1965 Plymouth Fury III vs Ford Galaxie 500 Dealer Promo Film Mopar is a registered trademark of Chrysler Group LLC. Master Tech series training materials are the property of Chrysler Group LLC and are used with permission. MyMopar.com
Just ONE More thing.. I find it hilarious that they actually gave the Fury a point because the “Ashtray” was more accessible 😊. Back in the day, many smokers just tossed the butts out the “Winder”..lol..
Often, ashtray (preferably the shallower drawer type) are being used as a makeshift coin purse or little trinkets storage such as spare fuse, small screw driver, paper clips etc.
Kinda misleading, the Ford Galaxie had 2 performance engines avaliable that were not mentioned. The 410 hp 427 and the 425 hp 427. The tire size shown were 14 inch, The Galaxies all had 15 inch wheels. And let's not forget, the 1965 Galaxie was quieter than a Rolls-Royce.
When Ford introduced the all-new full-size line for 1965 as part of their "Total Performance" campaign, it was more than just a skin-deep refresh. The redo included a wider, all-new perimeter frame as well as a move to coil springs on all four corners--a first for a Ford full-size car--and a rubber-mounted body for better noise isolation. Updated interiors and a new design with more squared-off corners than curves and vertically stacked headlamps and hexagonal taillamps highlighted the styling changes. While Ford's Custom line was the entry-level version, Galaxie 500 was the name given to the models from the middle of the lineup. Tack an XL on that Galaxie 500 badge and you were moving into more sporting models, available only as two-door hardtops and convertibles. The top-of-the-line Galaxie 500 got the LTD suffix. Within two years, this luxury-oriented version would have its own nameplate, just LTD. Engine options included an inline-six and a variety of V-8s, from a basic, two-barrel 289-cu.in. version to a choice of several big-blocks, ranging from 352 to 428 cubic inches. Even the vaunted dual-quad 427 was offered, though very few were actually made. The small-block V-8 was standard equipment in the XL and LTD. Ford offered three-speed manual and Cruise-O-Matic automatics with all engines except the 427, which you could only get with a four-speed. Buyers of the 390 and later 428 V-8s could also opt for the four-speed.😙
@@goldenltd1970 Many did... sadly, the best choice was the 427. IIRC you couldn't get a 298 in them - at least I never saw any. You got a 352 or the 390.
@monkeybarmonkeyman for a good daily driver the 390 was more than enough, the 427 was really over the top for everyday driving. Smart move was the 7 Litre option in my opinion. The 428 had lots of torque and good everyday manners, cause let's be real, most cars were family cruisers that had to be reliable. My LTD came with a 351 Windsor, 250hp nothing special, but it gets me from A to B without any problems. Would a 429 or even the 460 be cooler? Yes. But unnecessary too
ooohhhh... idk.... I kinda like the Ford styling over the Plymouth, no matter what this guy on the video says, I like those big square tail lights... just a matter of personal taste, I guess.
I love watching these videos ( film strips)...I learn so much about yhe cars and the competition for market share. I was a teenager during this time and we "talked cars" alot at home. My dad was a Dodge and Plymouth person... always!
I was 13 when the new Fords came out and I fell smack dab in love with the look of them. Owned a 10 year old one in 75 but it was run out. Still one of the best cars from 65 all makes and models
The 1965 and 1966 Ford Galaxie 500’s were more popular hence why they sold more. The 1965 and 1966 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door hardtops were very Continently-esque which is another reason why they were more popular. Seems like Ford’s marketing strategy in the 60’s and very early 70’s was to make their cars look as expensive as possible which would have made them more prestigious in comparison to Chevrolet and Plymouth. Another thing that made Fords feel more expensive than they were was the fit and finish they had, GM and Chrysler were beginning to get sloppy and spotty with fit and finish in the very late 60’s and into the early 1970’s.
@@seana806 I had a 65 Galaxy given to me by my cousin. It was a coupe with a 352 V8 and I sold it to a friend for his girlfriend for the grand total of $200 . I wish I still had it but at the time parking my Ford van and multiple motorcycles were all I could handle
@@turbomustang84 ironically, there’s a ‘66 Ford Galaxie 500 4 door hardtop I plan on picking up sometime in the near future with the 289 in it. Needs some work but considering the prices of newer vehicles new and used, might as well go for it. Has about every option with the exception of cruise control.
@@matrox; Not in 65'. 428 came out in the 66' model year but had not yet pushed aside the 427. The last American Ford production 427 car engine was installed in the 68' Cougar GT-E. (W) Code (390 hp.) and only available with automatic transmission, fake hood scoop, and no round cast iron headers. Ironically, they built about twice as many 427 Cougar GT-E's than 428 Cougar GT-E's. GT-E was a one year only, one hit wonder, and the best looking Cougar imho, because of the two tone factory paint jobs, besides the obviously fun fact you only had two engine choices, either 427 or 428 for your GT-E.
The 1965 model year marked the first year for stacked headlights on both cars. My dad bought a 1965 Galaxie which was used as a company car. Although it was a good car I would still go with the Fury. It still surprises me how the Fury scored so much higher than the Galaxie.
I would give 2 points to the Ford, as it had thinner A-pillars and thus visibility is better where it matters. And take of a point from the Chrysler, as extra vertical visibility is something you just don't need.
He forgot to mention that the Ford Galaxie had a 427/425 H.P. option in 1965 though 1967. Power front disc brakes available of Fords in 1965, and I think the wheels were 15's not 14's.
Dad had a '65 Galaxie for a company car. It was very reliable until it had an unfortunate run-in with an ice-cream truck. Dad was fine, the Galaxie was totaled.
I grew up in the sixties. Mopar, sadly didn't expose this to Comsumers enough. I never knew.... Ford was way ahead of GM in fit an finish, But Chrysler, had the edge, on Value. I love Mopar.
What would really be interesting is a comparison between a 65 Plymouth VIP, Chevrolet Caprice, and Ford LTD, all in 4 door hardtop body style. The VIP offered one option that was not available from GM except on Cadillac, amd that is leather seating surfaces. A friend had ine with that option.
The Fury wagon also offered dual air conditioning, a real bonus in Southern California and never offered on regular production vehicles from the other manufacturers.
My folks bought a new 1965 Dodge Coronet 440 with the 318 V8 and no AC. That was in Iowa where heaters were a lot more important and probably most new cars purchased in that area of the country didn’t have AC. The previous two family cars that I can remember were both Fords. I was only 12 years old. They didn’t ask my opinion and I don’t know what factors were used in the purchasing decision but I would guess that it was value for the price. My grandparents bought a Galaxy 500 with the 352 V8 that year. When I got my driver’s license they would let me drive the car around their town to go to movies etc or just to drive around. I liked the styling of the Galaxy better than our Dodge even though the their Galaxy did not have a radio or AC and that was in Mississippi. Those folks were very frugal! Back in Iowa our neighbors across the street had a beautiful blue 1965 Fury III. I liked the looks but never drove it or any other 65 Plymouth. I got my learners permit in the Coronet but the oil pump quit at 90 something thousand so Dad traded it off for a used 1966 Ford Fairlane station wagon with no PS or radio before I got my DL so never drove the Dodge by myself but the folks let me drive regularly on both short and long trips. It drove fine IMHO. The only other thing ever going wrong with the Dodge that I can remember was a broken timing chain. I don’t remember what the miles were then but at least it didn’t wreck the engine. We were in a store shopping and when we came out it wouldn’t start. Go figure. I just researched. Chrysler Corp sold 330,000 1965 Plymouth Fury’s. Ford sold 558,000 Galaxys. Just for fun I checked on the AMC Rambler Ambassador. They sold a little over 164,000. I forgot to mention that Dad brought home one of those to try. I was a beautiful sort of almost metallic blue. But what did the buying public think? GM sold almost 1.2 million 1965 Chevrolet Impalas! There’s something to be said for brand loyalty. It doesn’t look like the one sided cherry picked subjective Plymouth ad did much good.😅
@@davediamond9436 as much as I like Chrysler, Ford did a much better job of warming over a Falcon than Plymouth did of warming over a Valiant. The 273 Hi-po was a little butt kicker though.
Thanks for sharing even more of these.Great way to understand these cars. Also, good job organizing the Master Tech videos! It is much easier scrolling down the playlist to find information on any topic. Someone on Etsy or somewhere ought to make those Tech puppets for Mopar fans. I remember seeing the original at the Chrysler Museum in Auburn Hills.
I have experience with both, much more with the Ford. The Ford was a nice riding smooth car. The Fury wasn't bad either but I definately liked the styling of the 65 Galaxie better. I would say the Ford drove better also. Both good cars though. To be fair my time in the Pymouth nowhere near the time in the Ford.
I'm a Mopar guy, but I think the Ford looked slightly better in 65 than the Plymouth front and rear. Odd how similar the fronts looked. Chrysler had hired a top Ford stylist and he made the switch to the boxy style like the four door Lincolns . 1965 was the first year for his designs. Chrysler brand for 65 looked better yet than either Plymouth or Ford. Well, to me , anyway. The instrument cluster was unattractive on both cars, but the Mopars got a lot more more gauges. Mopars handled far better because of torsion bars, but the big Fords with it's all coil spring suspension was softer. They put a version of this on their mid sized cars in 1972. I would not want to be cutting diamonds in New York City without the right smooth suspension.
MOPAR last year: Our cars have superior coil spring rear suspension. MOPAR this year: Ford has coils, Chrysler has superior leaf spring like a Model T. MOPAR last year: Our cars have superior body on frame construction for a quiet ride. MOPAR this year: Our cars have superior unibody construction for a quiet ride. LOL
MOPAR last year did NOT have "superior coil spring rear suspension" nor "superior body on frame construction." Did you just make this up? MOPAR did not have coil suspensions going back to at least 1956 and the stopped using body on frame construction beginning with the 1960 models.
When these cars were being sold. I could have, and would have bought a new car. But today, cars are so much more expensive. They aren't built for the owners to maintain them. And they're overly complicated. A guy like me who works a decent full time job could go buy a new car back then. But even if I wanted to, I could never afford a new vehicle today. I guess it's a good thing I don't like anything that's been built since the 80's. The 90's had a few cars worth owning. But not very many
Gee, with the convenience of the ashtray and lighter, they both should have included chest X-rays for 5 yrs, 10 for the kids breathing mom and dads second hand smoke.
We had a '65 Fury I with a slant six. It had carpet, but thats was the only option. It was a good comfortable car. The best overall motor was the 383 two barrel.
In 1965, Ford's entire line was beautiful and supercharged. The same could be said of Chrysler in 1969. And GM throughout the 1960s. Automobiles were at their zenith in the 1960s. Today's automobiles are more efficient, safer, reliable, and long lived. But honestly, most of them are a snooze.
I wonder if Ford could cherry pick criteria to come up a winner? I'm betting they could, although that 318/383 V-8 combo and the Torqueflite transmission are hard to beat.
Chrysler's styling in the early to late 60's was, well kinda odd. That changed with the '67 Barracuda, '68 Dodge Charger & the "fuselage look" for their full size cars @1969. And I loved the 66 Ford Galaxie 500XL 2 door.
I have always thought the 65 Fury was a very classy car. I also whole heatedly agree with this video about the rear end treatment on the Galaxies. It's as if Ford got to the back end and had no idea what to do with it. My folks ordered a 65 Galaxie 500 in Dec. of 64. By the time it arrived, Ford had made some necessary upgrades. The rear quarter panels had been outfitted with the same lower trim molding as the XLs and LTDs. The rear deck also came with trim that extended the full with of the deck, not as nice as the Fury, but at least it didn't look like a taxi. To underscore my impression about Ford not knowing how to finish the rear end treatment, if you check out old brochures or ads, the treatment used on the rear deck was originally used on the 63 Falcon. This video stated that Ford was still using 14" in 65. I have been around a lot of them and all came standard with 15" tires as did my folks.
Audio tip. Record or blend to mono. This will mask most of the surface noise from mono records. There's a lot in the right channel (it was played with a worn needle at some point). Change yours if it's sapphire and been used a lot. They're only good for 50-200 hours.
I still think the Galaxie was better looking, but the Fury was a handsome car. And the minor differences that Fury claimed for points just weren't big enough for most people to notice or care about. Seriously, an inch higher or lower isn't going to make a huge difference to most people. Two beautiful cars, though! I'd be proud of either... and they sure don't make beautiful cars like those anymore.
The add forgot to compare trunk capacity. Ford used 15 in 7.35 tires beginning in '65. Chevy and Plymouth 14 in. Also Ford did offer a330 hp 390, but came w/ solid lifters. Styling very subjective, after-all both took that theme from the '63 Pontiac.
Ford beat Ferrari 4 years in a row what was Mopar doing??? I didn't see them at LeMons ?? I had a 66 Galaxy 500 XL 7 liter 428 interceptor.. Now that was an American automobile, burn the tires down to the rims. I was clocked at 154 mph in my Galaxy by California highway patrol. It was 330 am and no one was on the road,, Nimitz freeway. I thought no one was around,, LoL 😔 Anyway I stopped,, getting ready to be arrested,, The cop started asking me about my car,, I thought he was nuts..!! I'm 66 now, I have wondered throughout my life, how a 18 kid never got the ticket or went to jail,,. Last year I watched a video about my Galaxy, it was a one year model, luxury muscle car. I blew the rear end and put a Lincoln rear end, geared 300. My other rear end was a 325 geared,, I lost my take off the line but gained cruising speeds, .. Wish I still had her.. oh well.. And I'm still waiting to see Chevrolet or Mopar beat Ferrari!!!
You're correct. When I was putting this video together, I noticed the same thing. I went back and did a double check, and low and behold, that's how it is on the filmstrip. Might be a Ross Roy error.
DECHROMING became the fad later on, so FORD was ahead. Ashtrays became non-existent, so reaching for it doesn't matter. In 1965, top sales were CHEVROLET, FORD, AND PONTIAC. In 1965, Plymouth couldn't even hold on to 3rd place. The people have spoken !
The final score is and was the standard of the time. After about 1 year the Fury will start to fall apart this not sustaining longevity. Then you have a big Chuck of useless metal.
The Fury is so not even in the Ford’s league. So much less attractive exterior. The dash in the Fury is hideous. Also I bet the Ford is quieter and the door have a much more solid sound and feel. Rear leaf springs on Fury. Is it a truck? And I think ford offered a 427 with 410 hp and I don’t think a Fury can match that .
Both probably Elwood Engle input designs. EE was a Ford designer from the 1950 to 62' when he left Ford for Chrysler. Car designs begin 3 or 4 years before actual production so he more than likely had input on both cars. EE took Virgil Exners place after Chrysler fired him for designing to many ugly cars in the early 60s.
A salesman tried to sell me a wagon with a rear-facing seat '"for the kiddies''. I said, "Ýou have got to be kidding. That's the stupidest thing I' have ever seen." He thereupon knocked about 10% off the price. Ï said "'didn't you hear me, son. A rear facing seat is dumb. I wouldn't be caught dead with it.'"
Man, the first part is a bunch of hogwash. I like how they take away points from Ford for having a deeper, more spacious trunk. As far as suspension goes, somehow they seemed to beleive having the washboard ride of asymmetrical leaf springs to be superior to the full perimeter semiflexible frame with all mounting points outboard of the passenger compartment. Most of the advantages are at best nitpicking. I don't have any brand loyalty, but it's always amusing to see how much they skew the comparisons. Personally for 1965 vehicles, I'd take the offerings from GM over either of the two. Probably why they didn't want to add those to the comparison.
