Falcon vs Galaxie vs Cutlass

I've been wanting to get an american convertible barge to go cruising with the family on nice summer nights. It needs to have enough room for three (young) kids in the back seat, and I don't want to spend too much time/money/energy in it I already have too many projects. So with that said, I've narrowed it down to three possibilities available locally.

1) A 1964 Ford Falcon with a 260 and auto. It's a little rough, but doesn't need anything. I know they share their mechanicals with the 'stang, so parts should be plentiful. But I'm afraid it will be too small too fast.

2) 1967 Ford Galaxie with a 390 and auto. A little more pricey, but nothing to do. How bargey are these to drive?

3) 1969 Oldsmobile Cutlass with 350 rocket. A little assembly required (interior) but lots of new parts. I like the looks of this one better, but it's hard to judge the interior with it in pieces.

So, GRM, which one would you guys choose and why?

Galaxie all the way IMHO

Galaxie based on looks, but that is just my oppinion. "Nothing to do" is the real reason, since you mentioned having to many projects.

With any older car get the one with the least rust, everything else is easier to fix. How are the tops?

Toss up between the Galaxie and the Olds. It would depend on the price and how much work the Olds actually needs. The Olds can be made whole without too much difficulty, that would be the main choice (and I'm much more of a Ford guy). My main reason? I think it would be easier to sell once this itch has been scratched and you realize the car is a PITA to have around for 3 drives a year.

toss up on 2-3. A body stuff is attractively cheap though. i'd lean to the cutlass because circle track bits are cheap ways to get handling.

Olds for easy replacement parts.

In reply to midniteson: Not sure how (defunct) Olds is easier to get parts for than a Ford

In reply to aussiesmg:

Because it shares a metric assload of parts with 3 other cars?

aussiesmg wrote: In reply to midniteson: Not sure how (defunct) Olds is easier to get parts for than a Ford

Because late 60's Cutlasses have a HUGE following. Mid 60's Galaxies? Not so much.

If I go to an average local car show, I'm pretty much guaranteed to see at least one Cutlass (usually two or three). Seeing a Galaxie is a rare treat.

I have Stags, GTV6, Range Rover SSE and Capris, I find it hard to think of a domestic having rare parts

Not to mention parts for a GM A-body will be much cheaper than parts for an old Ford. Always have been where I'm from anyway.

Cutlass.

Only cause I love them.

As much as I am a HUGE fan of GM A-bodies...

Galaxie. Hands down.

When you say "barge," that doesn't describe the intermediates like the Cutlass and Falcon.

Unless its a full-size car, its not really a barge. Ford Galaxie, GM B or D body, something big. Cheaper to buy also.

And by the way... regardless of size, all of them will feel like driving a barge without serious suspension upgrades.

The first time I drove my 66 Bonneville I was convinced I was going to die. but I liked it.

In reply to curtis73:

Yep. I bought my Falcon, replaced the entire brake system, and every suspension joint, did an alignment and still thought I was in the most broken car in the world.

All of the fawning over old cars is a false reality. They did everything worse than a modern econobox. The crappiest car you can buy today is better in every way than a vintage american car.

In reply to Ditchdigger:

What did you expect from it exactly?

Those old land yacht cars reward you for driving them slow, not fast, and most of the smaller ones of the period were modeled after the big ones. I've run into people before who really struggled to calm down enough behind the bigass steering wheel to "get it".

Early Falcon parts are easy to get. Most everything is repro'd. But, they drive like a 1950s car.

The Galaxie would be more challenging if you needed restoration parts as the big Fords are only just now becoming popular. If it's a nice car already, then no worries, and I think you'll get in before the prices really go up. Don't expect the 390 to do handstands though. It's a torque motor, weighs a ton, and is expensive to build HP if you want it to go faster.

The Cutlass falls somewhere in between the two for parts availability. I think the styling is less interesting for myself. The Olds 350 is about as impressive as the Ford 390 (good, but not great). Between b and c, it's mostly going to be a matter of personal taste.

Depending on the interior of the cutlass, I would look at that. It's a decent driver stock and there are a ton of options to make it even nicer. It will have a better resale and I just like the looks better.

If it wasn't for the 3 kids, I would have said the falcon but its not good for a back seat.

B or C. Like you said, the Falcon would be too small...

If it's a summer toy, getting ice cream with the kiddies car, why limit yourself to such a small field?

Dan

cutlass. because interchange.

Coming from someone who owned a '60 thunderbird, I'd choose the falcon. But, since you want a "barge" the galaxie is the only one that really fits that bill.

Also, time to cross shop tbird verts from 66 and earlier.

I have always wanted a Falcon as they were the start of the Ford v8 performance back in the day.

The Galaxies have a mafia approved trunk even with a convertable

and the 350 rocket will make you get Christmas cards from BP, Chevron, Shell.

All are grab worthy,

I vote for the Falcon

If its a great big American boat that you're looking for then a Galaxie won't disappoint. I owned a 65 four door years ago and almost bought a convertible a couple of years ago. Unfortunately with three Triumph TR8's I just don't have any more garage space. Otherwise I would have bought it.

given Fords fascination with names that begin with the letter "F" I kind of wish they would bring back the falcon and fairlane . Fairlane would have been a better name for the Taurus than the "500"

Might also make a nice "upscale" name.. Ford Tauris Fairlane