We’re a fickle bunch, car people. On the one hand we often fawn over rare, limited production cars, or options, or engines, or dealer installed equipment. Typically taking a car and adding a few of those factors together means that it will be worth big bucks to almost everyone. Like all rules though, there are exceptions. BangShift reader Zombie289 found an eBay listing for the car you’ll see below, which is a 1965 Ford Fairlane that came factory equipped with a high performance K-code 289, four speed, and 4.11 geared nine-inch rear end. When it arrived at the dealer, the engine was further fortified with the addition of three two barrel carbs. According to everything we have read, they made 100 or less of this combo and when the tri-power is added in, we’re talking single digits or low double digits for cars in existence today. So by now you’re asking, “What’s the problem?”
The problem is that this package is all installed in a 1965 Ford Fairlane, which is not just a homely car with respect to other Fairlanes, it is just about as ugly a car as you could find being built in America during the middle 1960s. It has front end styling that makes Checker cabs look like daring automotive expressionism. It has weird winglets on the front of the car that look as though they should be part of the rear quarter panel, not the front fender. Hell, even the rear roof pillar is awkwardly wide. The whole thing looks like it was designed during a morning meeting where a bunch of engineers got surprised and had to present an idea by noon.
Take all this stuff and stick it in a 1965 Mustang and you’re looking at rolling gold. Sure, this was a gnarly little sleeper during 1965, but it is also one of the few cars that hasn’t aged well with time. We’re sure a bunch of people are into the car…we’re just not with them. Also, the $48,800 asking price for this car seems about as ill advised as Ford’s design decisions for the 1965 Fairlane.
Scroll down to see photos and the link to the eBay ad!
eBay Link: 1965 Ford Fairlane K-Code 4-speed
I’m kinda wingin’ this comment.
I was a Ford dealership employee from ’62 up to ’64 in Indianapolis and saw a few high-performance cars come through, such as the 390/401’s, 406/405’s, and 427/425’s.
I used to go through the back of the parts books to look at the fiber-glass hoods and fenders available and the aluminum bumpers for the Galaxies. I think there may have been a complete lightweight body option.
I recall 390’s and 406’s with “six-barrel” induction systems.
I’d changed allegiance to Chevy by then. You know, high-compression 327 with a big Holley and the “30-30” solid-lifter camshaft, 4.88 rear ratio, Sunoco 260 gas…
‘Never saw that 6-V option for the 289’s. I think there may have been dual quads offered as dealer-installed options, though.
Ah, what-the-hey, if the owner of the Fairlane in the article isn’t claiming it to be an available part-numbered FoMoCo deal, all righty, then…
As an aside, there was a salesman from Jerry Alderman Ford that seemed to think he could create a niche market by having a hot Mustang and whip-up on local street racers on the drive-in restaurant circuit on Indy’s north side.
He talked the dealership into plopping a dual-quad set-up on his 289-equipped Mustang demonstrator. I think it was a hydraulic lifter engine, not the solid-lifter 271 H.P. one. (He mighta’ had a chance with that!)
The small-block Chevy guys handed him his arse repeatedly, and so did the tuned-in MoPar guys (and girl).
After a while, he stopped hanging around. ‘Don’t know if he ever sold a car using his failed ploy…
Readers; thanks for the opportunity to reminisce…
as an engineer, I need to defend our profession. It wasn’t engineering that made it ugly, it was the industrial designers (the “stylists”). Engineers just had to take their ugly, and figure out how to make it work, and how to make it.
Now having said that, I don’t think it’s THAT ugly. Yes, comparatively ugly as far as everything else in 1965, but still not so ugly that I wouldn’t want it – just not for that price. That car is way cool on the mechanical side, and to me that offsets a whole lotta ugly.
Thanks for saying exactly what I was planning to! (no harm, no foul!)
I would not call the Fairlane ugly, but it certainly is plain looking.
Also, by ’65, the GM and Chrysler intermediates were packin’ big blocks. Was the intent to be a street racer? Are you going to take on a GTO with this car? Likely no.
I would be interested in knowing what the original purchaser had in mind with this car.
Many people don’t know that the 289 HiPo engine was first installed in the Fairlane – in 1963. The only Ford product to have it. In 1964, it was affectionally known as the “Baby Bolt” (as opposed to the 427 Thunderbolt). 1965 was the last year it was available in the Fairlane. These cars are rare due to their very limited production, but they are not valuable, as in high dollar cars.
The car in question has been around for sale for quote a while. I believe it has shown up in a number of Mecum Auctions. It was part of the Ray Skillman Collection at one time.
Quite right on the, “Baby ‘Bolt”.
Sure, it’s not the most graceful design, but with the current wheel/tire package and the addition of the side body chrome/stainless trim, it goes a long way toward giving it an increased coolness factor. Replace the front bumper lights with ram-air ducting and swap on some slightly meatier rear tires and you’ve got yourself one sweet sleeper. Go a bit further with a chambered exhaust and 45-degree turn-downs ahead of the bumper and we’re talking maximum cruise appeal!
I’m more into trucks, not muscle cars. And that price is crazy. However it aint that ugly.And with that engine sure any visual short coming could be forgotten.