(first posted 7/23/2013) Spotted outside a Conroe, Texas transmission shop, here’s a relic of those days when it seemed as though almost every domestic vehicle line featured one or more muscle-car versions. Not to mention a time when ‘Torino’ stood for something other than a synonym for brougham-y excess.
Throughout much of the ‘60s, Ford’s intermediate Fairlane series, although popular, came off as rather staid when compared with the contemporary offerings of GM and Chrysler. An extensive restyling job, in the longer-lower-wider idiom, was intended to rectify that for 1968. This update would also include a split in model designations: “Fairlane” and “Fairlane 500” would designate lower versions, and upscale models would henceforth be Torinos.
Oldcarbrochures.com
The Torino GT was promoted as a premium ‘sport’ model, although most of its drivetrain hardware was available in lesser versions. Four body styles were available in GT trim: notchback two-door, convertible, Ranchero and, as you see here, a heavily-raked fastback, dubbed ‘SportsRoof’ in sales literature. But that’s not all–the latter body style was perhaps best known in the form of some fairly successful NASCAR racers, of which street versions were sold under the Cobra and (with a modified, more aerodynamic front end) Talladega nameplates for 1969. And then, there was the Montego-based Mercury Cyclone, which made something of a splash as well; however, we’ll limit today’s discussion to the Torino GT.
Definitely pushing the Cobra, hereThe ’68 refresh produced decent sales and carried over, with some powertrain and trim changes, for the ’69 model year. All engine choices for ’69 Torino GTs were V8s, starting with a standard 302 two-barrel and continuing through two-and four-barrel 351s (now newly available for Fairlane variants), the long-serving 390 and, at the top of the line, the 428 Cobra Jet.
The subject car is pretty much in the middle, equipment-wise. Assuming it retains its original drivetrain, the emblems on its fender flanks signal 351 Windsor power, and dual exhausts mark it as the four-barrel version, rated at 290 HP.
These were fairly popular vehicles in their day; of over 350,000 Fairlane/Torinos of all types built for 1969, more than 81,000 were Torino GTs. Nevertheless, it was the last gasp of the era before emissions controls and crashworthiness regulations sapped all the energy of the domestic industry, and competition was fierce. Thus did this particular body shell last only two years before its replacement in 1970 by a much more curvaceous shape atop essentially the same platform. While the 428 Cobra Jet-equipped versions of 1968-69 seem to have quite a following, lesser-motored examples seem to have pretty much gone the way of the dodo.
Back to the featured car. Judging from the windshield stickers…
… this one hasn’t been on the road for some time. However, it appears to be solid, the paint and striping look original, and it’s likely to have been garaged most of its life.
In my view there are no really bad angles on this car, but still the front aspect is probably the least interesting, featuring a rather nondescript, Oldsmobile-like grill flanked by modest fender extensions housing the parking lights. Apparently, standard GTs sported a non-functional hood scoop which could be deleted for credit, which is probably the case here. The hood pins might be aftermarket, apparently being standard on Cobra versions but not on GTs.
To me, the front ¾-view is the best one for this particular body style. I like the contrast between the top front and bottom rear curves of the side windows, the chrome ‘gills’ and the hunched rear fenders.
The tail’s not bad either. The concave rear panel is set off by lashings of shiny metal trim, the better to blind following drivers–and I can’t imagine being able to see much out through that backlight.
Sorry for the poor quality of the interior photo, but at least one can see that the original owner, perhaps wanting to save a few bucks or just make it easier to keep their Significant Other close during a Friday night cruise, opted for the standard front bench seat. This one looks to be an automatic–I was unable to determine whether this particular setup was a factory installation, but normally the floor-mounted shifter came with the optional front buckets and center console. The telltale presence of a panel atop the steering column suggests it may have started out with a column-mounted shifter.
Previous CC comments on these cars indicate that more folks seem to prefer the notchback two-door; while they are handsome indeed, I’m drawn to the SportsRoof just for its pure extravagance of line. Unfortunately, by all reports they were relatively clumsy handlers in either form. Some of this may be due to the almost absurd forward weight bias (I’ve seen 70% quoted) of the big-block machines. Maybe the 351 installation results in a better-balanced car, or maybe not. As with so many cars of its era, drum brakes were standard all around, but I would hope this one has the optional front discs.
Bottom line: I’m a sucker for ’60s ultra-fastbacks–and this one, I like.
Thank you Sir,a man of your word!I can’t understand why these and their Mercury relations weren’t more popular.I hardly ever see them compared to the GM and Mopar opposition at shows or in magazines,beautiful looks and plenty of performance should have made these a lot more popular
Its funny, but these were pretty popular back when new, certainly outselling the Mopar versions. But as time went on, these were bigger rusters than the GM and Mopar cousins, and also I think that the Mustang sucked most of the oxygen out of the room among Ford lovers. Also, as far as pure performance, I don’t think these were quite the cars that the competition were, either.
Still, I am like you and surprised that these are not better represented today at shows today.
Right. There seem to be a finite # of 60s Ford and Chrysler lovers and among the Ford guys, Mustang guys are like Harley Davidson guys. Their love is boundless (sometimes illogical) and deep.
Wow my first car at 18 was a 1968 Ford Fairlane 500 fastback. While not the fully loaded Torino, as a young driver it was a slick looking car, if not really a sporty driver. Mine had the 289 but no power brakes, and no power steering. You really had to hold on and yank that steering wheel. It was a very pale blue, almost white color with a beautiful dark blue interior. It did not handle that well, it it sure looked fast!
The rest of the model line didn’t do much for me, but I was in love with these sportsroof models. This car looked to me (at about age 9 when they came out) as the perfect larger companion to the Mustang. The notchbacks were boring, but these were just plain cool, especially with the wheels on this car.
I never spent any time around one of these, though I did have some passenger seat time in the 66-67 Fairlane, so these were probably similar. Ford certainly got a lot of mileage out of this basic platform, with all of the Mustangs, Falcons, Cougars and so on that shared the basic innards of this car. I recall that these were plagued by the squeaky suspension bushings like in the Falcons and Mavericks.
Nah, give me the notchback every time. I’m not crazy about the fat backend this fastback roof creates.
I had a 1969 Ford Fairlane 500 without the sport roof.
It was a very nice car. It was then, about fifteen years old. I was just learning to drive and it was available in the family’s car pool. My first car was too good and my mom ended up with it, leaving this car behind for me to practice with. It was completely rusted out through the floor. It had no trunk. The floor right before the rear seats was gone on both sides.
The front end was loose. It rusted so badly the front end couldn’t be stablized. Going over railroad tracks I just gave up trying to control the steering wheel and let it spin around, grabbing it when I had finished crossing.
It had the 302. Very simple layout in the engine bay. Super simple, like my old Falcon. You could easily access any part of the engine. Tune ups were easy.
It was a good looking car, but it had been completely ruined by rust. I suspect that this is why we don’t see many on the road today.
My dad sold it for $50 and the last I saw it was from a photograph taken of it after it was rear-ended on the expressway. Naturally, without a trunk floor you could imagine that it had nothing to stop the other vehicle. The trunk collapsed completely to the rear seat in a spectacular fashion, hence the photo to show how unbelievable it appeared.
But I always liked this car.
I like your parent’s method: “Here kid – learn to drive on this old POS that is virtually uncontrollable. If you can learn to handle this, anything else you drive will be a breeze.” 🙂
This reminds me of my friend Liz. Here parents let her buy a completely clapped out 75? Nova sedan with nearly nonexistent brakes, broken seatbelt latches, and a front passenger door that liked to open on free will. Us friends nicknamed it the “hot pistol”, because it had such a distinctive metallic smell once warmed up. Between the door, lack of working seatbelt, and steel dash, it was likely the only car where one would argue as to who got to sit in the rear. First time Liz and I were to go together solo I refused the front seat. She was borderline offended, but I held firm. Long story short, upon the second left turn we made under speed, that front passenger door flew wide open. Liz quickly lost her attitude about being the chauffeur. To this day, us friends are still appalled her parents let her drive that death trap.
Definitely some Mustang DNA in that Sportsroof and the rear end in general. Personally it is my favorite body style on these too, but I certainly wouldn’t turn down a convertible version. This one certainly seems to be pretty well preserved and I’m a sucker for white interior on a red car.
I’ve always been a fan of the fastback body style, especially on huge ’60s muscle cars like the Torino GT. I had a 1/18 scale car model of this exact car when I was a kid!
My favorite ’60s fastback has to be the 1966-67 Dodge Charger. Full-width taillights are a design element that really complements the roofline. The 1967 full-size Plymouth VIP and Chrysler Newport semi-fastbacks were also a sight to behold.
For some reason I never liked the “fastback” styling. It just doesn’t ring with me; and since I had friends who had fathers or brothers with fastbacks of various labels…I know: You can’t see out the back; the backlight is a skylight with all the heat and other issues. Headroom in the back is often non-existent. Yada yada.
My introduction to these was with the new Ford dealer opening in a building and lot that had been vacant since before we moved to the area. We lived across from the city park, with its Little League ball diamonds; on the other side of that park, at one end, was this vacant store.
Builders were adding onto the rear of what had been vacant. Today I’d recognize it as a steel-girder-framed giant pole barn…it was to be the shop. But then the car haulers started arriving…and off-loading these NEW! cars I’d never seen. Looked like Mustangs but weren’t Mustangs. Driving them right through the framed overhead doors, to park under the naked girders of the soon-to-be back-shop.
The Torinos didn’t leave in a crusher, so they apparently sold, somehow. Although they were never that overly popular in our middle-class neighborhood. And the Ford dealer survived…until 1982, when he quit Ford and started selling Chevrolet. Apparently he thought highly of Iacocca – wonder what his kids, who were in some of my high-school classes and now own the place, think of the GM mess now?
Anyway…that’s how I’ll always remember this car. The strange one coming off the carriers while I was waiting my turn at bat in our junior little league match.
I always thought that the fastback spruced up the relatively boring styling of the 1968-69 Fairlanes. These Torino GT’s weren’t the most exciting cars to come from Detroit during this time, but they were nice simple clean designs. I always wondered why die-hard Ford enthusiasts of this era focus so much on the Mustang and ignore everything else in Ford’s line-up. I mean, under the skin these car’s weren’t that much different from a Mustang. These Torino’s had performance that was on par with it’s rivals, and if anything a 428 CJ typically was quicker than a 396 Chevelle. And sure they had rusting problems, but I am still surprised how few of these cars I see today. It seems not many are interested in saving these intermediate Fords.
One interesting point of discussion (slightly off topic). There has been discussion amongst Ford enthusiast on the proper naming of the “Cobra” model. Most seem to agree that it is the “Fairlane Cobra”, while others have called in the “Torino Cobra” (generally considered incorrect). If you look at the Ford literature from 1969, it only ever says “Cobra” with no mention of Fairlane of Torino. In 1970, it was clearly the “Torino Cobra”. To me, it seems that Ford was trying to make a entire new model name of the car, like the Plymouth Road Runner which the Cobra was a direct response to (nobody called it the Belvedere Road Runner). So I think the car should be labeled simply as the “Ford Cobra”.
The featured car looks to be an unrestored original car. It would make a great project vehicle, with it’s solid sheetmetal.
I think the proper nomenclature depends largely on the year. The first year (1969), the Cobra was based off the Fairlane model, but the next year (the final for the Fairlane name), the Cobra was based off the Torino.
It’s also interesting that during the one year the notchback Cobra was available (1969), it was more expensive than the fastback. According to the ad, it looks like it was only $25 more, though.
It’s worth mentioning that the 1969 Cobra came ‘standard’ with the 428CJ. For the money (average MSRP of $3200), it was ‘the’ performance bargain of the decade, beating out the cheaper (but slower) Road Runner and little known stuff like the one year only 1969 Chevelle SS396 300 sedan.
Speaking of the latter, if you wanted what can only be described as one of the best (and cheapest) sleepers, ever, a 428CJ was available in a non-Cobra, 1970½ bargain-basement Ford Falcon pillared 2-door sedan.
Here’s a great summation of the ’69 428CJ by Patrick Bedard in Car and Driver (I believe the article was titled ’10 Best Street Machines’):
“The 428 had…a lethargic way about it: it wasn’t zingy like a Chevy,” recalled Patrick Bedard for a 1990 Car and Driver retrospective. “But it had earth-mover torque, and it stayed in tune — exactly what street racers needed. It was good with an automatic, too: just punch it and hang on. Which meant that every CJ was a threat no matter what kind of yahoo was in the chair.”
I know that the Cobra was based on the Fairlane, and it even had the Fairlane body code (which is why most refer to it as the Fairlane Cobra). My point was most enthusiasts today call it the Fairlane Cobra, yet Ford never did in any literature that I can find. It is always simply “Cobra.” The Road Runner was based on the Belevedre, but nobody calls it the Belevedre Road Runner. I don’t know, I thought it was an interesting point…
The 70 1/2 Falcon was just a VERY plain Torino. It did not have the 428 CJ available as an option, the 429 CJ replaced that engine for 1970 in the intermediate Fords.
My bad. I’d forgotten that the 428CJ was replaced by the 429CJ in 1970.
But the point is valid that the engine formerly known as the 428CJ was available in the 1970½ Falcon. Although it was a different engine, it would still be a very cheap, very non-descript, very fast musclecar. It was more in keeping with the stated mission of the Cobra than the Cobra itself. Unfortunately, it wasn’t promoted by Ford, few knew about it, and fewer still were built.
Yes, I would agree with you on the Falcon with the 429 CJ would be a cheap and fast muscle car. I wonder how many (if any) were actually made.
One 70 1/2 429 CJ 4dr Falcon was made. Don’t know how many 2drs. I’ve seen the car in collecter mags and I’ve seen the Marti report.
Around 160 or so Falcon 2-doors had the 429 CJ.
Fairlanes and Torinos with the same engine are much rarer.
The 428 makes more sense if you remember it was basically a bored-and-stroked 390. The CJ added what I think were essentially 427 heads and manifold, but the basic architecture was more “station wagon” than “street racer.”
I remember reading Pat Bedard’s article – I may have it wrong, but I thought he said Ford engines, prior to the 428 CJ, had a tendency to be lethargic, citing the 390 in particular. But that all changed with the 428 CJ (and SCJ) – which were super strong motors that could compete with Chevy’s 427 and Chrysler’s 440.
I drove a 69 428 CJ Mustang once in the early 70s – I’d have to agree with his assessment – it was a beast; loping idle, hair trigger throttle, and amazingly quick……
Very true. Having owned and built for ‘FE’ style engines like this, Ford made some critical tactical errors with them.
The 390 GT, as it appeared in the Mustang, Cougar, Fairlane, etc was a dog because they used pedestrian cylinder heads, intake and very restrictive exhaust manifolds. This meant that the 390 GT was not a match for SS396’s and performance 383 mopars. Once the 390 GT had a reputation as a dog, that reputation was hard to shake.
The 428CJ had much better heads, intake and far better exhaust manifolds. It was a much more complete performance package than the 390 GT.
My Dad is a GM guy and would take an GM product over a Ford with two exceptions.
1. Mustang
2. Fastbacks.
The guy has always had a thing for fastbacks.
One of my favorite body styles from the ’60s, although I prefer the Cyclone for its added rarity, slightly cleaner look and nicer interior. I like that these cars were more than just a styling exercise; they were highly functional aerodynamically as race cars. A 351W 4-speed Torino GT fastback would be just about perfect, IMO. Plenty of power with a lot less weight over the front end vs. the uber-heavy 428 CJ FE motor.
The Torino fastback body style was very successful in NASCAR, especially in the extended/droop-nosed Talladega form, pretty much dominating the super speedways until the Dodge Daytona/Plymouth Superbird winged wonders took NASCAR Grand National racing by storm. So much so that Ford even induced King Richard Petty to jump the MOPAR ship for the 1969 season with a factory-backed Boss 429-powered Talladega. Even after the ’70-’71 Torino/Cyclone body style came out most Ford NASCAR team preferred this older fastback style for its much better aero stability at high speeds on the super speedways.
The beaked 70 models were a step back in style to me.The 68/69 models are just right
Like the 1970-71 Thunderbird ‘Beak-Birds’, the 1970-71 Mercury intermediates, with their similar protruding nose, have Bunkie Knudson written all over them.
I preferred the 1970-71 styling to the 1968-69, but I tend to favour more exciting design. I do generally prefer the performance models over the more plain versions. The 68-69 was just a little too plain, not that I disliked it, just I though the 1970-71 captured the “muscle car” spirit better.
As for the 1970 design, people are quick to say that Bunkie Knudson was responsible. That said, the car was actually designed by Joe Oros. It was one of the few cars of the time where one man performed most of the styling. The car was actually designed as the Montego and was put into competition with several other designs. Oros’ car was actually the back up design and the only one of 12 clays done in red vs the silver di-noc of the other cars. It was Lee Iacocca who fell in love with Oros car and after narrowing the choices down it became the winner. This was also the time that it became the Torino instead of the Montego.
Oros said the following of the 1970 Torino “The 1970 Torino grew out of a combination of free-wheel styling, constrained time requirements, and accidental occurrences that would never happen again at Ford during the next 26 years I was there…Yes, there were many other vehicles I designed, but this was the most inspiring and enjoyable to me.”
Credit for the ’70 Torino styling actually goes to Ford designer Bill Shenk. Link: http://www.torinocobra.com/articles/birth_of_torino.htm
Sorry, your right about Shenk. I pulled the article but I misread the name of the designer. The article I used was the same one you posted, from one of my editions of the Fairlainer. Point is, it wasn’t a Knudson car.
I agree in preferring the 70-71 design, the 68 front end is just too plain. Other than the more prominent beak the 1970 Torino actually resembles the 1972 XA Falcon. They initially looked at building a ‘bobbed’ (de-overhanged) Torino but it just looked odd so the US-Aus team (including Jack Telnack) did a separate Falcon.
A mate of mine drove one as a seasonal worker allover OZ for 3 years it was a XB tudor 302 Manual and just kept going the guy drives a Ford V8 today because of it though Fords 2 model to get it right then change again became predictable in the end there were some good intermediate models and that one didnt rust quite as fast as the XA which is as good but evaporates anywhere salty and tropical.
My grandfather’s last new car…yes I come from a long family of gear heads. Grandpa purchased his 1968 GT at Top Ford in Bellaire Ohio…turqoise blue with black racing strips with a manual transmission and no power steering. The last car that offered a 60yr old some muscle but still fit the wife and four grand children for church on Sunday. As the youngest and “gear head” heir he was always shocked I liked his daily driver much better-a 1963 Black Galaxie with red interior. When he passed away it was too much car for Granny so my father took it downtown and traded it in on a plain Jane 1976 Nova….
I was 15 when these came out and I thought Ford really missed the mark, being the precocious kid that I was. I thought that tossing a fastback on regular old coupes was silly, especially on mid-size or larger cars. The original Charger was simply a fastback Coronet 500. The Marlin just a Rambler with a bustleback. Geez, even the first Barracuda was a boring Valiant with a big butt.
Now, I kinda like these, maybe more for their rarity than anything else. I betcha if I found a nice one on eBay I’d probably make an offer.
I liked the looks of these fastback Torinos when they came out, but of all the cars I’ve owned, only the 65 and 67 Barracudas were fastbacks.
Look at the very first photo and notice how there’s a spot in the chrome on the bumper right where water would drip onto it from the gap between the hood and fender. Apparently this was a problem with chromium plating in general – I have noticed the same thing on 1965 Chrysler front bumpers.
Great write up, did not know the Torino line sold so well in ’69. I would have expected fewer sales with the hot ’69 Chevelle and Mustang Fastback in the mix. ’69 was a great year for Ford now that I think about it, the LTD was off the charts gorgeous.
The Torino front end was too AMC Rebel-ish for me, as were some aspects of the side view, but the GT was lower and sleeker. Only the taillamps were pure Ford. Why in the world didn’t they offer hidden headlamps, at least on the GT?
In my neck of the woods these were on the ground for years (no rust) but always in that mint green and, for some reason, with the 390. Gosh how I miss Ford’s engine displacement emblems.
I believe this was one of the first domestic cars without the front vent windows. It must have looked quite contemporary in its day.
Colour me a fan I like the fastback style and this looks nicer than the Husky and Starch white stripe Tomato that was so well known this appears to be pre 70s bloat that ruined American cars just ahead of the emissions coffin nails.
+1
Your criticism about US brands and tastes is amazing when you consider…
* Our Big 3 are making a remarkable comeback.
* The most popular cars on this site are US makes from the bloat and emission eras. These cars were loved then and are loved now. Their fatal flaw was lousy fuel economy when the oil supply suddenly went dry.
* You have only three car manufacturers left, and two of them are American.
* Every Australian product sent to our shores has failed miserably. The dated GTO, the brittle G8 and let’s not forget the Capri. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit to learn Holden did the engineering work on the Solstice.
* GM goes to great lengths to say “this is not a Holden platform” at new car intros.
* US automotive tastes are a bit specific, you are correct. What you don’t know is that Australian tastes are more like ours than any other country except Canada. That’s why every manufacturer has left your shores except the two Americans, and Toyota. Toyota is everywhere so that doesn’t count. You like our brands and styles, always have.
You either don’t know any of this or do and are extremely jealous.
Get off my lawn!!!
I have a question for the Ford folks here.
If one was hypothetically shopping for a Galaxie or Torino today, and didn’t want to pay the price premium that a 400+CI engine demands, what is the best drivetrain combination to look for?
Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go? 😛
If you are looking to stay stock naturally the 351V8 with a 4brrl is going to be a higher HP higher torque engine than a 302.
If you go bigger than 351 then you hit the 400+ big blocks you were talking about paying a premium for.
I think a 302-2V would be a little on the anemic side in cars this size unless you somehow contrived to order it with a four-speed.
A 70 Torino with a 302 2bbl/auto/2.75 rear gear one that weighed 3500 lbs did 0-60 in 10.5 seconds in a CR test report I have. I imagine a 69 would be similar.
The 351C-4V (Cleveland) has the most power potential without getting into aftermarket heads etc, but the more modern Windsor-based stuff is better (as it should be with 40 years’ development). At that point you are probably spending more than a big block car but should also be going faster!
I would want a V8/ Cruise-O-Matic. In the Torino I would be happy with a 302, but I would want a 390 in a Galaxie. A 390 Torino would probably carry some of that performance (?!?) price premium that you speak of. I do loves me the FE.
When it comes to small block V8s in 60s cars I’ve always liked the “smaller” small blocks the Ford 289 V8 (4brrl non-K code please) and Chevy 283 V8 for a good real world performance vs cost. Although I like the Ford better because of the easier availability of 3 speed autos instead of the 2 speed Powerglide that almost every 283 lives in front of. However I prefer the small V8s in more compact rides like the Mustang or Chevy II/Nova.
Intermediate and full size cars 60s cars however I’d rather have the big block and automatic because of the sheer mass being moved around.
I love the 289 as well, but he said Torino, and I believe that the 302 had replaced the 289 by 68 when the Torino came out. I went automatic on the Torino because anything with the 4 speed would likely carry the performance car premium, and a 3 on the tree would be a hard-to-find oddball.
And I clarified that I only like the 289 in small cars and the Torino is by no means a small car. BTW 1968 was the last year of production for the 289 and only in 2brrl form. Kind of a sad exit really but then the 302 was just a stroked 289 or more like an improved 289.
Little known fact-The 289 replaced the 302 later in the 1968 model year as the base V8 Intermediate and Cougar-Mustang V8, and also became the standard Torino GT engine, due to a shortage of 302s. This was but one of the effects of the more than 2 month long UAW strike in the fall of ’67. The work stoppage monkey wrenched Ford’s product plans badly, also forcing them to cancel the 427 CID Hydraulic lifter option in all lines but the Cougar GTE. Once work resumed, there was quite a lot of minor decontenting
in all the lines in an attempt to restore lost profits.
Early specs
late
If you want to know EVERYTHING about Ford’s 60’s Small Blocks I can’t recommend Bob Mannels magnum opus enough. Google it, go to his web page, and by god make the purchase. You won’t regret it.
The opposite happened in Australia, the change to the 302 was due to happen with the new XT model in March 1968, but they ran out of 289s before the changeover so the last of the previous model went out the door with 302s.
On the local Falcon range I agree but Ive seen the Aussie Galaxie range and it mirrors what NZ got and that FE motor is well reguarded in the NZ speedway scene juggle the right parts in and it breathes fire.
Well, the 289/302/351/352 are all quite affordable. 390s are a bit more, but not unreasonably so.
I care more about originality than speed, but I don’t want to be thinking “Man, this thing makes my Diplomat seem fast”.
I have a soft spot for the 390, and building one into a genuine fire-breathing FE monster is something everyone should get to do at least once in their lifetime, but in stock trim the 390 is underwhelming. And if you’re planning performance upgrades anyway, a 351 Windsor is probably your best bet on a dollar per horsepower basis.
I lived through that era.
The Ford 302 in the early years of smog garbage…was a reasonably economical engine. We had two 1968 Galaxies…both 302s with Cruise-O-Matics. The one was a company car; my old man was changing jobs but liked the car. The other, he bought to replace the company car, since he couldn’t buy the car from the company.
Reasonably powerful, high-teens on fuel.
In 1973, the rotted-out Galaxie went in for a Torino with a Cleveland 351. Heavier on the smog equipment. Comparable power in a heavier car, as big as the Galaxie was and with more weight.
Much, much more thirsty – EIGHT miles a gallon. Again, Cruise-O-Matic.
How much of that thirst was due to emissions equipment? That’s anyone’s guess; but the rule of thumb is, when you have the horses, they have to be fed. So I’d say…make sure you can afford it before you wind up owning a big Ford V8.
I had the notch version of the 1969 Torino GT as my very first car. I bought it from my older brother who’d owned it for six years before me. For five years before that, one of the truck mechanics at the company we worked for had it. He “warmed” up the 390 ci/4 speed when rebuilding the engine in 1974. It ran real well, so much that my older brother removed the spring to actuate the secondaries on the Holley carb, for better fuel mileage. Guess what was the first mod that I did on the car?
The car was an upgrade of the previous Fairlane model, a little bigger here and there. The boxy body was contemporary with all of the other mid sizers from the era. I had a friend who owned a Dodge Coronet 500, we found we could fit as many cases of beer in his trunk as I could in mine. He had a 383/TQ, my GT was better off of the line, but the Coronet had a better top end. I’m sure we could have repeated these experiments with all of the other similar low end big block cars from the era, with similar results.
By the time I had the car it was a 11 year old, 180K mile rust bucket that was only good for smoky burnouts. In the year or so I owned the car, I replaced a ton of parts (sounds familiar?) only to have rust make the structure so shaky that I sold it off. With the proceeds I purchased the first Mercury from Hell(TM), my leftover 1980 Capri RS Turbo…
I had the notch version of the 1969 Torino GT as my very first car. I bought it from my older brother who’d owned it for six years before me. For five years before that, one of the truck mechanics at the company we worked for had it. He “warmed” up the 390 ci/4 speed when rebuilding the engine in 1974. It ran real well, so much that my older brother removed the spring to actuate the secondaries on the Holley carb, for better fuel mileage. Guess what was the first mod that I did on the car?
The car was an upgrade of the previous Fairlane model, a little bigger here and there. The boxy body was contemporary with all of the other mid sizers from the era. I had a friend who owned a Dodge Coronet 500, we found we could fit as many cases of beer in his trunk as I could in mine. He had a 383/TQ, my GT was better off of the line, but the Coronet had a better top end. I’m sure we could have repeated these experiments with all of the other similar low end big block cars from the era, with similar results.
By the time I had the car it was a 11 year old, 180K mile rust bucket that was only good for smoky burnouts. In the year or so I owned the car, I replaced a ton of parts (sounds familiar?) only to have rust make the structure so shaky that I sold it off. With the proceeds I purchased my first Mercury from Hell(TM), my leftover 1980 Capri RS Turbo…
It’s interesting to see this in terms of the overall Falcon/Fairlane family, as one of the bodystyles we didn’t get in Australia. Ford had previous generation hardtops that only sold about 5000 units in approx 2 years 1964-66 (no “model year” changes in Australia).
The next generation in 1972 (unique to Australia, the ‘Mad Max’ car) brought the hardtop back, and sold roughly 20,000 units in 6 years. I don’t have figures to hand but the sales were weighted toward the first half of production rather than the back end, but also more high-trim cars were sold which helps profit margins.
For the 2nd gen the closest they came to a hardtop was a 2-door sedan motor show special in 1968, which previewed some of the features of the 1969 GT. It was supposed to have a 428 under the hood, but that was never confirmed, and local Fords never had big blocks from the factory, fuel prices made that prohibitive.
The graphics & other GT features are similar also, the 1969 Falcon GT had hood pins, scoop and blackouts, side stripes, blackout panel on the trunk and it ran the M-code 351-4V.
http://www.falcongtclub.org/i/XWGT_F117.jpg
For the sake of clarity, the M-code was not an Australian designation, the GT engine (all 351-4V) was T-code.
Thanks for the Great write-up.
My dad was a sucker for the 68-9 Torinos. He had 3: a 68 GT with a 390 and 4 speed, a 69 Cobra with a 428 CJ and 4 speed, and a 69 GT with a 351 and C4.
He bought the last when I was 18 and kept it till he died. I got to take him for one last ride in it just a few days before he passed. He couldn’t talk at that point, but he wouldn’t stop smiling.
Nice ones are rare, but they’re out there. We have his on eBay right now.
I’ve been looking at the shape of the Torino’s side sindows and roofline, trying to remember what it reminded my of. Finally got it: the S60/S70 Toyota Crown Coupe. The three ‘gills’ are further back on the C-pillar, but I reckon the Crown stylists were rather enamoured with the overall pillars/windows style of the Torino!
I own one of these cars, i bought it in 1998.My first car was a 1968 Torino G T.It hadthe entry level 289 v8 with a two barrel carbarator.The one I own now is a 69 like the one pictured, It has a 351 windsor with a 600 cfm carb. My model came with hi profomance heads.
1969 ford torino information about anything more q measures the door I’m from Argentina and I want to transform my 4 door sedan into a coupe if anyone has plans for the entire car will thank
I prefer the 1968 model year Fairlanes myself… the tail lights were just a lot better than the ones on the 1969 model year car. My parents owned a 1968 Fairlane 500 with a factory 302 backed by a C4 plus a nine inch rear axle with 2.75:1 gears. It had power steering but not disc brakes… much to my disappointment after I got it from them when I was just 19. Drum brakes on all corners… ugh. I still shake my head after all these years on that part of the deal but it was what it was with Ford and many of the Mustangs and other intermediate cars were the same. All the 1969 Mustangs that I’ve owned had the front discs and all were power assisted so apparently Ford had pulled their head out by the next year. Check out the picture… and try to tell me that it isn’t a sexy beast!
Those sure are beautiful old Ford’s. Unfortunately corrosion was the worst enemy to these cars. However with dutiful ownership these cars could resist the ravages of salted roadways. I own a ’70 Torino GT convertible 351 4 bbl that was a one owner car from Ohio with 80K on the odometer. I purchased this car a decade ago and the only corrosion is surface rust on the fuel tank, front suspension and rear leaf springs. The car was uncoated either by the factory or dealer, and the original owner would hose down the undercarriage and wheelwells of the Torino after driving the car on salted roadways. My Torino still wears its original Bright Red paint, though worn through on some of the edges, it still has a lot of luster in the 45 year old enamel. It just goes to show that being really vigilant with automobile care can spare a vehicle from a premature death.
Hi, I have a Fairlane 82 , I’m from Argentina and the same model was made here from the 69to the 82 with some menor changes and only sedan 4 doors. I’m woorking in convert it to a 2 doors, Could some body help me with the length of the doors in the 2 doors versión? Thanks in advance
I was fortunate enough to buy an original condition 69 Torino GT hardtop “formal roof” with the 351W-4V engine and FMX automatic.
My favorite Torino body style has always been the 68-69 fastbacks, especially the GT and Cobra versions. But the hardtop style can grow on you – I like the more subtle clean lines with just a hint of 65-67 Chevelle in the side view, but with a cleaner grill design in my opinion.
The 351W 4V is a nice engine for this car. It will never be as fast or collectable as a 428CJ. But the Windsor engine is much easier to work on and get parts for vs. the FE engine, and the lighter weight helps handling. Not exactly a street racer, but it still has plenty of power to keep up with most modern non-high-performance cars. It gets to the next traffic light faster than most Hondas, Toyotas and ricer-class cars. The original style front disk breaks stop surprisingly well for a 1969 car. Who needs ABS?
Overall a fun street cruiser – but don’t forget to bring plenty of gas $$$!
The comments from the original posting offer an interesting take on preference between the formal and fastback roof in that there seems to be an even split. I wonder if actual sales numbers were similar. I’m personally partial to the formal roof; it seems to blend better with the clean, but unexciting body. I’m still fascinated with the fact that the formal roof version was slightly more expensive than the fastback; that can’t have reflected cost reality and suspect that Ford’s marketing group understood that consumers would, likewise, think the formal roof car was better looking and pay more for it.
It’s worth noting that while the 1970 restyle was more attractive, it also wreaked havoc on the NASCAR circuit. The biggest problem was the the slightly convex fastback window gave way to one that was slightly concave. It would have taken a lot of work and expense to come up with a special body design that was more aerodynamic and surely had an effect on Ford’s decision to pull the plug on factory-backed NASCAR racing, with Chrysler following shortly after.
While it wouldn’t mean much for Grand National racing at that point, it’s worth noting that for the 1972 restyle, the fastback Torino’s rear window was back to being flush.
Ford did actually make a special body of the Torino to specifically go after the Daytona and Superbird in NASCAR. Problem was, NASCAR drastically changed what would be admissible in the future and announced this toward the end of the 1970. The Torino King Cobra thus ended up stillborn. This is an early development shot, but there were also hidden/flush headlamp models produced as well:
Here is one with the headlamp caps. This is one of 3 reported prototypes that survive:
Actually, the brown car pictured above is the Mercury Cyclone Spoiler II, which uses the Cyclone coupe body.
The problem with the King Cobra was, while it addressed the aerodynamics at the front end of the car, it did nothing at the rear. The earlier ’68-’69 fastback cars were better in that regard.
If the King Cobra project had gotten far enough along to actually track test the car, they would have discovered how critical rear window aerodynamics were, too, as Buddy Baker (I think) found out when testing the initial versions of the ’69 Charger Daytona. At that point, while the nose cone design was firmly in place (just like with the King Cobra), Chrysler still hadn’t figured out the best rear window/spoiler configuration. While they’d smoothed out the rear window with new glass and filler panels, the hard-charging, impatient Baker had them take whatever rear spoiler was being used and took the car back out onto the track. The story goes that he wasn’t out there very long before he quickly came back in and, white as a sheet due to how loose the car had become at speed, meekly requested that the Chrysler engineers put the rear spoiler back on.
I’m certain this had an impact on the Chrysler decision to stop factory backing, as well, since the upcoming, new 1971 B-body coupes had a similar, non-aerodynamic rear window configuration just like the 1970 Torino, all of which which aped the GM designs at the time.
My neighbour had this one’s cousin, a 1969 Mercury Cyclone, painted in the drabbest most depressing black matte paint in the world. I don’t know if his muffler was shot or what, but he would go out in the morning and start it, and let it run for a good 20 minutes, shaking and waking the neighbourhood. We all despised that car. My other neighbour John was a Ford guy, (worked at the factory in Oakville) and he wanted nothing less than to see that Cyclone gone. It didn’t help that the cyclone was always parked in front of John’s house.
In the spirit of saying something nice, I do like the styling of the fastback on this Torino, at the time it must have reminded me of the 66 Charger.
Always really liked the ’68/’69 Torino fastback, especially from the rear 3/4 view. A more stylish grill with ’67/68 style hidden headlamps would have really improved the somewhat underwhelming front, but still wouldn’t kick one of these beauties out of my driveways. I’ve always been a fastback fan, owned several.
http://wheels.ae/car-culture/classic/article/3766/volkswagen-type-3-fastback
Can’t edit, meant to say ’67/’68 Cougar style grill and hidden headlamps would have looked great on the ’68/’69 Torino.
I was a kid in the 70s, and I could somewhat tell then that sporty intermediate fastbacks were a 60s thing. Then along came the ’74 Matador. 😉
As told often, the fastback ’74 Matador was too late to the 1968-72 muscle car party.
I know.
I was indicating how out of touch AMC appeared. If a young kid can tell the market was already dead.
I was always a huge fan of the Ranchero in this bodystyle. Hope the car in the pic finds a loving home.
Were these Ford Sportsroofs, along with the Mustang fastback up to ’73 (and recognizing that the trunked Pinto was the cheapskate special) the last truly successful non-hatch fastbacks?
Do we count the new Civic and Accord?
True, the past 10 some years, many current cars have fastbacks for aerodynamics and MPG’s.
Ford Fusion’s rear window slant almost looks like a Torino’s.
The long doubled-up stripe helps these look racier, with its nod to the 1967 Le Mans-winning Ford GT of Gurney and Foyt. And, of course, the Sportsroof on this and its Mercury Cyclone counterpart provided aero help to Ford in Nascar.
My first car back in ’73, was a 68, 390 GT F/B Torino with 60k miles on it. It had p/s, p/disc on front, a C-6 auto and a 9inch out the rear. Also buckets and center console. All for only $450. bucks. What a steal ! I added about 120k miles over the next 7or8 years then sold it for about 300 bucks. I towed u-hauls across 5 state lines with it and except for flat tires on the trailers, no problems. The tranny was bulletproof. One of my fondest memories, (besides leaving one of my brothers on a curb in Needles Ca, around midnight, my wife made me go back and get him, but that’s another story) was coming back from the Oakland Roadster show. Exiting the Caldacott tunnel, it had been raining but the freeway was drying. Had my best friend riding shotgun and my youngest brother in the back. Took a curvey exit to drop my friend off, forgetting they would still be wet and going a little to fast, I dropped the C-6 into second and made it through the first curve then went into the second curve and the rearend came around 180 degrees. Now facing “up” the offramp and about to hit a straight up curve with the right side of the car, I tapped the brakes and to our surprise the car made another 180 degree turn and we made the green light at the intersection. Dead silence and heavy breathing all around, my brother yells something like “that was cool ! Let’s do it again ! My response was ” hell no ! ”
All in all, a great car that I wish I had back, (although I liked the look of the coupe better). It would look good sitting next to a one owner 67 289 Stang from California I picked up recently. Needs some restoration and 4 wheel disc but otherwise a solid car. And that’s another story.