I'm very much a fan of the 60-63 Falcons. I did a search and came up with all these beauties on CL. Why are there so many, and why are they so cheap?!
And probably the nicest one IMO:
Don't you just want to take them for a cruise on a warm summer eve? Besides ditchdigger, who else here has one of these?
When I was in high school, my friend inherited a '62 Falcon two door post sedan from his grandmother. He jacked it up in the rear and would swap between a set of four spoke Keystones and a set of Carrol Shelby Fanstars. We used to bust his ass because it had a 170 with a two speed Ford-o-Matic. But that car had the deepest, most beautiful black paint that I have ever seen on a car, and I think it was original.
One of those is uncomfortably close.
I've been thinking about getting one for a DD. With the 170 I6 they got close to 30mpg.
Not to mention you can fix it with a hammer and a roll of wire.
edwardh80 wrote: Don't you just want to take them for a cruise on a warm summer eve? Besides ditchdigger, who else here has one of these?
I have a '63 Ranchero.
Parts are cheap; swaps are easy; upgrades to everything are readily available.
Of course, I've done virtually nothing to mine yet. Waiting for the garage work to be finished so I have a place to work on it...
I am well into two years of daily driving my 63 Falcon sedan
Pros.
Cheap
Parts are everywhere
reliable as an anvil
Cool bench seat
lots of upgrades out there
quiet and comfortable inside
cons
worst driving car I have ever owned
slow, wooden, uncommunicative steering
terrible brakes
A choice between two awful transmissions
Fords Load-O-matic ignition system
Upgrades although plentiful can really add up.
Within 2 hours of ownership I rebuilt the entire brake system and it was still awful. It did not mesh well with modern city traffic.
A 60-63 will either have a 2 speed auto or a 3 spd column shift with no synchro on first. Both of which don't really let the 60 or 80 horsepower 144 or 170 sixes shine.
I intended to use mine everyday so I had to change it to make it capable of doing so. My issue with making the brakes capable of dealing with modern traffic was the snowball effect. The easy bolt on was later granada spindles with disc brakes, which were 5 lug so that meant replacing the rear end to match. Rear end choices narrow enough to fit under the falcon are slim so shortening an explorer 8.8 is a common route. Now the driveshaft needs to be modified and.... uh oh! now you have a 3.50 or 3.73 rear end and one of those two non overdrive transmissions so your top speed is limited to 70mph. Time for a new R&P or an overdrive trans.
and so on.
I would do it differently if I did it over again. Scarebird disc conversion and keeping the stock rear end would make it more usable and cost less.
For a weekend cruiser? Leave it stock and enjoy it. For a daily that has to contend with inattentive drivers in econoboxes that can out accelerate and more importantly outbrake it by orders of magnitude it will need some work.
As you can see they are cheap enough that buying a crappy one for a grand doesn't make sense when a much nicer one is only 2500-3000
I really want to buy a beater, gut it, throw in a 302 and 5 speed. Add some small BFG ATs and go rally crossing.
I've been half-heartedly searching for a 3rd gen (66-70) Falcon and have encountered more than one guy with multiple Falcons. The one they are always selling is the 1st gen. They will tell you that, while it's the prettiest of the bunch, they drive like truly old cars. The 3rd gen guys never hesitate to hop in theirs and drive it across the country, they are that much nicer. Not as sexy, and march harder to get restoration parts for, but cheaper to buy and nicer to drive.
ddavidv wrote: I've been half-heartedly searching for a 3rd gen (66-70) Falcon and have encountered more than one guy with multiple Falcons. The one they are always selling is the 1st gen. They will tell you that, while it's the prettiest of the bunch, they drive like truly old cars. The 3rd gen guys never hesitate to hop in theirs and drive it across the country, they are that much nicer. Not as sexy, and march harder to get restoration parts for, but cheaper to buy and nicer to drive.
The first gen cars seem common by comparison. I may have seen two third gen cars in the past 15 years.
Toyman01 wrote: I've been thinking about getting one for a DD. With the 170 I6 they got close to 30mpg. Not to mention you can fix it with a hammer and a roll of wire.
Not so. I know for a fact that you will also need duct tape!
ddavidv wrote:
That is a very flattering angle/photo. Looks like a cross between a chevy II and a mustang.
The 68 my neighbor has is damn ugly in person
Ditchdigger wrote: Cool bench seat lots of upgrades out there quiet and comfortable inside cons worst driving car I have ever owned slow, wooden, uncommunicative steering terrible brakes A choice between two awful transmissions
Isn't that where the charm is though? I just love the bench seat and one-arm-on-the-windowsill cruising that these things allow. I have a 302 and 5-speed to throw in one, but it's a shame to lose the column shifter.
I tend to agree that the 64's and later are just a bit too square to be pretty anymore.
Ditchdigger wrote:ddavidv wrote:That is a very flattering angle/photo. Looks like a cross between a chevy II and a mustang. The 68 my neighbor has is damn ugly in person
Color matters a lot. The '68-70 also has the square taillights which I don't think helped. The roof line is the biggest challenge to 'hide', which is why color matters so much (and a lot of these were cursed with vinyl roofs, which only draw attention to it).
Nothing wrong with the 66-69 cars, but there are not as many of them around. Still cheap and fun to cruise in.
But, my favorite falcon variant would have to be a 64' Comet. Looks like a mini-lincoln continental to me. I found one for a good price before but the gas tank was rotten and they don't make reproductions. That is the problem of having an old ford that isn't a mustang.
The Comet version is different? Found a Falcon one in about 2 seconds. Fuel tank Bad gas tanks are about as common on Falcons as bald tires.
Unfortunately it was different than the falcon. Luckily I found this out before I bought the car, and did a search for gas tanks.
ddavidv wrote:Ditchdigger wrote:Color matters a lot. The '68-70 also has the square taillights which I don't think helped. The roof line is the biggest challenge to 'hide', which is why color matters so much (and a lot of these were cursed with vinyl roofs, which only draw attention to it).ddavidv wrote:That is a very flattering angle/photo. Looks like a cross between a chevy II and a mustang. The 68 my neighbor has is damn ugly in person
There is '68 in this same color with a 289, auto for sale here locally. I've been eye-balling it. It would need a little body work, rear fender lip edges have a slight bit of rust, and at least the steering wheel needs to be replaced, badly cracked. But it's only $2500.
http://appleton.craigslist.org/cto/4247678890.html
One of my reservations about the car, is when I look for parts, they are nonexistent. Or so it seems. For the performance parts, I'm sure I'd come up with something that could be adapted to fit (shocks, springs) but I'd like a somewhat nice interior.
Do any of the Mustang suspension bits cross over on the the third gens? I must admit, I don't think I've ever seen one of the later ones. Not bad at all, but the rear is a bit odd.
Nitroracer wrote: Unfortunately it was different than the falcon. Luckily I found this out before I bought the car, and did a search for gas tanks.
This took all of 30 seconds to find.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1964-1965-Mercury-COMET-fuel-tank-new-reproduction-STEEL-tank-/231090350015
I'm really diggin' this Comet.
ultraclyde wrote: Do any of the Mustang suspension bits cross over on the the third gens? I must admit, I don't think I've ever seen one of the later ones. Not bad at all, but the rear is a bit odd.
Wiki says its on the Fairlane chassis that was shortened. That really doesn't answer your question...
Yes, 3rd gens are Fairlane based...but I think that suspension winds up being used on the 69-70 Mustangs anyway?
My 68' Fairlane is very similar to a 68' Mustang. I think the steering gear is different, but spindles, control arms, shocks, and springs can be swapped - but only in the front. Check on rock auto for what parts swap between models and years before you buy.
The other day I was followed by an early '60s Ranchero. Looked good going down the road.
You'll need to log in to post.
