posted by someone at the Cohort whose name I forgot to write down. My apologies
I have a difficult relationship with Continental spares. I understand they were a big thing in the ’50s, and many manufacturers even offered them as options. And then of course they came back with a vengeance during the Superfly-pimpmobile era. But in between those eras, and especially on a 1964-1965 Flairbird, with its clean modernistic-futuristic lines, it’s just all wrong.
Agree. Here, squares and circles don’t mix well at all.
So were Continental kits mainly a style thing, or did people use them to open up more space in the trunk? For whatever reason, the spare tire in many cars of the 1950s and early ’60s were mounted in really obtrusive positions. rather than under the floor or against a sidewall or the rear seatback. Me, I don’t care for how they look, nor would I want to constantly deal with reduced trunk access and trickier parallel parking.
On my ’63 Galaxie, the trunk is too shallow to mount the spare anywhere other than up near the back of the rear seat and on the trunk floor. However, the trunk is so long from front to back the spare is able to stay mostly out of the way. That said, I’ve seen some really bad mountings from that era of which you speak.
The worst use of a continental kit (okay, they are all bad, making anything look worse) was on a 1965 Chevrolet Bel-Air four-door sedan. So wrong on so many levels.
This is way before my time, but my understanding is that the idea was to furnish more trunk room. The image below is from a 1940 Lincoln Continental brochure, and it promotes that the “Luggage compartment is exceptionally large,” immediately followed by mentioning that the spare tire and wheel are carried outside. This was presumably a selling point.
I think concealed spare tires (i.e., hidden in the trunk) came into fashion in the mid 1930s, and I bet a lot of traditionalists didn’t like it.
For one, changing tires was done frequently in those days, so it was good to have the spare easily accessible (it wasn’t too long before this that many cars carried two spares). And once a tire was changed, the driver would need to do something with the dirty old tire, and mounting it on the exterior was probably viewed better by some than putting it back in the (clean) trunk.
For another, I think the large trunk was marketed for taking trips with copious amounts of luggage, rather than for hauling things for daily needs (like groceries, sports equipment, and whatever else people haul today). And for that purpose, raw size was a selling point, rather than ease of access.
Anyway, those are just my guesses; I’d love to hear other folks’ opinions. But regardless, by the 1960s, Continental kits were merely an anachronism… one of the most curious cases of a past trend springing back to life.
…and at the other end of the cost spectrum was the Nash Metropolitan. This brochure excerpt contains the language:
“And with the Continental rear tire mount… you get space for two extra suitcases in the luggage compartment.”
That’s a photo of a Nash Rambler.
The Metropolitan most likely featured a Continental spare because the car didn’t have an external trunk lid until the 1959 models.
Oops! Brain and typing didn’t connect on that one. Thanks for pointing that out.
I could be wrong—I’ve never wasted much time studying “Continental kits” (or dogshit, or overcooked brussels sprouts, etc)—but my impression is these add-on “Continental kits” don’t actually contain a spare tire.
The older ones did… once the kits came back for a second (or third) life, they did not, and were just aesthetic enhancements… or atrocities, as the case may be.
Lincoln forgot to mention the lift over height was a back killer if one had to put heavy suitcases in or pull them out of that high-mounted hatch.
I’m old enough to remember 50s cars having continental kits when the cars were new or nearly so. They were not uncommon on convertibles and 2-door hardtops, but definitely not as ubiquitous as you see atall the high-end auctions (Mecum, Barrett-Jackson, etc.)
They were strictly a style thing. For the most part 50s cars still had deep enough trunks that the spare tire could be mounted vertically in a well on one side. My 1980 Volvo 240 still had a vertically mounted spare in a well along with the jack and they were easy to access — no need to empty the trunk to get at the spare under the main luggage compartment as is the norm for modern cars and CUVs, if they even have a spare. The well in my Volvo was painted steel with a removable rubber drain plug, so putting a dirty, wet tire in there was not an issue.
But as American cars became longer, lower, and wider toward the end of the 50s and into the 60s, it was no longer possible to mount the spares vertically except possibly for wagons. This was the era when the spare had to be mounted flat or at an angle close to the back seat, taking up a lot of prime real estate and making it difficult to access the spare.
We agree. There are very few post WWII cars these look good on. This is not one of them.
I am reminded of another one that I have never understood – the Continental spare on the back of the Hess & Eisenhardt Lincoln limo in which JFK took his final ride in 1963. Maybe there was a functional reason for that one?
I’m guessing there was lots of “stuff” the Secret Service needed to carry around in the trunk and the continental spare probably wouldn’t fit in it.
The various top combinations, including the plastic pieces that constituted the “bubble top” and its leatherette cover, needed to be stored in the trunk.
You’re right. Forgot about the top.
Continental kits always were and always will be awful. They’re right up there with curb feelers and foxtails on antennas as stereotypical examples of what people think was cool back in the day. Whenever I see a beautifully restored classic with a continental come across the block in either a Mecum or B-J auction, I just wonder about the taste-level of the restorer….and of the bidders who want the car.
Some would wonder about YOUR taste; to each their own, live and let live
I question whether these accessories are a matter of PERSONAL taste at all. It seems to me people add them to the cars because of nostalgic Americana, and drawing eyes, rather than the desire to actually enhance the car. The car being merely a vessel to showcase the accessories.
And being that this is America, expressing opinions are as part of our freedom as ruining cars with cheesy Continental kits.
My sense is that many of these restorers have a distorted sense of nostalgia, believing that all these accessories were common in the 50’s and 60’s. Maybe on Happy Days, but not so much in the real world.
Everybody here seems to agree that Continental Kits are ugly and ridiculous–so then why do so many collector cars have them? What irks me is that they are most popular on cars of my favorite years (’50s-early ’60s).
They also lengthen the car so you can’t garage it, sink the rear suspension, and act as a dragster parachute, creating wind resistance at high speed. Dumb!!
“No one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.”
-H.L. Menken
You beat me to the Menken quote which is just perfect for this article.
I think Mencken disparaged the intelligence of the American people, not their taste—but the sentiment applies equally either way to “Continental kits”.
Wayne and Garth come to mind, too: “I think I’m gonna hurl!”
+1
H.L. was a keen observer of the American public and absolutely spot on!
Only Lincolns and Continentals should have these.
I love many cars from the 55-65 era, and it seems that half of them have some form of hideous Continental Tumor hanging off their butts. It is right up there with stupid fuzzy dice, and over sized white wall tires. Then there is the chrome eyelids that are stuck on so many headlights. Why? Who thinks these look good?
Can you imagine if we were going through a phase where collectors were putting padded vinyl roofs on classic cars that originally never had them? Any car after 1990 with a vinyl roof put on it should be junked right away. Once auto styling left the upright formal squared look, there was no excuse for having a fake vinyl roof glued to a car roof.
Continental kits suck.
Aaaah? You don’t think this is CLASSY? WT#?
I never found these “kits” appealing. However, before we impugn the tastes of people who did, we should consider how people 50 year from now will describe the tastes of people today. Right now there is parked on my street a quite new black Silverado and a likewise new black F-150. Both extended cabs and beds which appear to have never had anything other than rain in them. Compared with the hideous designs of these trucks, the continental kits look quite innocuous.
The original Lincoln Continental wore it well. Likewise for the Nash Metropolitan. Although it might be a stretch calling it a Continental spare, the MG T-series rear mounted spare looks right.
A variation on the Continental kit style is making a comeback. As a former Subaru owner who enjoyed taking my stock Forester far off the beaten path, I don’t totally get the trend of adding larger tires and then hanging 150 pounds of tire and bumper far off the back; without lower gearing it’s not much better off the road, and much worse on road.
The Continental Kit has been alive and well for thirty years, only done properly. 🙂
You beat me to it, JP… I was going to say that the Jeep would look naked without its ‘Continental Kit’.
I don’t know, if the spare can swing to the side, is it really a Continental?
Luggage racks and Continental kits are the new luggage racks and Continental kits.
The people just needed a more believable vehicle to affix them to apparently.
Continental kits aren’t for me but I’m not going to disparage the choice of our car-enthusiast brethren who choose to install them. If it makes them happy, more power to them. Who am I to judge if they didn’t style their car to suit my taste?
Aftermarket continental kits are not for me as I don’t care for much of any aftermarket ‘improvements’. The factory ones are okay sometimes, but generally are over the top accessories like wire wheels, at least in my opinion.
That is an otherwise straight looking ’66 ‘Bird. What is that next to it? ’55 or ’56 Buick/Olds?
I’m thinking ’57 Cadillac.
Just occurred to me (and I wish it hadn’t): somebody somewhere sometime has probably put a “Continental kit” on a ’57-’61 Chrysler product with its existing spare-tire deck lid.
I’m sure you’re right, but I didn’t get past this one in my brief search.
Oog, mah stomach. Why did I revisit this post while I’m eating lunch? Why? A moment’s thought would’ve known me something like this would happen.
Dual butt mounts?
I assume one would need those extra tires for trekking across the Safari or something, as most ‘K’ cars did back then.
I mean, or else it’d look stupid.
»cackle«
This Continental kit thread seems like it would be a good seque into a CC on how spare tires were stowed and carried throughout history, in general, particularly considering how it’s becoming rare that today’s vehicles even ‘have’ a spare tire of any sort.
It’s called a Continental Kit. There is a reason that became a mere vestigial hump on an actual Lincoln Continental… Its time had passed…
Few if any manufacturers handled it as well as Lincoln!!!
Some time back I saw this Impala in my neighborhood that reminded of me of the continental kits for the 1959 and 1960 Impalas from my childhood when the cars were new. This type of kit does not use a big extension between the body and the bumper that makes the car so awkwardly long (compare with the 58 Buick posted above). My cousin had a friend with a new red 59 Impala with a continental kit exactly like this one; it looked decent and seemed to have a function in expanding trunk space (not that Impala needed it). IIRC Ford’s raison d’etre for installing kits in the 1956 Thunderbird was to allow room to better store golf clubs for a country club run.
50-odd years ago I saw a first-generation Corvair with a Continental kit, as if the car weren’t already tail-heavy enough. I assume the factory location for the spare would have been in the trunk?
“I assume the factory location for the spare would have been in the trunk?”
That would depend on a number of factors: Model year, body style, and whether the car had air conditioning. And in a few cases, owner preference.
When the Corvair was introduced for the 1960 model year, its spare was originally located in the front luggage compartment.
Then for the ‘61 model year, to increase luggage space up front it moved to the rear engine compartment, except for the newly-introduced wagon, which carried its spare in the front luggage compartment (not enough room under the rear cargo compartment floor, which covered the engine). This was done by moving the battery to the left (driver’s) side of the engine compartment, and mounting the spare where the battery had originally been, to the right (passenger’s) side of the engine.
Then, when air conditioning was added in mid-‘61, the location of the condenser, compressor, and the associated plumbing made it necessary to move the spare to the front luggage compartment in vehicles so equipped.
Finally, some owners chose to carry their spare up front, claiming it improved weight distribution, although how significant a difference it made is up for debate.
And here is a period ad for a Continental kit for the Corvair, as well as for the ‘61 Chevrolet (as the full-sized Chevy was referred to at the time).
Aftermarket “continental kits” are a perfect example of how to take an integrated styling feature from the original design and do it for tasteless, mass-market consumption death. They were sold to those who just had to add a touch more ‘class’ to their car, which is how this sad ’66 Thunderbird Town Landau got saddled with one. Bets we can guess how old the owner is.
Nash first latched onto the factory-installed ‘continental kit’ for their Rambler models, spread to all models for 1952. It continued throughout the 1950’s as Rambler took over, pretty much continued through the 1960 MY. Never saw a ’61 Ambassador with a continental kit but it would be easy to build one. Now, there’s an oddity to consider!
The worst example of a Continental Kit that I have ever seen is a 1986 Honda Prelude. That car was already long and low and tire stuck way up high. So it had a support strap that went from the top of the tire to the base of the back window. All I could think was NO NO NO NO
Well it doesn’t look any better on a 1983 Thunderbird
That picture was mine, likely one of my earlier cohort posts. Thanks for bringing it up. The car is in my town and has been sitting there for years, surrounded by junk, with a thickening biofilm and that incongruous posterior appendage.
I’m sure this is a stupid question, but I’m old enough that my ignorance no longer bothers me –
How did one open the trunk with one of these kits blocking the key hole?
On some (maybe all) of these kits, the spare tilts rearward.
Thank you!
One reason for them hasn’t been mentioned. Tom McCahill stated ‘You can take a front heavy car, and very nearly balance out the handling by hanging a Continental spare that weighed 50-100 pounds off the back of the car.’ He specifically mentioned Nash/AMC in the 50’s making the kit standard on most cars. They were standard on the long nose 1958 Ambassador, which handled decently, the ’59 it was an option, I had both year sedans, it went from the pleasant ’58 to horrible cornering in the ’59. In 1961 the front was shortened on the Ambassador, I never saw a kit on them. I never liked Continental kits or fender skirts, unless an integral part of design. In buying/selling cars it was inevitable some had the kits (the tire either tilted back or cantilevered to the side). A ’58 Buick Limited would be a nightmare, they were already longer than Cadillacs that year without a kit. The ’64-66 Tbird was nose heavy, I dearly loved the styling, but all of mine plowed like crazy. I did throw a second spare in the trunk’s of the coupe’s (no room in the convert’s) to help balance. The kit still screws up the style.