Finding genuine CCs that we haven’t covered here is not getting any easier. It helps to change up the walking routine, as in: “let’s go down this alley”. Good call, as there was a whole fleet of CCs including one that has never been found in genuine CC condition. Yes, I think you can tell already which one, thanks to its drooping chin.
But let’s take a look at the others first. You all know a Foxy Mustang when you see one.
And a G-Body El Camino.
Here’s an eclectic assemblage: A Dodge van, a Suzuki Aerio and a Toyota Chinook.
And a Celica convertible too. The tow dolly probably has seen some use over the years.
But this is the one that interested me the most, as the others are all not exactly rare.
I lifted the cover up as if further proof was needed. Unfortunately I don’t even know if this is a Ford-bodied lesser Edsel or a Mercury-bodied greater Edsel. The whole front clip was the same for both, except for the added fender side bulges on the senior models to blend into the wider waist and hips of the Merc body.
Maybe I’ll come back and look for the owner.
Just a few spaces over, there was another Edsel, this time uncovered, and of course a ’59. I was going to do a CC on it, but then Jason Shafer beat me to it the other day. The ’59 Edsel is actually a rather interesting car stylistically, as it has some quite advanced styling aspects as well as some rather modest ones. Which pretty much sums up Ford styling at the time.
The front end is very clean with the exception of the much more modest center grille. And it’s very advanced, in terms of its layout and structure, with a wide low horizontal grille, quad headlights set at the outer ends of the grille, and a forward-looking integration of the leading edge of the hood and front fenders. If you Photoshop out the center grille section, you have the prototype of many Ford products to come for some years, especially the ’60 Comet (which was intended to be a compact Edsel), the ’62 Fairlane and Meteor, and the big Mercuries, as well as the big Fords after ’60.
Of course other than the front end and the lack of the side rockets and rear end treatment, the ’59 Edsel shares its body with the ’59 Ford, and there’s no doubt in my mind that this body is essentially a recycled ’57-’58 Mercury body, although with new elements. The extra width of the mercury body is painfully obvious when looking at the rear wheels, which are on the same narrow rear axle as the Ford, unlike the Mercury, which had a wider axle/tread.
Given what a wild year 1959 was stylistically, especially at GM, this Edsel looks downright clean, lacking any fins except for a modest horizontal extrusion of the eyebrows over the rear tail lights.
We’ve covered the remarkable degree of influence that the ’59 Edsel had on the Alfa Romeo Giulia here, thanks to JPC.
And why would the Alfa designers have even noticed the Edsel at all? That answer is obvious, of course, on the front end of the Edsel. If you’re going to steal our trademark grille, we’ll steal your roof line and rear end. Fair enough.
The inside of this base-trim Ranger is anything but upscale. But then in 1959, Edsel changed its tune and was competing directly in the low-priced field, its upscale ambitions having gone bust.
But there’s a large ashtray in the back of the front seat, so it’s got at least one luxury feature!
So it was a productive detour; for us, not Ford.
“…helps to change up the waking poutine.” If that’s your regular breakfast, I salute you. That’s a hearty way to begin the day. Great article, too. Nice finds.
I assume Paul meant his “walking routine” … I guess his autocorrect software had a Canadian author. There’s a similar Chinook on the next generation (‘79-83) Toyota pickup that’s just shown up in my neighborhood; I’ll try to get a picture. Unfortunately I missed photographing a pickup of the same gen as in Paul’s picture, with a flatbed with stakeside body and hand-painted letters advertising “Junk Hauling”, hard at work near my house last week. Not quite as old as the VW Transporter recently featured, but getting there. No Edsels around, however, at least that I’ve noticed lately.
I agree that the 1959 Edsels definitely were not aimed up-market. I found an abandoned one on a vacant lot in the trees – it looked just like the subject car except for the two-tone green paint color, and was a six-cylinder manual-shift car with no power steering or brakes. That was well before I started carrying a camera everywhere, unfortunately.
Interesting, I never noticed the similarity between the Edsel and Alfa.
Lately I read, that the worst thing you can do is cover a classic car with a tarpaulin. Because steam will destroy coat and sheet metal.
Some great unexpected finds. Yes, that single-year 1959 Ford body is another head scratcher, particularly given Mr. McNamara’s penny pinching ways. I would love to get a good look at a 57-58 Mercury parked next to a 59 Ford so as to get a look inside the doors, in the trunk and at the cowl. Many of the surfaces were different, but the structure sure looks borrowed.
Paul: you state “there’s no doubt in my mind that this body is essentially a recycled ’57-’58 Mercury body”
I do not have access to the Hollander Interchange manuals but, if one was to find such a manual appropriate to cars of this era, reference to the windshield and backlite for Edsel and Mercury might confirm this theory.
Clearly the windshield was changed from the Mercury body. I’m referring to the rest of the body shell, the main body structure. External sheet metal was changed some, but the basic inner structure was undoubtedly at least partially shared. This image is with the Ford, but the Ford and Edsel shared this ’59 body.
For some reason this just dawned on me, but I can’t think of anything mainstream from Detroit in 1958 other than various Mopars that was better looking than the Edsel. It wasn’t up against the varsity. Personally, I don’t mind the excesses of 1959 Chevrolets and some Cadillacs, but in 1958 GM and Ford were in the weeds in general.