I agree with you Jack. Especially the beautiful 61 Lincoln. I want one of those one day. The 60 Chrysler full size cars looked great to me too but were starting to date re the fins moving on. I have a 60 Windsor sedan amongst others but I love my Ford, Lincoln and Mercury products.
@@markbehr88 I like the 61 FoMoCo cars much better than the GM cars of that year. The 60 GMs were much better. I always liked the 1960 Chrysler products as well, and the 61 Chrysler, DeSoto, and Imperial. The Plymouths and Dodges of that year, not so much back then, but will gladly take one today!
I loved the Ford and the Lincoln, even the Mercury, despite it being a big comedown from the 60 Merc, but at the time, I, and many others, didn't like the 61 Bird. We thought they ruined it, as everybody loved the Squarebird. Of course, it looks gorgeous today.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Thanks Michael. I think we have similar tastes as I also have a few 1960 Chrysler products incl 60 Windsor sedan, 60 Windsor Ambulance (Brerian), 60 Fury sedan and 60 Imperial.
Very cool. Mine needs some work but they are very thin on the ground. I was trying the get the pillarless version but happy with this one. I like the little kick up piece on the rear doors of that model (Victoria?). 👍
Here is a video on the 1961 Ford Galaxie Town Sedan I bought recently. They are super rare as survival rates of 1961 Fords is very low, despite almost 900,000 full size Fords being built. What do you think of the 1961 Ford? Better looking than the Chev. I think so.
I think so too. Also, nearly all 61 Fords had a V8, often mated to a standard transmission or to stick/overdrive, a big percentage of those V8s were Big Blocks. Many Chevys were Stovebolt 6 powered, and many of the V8 cars had a small block. Most all had 2 speed PowerGlide.
The rust issue wasn't just 61 Fords, it was ALL cars back then. Especially in the "snow belt states" that used salt in the roads to combat snow and ice on those roads.
Mark, beautiful example, and yes, the 1961 really out-styles the 1960. It's incredible how the in-set headlights made such a difference the year prior. The 1961 enhanced itself. Really looking forward to seeing this car. Well done & another great score. Cheers, Fletch 👍
Thanks Fletch. I agree the 61 looks so much better than the 60 model. Some people say it looks generic. I don’t think so - a concave grille, big round tail lights with small fins canted out the back and beautiful side trim that doubles as the door handles plus a Thunderbird roofline. Generic never looked so good!
@@markbehr88 Absolutely. These cars, Starliners etc are really nice cars, and like others - possibly even under-rated. I filmed a 1963 Fairlane 500 yesterday in Grafton NSW. Base model Fairlane, original 260 Windsor V8...wind up windows...original red interior, just beautiful it was. Loved the swage line in the top of the doors that scoops under your hand area as you push the door button to open. Again, your car is a great score. Not every vehicle has to be the Hamburger with the lot !
The low survival rate is more common to all old cars. You never know which cars will get enthusiast attention through the years, many of these cars were seen as forgettable appliances to be thrown away. Early Mustangs had massive rust issues as well - but enthusiasts have been restoring them from the beginning. Your love of the 1961 model Galaxy’s is not widespread, and that is why few have survived.
Yes that is a good point Thomas. My observation was around the number of different year model Galaxies I see for sale. Not the 2 door sports type versions but the standard four doors. Like you say though, they were appliances for many.now they look terrific compared to the SUVs on the road.
Thanks Gerard. Of course, I would prefer no rust but these cars did have a reputation like I said. So, you have to get what you can given the low survival rate. 👍
Here in California, we don't use salt, so rust is not a problem, but everything today is unit construction, so rust does have the potential to cause serious problems. The one thing good today is that rust-proofing is standard. Back in the day, even as late as the early 80s, it was an option, one that not all that many people ordered.
I also really like the look of the 61, good looking cars, I have a 61 mercury monterey 4 door Sedan which shares a lot period features with the galaxie. Full size fords with a big block FE, what's not to like.
Funny that you say the 1960 looked narrow, as an error was made and not noticed. As the 1960 holds the title of WIDEST ever Ford car. Somehow miscalculations were made when engineering commenced tool making and the dies to press the body panels. 80 inches was the legal limit to car width in most states of the USA. Ford Car Coy had to obtain a special one model year dispensation which allowed them to sell such a wide vehicle for just ONE year, this also included the full size Mercury, which was just slightly over width, but it also included the ultra-rare 1960 Edsel which was an almost clone of the big Ford using all the same panels bar the rear mudguards outer skins, bootlid outer skin pressing, and rear valance panel. The rest of the Edsel's panels are identical. So the 1961 Ford is narrower, as it legally had to be, for state registration compliance. I guess designers techniques were used visually to add width, by lowering the immediate frontal height of bonnet lid and making it roll down and droop at the front like the falcon did. Trunk or boot area volume took a dive for 1961 as Ford team lowered the rear mudguard height and lowered the height of the rear boot, or trunk lid to also give an appearance of wide and low. My great Aunt Alicia owned several 1964 Galaxies two were 4 door sedans, I owned a new style square boxy 1965 Galaxie and the difference in boot capacity is huge as the 1965 models rear mudguards are much taller allowing way more internal space. You could stand upright 4 big circular drums in the deep centre section of my '65 models boot , but in Aunty Al's '64's you could lay just one sideways in that central section and the boot lid just narrowly missed hitting it when closed over the drum. Equally the distance between the floor & the ceiling is well less in the 1964 model in the front compartment there is nearly a 6 inch difference extra in that measurement from floor to ceiling in my 1965 model. In my aunts car my hair is touching the head lining and I need its front seat pushed all the way back to fit my legs in, in my own 1965 model there are 3 further settings in the seat adjustment and my head is not touching the interior hood lining. So a lower roof line in the 1961, 62, 63 & 64 Galaxies contributed to their low wide look.
Wow Greg. Great details there. I seem to recall that story about the width of the 60 Ford? Maybe I read it in Collectible Automobile magazine? Interesting too re the trunk space. The 65 Fords looked terrific. The design was so clean and quite squared off and upright, especially compared to the 1961 model. Thanks for your great comments 👍👍.
You are quite correct. They flattened the body sides of the 61 to make it narrower. The 60 Imperial was another wide one. They told Chrysler that if they didn't fix that problem, the cars would have to be sold as buses, which would require a commercial driver's license.
Ford played with body width for 1955 as well. The specs show the 55 Ford as being about 3 inches wider than the 54, yet inside the car, they seem identical. Front bumpers are also almost identical. The 54's width is door skin to door skin. The 55's width is across the front bumper, which extends a little beyond the sides of the car. Only the tail of the 55 is wider, because it does not taper inward toward the rear the way the 54's tail does. A sleight of hand if there ever was one.
@@markbehr88 This was the blunder that seriously pushed Ford Car Coy into a loss, red ink. They had just weathered the Budd steel made '58-59 Lincolns and T-birds that twisted and warped their new coil sprung chassis less Mono construction bodies & popping front windscreens, worse still hitting a bad pothole with the rear suspension could see the coil spring tear its way into the trunk and leave the car leaning on one side virtually wrecked. There was the massively expensive Lincoln Continental mk2 debacle, followed by the Edsel debacle and to get over an internally created legal issue it meant Ford Car Coy HAD TO LEGALLY make a series 3 1960 Edsel. Ford HAD TO make at least a specified quantity of cars over 3 model years to honor the Edsel Franchise contract, so in late 1959 over just a few weeks the just under 3000 cars required to meet this obligation were built. As soon as they were Edsel production ceased under new Global Ford Boss's Robert McNamara's demand. McNamara described the new '61 galaxies & Fairlanes the "bloated pregnant pig versions of a Falcon". McNamara thought that Fords best chance was to build a profitable cluster of cars using the Ford Falcon and what was originally a Edsel Comet , but when it got to dealers it was badged Mercury instead. From McNamara's decree-demands came the Mustang and the shrunken Ford Fairlane using slight re-tooling of the Comet body shell, all do-able at only a slight cost. The TOO-wide big cars , this is where Ford Car Coy's profits were normally, however with Ford Car Coy punch drunk from recent failures, after just one year's use of all the tooling and dies to punch the bodies, a whole new set would need to be created and right sharpish , as the inner door shells were too wide , the back and front inner mudguard shells were too wide , the whole inner engine bay side walls were too wide as the 1960's guards are almost just a skin that bolts right onto the very edge of the car, the front fire walls were too wide , the rear fire walls were too wide, Ford could not use any of the 1960 door skins nor rear guard skins on a 1961 model as due to the re tooling changes all the crimp lines and weld points were in a different place. Virtually only roof structures, the floor pressings, sill rails, trunk/boot floor, the glass in the car and all the door glass frames and front a posts from the 1960 models could be used. Each year Ford kept using the Galaxie body that looked like a Falcon they lost more sales. as Ford thought the family resemblance having Galaxie, Compact Fairlane & Falcon all look similar was a good thing. However the buying public felt if you paid double the money to buy a Galaxie it should not look like a poverty spec Falcon. I have always liked the heavy and costly final 1964 model make over, with the fins deleted at the rear, the heavy fresh deep new bodyside sculpting, elaborate new grill and rear valance alloy trim panel looked upmarket & great, plus there was Ford Marketings new "Total Performance" ad campaign, sadly it fell on deaf ears and sales shrank further. Salvation was around the corner, however. in the form of the 1965 Galaxie with it selling double the quantity of '64 models, kicked Chevrolet off N01 perch for sales and 4 races into the 1965 Nascar season when the '65 was introduced every one of remaining 48 races was won by a Ford Galaxie. Never before, or since has this ever occurred 48 wins out of 52, and 48 wins in a row. 1966 Nascar was heading in the same direction with back-to-back Ford Galaxie wins, then when the new wide body '67 Mustang became available for race use it was substituted for the Galaxie , Ford then lost every remaining Nascar race for the 1966 season. However Galaxies had already won 36 out of 52 events prior to Mustang use, so Ford still was the outright winner. '66 Ford Galaxie sales were also a repeat of 1965 for most of the year it looked like they were again going to outsell big Chevrolets, however Ford and Chev eventually tied and had identical sales for 1966. Lesson learned, never again did Ford allow the poverty spec entry level car to look like the premium product & kill sales.
@@gregharvie3896 Thanks Greg. A lot of interesting information there for sure. I know Robert McNamara was close to killing off Lincoln before he headed to work for JFK. I thought the Mustang was more Lee Iacocca, albeit using McNamara’s Falcon as a starting point. I thought Mustangs were used more for TranAm and NASCAR was always the Galaxie until they went to Torinos and Cyclones etc. interesting too re the Edsel history. As you know, I have a 58 Ranger sedan.
I have a 61 Fairlane two-door I am looking for a back seat for it it's a two-door Fairlane is there any other years that will interchange with that back seat?
Wouldn't matter that's what they make seat covers for I bought a 59 thinking it would work but it didn't so I got a 59 back seat that I don't need but nobody seems to know what the interchanges
Generically good to me. The design is very clean and yes, it is also conventional in many ways. I would say the 63 Fords were very good looking cars, especially the XL. Apart from the 1960 model I like them all .
Entire 1961Fomoco lineup was beautiful and several years ahead of the competition. Galaxy, T-Bird and of course the amazing Lincoln were stars.
I agree with you Jack. Especially the beautiful 61 Lincoln. I want one of those one day. The 60 Chrysler full size cars looked great to me too but were starting to date re the fins moving on. I have a 60 Windsor sedan amongst others but I love my Ford, Lincoln and Mercury products.
@@markbehr88 I like the 61 FoMoCo cars much better than the GM cars of that year. The 60 GMs were much better. I always liked the 1960 Chrysler products as well, and the 61 Chrysler, DeSoto, and Imperial. The Plymouths and Dodges of that year, not so much back then, but will gladly take one today!
I loved the Ford and the Lincoln, even the Mercury, despite it being a big comedown from the 60 Merc, but at the time, I, and many others, didn't like the 61 Bird. We thought they ruined it, as everybody loved the Squarebird. Of course, it looks gorgeous today.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Thanks Michael. I think we have similar tastes as I also have a few 1960 Chrysler products incl 60 Windsor sedan, 60 Windsor Ambulance (Brerian), 60 Fury sedan and 60 Imperial.
@@michaelbenardo5695 I always liked the 61-63 Thunderbirds, more so than the 58-60 models but these days I would take any of them.
The 61 is one of the most attractive big Fords ever
I agree Fubar!
I have a ‘61 Galaxie Town Sedan! I love it!
Very cool. Mine needs some work but they are very thin on the ground. I was trying the get the pillarless version but happy with this one. I like the little kick up piece on the rear doors of that model (Victoria?). 👍
My parents had a 1961 ford galaxie 4 door post. It was a nice car. I like the styling.
Thanks David. I bet you have some nice memories of that car?
Love the 61 Fords. Starliner be the favourite
Thanks Steve. Yes, I think the Starliner would be the most popular model for sure. 👍👍
Here is a video on the 1961 Ford Galaxie Town Sedan I bought recently. They are super rare as survival rates of 1961 Fords is very low, despite almost 900,000 full size Fords being built. What do you think of the 1961 Ford? Better looking than the Chev. I think so.
I think so too. Also, nearly all 61 Fords had a V8, often mated to a standard transmission or to stick/overdrive, a big percentage of those V8s were Big Blocks. Many Chevys were Stovebolt 6 powered, and many of the V8 cars had a small block. Most all had 2 speed PowerGlide.
@@michaelbenardo5695 Yes, the 61 Ford looked much better and more modern than the Chev but it was outsold. Go figure?
Great choice!!
Thank you Ivano. Much appreciated.
Great catch there,mate! Love them big Fords! Definitely worth the effort to fix up!👍
Thank you very much Don. Absolutely love my full size Fords.
The rust issue wasn't just 61 Fords, it was ALL cars back then. Especially in the "snow belt states" that used salt in the roads to combat snow and ice on those roads.
You are right there Jeff but I still reckon the 61 Fords were even worse, based on the very low survival rates for them.
61 is my favorite too.. I have a 4door Town Sedan that I made an Undercover patrol car out of...
Very nice Jerry. There is another video of me seeing the car in Michigan when I was there this last October. Your car sounds great. 👍
Nice car, Mark. It will look stunning once imported and fully sorted out.
Thank you very much Michael. I am happy with it and, like you say, once finished it will be a stunning car.
Mark, beautiful example, and yes, the 1961 really out-styles the 1960. It's incredible how the in-set headlights made such a difference the year prior. The 1961 enhanced itself. Really looking forward to seeing this car. Well done & another great score. Cheers, Fletch 👍
Thanks Fletch. I agree the 61 looks so much better than the 60 model. Some people say it looks generic. I don’t think so - a concave grille, big round tail lights with small fins canted out the back and beautiful side trim that doubles as the door handles plus a Thunderbird roofline. Generic never looked so good!
@@markbehr88 Absolutely. These cars, Starliners etc are really nice cars, and like others - possibly even under-rated. I filmed a 1963 Fairlane 500 yesterday in Grafton NSW. Base model Fairlane, original 260 Windsor V8...wind up windows...original red interior, just beautiful it was. Loved the swage line in the top of the doors that scoops under your hand area as you push the door button to open. Again, your car is a great score. Not every vehicle has to be the Hamburger with the lot !
@@classicrestostv1fletch764 Agree Fletch. That Fairlane sounds nice too. .
The low survival rate is more common to all old cars. You never know which cars will get enthusiast attention through the years, many of these cars were seen as forgettable appliances to be thrown away. Early Mustangs had massive rust issues as well - but enthusiasts have been restoring them from the beginning. Your love of the 1961 model Galaxy’s is not widespread, and that is why few have survived.
Yes that is a good point Thomas. My observation was around the number of different year model Galaxies I see for sale. Not the 2 door sports type versions but the standard four doors. Like you say though, they were appliances for many.now they look terrific compared to the SUVs on the road.
Interesting video can see a thunderbird in the rear end . Rust thankfully not as much a problem today.
Thanks Gerard. Of course, I would prefer no rust but these cars did have a reputation like I said. So, you have to get what you can given the low survival rate. 👍
Here in California, we don't use salt, so rust is not a problem, but everything today is unit construction, so rust does have the potential to cause serious problems. The one thing good today is that rust-proofing is standard. Back in the day, even as late as the early 80s, it was an option, one that not all that many people ordered.
I also really like the look of the 61, good looking cars, I have a 61 mercury monterey 4 door Sedan which shares a lot period features with the galaxie. Full size fords with a big block FE, what's not to like.
Agree. Both great looking cars. 👍
61 best ❤❤❤😊
@@GeraldWood-ig9rw And hard to find these days. 🤔👍
another gem revealed Mark. It looks a beauty and id love to see how the duco comes up after a cut and polish. I assume it is a Michigan car?
Thanks Rohan. I will store it in Michigan but it is originally a Massachusetts car.
Funny that you say the 1960 looked narrow, as an error was made and not noticed. As the 1960 holds the title of WIDEST ever Ford car. Somehow miscalculations were made when engineering commenced tool making and the dies to press the body panels. 80 inches was the legal limit to car width in most states of the USA. Ford Car Coy had to obtain a special one model year dispensation which allowed them to sell such a wide vehicle for just ONE year, this also included the full size Mercury, which was just slightly over width, but it also included the ultra-rare 1960 Edsel which was an almost clone of the big Ford using all the same panels bar the rear mudguards outer skins, bootlid outer skin pressing, and rear valance panel. The rest of the Edsel's panels are identical.
So the 1961 Ford is narrower, as it legally had to be, for state registration compliance. I guess designers techniques were used visually to add width, by lowering the immediate frontal height of bonnet lid and making it roll down and droop at the front like the falcon did. Trunk or boot area volume took a dive for 1961 as Ford team lowered the rear mudguard height and lowered the height of the rear boot, or trunk lid to also give an appearance of wide and low.
My great Aunt Alicia owned several 1964 Galaxies two were 4 door sedans, I owned a new style square boxy 1965 Galaxie and the difference in boot capacity is huge as the 1965 models rear mudguards are much taller allowing way more internal space. You could stand upright 4 big circular drums in the deep centre section of my '65 models boot , but in Aunty Al's '64's you could lay just one sideways in that central section and the boot lid just narrowly missed hitting it when closed over the drum. Equally the distance between the floor & the ceiling is well less in the 1964 model in the front compartment there is nearly a 6 inch difference extra in that measurement from floor to ceiling in my 1965 model. In my aunts car my hair is touching the head lining and I need its front seat pushed all the way back to fit my legs in, in my own 1965 model there are 3 further settings in the seat adjustment and my head is not touching the interior hood lining. So a lower roof line in the 1961, 62, 63 & 64 Galaxies contributed to their low wide look.
Wow Greg. Great details there. I seem to recall that story about the width of the 60 Ford? Maybe I read it in Collectible Automobile magazine? Interesting too re the trunk space. The 65 Fords looked terrific. The design was so clean and quite squared off and upright, especially compared to the 1961 model. Thanks for your great comments 👍👍.
You are quite correct. They flattened the body sides of the 61 to make it narrower. The 60 Imperial was another wide one. They told Chrysler that if they didn't fix that problem, the cars would have to be sold as buses, which would require a commercial driver's license.
Ford played with body width for 1955 as well. The specs show the 55 Ford as being about 3 inches wider than the 54, yet inside the car, they seem identical. Front bumpers are also almost identical. The 54's width is door skin to door skin. The 55's width is across the front bumper, which extends a little beyond the sides of the car. Only the tail of the 55 is wider, because it does not taper inward toward the rear the way the 54's tail does. A sleight of hand if there ever was one.
@@markbehr88 This was the blunder that seriously pushed Ford Car Coy into a loss, red ink. They had just weathered the Budd steel made '58-59 Lincolns and T-birds that twisted and warped their new coil sprung chassis less Mono construction bodies & popping front windscreens, worse still hitting a bad pothole with the rear suspension could see the coil spring tear its way into the trunk and leave the car leaning on one side virtually wrecked. There was the massively expensive Lincoln Continental mk2 debacle, followed by the Edsel debacle and to get over an internally created legal issue it meant Ford Car Coy HAD TO LEGALLY make a series 3 1960 Edsel. Ford HAD TO make at least a specified quantity of cars over 3 model years to honor the Edsel Franchise contract, so in late 1959 over just a few weeks the just under 3000 cars required to meet this obligation were built. As soon as they were Edsel production ceased under new Global Ford Boss's Robert McNamara's demand. McNamara described the new '61 galaxies & Fairlanes the "bloated pregnant pig versions of a Falcon". McNamara thought that Fords best chance was to build a profitable cluster of cars using the Ford Falcon and what was originally a Edsel Comet , but when it got to dealers it was badged Mercury instead. From McNamara's decree-demands came the Mustang and the shrunken Ford Fairlane using slight re-tooling of the Comet body shell, all do-able at only a slight cost.
The TOO-wide big cars , this is where Ford Car Coy's profits were normally, however with Ford Car Coy punch drunk from recent failures, after just one year's use of all the tooling and dies to punch the bodies, a whole new set would need to be created and right sharpish , as the inner door shells were too wide , the back and front inner mudguard shells were too wide , the whole inner engine bay side walls were too wide as the 1960's guards are almost just a skin that bolts right onto the very edge of the car, the front fire walls were too wide , the rear fire walls were too wide, Ford could not use any of the 1960 door skins nor rear guard skins on a 1961 model as due to the re tooling changes all the crimp lines and weld points were in a different place. Virtually only roof structures, the floor pressings, sill rails, trunk/boot floor, the glass in the car and all the door glass frames and front a posts from the 1960 models could be used.
Each year Ford kept using the Galaxie body that looked like a Falcon they lost more sales. as Ford thought the family resemblance having Galaxie, Compact Fairlane & Falcon all look similar was a good thing. However the buying public felt if you paid double the money to buy a Galaxie it should not look like a poverty spec Falcon. I have always liked the heavy and costly final 1964 model make over, with the fins deleted at the rear, the heavy fresh deep new bodyside sculpting, elaborate new grill and rear valance alloy trim panel looked upmarket & great, plus there was Ford Marketings new "Total Performance" ad campaign, sadly it fell on deaf ears and sales shrank further.
Salvation was around the corner, however. in the form of the 1965 Galaxie with it selling double the quantity of '64 models, kicked Chevrolet off N01 perch for sales and 4 races into the 1965 Nascar season when the '65 was introduced every one of remaining 48 races was won by a Ford Galaxie. Never before, or since has this ever occurred 48 wins out of 52, and 48 wins in a row. 1966 Nascar was heading in the same direction with back-to-back Ford Galaxie wins, then when the new wide body '67 Mustang became available for race use it was substituted for the Galaxie , Ford then lost every remaining Nascar race for the 1966 season. However Galaxies had already won 36 out of 52 events prior to Mustang use, so Ford still was the outright winner. '66 Ford Galaxie sales were also a repeat of 1965 for most of the year it looked like they were again going to outsell big Chevrolets, however Ford and Chev eventually tied and had identical sales for 1966. Lesson learned, never again did Ford allow the poverty spec entry level car to look like the premium product & kill sales.
@@gregharvie3896 Thanks Greg. A lot of interesting information there for sure. I know Robert McNamara was close to killing off Lincoln before he headed to work for JFK. I thought the Mustang was more Lee Iacocca, albeit using McNamara’s Falcon as a starting point. I thought Mustangs were used more for TranAm and NASCAR was always the Galaxie until they went to Torinos and Cyclones etc. interesting too re the Edsel history. As you know, I have a 58 Ranger sedan.
They were serious rusters? Too bad, they were nice looking cars. Here in California, rust is not a serious problem.
Yes, agree Michael. The blue one I showed in the video at the wrecking yard was a picture I took in California. It was pretty rust free.
I have a 61 Fairlane two-door I am looking for a back seat for it it's a two-door Fairlane is there any other years that will interchange with that back seat?
I would imagine 1960 and 1962 would fit but the seat pattern will be different. 👍
Wouldn't matter that's what they make seat covers for I bought a 59 thinking it would work but it didn't so I got a 59 back seat that I don't need but nobody seems to know what the interchanges
1959 is completely different so the two alternate model years I gave you are the same body structure. @@haroldmckinnon4507
Ty
Ford took years to get back to where they were with the '60 Starliner. This car is generic.
Generically good to me. The design is very clean and yes, it is also conventional in many ways. I would say the 63 Fords were very good looking cars, especially the XL. Apart from the 1960 model I like them all .