstanding find, pics and bio info as always Aaron, thank you. As NASCAR was so heavily presented on the major networks in the late ’70s and early ’80s, I naturally became a fan of Pearson, Yarborough, Baker, Petty, Waltrip, and others.
But seeing late ’60s Fords of any kind on the street, was a serious rarity growing up in Ottawa, in the mid to late ’70s. They typically rusted to bits, well before a decade. Sadly, these were near impossible to spot, after 1975-’76.
Thanks Daniel! I think NASCAR’s golden age was the ’70s, although they were still pretty good when I was growing up in the ’80s and ’90s. I’ll watch almost any auto racing today because I love cars, but it’s a little watered down with gimmicks these days (at least in NASCAR).
To my eye the boxiness from the beltline down dates the styling to the mid 60s, they look more like a facelifted 66 Fairlane with a fastback roofline added… essentially like a first gen Charger. Compared to the curvy 68 GM A bodies and Chrysler B bodies and even the 67+ AMC Rebel the Torino looks a full cycle behind, however I’ll give them credit in being particularly attractive within the boxy paradigm, where the early Charger’s fastback proportions look a bit off at certain angles the Torino fastback looks svelte and muscular. Nonetheless I prefer the styling 70-71 sportsroof bodystyle to these, which to me as a is every bit as attractive as the 68-70 Charger, but as I understand it, similarly, the aero was actually disappointing in Nascar.
I agree with everything you said (except the ’70-’71 Sportsroof being as attractive as a second-gen Charger, although I do like them).
Sitting in the drivers seat the 68 and 69 felt just right. The sight of the hipped rear fender in the side view looked like the view from a gt40. My fraternity brother had the mercury with the 390 it did run out of breath over 80 and i could match him in my 63 fairlane i dropped a boss 302 motor into. We topped out at 145 mph on i75 south of toledo. He was shocked that i could stay with him up to his max.
Back in 1978 while living in Montgomery Alabama a coworker needed help dragging an old car home for the engine. The car was a ’68 Torino GT fastback with a 428. The car was rust free, straight with no missing parts and had 61,000 miles on the clock. I asked why he was going to pull the engine out of a good car and he said “you can’t find these 428 engines”. He was building a ’65 Galaxie.
To add insult to injury he only paid $50 for the car. Old muscle cars were a dime a dozen and cheap in those days.
Ouch! That Cobra Jet Torino would be worth a bit these days, certainly more than a ’65 Galaxie (with anything but a 427).
I can’t get over the dash in these. Four individual gauge recesses stuck onto what could be a slightly padded railway sleeper. Strange.
I quite like the fastback styling though.
I remember thinking these fastbacks were really cool cars when they came out. I especially liked the rear end treatment. But you are right, I cannot recall the last time I saw one of these in modern times. GM and Mopar performance cars are everywhere today, but the Fords (other than Mustangs) have virtually gone extinct, despite probably outselling the Mopar versions by more than a little.
I will also confess that the interiors of these cars are underwhelming, even in the era when plastics and vinyls were replacing chrome. I went once to look at a 69 Fairlane, and the interior was really plain compared to even the plain interiors of GM and Mopars of that period.
A 390 hipo engine whether 320, 325, 335 horse was competitive with a 325 horse 396 or 325/330 horse 383. Fords problem was that they didn’t offer a 350 0r higher horse version for the street and they suffered for it. As has been so accurately stated in these comments the 428 CJ dealt with the problem effectively but a couple of years late to the party. All the bench racing banter that portrays the 390 as a boat anchor is just another effort of the ignorant to feel better about their own choices. As a Mopar fan and the owner of a 1967 RT and 71Roadrunner during the era, I had friends with other super cars of various makes and none of them were slouches and all of them had a fair chance of winning when brought up against a comparable adversary. But as one philosopher used to say “perception is reality”.
You’re right that the road tests of the era didn’t show the 390 to be much, if any, slower than the equivalent 396/383 offerings. As a Ford kid growing up (nondenominational now), I perceived some anti-Ford bias from some journalists of the period. They’d make fun of a 390 Mustang’s times, but a 396/350 Chevelle would run the same times and they’d talk about its potential.
Let’s face it though, the 396’s reputation came from the 375/425 horse versions, and as you said, that’s where Ford was lacking. They didn’t have a practical solid-lifter or bigger cubic inch engine to step up to, at least in their “smaller” cars.
Your comment about potential is what always hit home for me. As a road test collector, you are right that the 390 Torinos were running similar times to 396 Chevelles – stock. However, the big difference is that the 396 was very easy to modify to run much quicker with in comparison to the Ford 390. Same goes a Mopar 383. Even today, look at the Pure stock drags and they are dominated by Chevrolet and Mopars. These cars aren’t stock but have been messaged within the rules. The times some of them get out of these cars is drastically quicker than the old roads tests. Yet, the Ford FEs are don’t seem to be overly common at the races and are rarely if ever top contenders.
Look at these results from show the culmination of all runs since 1998 for the Pure Stock results. The only Fords are small blocks with the “Cleveland” heads – a Boss 302 and Boss 351. These are two of Fords best from the era IMO.
https://www.psmcdr.com/all-time-lists
Yeah, the lack of Fords at the Pure Stock Drags is conspicuous, and they are never among the top pairings. The fastest Fords are usually 429 Torinos, which often get down into the 13s. It’s too bad that the 429 Cobra Jet wasn’t used until the ’70 Torino came out; I think it was a little heavy to run with the quickest supercars, but the trap speeds were pretty high, so they were making power.
I agree that the 385 series engines were excellent engines and competitive with the Big Block Chevrolets and Mopars. Had the 429 SCJ been offered in the 1970 Mustang, things might have been different. Those 429 Torinos are heavy, usually well over 4000 lbs, but still run good times. Motor Trend tested a 1970 Torino 429 CJ against a LS6 Chevelle and a 440 Road Runner, and it was very competitive with them.
A friend of mine’s next project. Original 428 R-Code long gone. I vote for the 390 he has in his shop, as I always like to see an FE in it’s natural habitat. However, his wife has allowed him
to open the purse strings to put a set of these on the 429 he also has a line on.
https://jonkaaseracingengines.com/shop/boss-nine-parts/kaase-boss-nine-cylinder-heads/
Those heads are more expensive than half the cars I’ve bought! Will he have to modify the shock towers?
I didn’t ask but something tells me no…these have a wider engine bay than Mustangs.
I favored the more “formal roof line”, coupe.
We habe several 69 torinos, one 351 4 Barrel GT convertible (wife’s) a 69 GT 390 S code formal roof, one of 151 in red, a 69 Squire wagon, one of 319, last, a 68 Ranchero GT 390 Y code. Seems they are not selling well anymore.
I agree, my first new car was a’69 428 CJ 4 speed.. I picked the hard top, because I thought the car was too large for a fast back.
Was just at the Wood Brothers shop in Stuart Va this summer, and look what’s there.
Hope the photo posts this time.
Never mind, can’t get the pic to post. They have the ‘71 Cyclone in the shop and a bunch of other cars. Worth a visit.
Hey Timmy,
If you reduce the picture size, it should post.
Bought a 1969 R code Cobra fastback from the original owner back in 1985.
Traded a 1969 Mustang I had bought before I got married in 2002 for a 1970 429 CJ 4speed Cyclone Spoiler.
Sometimes life and plans don’t work the way you want. Been sitting for years