Those tall spring/shock towers create a very instantly-recognizable look under the hood of any Falcon platform car, whether its this 1960 Falcon with the little 85 hp 144 CID six, Here’s another shot of the front end, this one from a 1962 Fairlane. One of the most instantly-recognizable aspects is the front suspension design, a classic SLA (short-arm long-arm) design but with the coil springs and shock absorbers mounted high on the upper arm. What exactly are the distinguishing characteristics of the Falcon platform? The most fundamental one is its unibody, whose basic characteristics and architecture are readily discerned in all its variations. Numerous Ford passenger cars would be conceived and created using the Falcon’s basic building blocks, in a variety of wheelbases (103″ to 117″), widths (front/rear track from 55/54.5 to 61.5/61), performance (85 to some 500+ hp), and weights (2280 to over 4,000 lbs). There’s no doubt that the Ford body engineers and designers who put their heads together to create the compact VW Beetle-fighter in the late fifties would never have imagined their modest little baby spawning such a huge raft of cars for twenty years on.
To say that the 1960 Ford Falcon was a seminal car is putting it lightly. Remodeling is always cheaper than starting from scratch. And if you ever run into a description of any of these dozens of cars (except the 1960 Falcon) that calls any of them “all new”, here’s the rebuttal to that. It’s long overdue to be given its proper name: the Falcon platform. But their fundamental structural similarities are obvious, and they all have their roots in the 1960 Falcon. They’re not that often associated as one “platform”, and some might argue against lumping them all together. But there was a precedent: Ford’s compact-midsize unibodies from 1960-1980. They were stretched, folded and mutilated into an astonishing wide variety of vehicles. ( first posted ) The Ford Fox and Chrysler K-Car platforms are both well-known for their many variations on the same basic underpinnings.
0 kommentar(er)
