The 1958 Ford Thunderbird is considered a milestone, the first successful four-place “personal car”. It dramatically expanded a whole new niche in the market, one that was pioneered by the Studebaker Hawk. GM was very slow to react to to the T-Bird’s almost shocking success; in 1960, Ford sold some 90k Square birds. The first response didn’t come until 1963, with the Buick Riviera, supported by the Pontiac Grand Prix. But in 1956, GM was showing a personal coupe at its Motorama Exhibits almost exactly in the vein of the ’58 T-Bird: the 1956 Impala coupe.
The Impala, also labeled “Corvette Impala”, sat on a 116.5″ wheelbase, and like most Motorama oncept cars, had a fiberglass body. It was of course powered by Chevy’s small block V8, a 265 CID version as used in the Corvette that year.
It’s hard to know whether there was any thought given to producing the Impala coupe in something like this form.
Realistically, its purpose was to pave the way for the 1958 Impala Sports Coupe, which was of course a new top-line model of the full-size Chevy line, with a distinctive hardtop coupe roof. A memorable car, but with a lot of heavy-handed details, and a serious let=down from the ’56 Impala.
And the ’58 Impala was hardly a T-Bird competitor, as a critical aspect to its success was its unique body, one that was totally distinct from the rest of the Ford line. And its bucket seats and massive console were also key features, ones not to be found on any GM car.
Well, the reality is that Chevrolet didn’t build the 1956 Impala, something I’ve been disappointed about since the age of eight or so. I stumbled upon pictures of it in about 1961 or 1962, by which time it had been long forgotten by those tens of thousands of 1956 Motorama visitors. But as one who couldn’t get the ’56-’57 Corvette out of his mind, at least until the ’63 Sting Ray came along, the Impala was a revelation. A family-sized Corvette! It’s exactly what America needed, as well as the Niedermeyer family. I never quite got over the fact that Chevy missed such an opportunity, to capitalize on the Corvette with a four-five place coupe, and beat the square and chunky ’58 T-Bird to the market with its relatively light and graceful lines. And with a fuel injected 283 and four-speed stick, this could have run circles around a T-Bird. In sales too? That is the big question of the day.
But then by the time it actually might have gone into production, or within a year or so, it undoubtedly would have looked as baroque as the ’58 Corvette, ruined by quad headlights, too-heavy of a grille, too may fake vents, and way too much chrome trim during Harley Earl’s heavy-handed era. Better that the ’56 Impala stayed in my mind as I first fell in love with it as an eight- year-old; clean and unfussy, a handsome Pininfarina coupe for (and by) Americans. Meanwhile, Europeans were being treated to a genuine Pininfarina coupe, one that was a a giant step ahead of the Impala and would directly influence GM’s ultimate response to the T-Bird.
Hat tip to Rio for getting me to finally act on my ’56 Impala memories.
Related revolutionary reading:
Pininfarina’s Revolutionary Florida Coupe: The Most Influential Design Since 1955
1958 Thunderbird: The Most Revolutionary Car of the 1950s
I think I like the 58 Impala better than the 56 Corvette Impala concept car. I like the colour of the 56 Impala in the top photo, but the production Impala, I think, is way better looking.
No love for the Impala show car from me, the 58 Impala looks much better to me. The show car looks too much like it was a bloated Corvette which throws off all the proportions and that windshield that wraps to far into the roof makes it look like it has a receding hair line.
I would just call that front end “brace face”.
Hey Eric VanBuren. I agree with you. It’s one thing to make a bigger version of the Corvette, but this concept prototype doesn’t look very attractive at all.
If the 1956 Impala Personal Coupe had entered production in 1956 or any year of the late 1950’s it would have bombed badly. it was too curvy for the era. Had the car been released in the early 1960’s (say 1962-1963) then it might have sold well enough for a personal coupe. The 1960’s is the age of swoopy car designs such as the 1963-1968 Jag S-Type or the 63-67 Vette or the Volvo P1800 to name a few cars. In the boxy chromed 1950’s it would not sell.
It was based off the Corvette C1 which did not sell really well ether (only 69,000 or so examples sold from 53-62 by contrast the Corvette C2 sold almost 120,000 examples in its 4 years of production)
Good insight there, Leon. The disconnect between GM’s cars for ’58 and ’59 showed that Harley Earl’s rounded, puffed-up designs were not the way to go. The Impala Personal Coupe (IPC?) looks like an early-fifties design but for the, um, unusual roof treatment (’58 Impala rear, ’59 impala-ish front) and the ’61 Pontiac side sculpture.
Designs from the European carozzeria were beginning to show less curvature and more surface tension. The ’58 Thunderbird showed how dated the IPC design was.
Clearly you disagree Paul, but the 58-60 models are my favorite Corvettes. I like the front end with the quad headlights, though it may have looked better without the extra small grille openings at the sides, like the 56-57s. I dislike the revised tail end treatment starting in 1961, and the use of painted headlight bezels instead of chrome.
I was never a fan of the Impala show car. They had enlarged and stretched the Corvette’s lines over a larger chassis, and to me it didn’t look right. Kind of like how people criticize car models that look good as concept cars, but then something gets lost when they adapt the styling to fit a chassis that already exists. In this case, the similarity to Corvette styling may have also diluted the Corvette brand image and/or pirated sales from Corvette.
I agree. I’m too young to remember the 50s and 60s, but I have seen archive pics of the 56 Impala concept car, and I remember thinking “what the hell were they thinking? I hope they didn’t put it into production. It’d never sell. It’s so ugly from every angle.” It’s a good thing it didn’t go into production at the time.
I don’t think there is any way the Impala would have had the impact that the Thunderbird did. There is no way that GM would have allowed a sporty 4 place coupe offered by Chevrolet to sell in the price class that the T-Bird came to dominate. The other big difference is that this car is pure mid-50s GM, while the Bird came to define and lead a brand new styling direction for the industry.
The closest analog to this car in 1956 would have been the Studebaker Starliner or Hawk. Studebaker, in offering a 4 place sport coupe in addition to its regular line, was either brilliant or crazy in the early 1950s. I suspect that the folks at GM were going with crazy, as the car never sold tremendously well, certainly not by GM standards, even though the car was priced pretty reasonably. In my eyes, the 56 Impala is a 53 Starliner done the GM way with a GM budget.
GM, as the industry leader, probably saw no reason to do anything differently from what they had been doing, so this car was nothing more than an exercise in doing a sporty big Chevy hardtop coupe with prominent Corvette-like themes. When you control the box, there is no reason to think outside of it.
In the GM hierarchy, the IPC, for all it’s Corvette cues, would have wound up being marketed like the first Riviera from what I’ve read – as a Buick, or maybe as an Olds. They controlled that price point. I reckon Chevrolet would’ve been stomped on good and hard by the elephants on high if they seriously put this forward for approval for production.
Having said that, should the four seat ‘Bird have been a Mercury? Now there’s a thought…..
When the four-seat Thunderbird was under development, Lincoln-Mercury tried to make the case that it would make more sense as a Mercury, given its price point. But the Ford Division was the 800-pound gorilla within the Ford Motor Company, so that argument went nowhere.
Interesting article Paul on one of the more mundane Motorama cars (it doesnt look like a fighter plane!), I’m not so sure about the wrap-over as well as around windshield though. Perhaps squaring up the roofline a bit by raising the tops of the side windows would have helped?
I don’t think it is a bad looking concept car, but a production version would probably have been a metal body. I don’t think GM would have let Chevy have another body design either. I have never been fond of the early Corvette’s style, up to the 62 model. The 63 Corvette was much better. I also think that it is unfortunate that they started with fiberglass.
Ford started the Thunderbird as a luxury 2 place coupe/convertible perhaps thinking that the Corvette would not become a sports car? Ford did figure out that a larger Thunderbird would sell. I think there was not room in the late 50’s for many true sports cars.
In 1958, I got to ride in a beautiful white ’58 Impala convertible several times while in High School. A group of us (2 from my school) had a special 8 week training class at the GM Training Center in NJ and one fellow had this great car with the 348 “Tri-Power” and 4 speed.
I was very disappointed to see the ugly 1959 models when they appeared.
That 4 speed must have been some kind of custom job, as I didn’t think Chevy had a 4 speed available until 1961 or 62. I thought that in 58 you could get a Powerglide, a Turboglide and a 3 on the tree. I am not, however, the go-to guy on Chevy performance around here.
The 58 Corvette did get a 4 speed (finally), but as far as I can tell the regular Chevy did not offer one.
I wonder, if you knew the “right” people….?
Actually, the four speed was finally released late in the 1957 model year for the Corvette. The gearbox was introduced on April 9, 1957 and records show some 664 Corvettes were built that year with 4-on-the-floor. The extra gear cost $188.30 over the base 3-speed.
Considering what the T-Bird would become after it got room for 4, perhaps it’s a very good thing GM did not put this into production. It might have killed the Corvette whether it was successful or not.
Since Pontiac and Buick used a very similar upper body / greenhouse to Chevy, it’s ALMOST too bad this wasn’t restyled to become a 1st gen Grand Prix or Riviera.
BTW, after the war, my father tried all the “Big 3” sedans, buying a Dodge, then a Ford, and in 1958 a Chevy…a Brookwood station wagon. After about 6 months of ownership my mother started to nag my Dad to trade the Chevy….she had grown to hate it. Long story short, the Chevy was traded for a 60 Ford Country Sedan and my father was not allowed to buy another new Chevy. It would be nearly 35 years before my father bought another Chevy (a USED 65 Bel Air or Biscayne 4 door sedan) and he owned about 3 Corsicas….NONE of which my mother would even ride in, much less drive.
“A family sized Corvette!”
Yes. Well, GM was a clever company, and maybe they thought better of that idea!
Studebaker tried to do that with its own ’53 Starliner/Starlight Coupe.
Take a beautiful car, then rush it into a 4-dr Sedan without enough
capital or time and, “Look, ma, ain’t it great?” They ended up with a car that didn’t sell
but upon which every subsequent vehicle they made was then based —
to disappointing sales results — right to the bitter end.
But my ’53 Champion was indeed one of my favorite Studebakers…
The 53 Stude sedan had been under development for some time, but was to look very different. I do not believe I have ever seen pictures of the planned 53 before it was changed to ape the coupe designed by Loewy. They really had scads of both capital and time then – Studebaker was by far the largest of the independents and was quite successful. The new car was originally scheduled for a 1952 model year launch to commemorate the company’s 100th anniversary. However, they missed that target by a year and kept the old car around for another year with a 1952-only front end.
You could be right that there was a rush to restyle the sedans after the Loewy coupe was approved for production. I’m not sure that an alternate sedan would have sold appreciably better given the prevailing market conditions in 1953-54. None of the independents had good results in those years despite having more attractive cars. I think Studebaker’s big quality hitches was in trying to design and build two brand new cars at once, something it had never done before. And you are certainly right that it was all downhill from there. 🙁
Studebaker had planned to bring out an entirely new car for ’52, the 100 year anniversary. For reasons that I’ve never really read about anywhere, this body was scrapped at the last minute, and the ’52s many of us know and dislike, really warmed over ’51s, which themselves were freshened ’47s, were brought to market. But they had nothing in-hand for ’53 and with sales dropping they needed something fast.
They bought in on the Loewy Coupe designed by Bob Bourke and with that in hand, Studebaker enlarged the Coupe styling to create the two- and four-door sedans of the ’53 line. But it really was a rush job, with little time to work out a lot of details, like how to drain the cowl areas (every Stude from ’53 on has a major problem with rust at the rear of the front fender, where it meets the door), how to make the rear door look right, appropriate stiffness to the frames (the famous ‘rubber-frame’), etc….
Not wanting to spend the money on more expensive, wider, floor-pan stampings, they went with narrow ones and a taller body, they bought into Loewy’s no-chrome mantra, and were working with a 232 cid V8 that was still having teething problems, just when the market turned to the lower, wider, chrome decorated, larger-displacement cars. At least the engine was capable of enlargement over time, but the body never was.
From what I recall reading, the rush was to apply styling cues from the Starliner proposal to the new sedans already underway. This likely involved mostly new exterior sheetmetal but I have a hard time believing that the basic (narrow) dimensions and the basic body structure and engineering were not mostly carried over from the original concept for the new 52-53 car. The 47-52 Stude was a narrow car in its own right. But as you say, the original proposal for the new 52-53 car is not well documented at all.
I think we can agree that whatever charms the 53 sedans might have had, attractive cars they were not.
I remember the first time I saw one, about ’70, I couldn’t get over how homely the sedan was. The bluish- grey paint on the one I saw didn’t help.
If I recall correctly, the reason that Studebaker scrapped the car it had originally planned to introduce for 1952 – known internally as the “Model N,” with “N” standing for “new” – was because Raymond Loewy sold management on Bob Bourke’s radical new coupe.
Bourke’s design was originally supposed to be a show car – much on the order of this Impala Personal Coupe. But management was quite taken with it. They decided, however, that it would only be feasible for production if sedans and wagons were also based on this body.
The entire Model N program was thus scrapped. Studebaker worked to finalize the coupe for production, and design sedans and wagons that shared styling cues with the coupe. This pushed the entire program back to the 1953 model year.
The 1953 cars were supposed to feature a “flexible” frame. The idea was that the frame would flex to absorb road shock. The frame creaked and groaned over bumps, which hardly inspired confidence. The real problem, however, was that it ultimately made the cars feel “junky.” I remember reading a story by the historian Michael Lamm. His mother took a brand-new 1953 Commander Starliner for a test drive. Her verdict – “These cars are junk.” He sadly came to agree with her verdict. (It probably didn’t help that the Lamm family car was a Stepdown Hudson. Those were built like tanks.)
The flexible frame also delayed the introduction of the coupes and hardtops. The tooling had not accounted for the effect that the weight of the engine would have on the frame. When the V-8s were mounted on the coupe and hardtop frame, it bowed so much that the front clip did not mate with the body! The coupes and hardtops were delayed for weeks as Studebaker frantically implemented a fix. The sedans, however, were not affected, and debuted on time. The problem was that the coupes and hardtops were much more appealing, and had received virtually all of the publicity. Buyers went to the showroom to look at a coupe or hardtop, and found that the dealer did not have one in stock.
Didn’t Studebaker also come up with some kind of bone-headed idea on how the sheet metal was stamped to save money, too? Geez, they couldn’t have fouled up the beautiful 1953 cars any more if they tried. Studebaker rivaled Chrysler in being able to shoot themselves in the foot, even when they came up with what would otherwise have been a winner.
If the A pillars were moved to normal configuration, it would have made a great looking convertible. Most of the car looks really good, especially the front end, but to me the roof is a bit wrong looking, removing the windshield top glass wrap over and going to conventional A pillars would help a lot. Agree the single headlamp front end would have looked much better on the Corvette. No tailfins is a big plus.
This car sort of reminds me of what a ’53 Studebaker Starliner would look like if it were mated with a ’56 Corvette, and I wonder how much influence Loewy’s classic had on it. The timing would be about right and, if correct, it’s a testament of how much influence that car actually had on styling trends at the time.
That bulbous windshield and tall roof really does ruin it, though. As others have pointed out, the relatively non-gimmicky design simply wouldn’t have worked in the chrome-laden latter half of the fifties. Still quite an interesting concept and if it were cleaned up for production, really could have given the Thunderbird a run. As it was, GM wouldn’t have a Thunderbird competitor ready until the 1963 Riviera. Allowing that length of time to pass seems to clearly indicate they didn’t regard the personal luxury car market as too important.
“This car sort of reminds me of what a ’53 Studebaker Starliner would look like if it were mated with a ’56 Corvette”
I sure hope no car ‘customizer’ reads this!
That’s a pretty car, the antithesis of the Sqaurebird. The rear reminds me of the ’57 Eldorado but without the fins.
I agree, it does resemble a 57 Eldorado at the back. Add the Eldo’s fins and I’d like it more. 🙂
I actually like it, specially the front end and the side lines.
That blue is really nice.
Wonder if this is one of the Motorama cars that survived…?
Like others have said, it’s hard to predict its success but I think it would have sold reasonably. If produced, I doubt this would have been expected to be a high volume car and also in those years, GM could sell anything.
The windshield is a bit odd but not bad looking. Who knows if it would have created a new trend for wraparound windshields lol.
I thought Joe Bortz may have this one, but it was the 1955 Chevrolet Biscayne show car I was thinking of. Online sources say the Impala was reportedly destroyed.
Joe Bortz is a bit of a hero of mine. IIRC he found the Biscayne after it had been chopped in half at the instructions of GM, but the wreckers saved the remains. Hopefully the remains of this Impala sit somewhere out of sight.
The Impala show car was nice, but I would have much rather seen the 1955 Biscayne four door hardtop (with the suicide doors) put into production. The pictures of that car really hit me in the gut as a little kid, and it still sticks with me today. And I was excited as all get out when it finally was rebuilt and made drivable.
it has a face only a mother could love….if the mother was a 63 Riviera and the father was a Triumph TR3
Overall, its a nice bodystyle, but the face reminds me of Trap Jaw….for those who grew up on He Man cartoons…
Hmm, a Facel-Vega HK500 without the French accent. I rather like it.
I think the whole point is finding a new market niche — first.
This reminds me, visually, of the Jensen 541, which first appeared in late 1953. Also a 4-seat fibreglass coupe..Windshield is the major difference.
Boy, that Squarebird sure looks great. Was really never a competitor to the Corvette, but established whole new car class. Even though mocked by the purists, Robert McNamara’s decision to make the Bird a 4 seater in 1958 was marketing genius. It opened up the sale of this car to far, far more buyers. And, IMHO, the ’58 actually looks better than the ’57. The next generation’s iconic Bullet Bird cemented the legend. Birds of this era are one of the few cars that even totally non-car people can recognize instantly, the hallmark of a classic.
GM could not have been serious taking this thing to market as a T Bird competitor. What has always puzzled me is why it took six years for GM to actually respond with the Riviera, the Bird’s only real GM completion. The Riv was very nice, but it was too little, too late.
Not a bad looking beast; certainly an improvement on the ’58 Impala we did get. Although as with most Big Three cars from that period I’d like it better if I could lop about a yard off its needlessly protracted length.
ANOTHER thought provoking, pleasing-to-the-mind article by P. N.
apart from that weird windshield-roof thing I love it
That ’56 Impala concept is indeed eye-catching. I actually don’t recall ever seeing it before, likely due to the far more dramatic ’55 Biscayne Motorama car.
This has a strong scent of 1955-56 Chrysler 300 to me, which I far prefer to the squarebirds or the ’58 Impala coupe. Alas, the sales numbers for the Chryslers may indicate what the success rate for the Impala concept would’ve been had it been produced.
Overall I like this car…I cant believe that its getting the hate. It has a few flaws, the big forehead looking windshield has GOT to go, for one. But considering what over wrought chrome drenched bloated bling mobiles most 50s cars were, this is actually pretty clean. It needs tweeking for sure. But compared to the ’58 and 59 Impala…um, yea, gimme this.
Interesting what-if, Paul. It’s nice looking, but I’m not sure it would have succeeded. If this had been released before the squarebird and flopped, then maybe the squarebird might never have been released. Thus changing the brand overlap that became so prevalent in the US auto industry. The flaps of a butterfly wing…
Thanks for the followup, Paul.
I think this could have been produced as a sub brand to Corvette, and I think it would’ve been a hit, popular opinion here notwithstanding. Maybe call it Impala by Corvette or something.
I think the styling was forward enough for the era, and consistent with the sensibilities of the era. Sort of an anti-Squarebird.
But car designs were in so much flux between the mid 1950s through the mid 1960s that year to year differences among the big 3 didn’t look like they were from the same company or even the same planet. And what’s really remarkable is that this was pulled off nearly every other year during that era.
Here’s an experiment. Take one of each Chevrolet between 1957 and 1967 and park them side by side. Then do the same thing with 10 years worth of Caprice between 1980 and 1990. The difference between the two groups couldn’t be more stark.
I like it except for the radical top wrap windshield. The car seems light years ahead of the typical ’56, and certainly GM’s ’58s.
The big T-Bird was a bizarre anomaly for ’58 through ’76, priced as a premium luxury model but sold through low price field dealers. GM primarily answered it at Olds, Buick and Cadillac with the Toronado, Riviera, and ’67 Eldorado. The early Grand Prix was a gussied up full-size during the ’60s, and just another mid-size personal luxury for most of the ’70s. The ’69-’71 Grand Prix is a bit murkier.
Ford pulled off something with the ’58 Thunderbird that Chevy might have struggled to do. And, GM was probably hesitant to do it as it would have messed up the Sloane ladder even faster than what was occurring.
It’s easy to think the Corvette might have morphed into something like a Monte Carlo had the four-seater gone into production, just as the Thunderbird lost the original plot over time. I’m not so sure.
The original two-seat T-Bird was not a sports car, and was never meant to be. If anything, the Square Bird was a step in the right direction given the car’s original mission, and the 1961-63 models even more so. If anything, things went awry with the bloated 1967 models.
Studebaker, as they did time and time again, beat everyone to the punch with the Hawk series, particularly the 1956 Golden Hawk with the 352 Packard engine. It was the fastest four-seater in production that year. But it was overshadowed by the company’s other issues. They lost the Packard engine the following year (went to American Motors) but made up for it by supercharging their own 289 to make the same power.
I remember reading Studes were narrow because of the outdated assembly lines in the South Bend plant that couldn’t accommodate anything wider. It was plenty long enough with a 120-inch wheelbase, though. But for some strange reason, the sedans and wagons were on shorter chassis.
I think it’s a beautiful car. Funny, though, I’m sure I had seen pictures of it before, but it melted together in my brain with the Biscayne, which I’ve probably seen a lot more. This is more conservative looking but probably better looking, too. It’s extremely elegant and would indeed have made a nice competitor in contrast to the Squarebird.
RE grand prix started in 1962
I fell in love with cars wen i was probly 3 or 4 but when i seen the 56′ corvette impala! Yup! That thing was amazing and wish they had made them! I mean look at all the bs they did make like the 4th gen nova! All im saying is id love to have my hands on 1 of those concept 56′ impala