1960 Ford Ad

fun

That is completely fantastic! I really liked the Galaxie too. The Falcon gets thirty miles to the gallon, wow, that is inspiring for my van. That ad is too cool.

It's fun to look back on history like that when everything was new. Imagine what they'll think in another 56 years of what we're doing today. They'll most likely have more video from now too.

One of the reasons I love the cars fo this era is the style trumps practicality. That was more true for cars like my T'bird than that Falcon, but it's pretty amazing. There's no way a car like that T'bird would make it to production today.

The things that make it cool - the low profile (my shoulders stick up in the wind when I sit in it), the wrap around windshield and the large steering wheel make it really hard to get in and out of. Opening and closing the power operated trunk takes about 60 seconds, putting in your packages in the rain means you get soaked waiting. And with the top down, there's only room for about 4 grocery bags. That's in a car every bit as big, length and width, as my 7 passenger Honda Odyssey.

But who cares? It looks cool! Now, even cool cars need some practicality. Mazda's sport's car, the RX-8, has a back seat and 4 doors. I love the fact that in the late 50's and early 60's, American car manufacturers were not ashamed to simply go after style. Period.

That new Dodge Charger looks to be the perfect family car. It is sporty, fast (pending on how much you are willing to spend on it, there are several packages), and 4 doors. It is a thing of beauty.

Wow, 5 comments on something without 'UP' or 'Kip' involved. :-)

Paul - I have to say, while you're right the Charger is a good looking, roomy car, I'm just not a big car guy. I drove a new Impala for a few days while my Mazda3 was in the shop (That's a story I should tell. Sheesh.) and hated it. Very roomy, fast and smooth, but it just made me feel lost and disconnected from the road. The Charger looks a lot better, but I bet it still has that same kind of feel feel to it. Too big.

For the $21,500 you'd shell out for the base Charger, you can get a loaded Mazda5 Grand Touring micro-van with leather, sunroof, auto climate conrol, heated mirrors, alloy wheels and heated seats. The EPA milage estimates are nearly identical (suprisingly), but in the real world I bet the 4 cylinder Mazda gets better mileage that the V6 Charger that weighs nearly 500 lbs more. You do give up a little space in each seat compared to the Charger, but then again you get 6 seats instead of 5 and 4 of those fold down to hauls big stuff.

Two very different vehicles, but for a family, the Mazda is a more versitle car for the money. Easier to drive and park too, I bet. Give up a few frills and you could even save a few grand. I'd actually get the lesser Touring model so I could get a 5 speed stick and a DVD system for the same money. Check 'em out, side by side.

Power can not be underestimated! It's a lot easier passing cars with my dad's turbo cummins diesel dodge truck than my wifes 4 cylinder toyota.

Anyway, had a good talk with my dad today about the sixties. Thought of your ad. He mentioned the mustang coming out in like 64. What a time and what an era. Vietnam, woodstock, Kennedy, Cuban missle crisis, Presly, the beatles, going to the moon, etc.

Well, with a stick the Mazda would make good use of its 153 horses, but yeah, more is better. The base Charger is only 190 HP, though, with 500 more pounds to carry. Power to weight wise, that's not a huge difference, 22 lbs. per pony for the Mazda, 20 for the Charger. More power in the Charger is more money, of course. The 250 HP V6 adds $2,000.

If power is what you need, get the Charger SRT-8 with a 425 HP Hemi. That's zoom-zoom. That's also nearly double at $38,700. Ouch.

Yup. Power, weight and transmission. Just got a International Diesel grain truck, (i.e. testasteron machine). It has power, low weight but no two-speed rear end so takes getting used to and can be sluggish.

Anyway, my wifes got a new job so she may get a car next year. Probably will get a diesel or corn burner.

Well, I have to admit, the Mazda is a better Batmobile, except for the look. I like the sleek looking minivan, but the Charger is just way, way cooler looking. It is a reminder of the old muscle cars. The truth of the matter is that if you are spending $38,000 on a Charger, then at that point it is just a toy and an extension of pure masculinity. But the Mazda is a better family car, with a good price tag also; and not THAT emasculating…

BEG - An IH diesel grain truck is sluggish, who'da thunk? :-) Surely, you're not surprised?

Oh, and tell your wife congrats on the new job. Hopefully the commute is less, but given where you live I doubt that.

Paul - I agree, the Charger looks cooler. It certainly is one of the coolest looking 'family' cars in a long time. Much improved over the Tauruses, Intrepids and Impalas of recent years, actually decades.

I'm just a huge fan of the minivan and for most families of 1-2 kids, that Mazda5 mini-minivan is just brilliant, I think.

There's just no vehicle that gives you the versitility of a van for the money, period. My Odyssey's been used to haul my family and all our Christmas goodies across country, 6 adults comfotably to Dayton and Chicago, 4' x 8' sheets of OSB for flooring, vinyl siding, furniture and more. I couldn't do all of that in any other kind of vehicle. The only thing that comes close, a Suburban, is much more money and more thirsty.

When our Odyessey gets replaced I a few years, I'm thinking seriously about a smaller van like that Mazda5, even though it would be more challenging for trips. Less money to buy and less gas is pretty attractive. A rooftop carrier might solve the long trip issue.

In the mean time, I'm trying to convince BEG that he needs one. That's what car guys who aren't millionaires do, live vacariously through their friends. :-)