I know what you are thinking. Another boring article about a Tri-Five Chevy. Ok, I get it, these cars are way over-exposed and Curbsiders like something a little more interesting. However, this isn’t your typical Tri-Five. This ’57 Chevy is a bit of a rare find these days, one that I think would appeal to many Curbsiders. So read on, and not only will you will learn a little about this ’57 Chevy and some automotive history, but you will learn how this car fired my lifelong passion for automobiles.
This is where it began. My first toy car was a Tonka dune buggy similar to this.
I don’t know when I started loving cars, but I always have as far as my earliest memories can tell me. My mother said it started when I was a baby. I got a toy car as a gift as an infant and it was love at first sight. As young child of about three years old, I started to recognize different types of cars. For a reason I don’t know, I gravitated towards 1950s cars. There was just something about the look and the colours that was so much more captivating than the earth-tone malaise era cars I saw on the street. There was probably some influence from my father. He grew up in the 1950s and loved the cars from that era. And even though I was a young child, I am sure the resurgence of 50s culture at that time also had an impact.
So colourful and stylish, I gravitated to 1950s cars.
My dad recognized that I had an interest in identifying cars, so he took the time to teach me. I would sit on my dad’s lap and we’d look at pictures of 1950s cars in a book, and he’d tell me the different makes and models. I liked them all, but I don’t remember one particular car standing out. Then, without warning, it happened. It was love at first sight. I saw the 1957 Chevrolet and I was captivated! I was in love.
Dad’s favourite 1950’s car, a ’56 T-Bird as seen in American Graffiti. He liked the T-Bird many years before Suzanne Somers drove it on screen.
I don’t know what it was about that car, but something just spoke to me. That one car fueled my automotive passion and forever sealed my love of cars. My dad likely didn’t influence me much towards the ’57 Chevy. His favourite 50s car was the ’56 T-Bird. Of the Tri-Five Chevys, he liked the ’55 best, particularly because he had owned one.
Forget the Breakfast Club, growing up, this was my favourite 80s teen flick. It wasn’t a great movie but was loaded with 1950’s era nostalgia. The real star of the film, at least in my eyes, was the ’57 Chevrolet Bel Air. The YouTube clip below shows my favourite scene in the movie.
At this time in the world of adults, the ’57 Chevy became a cultural icon, but as a young boy I had no understanding of that. I am sure that it resulted in me being more exposed to the car, but I was also exposed to many other iconic cars from the 50s. I liked cars like the ’55-57 T-Birds, the ’56-’57 Corvette, and the ’59 Cadillac but they just didn’t have the same affect on me.
As I grew older, my interests in cars broadened beyond the 1950s, but I still loved the Tri-Fives best, with the ’57 Chevy being best of all. I was into fast cars and when I learned of the performance reputation of the ’57 that made it all the more appealing. My personal favourite was a ’57 Bel Air 2-door Sport Coupe, with a 283 fuel-injected 283 hp engine and a close ratio 3-speed. I could rhyme off the specs on the car at a moment’s notice and did so to many adults’ amazement.
I was an avid model builder. This huge 1/12 scale ’57 kit was one my piece de resistance of my collection.
In fact, I recall being about the age of 6 or 7 years old and I was at a mall with my parents. We saw a ’57 Chevy Bel Air Sport Coupe parked in the lot. Of course, I excitedly dragged them over there to check out the car. The owner was at the car and my parents told him this was my favourite car. He agreed to take some time to show me the car. My parents also told him that I could rhyme off the specs on the car. So as he asked me a few questions about the car, which I easily answered.
Maybe I came off as a smart-Alec kid, but for whatever reason he tried to stump me. He said, “Ok kid, I bet you don’t know where they put the gas in the car.” I thought, gee that’s easy, dad told me its hidden in the fin, but he didn’t tell me which one!! So, I went around to the back of the car and looked for a moment at each fin. I didn’t know for sure which one it was, but I noticed the driver side fin seemed to look more like it had a door. I walked up to the left tail fin, and nervously grabbed it with anticipation. As I moved it to the side, the door opened! Whew! What a relief! I looked up at the owner and his jaw dropped! The look on his face was priceless; something I will never forget.
The styling of the ’57 Chevrolet is what drew me in, but as I now know, it was a rehash. The Chevrolet team worked hard to redesign the ’57 Chevrolet to compete with the much more modern Ford and Plymouth. Longer, lower and wider was the order of the day, but the Chevrolet styling team was stuck with reusing the decidedly tall and boxy basic bodyshell of the ’55 Chevrolet. Clare MacKichan, head of Chevrolet styling said “We had no choice, we had to carry the line out until 1958…A third year facelift was something we had to do. We were as extreme as we could be, while saving the rear deck, roof and doors.”
The ’57 Chevrolet was not nearly as long or as low as the Ford and Plymouth competition, but the stylists were able to lengthen the car by 2.5” and lower it by 1.5”. The lengthening was all in the rear overhang which was increased by 4.4”, while the front overhang was reduced by 1.9” from 1956. To get the lower look, several techniques were used, including the dramatic front bumper/grille design and the switch to shorter tires on 14” wheels. The high cowl of the ’55 bodyshell was a problem, however, the Chevrolet engineers came up with an ingenuous solution. To get a lower cowl, they removed the fresh air intake system and relocated the intakes to screens above the headlights. This allowed for stylists to make the hood lower and flatter.
The 1957 Chevrolet grew modest fins and had significant exterior ornamentation added on. Clare MacKichon said “I feel that by the time we got to [the 1957 Chevrolet] the feeling for exterior ornamentation was even stronger…Amazingly Harley Earl liked [the Bel Air’s aluminum bodyside] panels very much, whereas with the ’55 he wanted a very clean car.” While even I, who’s loved the ’57 most of my life, can see that the ’55 is a far cleaner styled car today, I still think the ’57 Chevrolet is perhaps the best-looking car of the 1950s that tastefully incorporates most of the styling trends of the era.
The Chevrolet’s dated body is quite evident in this photo. The Ford and Plymouth definitely were longer, lower and wider – far more cutting edge in 1957.
Furthermore, while the ’57 Plymouth and Ford certainly had much more up to date styling for the 1957 model year, it’s in my humble opinion that the Chevrolet has stood the test of time better than those two cars. The styling on the ’57 might be best summarized by Carl Renner, who said “It was very rare and unusual for Chevrolet – a massive strong look, quite a departed from the ’55 Chevy. Looking back, I think it was our objective to make the Chevrolet look like a little Cadillac.” Certainly, I think they hit their mark, as this Chevrolet was the most Cadillac-like since the 1932 Chevrolet.
On top of the styling upgrades, Chevrolet introduced significant engineering advancements. We all know about the new larger 283 engine, the fuel injection and the ill-fated Turboglide transmission but there were lots of other little improvements. The 283 was more than just a bored out 265. Chevrolet redesigned the cylinder head bolt attachment by having them attach to a strengthened cylinder top deck, reducing the chances of cylinder distortion.
A redesign of the oiling system at the rear of the camshaft provided full oil pressure rather than metered to the valve lifters, which improved the filling of the lifters and reduced the chance of oil aeration. The cylinder heads saw 13% better flow on the intake side and 9% better on the exhaust side. Exhaust flow was further enhanced with free flowing ram’s horn exhaust manifolds. A new unitized starter and improved distributor with the “window” were added.
The chassis wasn’t ignored either, with the front frame reinforcement being redesigned for improved strength and rigidity. The balljoints were redesigned for improved durability, while the rear axle utilized new larger axle bearings lubricated by the differential oil, rather than the sealed units used previously.
Chevrolet used softer springs, re-valved shocks and lowered the tire pressure to 22 psi. The rear spring mounts were relocated to make the axle more horizontal. This also lowered the rear axle by ½” to compensate for the smaller 14” wheels. Chevrolet claimed improved handling, but the road testers of the day disagreed. Motor Trend said “Will it be the best-handling car again in ’57? It doesn’t look that way…Chevrolet has canceled out some of its advantages by going to a somewhat softer ride, with the resultant greater lean on corners, and less confidence for the driver…Personally, we prefer the taut feel of the ’56.” Car Life had a similar opinion, saying “Although still better than average, Chevy is no longer tops in its class in this respect.”
Above are some performance numbers from my road test collection. Both Motor Trend and Motor Life tested a 270hp 283 with a Powerglide, which wasn’t supposed to be available with that transmission. Motor Trend’s numbers were particularly slow, even slower than the 220hp 283 tested by Speed Age. MT complained of a slow shifting transmission. The 283 Fuelie numbers were recorded by Chevy dealer Bob Wingate with his unrestored ’57 Chevrolet at Irwindale Raceway in 1976.
These engineering changes may not have improved the handling, but it certainly led to increased performance. The 283 made the Chevrolet a formidable performer for its day. Motor Life said “Performance had almost always been synonymous with Chevrolet ever since the V-8 version bowed in 1955. It still is. Take the test car with the lower power rating, as a case in point. Although it “only” has 185 hp, it belted out acceleration that power kitted versions of rival makes would find it hard to melt…[acceleration times] were just fractions of a second off what models with 50 more hp struggle to record.” Power pack equipped Chevrolets could run sub-10 second 0-60 mph times, and while I couldn’t find a cotemporary test of the ultra-rare 283 hp FI version, quarter mile times in the 14 second range have been recorded on original examples.
Despite all the effort by the Chevrolet team, 1957 was not a success. Based on calendar year sales, Chevrolet’s market share dropped from 27.09% to 24.9% when comparing 1956 to 1957. Ford increased from 23.7% to 24.9% and Plymouth from 7.8% to 10.7%. Clearly the competition took a big bite out of Chevrolet sales. Chevrolet claimed victory by squeaking out about 130 more sales for the calendar year, but this included early 1958 Chevrolets and Fords. The reality was there were about 153,000 more 1957 Fords produced than 1957 Chevrolets. It’s ironic that the most loved and desirable Chevrolet of the 1950s cost Chevrolet its sales crown for the first time in decades. The 1957 Ford and Plymouth were clearly much more modern in 1957 and this had a major effect on sales. The significantly lower, longer, wider styling was much fresher and more appealing to the 1957 buying public than the heavily revamped old Chevrolet body shell.
Even by 1974, Chevrolet was taking advantage of the ’57 Chevrolet’s reputation. How often does this happen in advertisement today? Unfortunately, the 1974 Impala would not live up to the ’57 Chevrolet’s reputation.
While Chevrolet lost the sales race, it was in it for the long game. They were well-built, high-quality cars that made excellent used cars, and certainly more so than the less durable Ford and Plymouth. The Tri-Fives took hold of the performance world too. They had good factory performance, were light weight, had a strong chassis, excellent engines, and large engine compartments that could swallow any Chevrolet engine, even a big block. This combination created a great reputation for street and racing performance. I have a 1972 Peterson’s Publication book entitled “The Complete Chevrolet Book” which called the Tri-Fives “the best Chevy’s ever built.” It also had a significant portion of the book dedicated to the Tri-fives. Even in 1972 these cars were increasing in popularity and deemed classics.
American Graffiti released in 1973 helped to move 1950s and 1960s into the nostalgia mainstream.
It wasn’t long after this book was published that 1950s nostalgia started to take off. Prices on 50s cars and in particular these Chevys became astronomical by the time I reached driving age. The dream of owning my beloved ’57 Chevrolet became unattainable. I was devasted by the loss of my first love. The only way to get over it was to move on. I became more drawn to cars of the 60s and 70s, which were more attainable.
You never forget your first love, and I never did forget my love for the ’57 Chevy. In my model car collection, I have more ’57 Chevrolets than any other car. The first model car kit my son and I built together was a ’57 Chevy, but the thought of ever owning one had long passed. I love browsing classic car advertisements, but I generally pass over most Tri-Fives. They are often too modified for my liking and almost certainly well outside my price range. That is until recently when I came across this ’57 Chevrolet Two-Ten 2-door Sport Coupe. It was like falling in love again.
While not the Bel Air I have always wanted, the Two-Ten is a Sport Coupe with the racier roofline. With similar trim to the Bel Air, it’s close enough for me. It appears to be mostly in unrestored condition.
The interior is in excellent condition, while the body was supposedly patched and repainted in the 1970s. The ad reports that there is no bubbling and the body is in good shape. If true, I’d imagine whomever did the work must have done something right for it to last that long.
Under the hood the patina suggests the original 283 is pretty untouched. Likely it’s the 2-bbl variant. It is not the fuelie I always wanted, but that’s okay, it’s perfect for a family cruiser. It looks like someone updated to a 2-circuit master cylinder, which I am okay with, but otherwise is appears original under the hood. I’d prefer a manual transmission, but the cast iron Powerglide, like the 283-2bbl, makes for easy cruising.
Another big selling point for me is that it is originally from Toronto. Being a Canadian, finding an original Canadian car is like the cherry on top. Canadian cars obviously had much lower survival rates and so one that has been preserved all these years in this condition is a rare treat.
The Two-Tens didn’t get the gold “V”, Chevrolet script and the gold grille like the Bel Airs.
The best part of all was the price. Advertised at $36,500 CDN, to me it seemed very reasonably priced. Heck, that’s about the same as the MSRP on a new RAV4 XLE. Take one guess which I’d rather own. Back in the early 90s, a nice ’57 Chevy was often priced beyond that of a new Corvette.
Two-Tens also had shorter trim on the tops of the tail fins and had no aluminum inserts like the Bel Airs
I have probably looked at the photos of this car about a hundred times, fantasizing about bringing it home. The reality is though it is not feasible for me to own another old car. Priorities in life and lack of any additional storage mean it just can’t find a home with me. Maybe one day I will get my ’57. At least now they are more attainable. I am not sure I’d find another gem as nice as this, but at least it gives me hope. As they say, you never really get over your first love.
weird chart of American automobiles – it leaves out the 1957+ Chrysler products, which were the game changers, and instead posits the blahmobiles
that said, revisionist history is always interesting
by acclamation the 1957 Plymouth was the real looker – the problem w/ Chrysler is they did too much all at once and were hit by crushing demand, which led to poor construction to say the least
as for the Chevy, the 1957 looks like what is was, an old fashioned upright boxy effort just trying to stay relevant – remember that 1957 Chevy was essentially a mistake and a stop gap for a planned all new version which came in 1958. and that 1958 was quickly scrapped in response to the 1957 Chrysler revolution
because of superior looks, Plymouth sales soared in 1957, counterintuitively breaking the brand, while even Ford outsold the plain looking Chevy. the quick selling Ford also suffered from demand-breaking quality issues while the wallflower Chevy had no such problem being an old rehash that people could readily get as supply was no issue
that said, I love the 1962 Plymouth while the market did not and would still take one over a 1962 Chevy or Ford
remember that 1957 Chevy was essentially a mistake and a stop gap for a planned all new version which came in 1958.
Uh, I am not sure where you got the information that the ’57 Chevy was a mistake, but it is incorrect. There was never any intention of the ’57 Chevrolet going to a new body shell for 1957. What was changed last minute was the 1958 A-body shell being a one year only design, which indeed was in response to the ’57 Chrysler products.
You had me going there for a minute, Vince. I thought there might be a big surprise at the end – a new car! I think my favorite Tri-Five is the ’55, but the ’57s have grown on me a bit over the years. About 10 years ago, I saw this bad black 210 Sport Coupe, and this combination really shows off the basic styling.
That is a really nice ’57 you spotted Aaron! Black might be my favourite colour for these cars, definitely in my top two. I too really like the ’55 as well, and in fact it is a very close second to the ’57. The only reason the ’57 edges it out is because of my childhood love for the ’57.
Dude; buy it if it’s still available. I have not seen knowledge of and love for a particular car expressed as well as in this post, for a long time; all the little details-
Sell another to make room; figure out how to do it. It sounds to me like it’s an opportunity that won’t come along again soon; and life is short.
I will add this, though; which I thought of immediately after I hit “enter” on the above. There is often a vast gap between the dream of our dream car, and the reality when and if we get it. I imagine this is even more true when the car in question is coming up on 70 years old, like this one. The point made below about the Tom Wolfe story “The Far and the Near” is a very cogent one.
Unfortunately, it looks like it sold. It’s okay though, it just isn’t the right time for me.
This is indeed a lovely car! I will confess that I have always had a fondness for the tri-5 Chevrolet, and am kind of stuck to name a favorite of the three years – I like certain things about all of them. The 57’s big engine is a plus. I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons Chevrolet re-did the block castings was because boring the 265’s block for the larger displacement took it to the ragged edge its maximum bore size.
I have my own memory of one of these, an orange 2 door sedan (which I think was a Bel Air, but could have been a 210) that was owned by an 18-ish year old scout troop volunteer in the fall and winter of 1970. It was his everyday transport and in really nice condition, probably mostly original except maybe for paint. I was thrilled to be in the group of kids that rode with him to a winter camp site one weekend.
Looking back, I was probably more into the 57 Ford in those days just because I was more into Fords than I was into Chevys. Of the Ford-Chevy-Plymouth bunch of 1957, I am not sure which I would favor to own today. The others have their charms, but I don’t doubt that the Chevrolet would be the most pleasant ownership experience from a built-in quality point of view.
Of the late 50’s Fords, I suppose the ’57 is my favourite, but the ’59 is pretty close in second, while the ’58 is a distant third. That said, I always vastly prefered the ’55 and ’56 Fords to the ’57s. I guess i prefer the boxier shoebox style of the earlier cars.
Most manufactures would use new castings for new displacements. Just boring an engine block for a bigger engine would not proper engineering or it would suggest that the engine has much too thick cylinder walls. The 283 block did see some upgrades, as I described above, but cylinder wall thickness was not a concern.
The early 265 blocks actually had pretty cylinder walls. They could be overbored by 1/8″ and they were fine. This of course was done during engine rebuild process though, and that was the absolute max. Some would bore the later 283 engine blocks 1/8″ but not all were capable of this. The 283 saw various casting changes through its life span and some years were better than others for overbore.
FWIW, many later model thin wall casting engines could only be overbored by 0.040″ without sonic checking the cylinders. So cylinder wall thickness did decrease as casting technology improved.
The 210 pillarless hardtop was pretty rare, the overwhelming majority being Bel Airs. 1957 was also the last year for the 210 and the bare bones 150, being replaced in 1958 by the Biscayne and Delray. The models were reshuffled again in 1959, with the Delray being dropped, the Biscayne now the entry level stripper and the Bel Air being demoted one spot from the top, replaced by the new Impala series.
Bel Air hardtops were available in the U.S. until 1962, but quite rare. They were still available in some years in Canada up into the seventies.
Yes, there were only 22,631 Two-Ten sport coupes, compared to 162,090 Two-ten 2-door sedans and another 25,644 Del-Rays 2-door sedans. There were 166,426 Bel Air Sport Coupes produced.
Lovely to see one that still cared for to factory original, not getting the “American Graffiti” treatment. It’s probably coincidental, but I still consider that movie the downfall of the American vintage car scene, prior to the film coming out you either restored a car to original, or did a full blown hot-rod, after the film came out it felt like nobody restored a car to original anymore but rather modified them to be the car the owner claimed to own in high school (probably lying).
Also enjoying that it’s a 210. Most people forget that Chevrolet did two levels of hardtop back in those days, on the convertible was reserved for the Bel Air or Impala.
And I will forever be unimpressed with the ’57 compared to the ’55, and even the ’56. And definitely the ’58.
No one was restoring tri-five Chevys to original condition prior to American Graffiti. Maybe a handful of pampered Bel Air convertibles, but “restoring” a tri-five Chevy in the late 60s or early ’70s? Seriously? No way; they were all being used as cheap and reliable transportation, or being “hot-rodded” to one extent or another. The degree of that varied considerably; if you were young and poor, that might mean nothing more than taking off the hub caps and putting glass pack muffler(s) on, or extended shackles on the rear springs. Or a four barrel carb and a hotter cam. or whatever you could afford.
The reality was exactly the opposite of what you claim: the overwhelming majority were beater transportation, or very cheap hot rod wanna’ be’s. Sure, the serious drag racers made extensive modifications, but I never saw any on the streets back then.
The simple reality is this: as the boomers who fell in love with tri-fives got older and could afford it, they started living out their dreams. And that included doing to tri-fives whatever they could increasingly afford. The tri-five was the ’30s Ford of its time, and in just the same way, the level of money spent and attention increased over time as owners’ disposable income increased over time. It’s just a logical reality, whether you apply it to sports cars, classic Ford hot rods, tri-five Chevys, Mustangs, VWs, or any other popular older/classic car.
These are the perfect canvas upon which to express one’s ideal of what a tri-five can be.
We certainly differ on the ’58. I thought it was a fat, bulging, ill-handling, blob whose body stuck out way too far over its narrow track. The tri-fives were lean and muscular, and made to perform, unlike the ’58s.
Nice car, and I too loved the 57 as a kid. My daily school bus ride took me past two; a black one sitting in a farmyard and a pink-ish one in a junkyard behind an auto repair shop. Every day I would scheme about how I could get both of them home and make one good one. Those dreams of a 7 year old never came true.
None of us are getting any younger Vince, if one comes up maybe you can make a plan to own one for a year. Rent some storage if necessary, enjoy the dream then move on. I think garden variety 50’s cars aren’t appreciating anymore but you probably wouldn’t lose your shirt.
I agree that at some point I may have to bite the bullet and do it. Even if I only own it for a year or two and then move on, it would be great just to own one for a while. I guess for so long I just figured these cars were unattainable, it was nice to see one that was reasonably priced.
vincec, If you haven’t read Thomas Wolfe’s short story, “The Far and the Near”, try doing so before purchasing your dream vehicle. Doing so may well permit you to retain your vision of the ’57 Chevy which you so beautifully shared with us.
I haven’t read that story, but I think I understand the message your are trying to pass on. Don’t worry, I have no grand idealizations that this car would be the be all end all. I have pretty realistic expectations of how it would be to drive and own a ’57 Chevy. That said, I still think it would be a fulfilling experience to own one, as I enjoy the care-taking and maintenance of an old car as much as the driving and enjoyment.
This is a very good, well-written story. You had my interest the whole time! Yep, whether or not the ’57 Bel Air is one’s favorite classic car or not, there is no arguing that it is clearly the poster child of classic 1950s cars. I particularly like that ad for it where the copy reads: “Sweet, smooth and sassy” and “Chevy puts the purr in performance”.
Thank you for the kind words!
Nice article. I’ve always considered the ’57 Chevy to be the “ultimate ’50s car” in terms of classical-good looks. I find statements against this car by Syke and others hard to relate to. But I guess everyone sees things a little bit differently.
I fondly remember seeing quite a few of them from say age 4 up through my teen years (mid 1980s). Never saw ANY ’57 Plymouths! One that stands out, a black ’57 Bel Air coupe, mint condition yet completely original, parked at the Whippanong Library (Hanover Twp. NJ) being used as a DAILY DRIVER COMMUTER CAR! I would park my ’62 Mercury Comet next to it when I went to the library.
Despite the suspension improvements noted, Consumer Reports complained that the ’57 Chevy had a “stiff, bouncy ride” compared to the competition. That’s the Achilles’ Heel of this car, though it was still rated a Best Buy!
Decades ago I saw that ’74 magazine ad and thought, “Oh, that ’57 is so nice–years from now, who would ever want to collect and restore that ugly slab that is the ’74 model?”
Virtually all the ’57 Chevys I’ve ever seen stock/original have been Bel Airs or 210s. However, I did find this 150 2-door in a junkyard in a rare 2-tone green. That would have been a nice one to save and restore, but as you can see it was too far gone even by that time (early 1990s).
Thank you. I remember seeing many ’57 Chevrolets, like the one I descried in my story above growing up. i rarely saw Fords and Plymouths were non existent. By that time they were Chevys were “classics” but people still use them on a semi regular basis. Then again, in those days a restoration amounted to rebuilding the engine and repainting the car. Now, we have cars over restored to priceless artifacts. I know one local person has a ’57 Bel Air convertible restored by Legendary Motorcar from Milton, Ontario. It is better than new, and also outfitted with all 50’s accessories, like skirts and a kit (both of which I don’t like). It was so nice, that it turned me off from the car. This 210 Sport Coupe is nice, but can still be enjoyed. It’s perfect. It’s like the Chevy’s I remember seeing on the road when I was growing up.
Didn’t every American kid of a certain age love the ‘57? I know I did – by 1963 or so it was considered a classic in a way that the ‘55 and ‘56 were not, at least by my interpretation of Hot Rod magazine articles and what was available in the plastic model section of the toy store. In fact, when as an adult I first saw the term “tri-Five” I was confused; by then I knew the close relationship of the cars for those three years, but the ‘57 always seemed fresher and new. Thanks for this perspective Vince; it’s a car that older car buffs love to hate (well, hate’s a bit strong, but at least look down on) but our inner six year olds love. PS: I remember being blown away by those tail light fuel doors on GM cars.
Thanks for the kinds words. I agree that it is the old car that many love to hate, but as a young kid all I knew was that it was the coolest looking car ever. That inner child who loved these cars is still is in me, and this car definitely brought that out of me again.
Well written. I knew about the fancy new air intakes in the ’57, moved to the headlamp surrounds to clean up the louvres from cowl and under-windshield area and move them to the headlamp surrounds, which were functional and had the added benefit of being cool-looking headlamp surrounds. But I was unaware till now how the repositioned ductwork allowed the whole cowl to be lowered.
Perhaps because I grew up in the ’70s, anything from the ’50s was an old car and to my eyes a ’57 Ford doesn’t look any fresher than a ’57 Chevy, although things might be different if I was a teenager back then and had already seen two million 55-56 Chevys on the road when the ’57 debuted, whereas Ford and Plymouth had new designs.
Thank you! I agree, I never saw the appeal of the ’57 Ford over the Chevy either, but I wasn’t buying cars in 1957.
Oh, and “If your new car isn’t popular new, it certainly won’t be popular used”; armed with that advice I’m going to buy one of those eleven ’71 Hemi ‘Cuda convertibles I’ve seen at car shows. They must be worthless by now, maybe they’ll just give me one of these poor unwanted cars to get it off their hands.
When I was at a Cars and Coffee a couple of years ago, a guy with a ’56 Bel Air asked me the same question about where the fuel goes, expecting me not to know. I pointed at the left taillight and smiled, telling him my Dad had a ’56 Two-Ten.
When my Dad was young, a few years before I was even a thought, he SO wanted a new ’57 Chevy 2-door hardtop. He couldn’t afford it, and purchased the slightly used ’56 I mentioned above instead.
After having a ’60 Dodge purchased shortly after I was born, he went back to Chevy with the purchase of a ’66 Impala. I was 5 going on 6 and becoming car aware then. Like you, I got toy cars from a very young age, and my Dad started teaching my how to tell all the Chevys apart from ’53 on up to the then current cars.
I’m with you on the ’57 Vince. It is my favorite fifties car (or was when I was a kid at least). The Tri-Fives may be overplayed, but I’m still drawn to them at a car show every time. But then I personally drive an overrepresented car anyway, so my vote doesn’t count. 😉
Your black and white picture comparing the front ends of the ‘low-priced three’ says it all, despite what the buying public had to say back then. Of course this is just my opinion, but the Ford on the left looks bug-eyed, the Plymouth in the middle looks like something from a Stephen King movie (no offense JPC), but the Chevy on the right looks much more elegant. Cadillac-esque indeed.
Great post as usual, Vince. It had me captivated right to the end.
’65, ’66, and ’67 Impalas are fantastic cars. I believe the ’65 to ’70 models were built on the same basic chassis, only the body panels changed each ear.
Indeed, and yes, ’65 thru ’70 were all of the same generation. Even nearly 8 year old me could tell that my Dad’s new ’68 Impala Custom was the same basic car as the ’66 Impala with its fastback roofline.
Even though the sheet metal differed quite a bit, these cars were all very similar.
I remember when I was 8, we were on a road trip on I-81 heading down to southwestern Virginia in the new ’68 Chevy. This was in the late summer or early fall of 1968, when we spotted a car carrier filled with new 1969 Impalas. That made an impression on me, as at almost 63, I still remember it vividly. They hadn’t even gone on sale yet, but these cars were not covered and could clearly be seen. I remember thinking that the ’69 looked wider than our car… maybe it was… but yes, still the same basic car as the one we were in and the one that preceded it.
Thanks Rick, I always appreciate your kind words. I agree with you on the 56 Chev vs the Ford and Plymouth. I think I mentioned before my dad also had a 60 Dodge. He also owned a 55 Chev and 65 Chev, which wasn’t far off your dad’s cars.
A wonderful tribute to the ’57. I have a number of deep associations with these: a yellow Bel Air coupe was the first car I rode in after arriving in the US in 1960. It belonged to a distant relative in NYC. On our second day, he took us kids on a drive through Manhattan. It was a got and humid August day, and my sister got sick and puked out the window, all down the side of the yellow Bel Air, right on 5th Avenue.
I very quickly came to understand and appreciate the exceptional qualities of the tri-five Chevys; they were the used car of choice, including a number of new-to America immigrants at the university. My friend Adel’s father (from Egypt) had one, and others too. It was a word of mouth thing: avoid Chryslers and Fords from the late ’50s!
I could go on, but I came very close to buying two different ’57s, even before I had my license! My best friend’s older brother was off to Vietnam in 1967, and hed a nice Bel Air V8 sedan; I got his job at a gas station on Saturdays, and tired to make a deal to buy the Chevy too; I was going to stash it in an empty lot behind the gas station, as I was only 15. But the Chevy was in very good shape, and the gas station owner ended up buying it as his daily driver. Bummer.
The guy who worked at the station during the week was from Appalachia; he and his brother would drop by sometimes on Saturday in their ’57 2-door, painted in rattle can primer and sporting rear spring extension shackles. One time they tried to impress me by doing a burnout while exiting the station; the cheap aftermarket shackle broke and the poor Chevy fell down on its rear haunches. Ouch!
About a year later, I was working at another gas station, and a kid used to drop by in a pretty ratty 150 V8 2-door sedan; the classic cheap beater tri-five. I still didn’t have my license because my father wouldn’t let me get it because I got caught driving the family Coronet wagon, after some lady ran a stop in a parking lot and put a dent in the rear side.
I really wanted that ’57; V8, three-on-the-tree; it moved out quite nicely. I don’t remember exactly why the deal fell through. Maybe just as well! I used the money to buy a nice stereo system instead.
Thanks Paul. These may not be the best cars ever, but they certainly had a big effect on a lot of people over multiple generations. I summarized all my road test data in that chart. Unfortunately, l don’t have any tests from 1957 of the hi-po manual shift cars. However, that 1976 test result showed the potency of that FI cars.
Neighbor, almost “right across the street” had the “rose color, white top, 57 Chev hardtop coupe”. It spent some time in the old garage, kept the paint , body well.
In “1965”, a trq blue, “Rambler American” , coupe replaced it.
The ladies brother got a beige “Rambler American: at the same time. His was generally “street parked”.
I prefer the cleaner ’55 myself but I do have to give all the tri-5 credit for being more durable than the main competition. There is a reason so many seem to have survived to become coveted collector cars compared to the Ford or Plymoth.
I bought an unrestored 210 two door post in the late 80’s from the original owner’s son. Floors were slightly rusted due to bad door seals and padding under the rubber floors keeping moisture against the metal. A little body and trim work, plus front seat redone in original fabric and it looked terrific. The only thing not available was molded rubber floors. Cheap carpet kit would have to do. Original 283-2V and Powerglide worked fine. Manual steering and drum brakes made for a cruiser, not a racer. Sold it to a collector from Sweden that was shopping for a one here in California, where I had it on display at a swap meet.
Speaking of movie clips, this one is from “Used Cars” (1980). When I first saw this as a kid, it really affected me. I no longer trusted other people as much. How could someone do that to a nice old car and another human being? The old man died of a heart attack moments later. “Mikey” should have charged with capital murder!
“Used Cars”
One of the funniest movies ever (in my opinion).
Even Jimmy Carter is in it, in a manner of speaking.
I’ll second the motion…bought the DVD as a teenager after catching it on cable.
So many great scenes – I especially love Al Lewis as the judge.
The scene above with Mikey and the 57 Chevy was the first time Robert Zemeckis had to send a busted camera back to Panavision according to the DVD commentary…the car managed to crash into one of the cameras!
It IS a hilarious movie! Here’s what happens 5 minutes later . . .
I had just graduated high school when this movie was released. I had also just started dating this young lady from a very, very religious family when we decided to go to a movie one night. It was going to be our first date… I had no strong opinions on what was playing that evening and she piped up that since I liked cars, we should go see “Used Cars”. I said, why not?
I’m not a huge movie fan, but usually I would hear about movies from my buddies and get the skinny on what was good. I had not heard anything about this movie, but thought it might be fun. We went and saw the movie, but I was completely unprepared for what we were in for; as the amount of cursing in that movie was… impressive! Considering my father was a truck driver and many the adult men I was around were ex-military, I never heard that much swearing…
At one point, I looked over at her thinking she was going to walk out on me or be very angry with me, but she was laughing along with the rest of us. She wasn’t the prude I thought she might be, which was a relief. That was quite the first date movie!
I had only watched the “edited for TV” version, and I had no idea there was so much foul language in the original movie (along with some risque scenes which were deleted). I think the movie plays just fine without all that stuff. Nevertheless, it remains one of my favorite movies of all time!
I thought that I should read the Thomas Wolfe story before I commented. The Wolfe quote that I recall is that “you can’t go home again.”
Of course you can never go back to the past, especially a past that is imagined, fantasized, or idealized. But a car is just a car, it’s an object, an artifact, that existed at that certain time and embodies certain qualities of that era. The car can have qualities that you find attractive, usually it’s appearance or the fact that you have wanted to possess that particular car over a long period. Sometimes there is a personal connection and you actually owned that same type of car in the past.
You might imagine that ownership of this car will be extremely satisfying, just like you hoped it would be. If you are buying it because you want it as an artifact, you will likely be satisfied. If you are buying it as a time machine, you will probably be disappointed.
Thomas Murray has written numerous stories over the years, published in Car Collector magazine, in this vein. His stories are very heavy in nostalgia and the wish to recreate the past. While I’ve enjoyed his writing, it’s not the way I feel about old cars.
Going in with your eyes open, a ’50’s Chevy is not a bad idea. They are simple cars, with a lot of reproduction parts support, so the experience of owning and fixing one up is relatively painless, if not inexpensive. They are still popular enough that you will likely find a buyer if you wish to sell in the future. For someone that has been involved with old cars for many years, they are a pretty safe bet. If you’ve never had an old car you will find that there are some challenges.
I have bought a lot of old cars over the years simply because I liked them, it might not have made much sense, and yes all have been somewhat of a pain. Since I’m not a rich guy I haven’t bought anything that was valuable or expensive, but I’ve had my fun!
I understand that the Wolfe story is meant as a parable, but I thought that it was overly pessimistic. Chances are that the cottage and it’s inhabitants would have looked almost as good as he imagined them. If he introduced himself and described his experiences waving at them, I’ll bet the lady would have been flattered that he’d stopped by. I imagine that they would have sat on the front porch drinking lemonade and she would have been interested in his career on the railroads. It would have been one of those pleasant interludes that sometimes occur in our life.
This is good advice, and I certainly would only purchase a car like this with my eyes wide open and only want it as artifact. I love old cars and like that they drive differently than modern vehicles. I like doing maintenance and doing little jobs to fix them up as well. I have I don’t have unrealistic expectations, but at the present, I just have other priorities that are more important then fulfilling my childhood desire to own a ’57 Chevrolet.
Wow I grew up with a love for the classics also my dad had a 56 Chevy 210 and my uncle had a 57 Chevy Bel Air two door sedan. I always thought if I bought a tri five it would be the 56 but as it turned out this particular 57 got my attention so profoundly that I bought it. Delivered to my front door from Florida to California.
While I never owned or even really lusted after a Tri-Five, I can understand your wistfulness on getting your dream car. I have lusted after an early Mercury Cougar since I was a little boy. When I was old enough to drive in the late 70’s, these were used cars and here in Rust Country™, they were pretty well used up.
By the time I was making enough money, I had kids and a mortgage, etc., etc… So, no Cougar (Mercury or otherwise) for me. Now, that I’m an empty-nester, the remaining cars are out there, but are more expensive than ever before.
While I may never get around to getting an original Cougar, possibly it’s better that way. It’s been said to never meet your heroes; maybe I would be disappointed with a 56-53 year old car.
It’s been said to never meet your heroes; maybe I would be disappointed with a 56-53 year old car.
Part of me thinks that about a ’57 Chevrolet. Regardless, I think at some point I’d like to take a chance and purchase my old childhood favourite.
I love the “experts.” No idea where you got your information? But appears it was the wrong source. Chevy out sold Ford and Chrysler in 1955,1956, AND 1957.
52 almost 53 years I’ve lived trifive Chevies. Since 1970. Especially the ‘57 Chevy, do I claim to be an expert? Nope! There’s always been some thing new to learn about these cars. Being an owner/lover since 1972, I do feel I know a little about them.
Not sure how “rare” a 210 2-door Hardtop is? I’ve owned 2 myself. But they aren’t common like their Belair cousins.
I love the “experts.” No idea where you got your information? But appears it was the wrong source. Chevy out sold Ford and Chrysler in 1955,1956, AND 1957.
Who is claiming to be an expert? The article clearly states that Chevrolet outsold Ford based on calendar year sales. However, model year sales were a different outcome. It is a well known fact that Ford produced more 1957 model year cars than Chevrolet.
My sources for the production numbers were the Standard Catalog of Chevrolet, the Encyclopedia of American Cars, Collectible Automobile Magazine, and Chevrolet 1955-57 by the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide. All of these sources say that Chevrolet produced a total of 1,501,658 cars for the 1957 MY. Ford produced 1,676,449 cars for the 1957 MY. However, this includes 21,380 T-Birds. So without Thunderbirds, there is a 1,655,068. Any way you slice it, more 1957 Fords were produced than 1957 Chevrolet.
The production numbers for the 210 Hardtop are posted in the comments above.
If you have more accurate numbers from a better source, please share.
Not quite true RJ. While Chevy slightly outsold Ford in the 1957 CALENDAR year, Ford outsold Chevy for the 1957 MODEL year. Simply put, there were more 1957 model Fords sold than 1957 Chevys.
Also, there were 11,685 1957 Chevrolet 210 2 door hardtops produced, compared with 189,269 in Bel Air trim. About the same as a 1961 Impala 2 door SEDAN. Both were pretty scarce on the ground.
I, like you learned the 50s car names at around 3 years old but I was standing next to my dad in the front seat looking at the cars as they passed. I grew up in the 50s. My first car was a 56 210 two door sedan. Owned it about a year when I saw a 57 Belair convertible for sale that I could afford ($400 in 1968). I bought it and had it for three years before the Vietnam war came calling and I had to sell it. Forgot to mention, it was a 283, 4-barrel, 4-speed with black rolled and tucked interior.
Your ’57 looked to be quite nice. I am sure it must have been a great driver with the 283-4bbl and the 4-speed.
Loved your story Vince, beautifully told! And the featured 210 hardtop was quite the find, with its very nice color combo and in stock condition.
The ’57 Chevy is the first car I remember at its introduction. A year later, I became aware of all of the new ’58s from the Big Three, including the hoopla for the Edsel.
I was lucky to have experienced the Tri-Fives firsthand; my mother bought a new ’55 210 2-door sedan and kept it for 6 years. I was much too young to drive it, but it remained a favorite, both for her and me.
Thank you! My dad had a well worn ’55 Bel Air, but that was before I was born. It would have been awesome to see these cars new – sometimes I think I was born in the wrong decade.
Good investment
It’s interesting how this became an icon from being GM’s first “Good Used Car” (with emphasis on “used”), something they later came to almost specialize in with not-good-enough-to-sell-new-anywhere-near-MSRP fit and finish, interior quality and driving dynamics mated to unkillable engines and the cheapest parts in the business.
FWIU (as someone not born until the mid ’70s) I get the impression that ’57 Plymouths had problems almost immediately while ’57 Fords didn’t show their rustbuckety ways until they were a couple years old. Certainly by 1961 or so, a 1957 anything would’ve looked “old”
Hello,
How do I find out more about that light Blue 1957 Chevrolet Advertised for sale by
curbside classic.com