|
One of our biggest challenges in writing these articles is that we sometimes become fascinated by something for reasons that aren't easy to articulate. Some of our subjects have obvious interest, like the Ford Skyliner or the Jaguar XK120, but others may be puzzling to the casual observer. That is certainly the case with this week's subjects, which are thoroughly unexceptional in engineering and design, and have styling that could charitably be described as ordinary. However, they were at the forefront of an emerging debate that is still going on: the question of exactly how big an American sedan ought to be.
A SEA CHANGE
The early 1960s saw a profound shift in the way U.S. automakers approached the mass market. Until 1959, the Big Three's bread-and-butter cars were very much of a piece. There were different trim series, different body styles, different engines, and sometimes minor variations in wheelbase or length, but you could speak with authority about "the Ford" or "the Chevy." Discounting specialty cars like the Thunderbird or Corvette, each manufacturer's different models were nearly identical in basic engineering, concept, and size.
The independent automakers, looking for niches in which they would have less direct competition, were the first to challenge this paradigm. Nash introduced its compact Rambler in 1950, followed a year later by Kaiser's Henry J, and in 1953 by the Hudson Jet. None of these small economy cars replaced the companies' bigger models, but they provided a cheaper, more economical alternative. Most were not particularly successful (only the Rambler survived past the mid-1950s), and the Big Three went on with business as usual. It was not until the recession of late 1957 and 1958 that compact sales increased enough to make GM, Ford, and Chrysler take notice. As we have seen, they each developed compact models of their own, which emerged as the Chevrolet Corvair, Chrysler's Valiant, and the Ford Falcon.
THE COMET
In the summer of 1958, a few months after the Falcon was approved for production, the management of Ford's Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln division began lobbying for their own version of the version compact. The 1958 model year had been horrendous, with the new Edsel a particular disaster, and the division wanted to make sure they'd have something to sell if buyer interest in economy cars continued to grow. M-E-L's version of the Falcon was originally intended as an Edsel, known internally as the Edsel B. It was eventually named Comet.
When Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln adopted the Comet name for their version of the Falcon, they discovered that the name was already in use by a small coachbuilder called Comet Coach, a manufacturer of hearses and ambulances. Ford bought the rights to the name in the fall of 1959.
Making an Edsel out of the Falcon posed an interesting challenge. The Falcon was engineered as a strictly no-frills package, offering maximum usable space with minimal cost and weight. The Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln division was supposed to be luxurious and upscale, but for economy reasons, the Comet had to share as much of the Falcon's hardware as possible. In a later era, the company would probably have settled for slightly different trim and styling, but at the time, newly minted M-E-L general manager Ben Mills was struggling to justify the division's continued existence. Mills convinced Ford vice president Robert McNamara that the Comet needed greater distinction from its Falcon sibling. It would still share the Falcon's body shell, suspension, and engine, but its wheelbase and overall length would be stretched. The Comet would be 13.8 inches (351 mm) longer than the Falcon, on a five inch (127 mm) longer wheelbase, weighing about 160 lb (73 kg) more. Its cabin volume was nearly identical, although its greater length gave it a slight edge in trunk space, and helped to distinguish it from the Falcon.
The early Comet had a stylish formal roof with slightly recessed backlight. This roof design was introduced on the 1957 Ford Skyliner retractable hardtop, and later popularized by the '58 Thunderbird and Galaxie; using it on the Comet gave the compact a more upscale feel. Note the modest tail fins, which help to make the Comet look less stubby than the contemporary Ford Falcon whose body shell it shares. (Photo © 2007 Infrogmation; used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license)
In November 1959, not long before the Comet entered production, Ford announced that it was shuttering the Edsel brand after the 1960 model year. The Comet actually survived the demise of the Edsel brand, going on sale in March 1960 as a separate marque, sold through Lincoln-Mercury dealers. Despite the late introduction and lukewarm reviews, it sold well, a bit over 116,000 units in its shortened debut. Its first full year was even better, tallying nearly 200,000 sales -- more than 60% of Lincoln-Mercury's total business. For 1962, the Comet was finally badged as a Mercury, but it remained quite successful.
THE FAIRLANE
The development history of the midsize Ford Fairlane is somewhat obscure -- in most accounts it is overshadowed completely by the Falcon and Mustang -- but we speculate that it was inspired by the development and perhaps the early success of the Comet. Ford's market research had already indicated that there were buyers who liked the idea of no-nonsense, smaller car that wasn't quite as small or as Spartan as the Falcon. The Comet confirmed that assessment, and so the natural follow-on was a bigger compact Ford -- that is, an intermediate.
The new midsize Ford took its name from what had previously been the popular mid-level trim series of Ford's full-size line: Fairlane. (As we mentioned in our history of the Ford Skyliner, the name was derived from Fair Lane, the Ford family's Dearborn, Michigan estate.) Unlike the Comet, the Fairlane didn't share the Falcon's body shell, but it had a similar unitized structure and suspension. It was 2.2 inches (56 mm) longer than the Comet on a 115.5-inch (2,934 mm) wheelbase, and about 200 pounds (91 kg) heavier. It was quite a bit bigger than a Falcon, but more than a foot (312 mm) shorter than a 1962 Ford Galaxie. Despite its smaller size, the Fairlane actually had slightly more rear legroom, headroom, and trunk space than the Galaxie, although its narrower width cost it a modicum shoulder and hip room.
The initial '62-'63 Fairlanes had small fins, which were dropped for 1964. Styling is otherwise much like a scaled-down full-size Ford of the same year. (Photo © 2005 Morven; used under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0 license)
For critics who felt standard-size cars had become too big, the Fairlane was a welcome return to sanity. It was actually very similar in size to the enormously popular 1949 Ford. Ford's press materials called the Fairlane "a return to the traditional size that for about 30 years characterized the so-called low-priced three."
I COULD'VE HAD A V8
The Fairlane broke no new ground in styling or engineering, but it did introduce what would become Ford's most important new engine since the 1932 flathead V8. Developed by engineer George Stirrat, the new small-block V8 used the latest "thinwall" casting techniques to make it as small and light as possible. Unlike Buick's small V8, the Ford engine was cast iron, which was both cheaper and more reliable, but it was actually smaller. Its dry weight was only 470 pounds (213 kg), heavier than the aluminum Buick engine, but around 65 lb (30 kg) lighter than a small-block Chevy engine.
The new V8 was initially a Fairlane exclusive, although it eventually replaced the last of the 1954-vintage Y-block engines in all of Ford's cars and trucks. In its initial form, it displaced 221 cubic inches (3.6 L) and produced a respectable 145 gross horsepower (108 kW). It very quickly increased to 260 cu. in. (4.3 L), and then to 289 (4.7 L) and 302 cu. in. (4.9 L). Most of these versions were quite mildly tuned, but knowledgeable hot rod artists could easily extract 300 or more horsepower (224 kW) with a little massaging. Ford would use this basic engine through the year 2000, and it is still produced as a crate motor for restoration or racing use.
The 221 and 260 cu. in. (3.6 and 4.5 L) versions of the small-block V8 were gone by 1965, replaced by the 289 (4.7 L), which had either 200 or 225 horsepower (149 or 168 kW). Some Fairlanes and Comets of this vintage had the 271-hp (202 kW) "K-code" 289, although it was dropped from the Fairlane option list in 1965. This one has the base engine with the three-speed Cruise-O-Matic.
The V8 gave the Fairlane notably better performance than the standard 170 cu. in. (2.8 L) six, and it could run rings around its Falcon and Comet cousins. Still, it was no drag racer, particularly with the two-speed Fordomatic that most buyers ordered. Motor Trend's early Fairlane 500 with the 221 and automatic needed more than 13 seconds for the 0-60mph (0-97 km/h) run, and couldn't quite reach 95 mph (153 km/h). Car Life found another Fairlane with the optional 260 and automatic about a second quicker to 60 mph (97 km/h), and top speed was over 100 mph (161 km/h). Fuel economy was reasonable for an American car of this size and era, usually ranging from 16 to 19 mpg (12.4 to 14.7 L/100 km).
DEFINING THE MIDDLE GROUND
When the midsize Fairlane debuted for the 1962 model year, it found itself in that most enviable of arenas: an untapped market niche. Unlike the Falcon, the Fairlane neither looked nor felt small, and it was as roomy as many larger cars. Its closest equivalents in the market were General Motors' "senior compacts," the Pontiac Tempest, Buick Special, and Oldsmobile F-85, which had debuted the year before. The Fairlane was bigger and roomier than the senior compacts, and it was cheaper than any of them except the Tempest. As a result, the Fairlane outsold all of its competitors by a significant margin, racking up nearly 300,000 sales. Sales were even better for 1963, totaling more than 340,000.
Both the '65 Fairlane and big Fords were boxy and slab-sided for 1965. You might think it was a styling trend, but Ford stylists of this era say it was done at the orders of Engineering; boxy, square designs are easier and cheaper to build than curvaceous ones, and Ford styling did not usually have the power to overrule such decisions. Still, it makes the '65 Fairlane look dowdy compared to its GM contemporaries.
The Fairlane's success caused a great deal of soul searching at GM. The general managers of Oldsmobile and Buick had been uneasy about being in the compact market in the first place, believing their customers had come to expect bigger cars. The Fairlane was closer to where they felt they should be. Chevrolet, meanwhile, had no intermediate at all, and the appearance of the Fairlane pointed out the big gap in size and price between its compact Corvair and Chevy II and the cheapest full-size Chevy. Chevrolet was in no immediate danger -- it outsold Ford by around 50% in both 1962 and 1963 -- but it was a chink in the division's armor that could not be ignored. GM's response was to shift the Tempest, F-85, and Special to a new intermediate-size A-body platform for 1964, which was shared by the new Chevy Chevelle.
Before, the Fairlane had had little direct competition, but now it faced a host of formidable rivals. Its 1964 sales fell below 280,000 units.
THE SMALL GET BIG
Both GM and Ford assumed that the major reason the Fairlane had outsold the GM senior compacts was that it was bigger than any of them. (The failure of the Mercury Meteor suggested otherwise; see sidebar.) The initial 1964 Chevy Chevelle was actually a bit smaller than the Fairlane, but the other A-bodies were noticeably larger: the Olds F-85 and Pontiac Tempest were each 5.4 inches (137 mm) longer than a '64 Fairlane. For 1965, Ford stretched the Fairlane another 1.2 inches (30 mm), with bulky, slab-sided styling that apparently contrived to make it look even bigger than it was.
The '65 Fairlane was actually bigger than the '66-'67 models in most dimensions other than overall width -- it was 198.8 inches (5,050 mm) long, 1.8 inches (46 mm) longer than the '66. Although it still used the same basic body shell as the '62-'63 models, the '65 model was about 140 pounds (64 kg) heavier, and had a softer suspension that improved ride at the expense of handling.
The idea of jockeying to offer the biggest smaller car seems more than a little absurd, but the equation of size and value was (and remains) deeply ingrained in the American psyche. That went for engines, as well as the cars themselves. Pontiac had upped the ante in 1964 with the big-engine Tempest GTO, which included a 389 cu. in. (6.4 L) V8 with 325 gross hp (242 kW). Its GM siblings quickly followed suit, and in 1966, Ford began offering its own big-block 390 (6.4 L) engine in the Fairlane.
The big engines added power, but they also added weight: installing the 390 (and the chassis reinforcement that it required) made the big-engine Fairlane about 430 pounds (195 kg) heavier than the basic six-cylinder car. A 1962 Fairlane with V8 and automatic had weighed 3,150 lb (1,429 kg); a 1966 Fairlane GTA with the 390 and automatic weighed over 3,500 lb (1,588 kg).
Initial '62 Fairlanes were offered only as two- and four-door sedans, but a wagon was quickly added, and the two-door pillarless "Sports Coupe" was introduced mid-year. Bucket seats (which this car has) were optional.
The added bulk didn't dissuade customers. The U.S. economy was in good shape in the mid-sixties, gasoline was cheap, and the promise of big-engine power was alluring to young Baby Boomers, who were just reaching driving age. By 1966, buyers were losing interest in compacts like the Falcon and Corvair, while intermediate sales continued to rise. The Fairlane sold a bit under 320,000 units in 1966, and, after an abysmal 1967 run, around 380,000 for 1968.
The Fairlane accomplished this without ever being particularly exciting. Other than a handful of cars offered with the rare and expensive 427 (7.0 L) "side-oiler," even Fairlanes with big-block engines had lukewarm performance compared to the hottest GTOs or Dodge Chargers. Car Life, testing the raciest big-block '66 Fairlane, concluded that it was still basically a family sedan. As for its styling, the most generous critics called it pleasant and bland. It was hardly an eyesore, but it was not a car dripping with sex appeal.
SIDEBAR: The Mercury Meteor and the Midsize Comet
When the midsize Fairlane was introduced for 1962, it spawned a Mercury version, called Meteor. The Meteor shared the same body as the Fairlane, but rode a slightly longer, 116.5-inch (2,959 mm) wheelbase, stretching 6.8 inches (173 mm) longer overall. While the Comet and Fairlane were commercially successful, the Meteor was a flop. Apparently, Mercury buyers were satisfied with the compact Comet -- particularly in 1963, when the V8 engine became optional on the Comet. Meteors accounted for only about 69,000 sales in 1962 and a bit over 50,000 in 1963, after which it was dropped. The Comet survived, doing respectable business: about 165,000 for 1964, more than 170,000 for 1965.
The '64-'65 Comet was structurally similar to the Falcon, but rode a longer, 114-inch (2,896 mm) wheelbase and had jazzier styling. Mercury tried to give the Comet a sporty flavor with the sportier Comet Cyclone model, which had a 225-hp (168 kW) 289, bucket seats, full instrumentation, and the option of a four-speed manual transmission. Buyers preferred the mid-level 404 model, like this one, or the luxury-oriented Comet Caliente.
For 1966, Lincoln-Mercury followed the lead of Buick, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac by transferring the Comet name to a new intermediate model. It was six inches (152 mm) longer than the Fairlane, but otherwise mechanically identical. Despite the popular Comet name, the intermediate Mercurys still didn't sell well, despite the publicity of a successful NASCAR campaign.
Lincoln-Mercury dropped the Comet name after 1969, but in 1971, they revived it for Mercury's version of the compact Ford Maverick, which survived through 1977.
FAIRLANE IN TWILIGHT
The Fairlane nameplate survived until 1970 in the U.S., although starting in 1968, the top intermediate models were renamed Torino, possibly at the behest of Ford's Italian vice president, Lee Iacocca. In 1971, the Fairlane name was dropped entirely (except in Australia; see the sidebar), and all midsize Fords became Torinos.
By then, Ford's midsize cars had become gargantuan. A 1972 Torino four-door was 211.3 inches (5,359 mm) long on a 118-inch (2,997 mm) wheelbase, tipping the scales at 4,250 lb (1,928 kg) -- actually larger than what had passed for a full-size car a decade earlier. In the interim, the big Fords had also grown larger; a 1972 LTD was 218.4 inches (5,547 mm) long on a 121-inch (3,073 mm) wheelbase, weighing close to 4,800 pounds (2,175 kg). The industry's former compacts, meanwhile, were beginning to approach the size of the 1962 Fairlane.
The '65 Fairlane's extra length was largely in the tail, which was stretched to improve trunk space. "Gunsight" tail lamps are the same basic shape as the contemporary big Fords, but the full-size cars have the tail lamps oriented vertically, rather than horizontally, like the Fairlane.
This growth came to an abrupt halt in the late 1970s, when the new federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules forced Detroit to downsize its bread-and-butter cars. The new full-size models shrank to what had previously been intermediate dimensions. The 1979 Ford LTD sedan, for example, was 209 inches (5,309 mm) long on a 114-inch (2,896 mm) wheelbase, roughly the size of a pre-downsizing Torino. The new midsize Fairmont, meanwhile, was about the size of an early Mercury Comet.
SIDEBAR: Fairlane Down Under
Ford sold locally assembled U.S. Fairlanes in Australia in the early sixties, but slow sales led the model to be dropped in 1965. In 1967, however, Ford Australia introduced a new Fairlane: a stretched version of the Falcon, analogous to the original Comet. The Fairlane name evolved through a multitude of subsequent generations, finally expiring in the summer of 2007.
ROUND AND ROUND
The effects of downsizing proved to be temporary, and by the late 1980s, cars were again getting larger. The growth is no longer simply an American phenomenon; the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla, which began as superminis, are now as big as the mid-size Honda Accord and Toyota Camry of 20 years ago. The Camry and Accord, meanwhile, are now classed as "large cars." As those models have grown, the manufacturers have introduced new, smaller products to fill the gap. Clearly, the pattern established by the intermediates of the sixties and seventies continues apace.
Looking at all of this suggests several interesting conclusions:
-
Customers like having choices, but more choices don't necessarily mean higher sales. Both the Falcon and the Fairlane were commercially successful when they were first introduced, but Ford's total sales during that period remained almost flat. Rather than attracting new buyers, the new models seemed to simply divide existing customers into smaller subcategories. (The only new Ford product of the period that actually seemed to increase total sales was the Mustang.)
-
Consumers are motivated by perceived value, which is not necessarily the same thing as size. Automakers tend to assume American consumers always like bigger cars, but the evidence suggests that that is only partly true. Within the intermediate class, buyers did seem to prefer the bigger models, particularly when the prices were similar. On the other hand, if we compare the sales of Ford's intermediate and full-size cars in the sixties, it appears that the growth in intermediate sales was largely at the expense of the low-line big cars. The price difference between a deluxe Fairlane 500 and a basic full-size Ford was not huge, perhaps $150, but buyers preferred the former, trading sheer size for plusher trim and more equipment. Mercury buyers, meanwhile, clearly felt that the midsize Meteor wasn't worth the modest price premium over the Comet, despite its larger size.
-
There seem to be certain sizes that American consumers particularly like, which manufacturers are continually reinventing under different names. Buyers loved the '49 Ford and the '55 Chevy, for example, and when those models grew beyond recognition, their dimensions were reinvented as the early-sixties intermediates, which buyers loved again. When fuel economy standards forced downsizing in the late seventies, that size was reinvented a third time. Not coincidentally, the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord, the best-selling sedans in America in recent years, are again approaching those dimensions.
Interesting as all that may be from a marketing standpoint, none of this helps to make the early Fairlane any more exciting in its own right. There was nothing wrong with it, but after practically creating its market segment, it consistently failed to stand out from the crowd. There's little honor, it seems, in defining the middle ground.
# # #
NOTES ON SOURCES
Our account of the origins of the Comet comes primarily from the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide,"1960-1963 Mercury Comet" (21 August 2007, HowStuffWorks.com, http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1960-1963-mercury-comet.htm, accessed 30 April 2009). Additional history of the small-block Ford came from Isaac Martin, Ford Windsor Small-Block Performance (New York: HP Trade, 1999).
We also consulted the following period road tests: Jim Wright, "Ford Fairlane 500," Motor Trend, April 1962; "Ford Fairlane 260 Sports Coupe," Car Life, August 1962; "Ford Fairlane 500: Pity the Belabored Fairlane, Starter of Trends and Standard for the Industry," Car Life, March 1965; and "Ford Fairlane GTA: Geniuine Imitation Joins Supercar Spectrum," Car Life, March 1966, all of which are reprinted in R.M. Clarke, ed., Ford Fairlane 1955-1970 Performance Portfolio (Cobham, Surrey: Brooklands Books Ltd., 1998); "Car and Driver Road Test: Torino Cobra: A redesign of the Torino chassis results in a Forrestal-class Super Car," Car and Driver, December 1969, and Jim Brokaw, "The Long and the Short of It," Motor Trend, March 1972, both of which are reprinted in R.M. Clarke, Ford Torino 1968-1974 Performance Portfolio (Cobham, Surrey: Brooklands Books Ltd., 2004); "The Comet: A penetrating analysis of Fo-Mo-Co's new 'not-big-not-small' car," Road & Track, April 1960; "Comet: Mercury's small car adds pounds but loses power," Motor Life, April 1960; "Comet 170: A minor facelift and a larger engine for 1961," Road & Track, January 1961; Jim Wright, "3 from Mercury: Comet, Meteor, Monterey," Motor Trend, May 1962; "Mercury Comet Stresses Low Upkeep," Automobile Topics, November 1962; "Comet Caliente: A Finer Filly for Track or Touring Is Posted For Mid-Range Sweepstakes," Car Life, January 1964; John Ethridge, "2 Comets: Hot & Cool," Motor Trend, May 1965; and "Mercury Comet," Road Test, November 1965, all of which are reprinted in R.M. Clarke, ed., Mercury Comet & Cyclone 1960-1970 (A Brooklands Road Test Limited Edition) (Cobham, Surrey: Brooklands Books Ltd., 1999).
|
This article is interesting. Too bad for Edsel. If it had the Comet, it would have been successful. Then again, the tarnished brand of Edsel would make Comet sales slow.
I never knew this would be confusing... The Fairlane was actually bigger than the F-85 and other derivatives... It seems that you're right about Americans wanting to have that right size ( and right price ) of the car. I've read a Motor Trend article that the editors loved the Chevelle because it reminded them of "their old friend, the 55-57 Chevy."
Anyway,the Fairlane is a good - looking car