What The Hell: Fairlane 500

Mechanically this car sounds pretty sweet, but check out the paint:

http://columbus.craigslist.org/cto/3110318674.html

Why would you do that to this poor car??

please be vinyl. please be vinyl. please be vinyl.

I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

Same here on the dual quads. Has to be for show, that engine can't use more than 550cfm.

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

Because it is a "BAD ASS -- SHOW CAR" that's why!

When I saw the title this is the first thing I thought of:

Edit: I didn't notice the license plate when I posted.

As for the one in Columbus, it takes all kinds. Might just be vinyl. Otherwise some sanding and some paint. And a lower price.

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

Because one carb is challenging the honor of the other.

Joe Gearin wrote:

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

Because it is a "BAD ASS -- SHOW CAR" that's why!

Got my vote.

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

Because one carb is challenging the honor of the other.

Precisely. The anger and tension are good for 40 horsepower.

Dual fours can actually run really well on a 289, provided they are sized correctly and the engine is built to use them.

Yuck. 65's are the WORST looking Fairlanes out there. As to the paint, it's cheap to change it.

There was even a 3X2 carb set up available...

Ranger50 wrote: Yuck. 65's are the WORST looking Fairlanes out there.

^This.

'64s are cool. '66s are beautiful. I don't know what happened in '65.

Woody wrote: I don't know what happened in '65.

I think the Mustang sucked the life and looks from everything in the Ford lineup in '65.....

The '65 Fairlane...it's what happens when a car company needs to make a bodystyle last one more year, but loses the design "thread" after a few years time. (Same basic body for the '65 underpins the "62, '63, and '64.)

This is and will probably forever be THE world's most expensive (based on selling price) '65 Ford Fairlane in NON-stock condition. Overpriced at 1/3 the price this guy is asking.

Ranger50 wrote: Yuck. 65's are the WORST looking Fairlanes out there. As to the paint, it's cheap to change it.

I agree. I haven't see of the those in so many years that I forgot that Ford ever built such an ugly car. UGLY! Get a '67!

Ranger50 wrote:

Woody wrote: I don't know what happened in '65.

I think the Mustang sucked the life and looks from everything in the Ford lineup in '65.....

It was the same reason you see one so-so looking gal hanging out with gals twice as ugly.......better by comparison.

jimbbski wrote: I agree. I haven't see of the those in so many years that I forgot that Ford ever built such an ugly car. UGLY! Get a '67!

I dislike the '65 bodystyle, but only for the tail lights. The '64 with the thunderbolt's teardrop hood looks epic. And I only like stacked headlights on Pontiacs

integraguy wrote: The '65 Fairlane...it's what happens when a car company needs to make a bodystyle last one more year, but loses the design "thread" after a few years time. (Same basic body for the '65 underpins the "62, '63, and '64.) This is and will probably forever be THE world's most expensive (based on selling price) '65 Ford Fairlane in NON-stock condition. Overpriced at 1/3 the price this guy is asking.

As with any "custom" car, its not worth as much, except in this case, maybe to a hormonal grade schooler.....

A restored '65 R-code 3x2 289/4sp will bring upwards of 50k......

yamaha wrote: I dislike the '65 bodystyle, but only for the tail lights. The '64 with the thunderbolt's teardrop hood looks epic. And I only like stacked headlights on Pontiacs

I don't like the headlights or tail lights. I hate teardrop hoods. And I prefer '64 Pontiacs...

I don't think the 65 is ugly, maybe not beautiful, but not grotesque in any way.

I have been spending a lot of time looking at less desirable (cheap) classic cars lately though, maybe I'm getting used to ugly.

are those fallopian tubes on the hood?

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

I always wanted to slap some rat of an engine together on a test stand and throw on 2 different carbs, and then give two friends ropes attached to each carb's throttle and have a mechanical tug of war until something comes out for air. This particular 289 seems like the perfect candidate.

Yeah, the 65 isn't nearly as cool as the 64 or 66-67. 66 Fairlane hardtop is one of my dream cars.

And if you think that paint (or vinyl) is bad, I'm going to need to dig up my pics of an SN95 that had to have 50 pounds and 20 miles worth of pinstriping tape on it.

Nuts man. Can't be changed. That is the kind of thing that simply must be preserved.

Grizz wrote: I kinda wanna know why you'd put "duel" fours on a 289. Seems like overkill to me.

We did it all the time back in the day. It was kinda like the ricers of today, we did it cause it would look cool rather than we knew enough to know it was the best thing to do. More racing was done in the classroom than on the streets.

Hot Rod exchange was always there to trade it in for tomorrow's super cool set up and let someone else use your old set up.

I did it on my 340 and never did get it sorted out right. The 3 dueces on the AAR also never ran right - that's why I like fuel injection so much today.

Some things just sound cooler than they are and at some point in your life that's the most important thing.