We don’t cover 1965 Ford Fairlane 500s too often and I’m a bit surprised at the paucity of reviews considering Ford knocked out almost 224K copies of all stripes that year. Regardless, today we have a pretty fair subject in the form of a Fairlane 500 two-door hardtop. Discovered by Ted, and hanging out in Springboro, Ohio, this 49K mile powder blue specimen is available, here on Facebook Marketplace for $7,850.
By ’65, Ford’s Fairlane was at the end of its first generation (’62-’65) as a mid-size or intermediate. Two trim levels were available, Fairlane 500 and plain ole Fairlane. Body styles comprised four-door sedans and station wagons with a two-door hardtop available for the 500 and a two-door sedan posting up on the standard Fairlane. This example shows OK and the seller states, “has had body work in the late 80’s or 90’s not a show car…” The finish is faded and chipped in places and while there’s no indication of rust or rot, that lower passenger side quarter panel is lookin’ funky – it’s rather wavy. The bumpers still shine and all of the stainless trim is still attached so that’s helpful.
Employing a 120 gross HP, 200 CI, in-line six-cylinder engine, the seller suggests, “Runs great and drives great, EVERYTHING WORKS, brand new brakes, fuel system, tires, full tune-up, get in and go… a fun car to drive.” The engine compartment looks sharp but I’d posit that it has received a recent rattle can touchup. A Cruise-O-Matic automatic transmission handles all things gear-related.
The interior environment is about what one would expect. It’s a rather spartan vinyl-clad affair with a simple and basic instrument panel. It does have a standard temperature gauge, however, something that Ford’s crosstown rival deleted as standard equipment a few years earlier. The driver’s side front bench seat bottom rest has sprung a puncture and the passenger side’s seams have lost their thread. Beyond that, no complaints to register, components such as the carpet and door panels still show well.
I debated whether I should classify this Fairlane 500 as a survivor or a driver. It has a lot of originality – not at all modified and low mileage to boot. The suspected bodywork, which entails some repainting, by our BF classification system, knocks it out of survivor status but the gist of survivorship is definitely present in this essentially 60-year-old Ford. Now, for the seller’s description of “Cheap Classic”. Classics are usually old cars but not all old cars are classics so I’m on the fence with that portrayal. Cheap? What do you think, priced right or not quite?
Just my observation (I don’t have data to back it up): The 1964 Fairlane is a collector favorite, maybe because of the link to the Thunderbolt; while the stacked-headlight 1966 and 1967 models are also favorites, perhaps because they better link to the muscle car era. Meanwhile the 1965 doesn’t seem to generate as much enthusiasm. Not sure why. For me, the funky color-keyed headlight surrounds always looked odd.
Anyhow, this looks like a driver which has had some work. Don’t see straight sixes in Fairlanes too often. Won’t ever be valuable. So just keep it running and upgrade this and that as you see fit, and enjoy it for what it is.
Bob – I think your thoughts on this car’s looks is why it’s not more popular. I think many folks have the same feelings about this year.
I agree, but keep in mind MANY cars we thought wouldn’t be collectible 30 years ago are highly collectible today!
Definitely the “Forgotten Fairlane ” year. While the full size line got a major reskinning, the Fairlane made do with the basic 1962 design for one more year.
Yep. This was a one year only and I don’t know anyone, Ford fanatic or otherwise, that this body was a favorite. Back in the day when this vintage vehicle roamed the streets daily I can’t recall one in my area modified in any way. Not even wheel/tire.
You nailed it, Bob. These cars looked weird front and back. I am mostly a Ford guy, but never desired to own one of these, and I have owned a bunch.
Bob, the thunderbolt was a 64/64 Fairlane option, I don’t think it was available in 65. The 65 was a one year only body style and I have always been surprised that it hasn’t garnered more collector interest. This seems to be a nice driver quality car at a fair price though I would prefer a V8.
Rusty, I’m not sure what you mean by 64/64. Bob did say that the 1964 Fairlane was a favorite because of the link to the Thunderbolt. The Thunderbolt for sure was NOT available in 1965, no one said it was. You would be lucky to find a Sport Coupe with a V-8 and a 4-speed.
A 1965 Thunderbolt was made for Darrel Droke and another was rumoured to have been made(possibly with a 427 SOHC but cant be confirmed).They(or it being singular) were made by Ford’s experimental division planned for the 65′ season until NHRA changed the rules on how many had to be made thus the program was cancelled,but not before Droke received his 65′ Thunderbolt.
In 1965, the Mercury comet was a much better looking car, especially the 2 door hardtop fastback. The Fairlane that year looked stodgy by comparison.
Azzura, agree 👍 The Comet looked even better.
My first car was a ‘65 Fairlane, white (and rust) with red interior. 200 six, 3 speed on the column. Paid $50.00 for the car, tore the clutch out of it and sold it for $50.00.
I’ve known two different guys to have a 65 SportsCoupe. Both were bucket seat/console with 4-spds. Guess I just got lucky.
I prefer the 1963 with a 260 V8.
Agree with Thomas Kaufman. Back in ‘73, had a ‘63 Sport Coupe with bucket seats, console, three on the tree, and the 260. Odometer read in the 70s, but I believe this was the second time around. It burned oil so badly a guy pulled up alongside of me on I-94 and held his nose!
The base ’65 Fairlane front looked better because its headlight surrounds were not color-keyed like the 500. These are actually handsome cars, and being a one-year only body style, should have been more collectible. I guess they had too much competition from the Chevelle. On this particular car, I’m not sure I like the rattle-can engine rebuild, not to mention it’s only a six. These needed the 289 to keep their performance interesting.
They look way more better with a 428FE under the hood ..
The 65 Mercury Comet Caliente was definitely one of my favorites compared to this 65 Fairlane. But this one surely checks the boxes as a driver. I liked the 260s better than this 200 inline 6, but it’s a pretty honest car overall.
Doug46hv
First new car my parents bought after I’d been born in ’55. I was 10, only options Dad oppted for were, an automatic, radio and the 289 V-8 in the 4 door wagon.
As a fan of Fairlanes, all years, it’s hard to pick a favorite. I’ve been fortunate to have owned and driven many. Currently I’m enjoying a ‘65 Sports Coupe -K- Code. Black exterior, red interior, 4-speed, 3.50 geared 9” axle – HiPo’s got the HD axle. The 289HP is original. A fun Fairlane for sure.
As for the ‘65 featured here I think it offers a Ford fan an opportunity to build a neat resto-mod. You won’t see them often at Cars & Coffee.
My first car was a white over black 65 fairlane 500 2 door. 289 and 2 speed auto. Looked pretty good for 300 bucks in 1985 , but I drove it HARD and did something to it one day. The engine lost all compression. Sold it non running for the same 300. Woukd love it have it back. Wish I kept it and dropped another 289 in it.
“Paucity”? Isn’t that someplace dogs go for weekend entertainment?
@Doug46hv
My parents bought a new ’64 Fairlane in August ’63.
You think your dad was cheap? (Some would say “frugal”) my father ordered the ’64 with the smallest Falcon 6 cylinder he could get. The only options were a am radio & heater. Period. 3 on the tree.
Basic transportation
But, in its defense it did take us to Florida twice, Arizona twice, from New Jersey but in the 4 1/2 years we had it it was in 7 accidents. Once was my mom’s fault but the rest people just kept hitting it.
This body style never screamed performance. More business look, like it had a suit on. Hard to make it even look intimidating without tubbing it.