"RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht" (ramblininexile) 04/15/2014 at 13:57 • Filed to: None

4

8

'64 Ozfalcons just have a better grille than '64 Merifalcons, fact. Also, V8 Ozpopofalcon with hat.

ly2v8-Brian > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/15/2014 at 14:03

0

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ly2v8-Brian 04/15/2014 at 14:08

0

My opinion is a very factual opinion. It's facty.

ly2v8-Brian > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/15/2014 at 14:13

0

I fixed your images so it would be rightside up for ozland.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > ly2v8-Brian 04/15/2014 at 14:25

0

As I am in 'Merica, I must now dislocate my neck or hang upside-down in my cube to bask in its glory. Fortunately, I am part eelbat.

AMC/Renauledge > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/15/2014 at 14:50

0

They also have better bodies. The '64 'Merifalcon was all creased and lengthened. Meanwhile, this original, lovable body stuck around in Argentina through 1991.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AMC/Renauledge 04/15/2014 at 14:58

0

I make that argument often enough. Mine's '63 - last of the US original line body.

In the Aussie falcon pic, I do kind of wonder what's going on with the fuel cap - it's not behind the wheel like other markets, and a quick check suggests all the first gen Aussie panels and utes are that way. It may have a tank in the "footwell" space that on US Rancheros and panel vans was a toolbox. The Argentine Falcon appears to use the rear fuel neck like the ordinary American sedans - but I don't recall if they had a panel version.

AMC/Renauledge > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 04/15/2014 at 15:15

0

I know the Argentine Falcon came as a 4-door sedan, 4-door wagon, and 2-door pickup. I don't think a panel version was available.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > AMC/Renauledge 04/15/2014 at 15:44

0

Looks like the Argentine Falcon pickups had the tank where US Falcons did, behind the rear axle. Rusty, but it has five-lugs! The Aussie Falcon must have moved the tank as part of the alteration of bed proportions, overhang, and use of different doors. Yet another reason the front suspensions wouldn't hold up, I'd wager. Front suspension problems were exacerbated by taller, stiffer springs in rear as fitted by dealers, and I suspected the overhang changes played a role, but moving a good hundred pounds of fuel four feet toward the front axle? No way that was a good idea, as far as front suspension capacity on bad roads is concerned - though ultimately that would increase failure on utes only, not the sedans. Unless the fuel tank was somewhere else on Oz sedans too, in which case *facepalm*.