1960 Ford Cardinal

kernals12

Banned
To piggyback on my thread about Ford turning down the offer to get Volkswagen for free in 1948, I want to skip to another missed small car opportunity. In 1960, the success of the Volkswagen convinced Ford to design its own subcompact to be known as the Cardinal.
upload_2017-11-13_14-47-23.png

It was front wheel drive, a radical feature back then, and to slot below their own compact Falcon. It was not to be however, Dearborn cancelled it and the car was instead rebadged as the Taunus (that's with an "n" not an "r") and sold by Ford of Germany. I think this was a missed opportunity for the Blue Oval, it would've been a revolution for the American auto industry, instead we had to wait another 10 years for a Ford subcompact, the infamous Pinto. So what if Ford decided to go with it?
 
Falcons were to have been front wheel drive, but that didn't survive McNamara leaving Ford for Washington DC.

The Ford Maverick had a wheelbase 9" longer than the Pinto, that gave it a bit more space in the rear, so less *boom*
 

kernals12

Banned
Falcons were to have been front wheel drive, but that didn't survive McNamara leaving Ford for Washington DC.

The Ford Maverick had a wheelbase 9" longer than the Pinto, that gave it a bit more space in the rear, so less *boom*
I've never read anything about a Front Wheel Drive Falcon, you may be thinking of the Oldsmobile F-85. And the problem for the Pinto wasn't the lack of space (otherwise you'd have tons of burning smart cars) it was that they put the tank behind the rear axle and gave it no protection with a "purely ornamental" bumper and no crossmembers.
 
Last edited:
I've never read anything about a Front Wheel Drive Falcon, you may be thinking of the Oldsmobile F-85. And the problem for the Pinto wasn't the lack of space (otherwise you'd have tons of burning smart cars) it was that they put the tank behind the rear axle and gave it no protection with a "purely ornamental" bumper and no crossmembers.

No, the front suspension on the falcon had the spring and shock on top of the upper control arm, so there could be clearance for a driveshaft. But the later decision to stick with front engine, rear drive left the car with the odd front suspension setup that meant the shock towers would take up far more room under the hood, limiting the width of engines that could be used, rather than the older that had the spring/ shock on the bottom arm, passing thru the chassis
wpb59b81d3.gif
0511cr_03z-1950_Ford_Sedan-Suspension_View_Disassemble.jpg

So the early Mustangs and Fairlanes that shared that setup could not have big blocks until the chassis were reworked in 65 for Fairlanes and 67 for Mustangs.
Ford didn't want to retool.

All '60s Ford Compacts and Intermediates had the fueltank forming the 'floor' of the Trunk.
Yet the Pinto had More tank ruptures in rear enders due to the shock bolts puncturing the tank. Just too packed together back there
 

kernals12

Banned
No, the front suspension on the falcon had the spring and shock on top of the upper control arm, so there could be clearance for a driveshaft. But the later decision to stick with front engine, rear drive left the car with the odd front suspension setup that meant the shock towers would take up far more room under the hood, limiting the width of engines that could be used, rather than the older that had the spring/ shock on the bottom arm, passing thru the chassis
wpb59b81d3.gif
0511cr_03z-1950_Ford_Sedan-Suspension_View_Disassemble.jpg

So the early Mustangs and Fairlanes that shared that setup could not have big blocks until the chassis were reworked in 65 for Fairlanes and 67 for Mustangs.
Ford didn't want to retool.

All '60s Ford Compacts and Intermediates had the fueltank forming the 'floor' of the Trunk.
Yet the Pinto had More tank ruptures in rear enders due to the shock bolts puncturing the tank. Just too packed together back there
I read one study by a UCLA law professor that the AMC Gremlin was involved in more rear end fire accidents.
 
Top