At the time of it’s introduction, these simple little cars were not family cars, they were second cars for daily use. This freed up their larger stable siblings to move onward and upward in size, complexities, and luxuries. Cars like the Falcom, American, Lark, Comet, Special, Tempest, Beetle, and F-85 displayed a simple design for the simple purpose of the daily suburban commute. There is still room for similarly designed cars today.

Back in the 1950s, simple cars were stripped cars – the Scotsman, Delray, Custom, and these cars sold well because families needed two cars, and didn’t want two fully-equipped vehicles. The 1958 Recession demonstrated to the Big Three a need for simple cars as second family cars. So the compact car was finally gambled upon in a big way.

Remember the surprise when these simple cars became upscale? The Corvair became the Monza, the Falcon became the Futura, and within three years Ford launched the Mustang based on the Falcon? Just as simple is always appealing, we see simple cars get mucked up for profit – then lose their appeal. Then the next simple thing comes along, right?

The next big thing was the simplicity of pick ups, which attracted buyers initially, during the 1970s. Small trucks such as the Hi-Lux, Datsun, LUV, and Couriers were spartan and simple. During an age of personal luxury land yachts, this simplicity was found once again. They were inexpensive and easy to understand and appreciate. The enduring legacy of the Jeep, also proves out this quest for auto simplicity.

And once again, we see the Big Three take these simple trucks and turn them into SUVs and incredible profits. The simple beauty of a 1970 Chevy truck turns into a HUMMER and loses it’s market charm in the process.

So, where are today’s simple cars? Is it the Indian minicar, Tata? The Honda Fit? The Ford Ka or their Express trucklet? Which of today’s vehicles demonstrate the “start from scratch” simplicity seen in the 1950 Beetle, 1960 Falcon, 1970 B-210, 1980 CJ-7, 1990 Mazda 121?

There is always a market for simplicity, especially during times like these.

Agreed. The 65 was handsome, tidy design. I remember nearly being seduced by a 65 Comet Caliente a couple of years ago. With a 289 or a 302 these things fly, and look good doing it.

Whatever happened to clean, simple designs?

Nice find though, Oregon is an interesting place for a lot of reasons.

My Dad ran that ‘62 Comet wagon to a lot of dog shows in the late ’60s as my stepmother wanted to preserve the newness of their ‘67 Country Squire for at least as long as they still owed payments on it.

I didn’t think that the Comet DROVE badly at all.Parking was a bitch–Armstrong Steering was an apt description; though the few times I was allowed the Squire, I found it way over-boosted. No middle ground in the Fords of that era.

Having had experiences with both the Powerglide and the Ford 2-speed, I prefer the Ford. The Powerglide was easier to make hunt between low and high.

Say what you will, but at least cars of this era had some sort of brand (or manufacturer) identity. If you block out everything below the window line this Comet looks just like my old 1963 Galaxie 2-door.
As The Vandals said:
The front is kept up for society/
But the back says I have personality/
Even if it’s really, really bad!

By ‘64, when it got a handsome mini-Continental face, it was selling very competitively even against GM’s new intermediates, which totally outclassed it in size and power. The ‘65 got the only stacked headlights in the compact class, as well as one of the best bodies Detroit ever put out, IMHO–criply tailored, perfectly proportioned, and with just enough trim.

The Comet may have started out as an orphan of the storm, but it turned into a great example of the benefits of adoption.

My ‘69 Saab Sonett has 4 on the tree too, of course, and a freewheel to boot!

What was the LAST vehicle made with a manual column shifter?

We’d blast down the Long Island Expressway with the top down in the winter (and the heater going full blast). Hmm, I think I’d buy one if the price was right.

But fair assessment. The heads had small ports and the intake valves were only 1.60″ while the 289 got 1.78″ valves and larger intakes.

I put 289 heads and intake on my 260 along with a few other tricks like a wind age tray, variable duration lifters, and electronic ignition. It was good for about 270hp at 7000 rpm. About the same HP as a K engine 289 but with more top end power overall. Top speed in my Fairlane was about 140 with 3.25 gears.

The slightly smaller engine breathed great through the 289 heads and made a great roar when opened up hard. I do miss that sound.

I had a rare timing cover on the engine. In 1963 they changed the oil fill location from the timing cover to the valve covers. I had a cover with the oil fill tube mount molded in but not punched out. Only a few were produced that way. I also had heavy Hi-Po rods and the front balancer that used the cam chain balancer as well. It was an interesting combination of engine parts.

The 260 V8 in later Fairlanes didn’t have any top end either. A ‘65 Volvo 544 was a couple of miles quicker at the top end on a very rural back road with a three mile straight. I was in the Volvo, and it read 98 mph, that’s all. You remember these things when you’re only 18. My whole body was shaking from excitement, my foot hardly able to keep the pedal to the metal.

Now, on the other hand, my friend’s souped-up 1966 or ‘67 289/271 hp Comet Caliente coupe was a rocket ship, although it always threw the fan belt when he exceeded 7200 rpm. 7200 rpm was amazing in a street car in those days.

Great article, Paul. Brings back the memories.

I had a 66 Comet Caliente when I first moved to LA, and learned to drive on a full size 66 Montclair 4 door in a beautiful dark turquoise/ blue green metallic. That was my first automotive love [parents bought it new from Bonneville Motors Tooele, UT] and I have had a soft spot in my head for Mercurys ever since. This Comet has the same shade interior as that 66 did. So much nicer than mud, cadaver or charcoal as interior color choices you get today.

It’s too bad if you guess correctly you don’t win the car, as I have always loved these Comets.

But will anyone care by then?

There really isn’t a place anymore for the old medium-price brands…Pontiac and Oldsmobile are dead; Dodge is now a mass-market brand that primarily sells trucks and minivans.

Buick survives primarily because of the Chinese market; and even on this site, posters can’t decide whether Cadillac or Buick should take on Lexus.

Where, exactly, will Mercury fit into the scheme of things? There really isn’t any room between Ford and Lincoln anymore.

Originally Mercury was a “blue-collar” Buick. Then Ford tried to turn it into a true Buick competitor in the late 1950s. That effort failed, and Mercury’s salvation was a stretched and primped Falcon.

Today the primped Fusion is the Lincoln MKZ.

Owner drove it on the rack, I did the lift, serviced it, then dropped it down. In backing it off the rack, all four gears in the standard “H” pattern were forward. After verifying for the third time everything was forward, the owner, having had his fun with me, told me it was a four speed. Knowing that, I went searching for the third rail.

I do not remember if it was above or below the standard “H” or the lever went forward or back to get the gear, but it definitely was a four speed and he said it came from the factory that way.

Here’s one on Ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1973-MERCURY-COMET-GT-ONE-OWNER_W0QQitemZ230387379737QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Cars_Trucks?hash=item35a4286e19

I also had a 1963 meteor which had gauges for amp and oil. It had the V-8 260 engine as well although internally the rods were thinner and the pistons had an additional carbon ring on them. I’ve owned several 63 and 64 fairlanes. I would love to find a 63 Comet S-22 convertible with a V-8 and a stick.

I like the 63 small Fords the best and if I could collect cars I would have an example of each. All were very reliable, economical, and fun to drive.

I never owned a 6 cylinder version, I thought them too slow. I had a 2 speed in some of my Fords and installed a c-4 in one. They also offered the FMX trans, a rare option.

Back then you had a lot of options within each model, Falcons could be had as Rancheros, there were 4 doors, wagons, sports coupes, and a myriad of engine choices all the way up to the K code 289 high performance.

Good old days.

What a great greenhouse this coupe has! Convex rear windows kick ass! The hood and tail, though, are disproportionately long.

I think the success of the Comet probably inspired the Fairlane. The size gap between a Falcon and a full-size Ford was vast — thirty inches in overall length — and the Comet made it clear there was a market for something in the middle. (The Falcon, as Lee Iacocca later noted, also offered very little for salesmen to “upsell.”)

I’m not sure that the badging issue had anything to do with a desire to somehow preserve the Mercury brand. Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln was perilously close to the ax, and Ben Mills (GM at the time) had to plead with Robert McNamara for another chance. The cancellation of the Edsel brand came very, very close to the Comet’s launch date, to the point that Ford had already had “Edsel Comet” dealers signs made up. It may have been as prosaic as it being easier to do a separate marketing campaign for the Comet alone than to go back and add it to already-approved, already-printed Mercury ads and brochures. It would also have made it easier to move the Comet to Ford dealers if Lincoln-Mercury was killed.

Incidentally, Chrysler originally marketed the Valiant as a separate marque. It had to do with a complicated and ultimately ill-fated plan to separate Plymouth from Dodge. That idea apparently died when somebody figured out that Plymouth was about to lose its sales position unless they rolled Valiant sales into the total. See: http://ateupwithmotor.com/model-histories/compact-and-economy-cars/167-everybodys-kid-brother-plymouth-valiant.html