I’m in the unique position of owning four six cylinder American sedans from 1958-60 that were volume sellers in the low-priced field. So the question inevitably arises: Which car would deliver the greatest value to a car buyer from that time? I have driven and lived with all four for a while now, so I can give you my unique perspective. My opinions are strictly my own, which may or may not agree with what automotive testers of the time may have written. So let’s test drive them all!
1958 Ford Custom 300:
The Ford Custom 300, equipped with power steering, is a relatively compact (8″ shorter than the Chevy or Dodge), easy-driving car. It does everything it’s supposed to do, without any complicated or irritating design features. With its mechanical sounding engine (145 hp 223 six), light handling and good roadability, it reminds me of a German car, like Mercedes. The ride is a little on the firm side, but still excellent. On takeoff, the engine is a little noisy, but it settles into a satisfying cruise mode when traveling at moderate speeds.
Ford’s new power-assisted “Magic Circle Steering” is very smooth. You breeze around corners and curves with little effort. The Ford-O-Matic transmission always starts in 2nd, unless you floor it (Or select “L”.)
The Ford is equipped with a manual choke. Pull the knob out for cold starting; push it in as the engine warms up. Thus you have manual control over mixture and idle speed.
Ford seats: firm, durably upholstered, good driving position.
Body panel fits are not the most precise (very Un-German). It’s hard to find a ’58 Ford where the taillight panels line up correctly (even in the brochures!) Doors close with a thud, not a solid “click”.
The Verdict:
As equipped, best city car, with its easy steering and smaller size. On the interstate, the engine is turning a little too fast, and you wish for an overdrive gear instead of the useless “granny gear” low. Equipped with the new Interceptor V-8, this car would really eat up the road!
Lowest-priced Ford car with plenty of (optional) chrome and gold trim on it, so it doesn’t look like a stripper!
1959 Chevrolet Biscayne:
If a Ford owner were to visit a Chevrolet dealer in ’59 and drive the new Chevy, he would realize that this new car is definitely a step up in quality and engineering. It’s quieter, roomier, and rides like an expensive car. Visibility through the Panoramic windshield is outstanding. (You can really “See the U.S.A.” in your new Chevrolet.) The styling is sleek and advanced. The body is solidly built. There’s a lot more trunk space. The doors close with a precise “click”. GM’s “Magic Mirror” finish is shiny and mirror-smooth.
“But darn these newfangled low-slung chariots! You hit your hat getting in!”
But once you are in, things are pretty comfortable–with plenty of head and leg room. It’s what I’d call a relaxed driving position, and you’re sitting pretty low.
Chevy’s Hi-Thrift six (135 hp, 235 cubic inches) with its hydraulic lifters, is super-quiet and smooth. Powerglide transmission, with its one upshift, contributes to the smoothness. Much of the time while driving, you hardly hear the engine at all! A real cruiser! Power is adequate and then some.
Chevy’s “Jet-Smooth” ride is soft, yet manages to stay flat and well-controlled. It absorbs tar strips better than the Ford. Manual steering is surprisingly tight and precise, and you can take fast turns without much lean.
The problem is, while the ’58 Ford feels light and easy to handle, the ’59 Chevy with manual steering feels heavy and ponderous when maneuvering around tight turns at low speeds. Steering is over 5 revolutions lock-to-lock, so a lot of wheel-winding is needed going around corners. The preciseness of the manual steering is best appreciated on the open road.
There’s no lack of ornamentation in the Biscayne, despite it being the lowest trim level in GM’s lowest-priced line. The gauge pods are dramatic, and the non-deluxe steering wheel has some unique sculpturing, along with the metal horn button with its engraved jet motif.
Chevrolet gives you a well-built, well-designed product, but then cheapens little things to keep the Biscayne price low. Dash knobs are plastic, not chrome, and they’re not labelled on the Biscayne! I have to remember: “It’s LIGHTS, then WIPERS“. Wipers are electric–better than vacuum commonly used at the time.
And Biscayne only gives you a narrow trim strip on the side that doesn’t extend all the way back. No two-tone paint divider strips either.
Super-wide seats are vinyl and patterned cloth. There’s a subtly embossed design on the door panels, two-toned ice blue and gray.
The Verdict:
Chevrolet offers economy buyers lots of room; smooth, quiet power; a luxury ride; good [open road] handling; dramatic style; solid construction; wonderful visibility; and proven Chevrolet engineering. Power steering and Bel Air trim are recommended upgrades.
1960 Dodge Dart Phoenix:
With the all-new Dart series, Dodge enters the low-priced field for the first time. This is the Phoenix: the top-of-the-line Dart. With its power steering and brakes and high-level trim, it offers a luxury driving experience comparable to higher priced cars like Imperial, but without the overpowering size.
If the Ford was vaguely Germanic, this Mopar product seems French, à la Citroen. That is, wonderfully fanciful design and complex, even byzantine engineering that works beautifully until something goes wrong and if you can put up with its quirks.
First the good: This car glides down the road beautifully and is very satisfying to drive. Torsion-Aire ride is a real thing! The “Full-Time” power steering makes handling super-easy. Power brakes have a velvet feel and work well (when they’re working–more on that later).
The brand-new “Slant Six” engine (145 hp, 225 cubic inches) is so smooth, the spinning fan and pulleys alone let you see it’s running. There is a little solid lifter click, but you don’t hear it in the car. Combined with 3-speed Torqueflite transmission, power is ample and responsive for normal driving.
What a control panel! Way out of the low-priced field! Steering wheel has plastic gold trim with embedded “sparkles”.
Driving under a highway bridge at 32 MPH. Translucent “Scope-Sight” speedometer is extremely visible.
Transmission push-buttons are durable and work well, but are more Space Age fantasy than function. A column-mounted lever is actually easier to use. The lack of PARK is a definite inconvenience. The parking brake on the driveshaft doesn’t hold that well, even after an overhaul. Push-button heater has a super-silent fan and provides pleasant heating comfort.
Chrysler’s well-advertised “Total Contact Brakes” with two wheel cylinders in each front wheel are, in the words of one mechanic, “Total crap! I hate working on them!” I’ve had a problem with grabbing brakes. If the car sits too long, rust forms on the brake drum inner surface. Then the brakes grab harshly. I have to drive back and forth with the brakes applied to “clean” the drums, and then everything’s fine after that. But still…who wants to put up with this? My other cars don’t have this problem.
Unique Dodge pull-out door handles. The doors close solidly but not with a nice “click” like the Chevy.
Luxury Dodge seats–well-upholstered and most comfortable. You don’t sit real low as in the Chevrolet, thanks to new-for-1960 unibody construction, which eliminates the frame and allows a lower floor and better seating position.
The Verdict:
The Dart is overall the most pleasant car to drive and has excellent seating comfort. It also has flamboyant style inside and out that sets it apart from all other cars. The lack of PARK, poor brake design (parking and service) prevent it from being “ideal”.
1960 Comet:
In 1960, buyers were getting tired of big cars, and the Compact Craze was on. Falcon and Comet were among the best selling compacts. But was a Comet a good alternative to low-priced, standard-size cars? For reference, a base trim 1960 Comet cost about 12% less than a 1960 Chevy Biscayne.
Last August I bought this Comet and fixed it up. I then determined that in many important respects, the Comet was not as good a car as the others in my collection.
In theory, it sounded great–make a smaller car, style it like the big cars, and reap rewards in compact size and operating economy. Well, here’s what I found:
As compared with the 1958 Ford Custom 300 (Ford’s “cheap car” from two years prior), the Comet’s ride is stiff and choppy; the engine not as smooth; the seats not as well made; the brakes harder to push (harder than the manual brakes on the Ford and Chevy, both of which are heavier cars); and the steering is heavy without the precision of Chevrolet’s manual steering.
I hate to rag on this neat little car, but I just didn’t feel it had the qualities necessary to make it a satisfying car to own. I like the styling, including the unique dashboard design . . .
. . . and the engine (90 hp, 144 cubic inches) is a marvel of simplicity and was so easy for me to work on. One thing I immediately noticed was that due to the very short stroke, it would rev easily by just pressing the gas pedal a small amount. But I had to step on the gas harder and the engine had to work more for a given level of performance. The Comet was also terrible on the interstate where there was a lot of wind noise and the engine was winding up really loud. It’s just not nearly as relaxed on the highway as the big cars.
I find Comet advertising to be somewhat misleading.
The Verdict:
Despite its virtues, I don’t think the Comet is a good alternative to the Big Three’s standard-size cars. I would advise economy buyers in 1960 to get a Plymouth Savoy/Dart Seneca six or a Chevrolet Biscayne six (with power steering). They would get a nicer car for not that much more money. I just sold the Comet to someone who I believe will appreciate it more.
And which car is best overall? I would have to say the Dodge Dart. It arguably has the best engine, best suspension, best transmission, best seating, best dashboard–and clean, sculptured looks that are a tastefully restrained version of the super-flamboyant big ’60 Dodge.
This judgement is not meant to diminish the other two cars I have. They each have their own “personalities” which are unique and desirable. One of the advantages of having three classics is you don’t get “tired” of driving just one. It’s refreshing to switch from one to another, which allows you to appreciate their unique driving characteristics all the more each time you drive them.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1960 Dodge Matador & Polara — Incredible Cars Somehow Overlooked
Curbside Classic: 1959 Chevrolet Byscaine – The Original Art Car
CC Story: 1959 Chevrolet Impala — Close Encounters of the Third Kind
I liked this “road test” comparison of the 6 cylinder cars. Many people bought the base models or maybe the base models with a few options. Power steering is always nice in the larger cars and also an automatic that has more than two speeds. The Dodge Dart probably had the most advanced power train for the era. A slant six and the Torqueflite. Variations of this power train were sold until the early 1980s in cars. Reminds me of the cars my Dad would by growing up. I still like to buy simple cars with fewer options. Cars today while nice have gotten too complicated. The safety aspects of modern cars are much better though. Thanks for the look back of car buying circa 1960! It is amazing how out of date these cars would look five years later with the squared off cars of the mid 1960s.
I owned a Biscayne like this, with stick. Oddly it had the BelAir dash and steering wheel.
Agree with your comments, except the ride was too soft for my tastes. Never drove the others, so your article was a fascinating comparison.
Something is not clear to me the reason the front door hinge area, what is the reason for door hinge is in such forward position, a way passing the front windshield? We just don’t see the type of design in the later models of car. I have to say all four models are beautiful, but Comet is much modern looking,. From the side view, Comet looks like the Mercedes fin-tail
The reason for the appearance (door hinges so far in front of the A-pillar) is because of the extremely wrapped windshield (the culmination of Harley Earl’s space age dreams). These windshields faded with the advent of the 1960s, as they severely restricted knee room when entering or exiting the car.
Good comparison! I wonder how much the Comet being inferior came down to a calculated decision that if it were too good it could cannibalize premium car sales versus just cost cutting.
If I were a hypothetical circa-1960 new-car buyer I’d take your information but not necessarily your advice – not without test-driving a Valiant first. Chrysler clearly didn’t cost-cut their compact as much as Ford did. GM made a more convincing premium compact than the first Comet – three of ’em in fact – but not until ’61.
To Jerminator’s point, that meant the Valiant (and compact Dodge Dart) became Chryco’s best seller once the Exner look was toned down for ’63, while the Falcon cannibalized a lot of big-Ford sales but mostly on the low end while their lead over Chevy in things like convertibles and the still-unique Country Squire wagon.Eventually it would be the intermediates that ate the base big cars’ lunch and turned the Biscaynes and Customs into fleet queens.
The Custom 300 had such nice trim I suspected it was not the lowest priced Ford for 1958, Sure enough, there was a mere “Custom” that was cheaper. As befitting its top of the line Phoenix status, the Dart is nicely finished inside and out. The Biscayne comes off as the stripper it was, the bottom of the Chevy line. A neighbor had a 1959 Bel Air with the 283, Powerglide and power steering. Even though the Bel Air was demoted this year behind the Impala, it was a nice package, well worth the cost over the Biscayne. At the time Biscaynes were strictly taxicab and cheapskate territory.
This squares with my experience and what I have read. I have no direct experience with big Fords from before 1960, but I have read that they handled quite well at the expense of a soft ride.
My 59 Plymouth was a V8, but drove like a far more modern car than a friend’s 62 Bel Air that shared a powertrain with your 59. Mopar’s “Total Contact” brakes were a good idea that couldn’t overcome some problems. I never experienced the grabbing from lack of use, but doubling the number of wheel cylinders doubled the chances for fluid leaks – something I did get to experience.
I don’t think American compact cars were really designed for use on highways until the 1970s, and even then they were quite inferior to larger cars in that role. I really enjoyed this comparison.
I don’t think American compact cars were really designed for use on highways until the 1970s
Because the 55 mph speed limit arrived in 1974? 🙂
And just what makes a 1970s Dart or Valiant six any different than a 1960s version? The earlier ones didn’t have emission controls, so they were likely quicker actually.
Seriously, I would strongly disagree with you. “Highways” were everywhere in the US since the 20s and ’30s. Do you mean interstate/freeways? But even then, there had been some of those and other limited access prkways and such since the 30’s and ’40s. And the compacts were perfectly fine for the typical average speeds back then (60 or so). Sure, the 144/Fordomatic was a bit wheezy, but the 170 and the Valiant and such were perfectly capable of significantly higher average speeds. Sure, they were never going to float along quite as “jet-smooth” as the big cars, but then many folks genuinely didn’t want that. Which is precisely why so many folks bought imports and compacts; they knew what they were getting. And yes, they drove them on highways.
Keep in mind that traffic was much gentler and lighter then. And they were full of modestly powered sixes, and imports, and trucks that could go no faster than 45-50 mph.
I could have chosen my words better. The thought I was trying to express was that those early American compacts were not really intended (by their manufacturers) to be purchased by those who would use them as a primary vehicle where significant highway travel was a requirement. The early compacts of my experience suffered from gearing that was too low, which made them feel strained over 60.
I was thinking about cars like the Granada, the Volare and the 1975+ Nova which were far more refined and comfortable, and which were very much in their element on a 55 mph interstate highway. This is especially true with the Ford and GM products,which often offered larger displacement engines and taller gearing. These are obviously generalizations, but it was my experience that the early compacts were mostly a way to sell second cars to families that had previously made do with only one.
but it was my experience that the early compacts were mostly a way to sell second cars to families that had previously made do with only one.
Tell that to the 400-500k annual Falcon buyers in 1960-1962 who didn’t buy a full size Ford instead (down 400-500k in those years.) Your own parents bought a compact ’61 Olds F-85 as their sole car, right? And both drove imports before? So where does your experience come from?
Jim, the stats I’ve showed here over and over seem to make a rock solid case that a very significant swath of Americans thought the full size cars had gotten to big after 1956-1958, and really truly wanted something more compact. Let’s not forget, big American cars’ market share started plummeting at that point, and kept on doing so as smaller options were available. And as their primary car, not just a second one.
This analysis certainly agrees with my experience. My Dad bought two new 1961 Falcons. We drove his car – a 144 three-on-the tree four-door sedan on a 5090 mile (I kept the daily travel journal) cross-country trip to the Seattle World’s Fair in the spring of 1962. Thank goodness it was the deluxe version with heavier padded seats. But no A/C, P/S or P/B, and a radio delete plate (that’s when the Sears Silvertone transistor radio stepped in). There were tons of these cars on the highways back in the day. With rapidly increasing prosperity as the 60’s moved on, peoples’ expectations increased and V8 LTDs were more common than compacts as highway cruisers.
I got the opportunity to drive my 225 Dart and my Corvair 40+ miles each on the expressway this weekend. These days, if you’re not going at least 70, it’s a nerve-wracking experience out there. At 75, the Dart sounds like everything’s three seconds from coming unglued. It’s probably only turning 3300 rpm with its 3.23 gears, but the driver has to get accustomed to the racket. It’s a whole different car at 65 – no sweat all day and quiet for an old car. The Corvair’s noise is all behind the driver, so I find that it feels totally relaxed at 75, even though it’s less powerful than the Dart. It’s all about the driver’s perspective.
I have no problem driving them anywhere, but if I have a long freeway drive to look forward to, I’d much rather take one of the V8 cars.
Interesting comparison! I only drove my father’s STRIPPO ’60 Biscayne 4 dr. sedan 6: armstrong steering and 3-on-the-tree. It was, as I recall, a wobbly slug. Roomy? Yes, comfy? uuhhhh???
What handling, brakes or power? None of them, must have been option$. However, it did provide basic transportation, altho it did get COLD in the backseat during Wisconsin Winters. Not a car I have many fond memories of. Pic is from the net, but identical to my father’s Biscayne. DFO
GM cars of the period were well known for wearing out front end parts quickly. Items such as ball joints and tie rod ends degraded very quickly. Shock absorbers had a very short life. That is the reason for the wobbly handling you mention.
One of the most interesting posts in a long time. I would plump for the Doge as well based on this. its very interesting to me how these cars feel when driven since I do not see them in the UK
Like that they were fixed B pillar saloon cars, yes the pillarless ones look nice but how much more solid do the US B pillar saloons feel, and how much more solid do the Unit construction ones feel in comparison to the separate chassis ones of the same period?
I have only ridden in a few old US cars, they were pillarless and they rattled and flexed over poor road surfaces which was a bit of a disappointment though possibly the suspension was worn out.
The British cars with separate chassis I have ridden in do not flex but they are B pillared saloons and much shorter. (I have a p4 Rover)
Separate chassis cars seem to be more acoustically inert, and the unit construction feel much more rigid in my experience.
Of the older cars I have experienced, the best of both worlds was a Rover P5 and a BMC Vanden Plas 4 litre, both were massively rigid with overbuilt unit construction, and extremely silent due to excellent sound deadening, not cheap cars however
Another question if someone can answer, I watch a few US cars shows such as Bitchin Rides and it sounds to me that the US pronounces chassis as cha-see, whereas we say the ch as sha-see
I’m an American and I hear people say both sha-see and cha-see. In fact I occasionally hear people say “cha-sis”.
I pronounce it sha-see, then I’m a Britworking in America.
And that’s why I get the wallace and Gromit reference in your name…
I always pronounced it as Tcha-see but I have heard it said as Sha-see as well. With a Ch at the front of the word, it gets the hard sound, like cherry, or cheerio or chomp. It has to be an S to be pronounced as Sha-see to my learning.
Fantastic article! Thanks for sharing your impressions! The Dodge’s design has grown on me over the years. And whereas I always thought the ’59 Chevy design was bizarre, recent designs in the market have softened its jarring visual. Still must have seemed bizarre in 1959….
Just for context, when these cars were new the interstate highway system was still being built in many areas of the USA so many of these 6 cylinder grocery getters were good enough for tooting around town. The interstate didn’t come near my area until the mid 60’s.
The interstate system and new-found freedom and improved income of the American populace really gave a boost to V8 engines. I once read that the whole musclecar thing grew out of the necessity of a V8 engine and a ‘killer’ kickdown to be able to safely pass on the two-lane highways that still proliferated at the time. It wasn’t just for impromptu stoplight drag races.
With that said, full-size cars with six-cylinder engines were still widely bought. Sadly, they became all-too-disposable, which is not surprising given the heavily salted roads during the winter in the rustbelt, making short work of the thin sheetmetal.
These big sixes were quite capable of handling the interstates, and cruising along at 60-70 with little or no effort, except for grades. Keep in mind that average speeds were lower then (typically 60 or so, maybe 65), speed limit laws were strictly enforced (no 10mph over the limit grace), and there were lots of modestly powered cars, imports, and trucks that struggled to make 50-55 mph. It was a very different reality than today.
I spent plenty of time in six cylinder cars on highways and freeways back in the day, and except for less acceleration for passing and serious grade climbing abilities, they were perfectly adequate for the traffic patterns on interstates back then.
Sure, a V8 was better, and as more power equipment was ordered and the cars got heavier and the traffic density and average speeds climbed, and incomes climbed and the prestige value climbed V8s became more and more common.
Bout the same in our neck a the woods.. We did have the “PA trnpke”, though.
For anyone who thinks a big American car with a six and a two speed automatic were slow slugs and not freeway-compatible should (re) read this vintage review of a ’66 Chevy Bel Air six:
0-60 in 15.5 seconds
Top speed: 95 mph
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-car-life-road-test-1966-chevrolet-bel-air-six-with-powerglide-just-how-slow-was-it/
And read this comment about their experience in one on a cross-country trip at 70-75 mph:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/driving-impressions/driving-impressions-1958-1959-1960-which-low-priced-car-is-best/#comment-1809202
These cars simply were not as slow as folks tend to remember them as being.
The only car of this era that I can recall driving was our childhood neighbors’ Valiant. Pushbutton AT, slant 6 but no power steering. And a little newer, a friend’s ‘64 Dart; same configuration. I recall the AT and manual steering configuration in most domestic cars of the ‘60’s that rode in as a kid. In fact, I don’t remember ever riding in three-on-the-tree passenger car except my own parents’ Hillman Minx, which got replaced by a four-on-the floor Volvo when was 3-1/2 so I’m not sure I really remember the Hillman except vague impressions of its exterior and back seat.
What a great article, I like your taste in classic cars, they are all fine automobiles.
I was rooting for the Comet, but not only did it come in last, but it got sold off too!
I’m usually one for originality but if the brakes are that bad on the Dodge I’d be tempted to do one of those brake upgrades to 1980’s Diplomat parts and pick up power front discs and an actual parking brake. Then keep the original parts in a box in case someone wanted to change it back.
Me too. The one thing I absolutely could not tolerate on an old car is feeble brakes, let alone ones that seem to have had a poor name even back when.
The Chrysler dual-leading (twin wheel cylinders) front brakes were the best, at least in principle, but the issue here is one of sensitivity to rust buildup in the drums.
My Peugeot 404 wagon had similar dual-leading shoe brakes in front and they were my favorite brakes ever. The pedal feel was superb without power assist and they were very powerful. I preferred them to the front discs on my 404 sedan.
Hillmans had twin leading shoe drum brakes since the early 50s they work great but do fade with repeated use, but the went disc in the early 60s.
Great fleet of very familiar cars except for the 6 pack engines we didnt get those and automatics were rare and not even available on 59 Chevs here, 58 Fords called Goldflash here were popular but few survive now, again Ive never seen a 6 and when these cars were falling off the roads in the 70s I part timed in a wrecking yard cluttered with american cars and no sixes, No Comets either we did get early falcons but they didnt sell well until local assembly started and Ford UK produced a lemon.
You and that wagon’s brakes! Actually, 404 drums were praised in the day: and mine were certainly better than any Big Three drums I drove, but still never wonderful.
As for the Chrysler brakes, I was going more on his mechanic’s “total crap!” comments rather than the weird rust problem. Ones on Valiants I drove (likely with local adaptations and not twin-leading shoe) were the worst of a bad lot, and their later (usually unassisted unless you paid) front discs were pretty dire too.
It will amuse you to hear that the best all-drums I’ve ever used were on a Beetle – low weight and the rear engine factor , I guess – which was the same swing-axle ’66 that scared me and put me off them for life!
Just to clarify, but you may know this already, the wagon’s drum brakes were not the same as on the sedan’s; they were considerably bigger and wider, as in something you would expect on a big Chrysler or such. I’m not sure the older sedan’s drum front brakes were dual leading shoes.
I was rooting for the Biscayne but am not unhappy with the Dart as the winner. For me the Chev still takes it on styling. The Ford Custom is a distant third.
What a cool collection of cars in a US styling period at the point of some of it’s most interesting designs. I’d too pick the Dart; with the kind of regular use that they would have experienced with most owners the brakes would not have been a problem.
By this time many if not most full-size buyers would have opted for power steering, brakes, and the standard (318, 272/292, and 283) V8s, as I would have. A/C would have been rare, and transmissions were still evolving, the TorqueFlite being the best, no contest. We had several Fords of that era: ’57, ’59, and ’63, and they did handle quite predictably and well and yes the ride was a bit stiff to allow for that handling with solid rear axle and leaf springs and the Ford-o- Matic or Cruise-o-Matic was functional if not a match to Chrysler’s TorqueFlite. And I tood would have shed the Comet, just a bit too hair-shirt for my taste.
Well, the Dart would certainly be the most modern, engineered, and up-to-date for 1960, with the Ford and Chevy being pretty much the same as the 1958 and 1959 cars.
The problem is that both Ford and Chevy offered better drivetrains on the option lists. Chrysler might have had a better product on the lower end, but it was also less profitable.
Ford and GM knew where the real money was, and focused their attention accordingly.
Great post, Stephen. I’m so glad to see this here, as it provides a reality check to all those that think these six cylinder cars aren’t quite capable to be driven in modern traffic.
I’m curious if a 1961 Comet with the optional 170 six and the minor suspension changes that were made for ’61 would have fared better? Maybe not. But then there were a lot of buyers who really preferred the feel of a more compact car and its handling and other qualities over the large cars. I’ve become quite convinced that there are large car folks and small car folks, just like with other certain intrinsic qualities we have, like our political/social leanings and such.
In a variant of the CC Effect, I washed (with an abrasive scrubber sponge and a stiff brush) the accumulated two-year grime from my ’66 F100 six pickup. And then I took it for a longer drive in the country. Naturally it felt better after a wash, as all cars do. But it rolls along so easily and quite effortlessly, even at 70+ mph. yes, the OD keeps the revs down quite low, but even without the OD, it’s very highway-compatible, especially now that it has new brakes and the new suspension bushings and shocks I installed two years ago.
I’m actually wanting to take it on an extended road trip, with my camping gear in the bed. Like Eastern Oregon and Nevada, or? I just need some new tires and check everything.
The best thing I’ve done to it is a good quality leather steering wheel wrap, it makes the thin rim and manual steering much more pleasant.
I looked up your truck on CC and it has a 240 six. I’ve heard that that engine is well-designed and reliable. The ’58 Ford has the 223 six, and some reviewers preferred it to the small block V-8! It has a kind of “sewing machine” smoothness, and the exhaust note sounds just like my ’72 Mercedes 250, which is why I made that German comparison.
Since 2014, I have only had to have some carb work done, a new water pump, spark plugs; and I just replaced the battery after 10 years! The engine always starts right up and it runs smoothly and consistently. It’s a nice cruising engine. I did adjust the valves myself, and now they’re quieter. Also I just patched an exhaust manifold leak and that made it quieter too, especially on the interstate.
So Ford made some good, durable sixes, but little has been written about them. I don’t know if the 223 has any relationship to the 240. The hobby focus seems to be on ripping the sixes out and shoving a big V-8 in!
The Ford 215 and 232 sixes (which first came out in 1952) developed a very good rep. They were replaced by the 240/300 in 1965, so mine is a newer generation.
I suspect that there aren’t lots of 215/232s still around, but there’s still lots of 240/300s, as the 300 was made all the way until 1996, and were common in pickups and vans. An extremely tough engine.
I’m a huge fan of the early Falcons, so it was interesting to hear about the Comet’s shortcomings. Not too surprising, and nothing against it.
Of the other choices, I like the Dodge Dart Phoenix best. Cool styling, slant six, plus I’ve never owned a Mopar.
My Dad must’ve found this to be true in 1960 when it was time to replace the ’56 Chevy 210. He would’ve test driven them all (ok, maybe not the Ford that far back) and came to the same conclusion and bought the ’60 Dodge Dart Seneca with the slant 6.
He kept that car for 6 years, finally replacing it with a ’66 Impala.
Great post, Stephen. I always like to hear about your fleet. I haven’t seen a ’60 Dodge in years, and always like to hear about yours. 😉
Stephen it looks like you keep your stable in fine shape! I agree that many people still preferred the six cylinder, full size car back in the late ’50’s through early ’60’s. It seems that these were the best buy, at a lower price.
I’ve only had personal experience with a couple of similar cars. My Dad bought a new ’59 Impala two door hardtop with V8 and power glide. As a 5 year old I was impressed because it was new, black outside with red interior. My Father didn’t like the low seating, he constantly complained about it. He also disliked the “bubble top” which made the rear seat hot. He had traded in a ’55 Chevy. His next car was a ’64 Tempest wagon, since my parents felt that they didn’t need two doors to keep my brother and I from falling out of the car, a real concern back then.
In the ’70’s my Dad bought a ’55 Chevy Bel Air sedan with six and PowerGlide which I got to drive occasionally. The seating comfort was very good with easy entry and the quality of the car was very impressive. It could handle freeway driving at normal speeds. I can see why my Dad was disappointed after buying the ’59.
As a motorcyclist, I moved up from the smallest 50cc bikes up to 1,000cc machines. Once I got a bike that was freeway legal, a 160cc Honda, I used it on short stretches, but preferred to stay on county roads. However once I reached the 305-350cc stage, I used the freeways like everyone else. Back then the Honda 350 was commonly used for cross country travel! Nowadays riders are hesitant to travel on anything smaller than 750-1,000 cc, or even bigger bikes.
Stephen, my favorite among your cars is the ’58 Ford, what a nice looking car!
I came home from the hospital in a 58 Custom 300 Fordomatic and with power steering, solid black. My Dad really liked that car. A lot. He got it at 5 years old and about 60.000 km, and it was taken in part exchange of the “new” 3 year old 68 Nova he got afterwards. He probably drove about 100 to 120.000 km, I know the engine needed an overhaul, and that the brakes were nothing to write home about. But what wrote that car off Dad’s book was rust.
My mom’s “cuz” drove her “58 Ford” till about “66”. She had a garage; car stayed quite nice.
Wonder if it was a “6” or “8”. Too young at the time to really catch on to those type things.
I do remember it was a cool, red plaid, inside/ Gray outside..
Know it was a “stick”. Her “71 Torino” was her first “automatic”.
Excellent article. Thanks,
Have you done a cost for the cars in present $s?
Dave
With the information you’ve given me, I’m going to hop into my time machine and travel to late 1959 and visit my local Chevrolet dealer. I prefer the ’60 models over the 1959 cars.
I’ll be ordering a Bel Air 2-door post sedan 6 and ticking the boxes for power steering and overdrive transmission. Then my salesman and I will be visiting the police/taxi/heavy duty section of the order sheet and upgrading the brakes and suspension.
Most enjoyable piece, Stephen.
What speed would you sit on on the highway? In my experience of this era-on six-cylinder GM/Ford/Chrycos, the realistic cruise is about 60. They’ll wind up to higher speeds, but they have modest rev ceilings (peak power at 4K, give or take), low gearing, and are sounding and feeling strained by about 75 as they get to well over 3K revs. For peace – and vastly better fuel use! – 60 is about the sweet spot. Also, I found steering systems of then started requiring too much attention by those higher speeds.
I think I’d choose the Dodge too, not only for the driveline, but, to my surprise, for the looks. But I would definitely add power discs from something!
As a digression, if that’s your house in the pics, it’s very sweet.
I agree, 60 MPH is about the “sweet spot” for freeway travel in these cars. As it is, I only do short stretches on the interstate with old cars. For one thing, if I break down, I don’t want to be stranded on the freeway shoulder. In old cars, I prefer to stay on “Blue Highways” and local roads. If something goes wrong, I can pull into a parking lot or someplace–well off the road–and get help, etc.
The house in the last Dodge photo is the Condit House in Parsippany NJ, a local historic landmark. My house is about the same vintage, but considered “Queen Anne Free Classic”. It was designed by J. H. Daverman, an architect in Grand Rapids, Michigan. It doesn’t look like most houses in New Jersey.
Very nice too.
Great great comparison. According to this site
https://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1960/2652515/plymouth_savoy_2-door_sedan_30-d_economy_six_torqueflite-6_pp1.html#gsc.tab=0
a similar Plymouth could get to around 95 mph top speed, so I believe a 65 mph cruising speed was routine. And better acceleration with manual transmission.
Great article! I always thought the 1957 Ford was one of the most beautiful cars of the era. BUT, come 1958, Ford became one of the ugliest, if not the ugliest car of that year.
Some comments on your comments.
Engine noise: It should be very obvious that the Chevrolet engine with hydraulic tappets will be much quieter than the Ford and Dodge engines with their mechanical lifters. You mentioned a lifter tick in the Dodge. The rocker arms are fully adjustable in the 225 and you should have no trouble adjusting all of the valves to make it almost as quiet as a hydraulic lifter engine.
Dodge Service & Parking brakes.
Your comments about how poorly the service brakes work and how difficult to work on them tells me that you don’t know how to work on these brakes or how to set them up. The same applies for the parking brake. When the drum on the back of the transmission is properly set up, it’s nearly as effective as the service brakes on the car and will certainly hold the car on any grade or hill.
Chevrolet
Yes, the styling is certainly unique and by far the most “far out” of all three cars. Two things about the Chevrolet body you didn’t mention. 1. The knee knocker “A” pillar. Both Ford and Dodge had great fun in razzing Chevrolet over the need to modify how you enter a car to keep from bashing your knees on the windsield pillar as it sweeps back toward the door opening. 2. Due to the design of the fram\e on the Chevrolet, much of the floor is lowered between the outer frame rails and caught many people off guard the first time they entered the back seat of the sedan to find the floor lower than they expected with the result being that these people bash their heads on the roof at the drip rail.
The Ford too has a bit of a knee knocker front entryway, but it doesn’t seem to be as bad as the Chevrolet.
Steering.
Comparing two cars with power steering against one without is an obvious apples to oranges arrangement. Of course the power steering cars are going to be more responsive. Of course the manual steering car is going to have a far high ratio steering box, on purpose to lower the steering effort not present when there’s power assist.
Transmissions;
Both the Ford and the Chevrolet hobble themselves by having two speed transmissions while the Torqueflite in the Dodge has three. Yes, you can force the Ford to use all three, but there is no third gear in the Chevrolet and GM’s insistence on retaining the Powerglide was an obvious middle finger to their customers.
Creature Comforts
Failing to identify the Headlight and Windshield Wipers switches in the Chevrolet is unforgivable. These days NHTSA would demand a recall for such an egregious act. GM and Chevrolet were masters at building a car as inexpensively as they could, and leaving off this ID as well as making the switches plastic are just two of the more obvious examples.
On the other hand it’s difficult to compare interior trim, because of the cars in your collection. The Chevrolet is the bottom of the line car with seats that any taxi would think were just fine.. The Ford is the midline model in that range and at least doesn’t scream CHEAP)!) and as you point out , the Phoenix is the top dog in the Dart line with sculpted door panels and a raised seat back for the driver, furthering his/her comfort..
Ride Quality
The Chevrolet and Ford will both have coil springs in the front while the Phoenix uses torsion bars. The Chevrolet uses coil springs at the back as well. Doing so provides probably the smoothest straight line ride, but don’t ask the car to turn a corner. Between the narrow wheels, small tires and slow steering, wallow is the name of the game.
Both the Ford and the Phoenix use semi-elliptical leaf springs at the rear. The big difference between the two cars is the mounting point of the springss relative to the rear axle The Phoenix measures 20″ from the center bolt to the front and 35″ to the rear. The Ford spacing is more equal. Both cai provide about the same level of harshness but the offset spacing of the Phoenix provides better resistance to axle windup, during hard braking.
I don’t see Powerglide as giving the finger to anyone. It provided a cost effective automatic transmission in an era where buyers were looking for thrift. These cars were bought by Depression survivors and their equally thrifty children. Back in the day I never heard anyone complain about it. My family members loved Powerglide because it was smooth and cost effective. In all my years in the garage business I never once saw a Powerglide fail. The same could not be said about the THM 350, which failed regular as clockwork at 200,000 km.
Chevrolet and GM’s insistence on retaining the Powerglide was an obvious middle finger to their customers.
I would encourage you to read this vintage review of a ’66 Bel Air six with the PG. It did 0-60 in 15.5 seconds, which was substantially quicker than a comparable ’66 Ford six with the (real) 3-speed automatic, which took 16.4 seconds.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-car-life-road-test-1966-chevrolet-bel-air-six-with-powerglide-just-how-slow-was-it/
The 1961 Plymouth Savoy with the six and the 3-speed TF did it in…15.3 seconds, in other words, the same as the PG equipped big Chevy.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/vintage-reviews/vintage-car-life-road-test-1961-plymouth-savoy-six-outstanding-in-cheap-comfortable-transportation/
Sure, the TF was a better automatic, but folks tend to underestimate the PG. Which is why Chevy kept it for so long. It was demonstrably better than the the 2-speed automatics from the competition, and could hold its own pretty well with the 3-speeds.
Your comments about how poorly the service brakes work and how difficult to work on them tells me that you don’t know how to work on these brakes or how to set them up.
Are you suggesting there’s an adjustment to make them less sensitive to rust buildup in the drums. If so, please tell us what that is.
Lovely Mauve pumps, Stephen. What size are you?
I’m a men’s size 8 B (Narrow). I might be able to fit into those pumps, LOL!
Fascinating article Stephen! I wonder how much today’s radial tires improve ride and especially handling compared to the bias ply tires of the time with their recommended 24 psi or so pressures.
These cars (other than the Comet) remind me of the large low-priced Chevys my mother purchased when I was young. She had three in a row, all mid-trim 2-door sedans with 6-cylinder engines, column-shifted 3-speed manual transmissions, and no power steering or power brakes. The first, a 1955 210, was the nicest, as it was equipped with the Delray trim package, which made it almost as plush as a Bel Air. The next two, 1961 and ’67 Bel Airs, were both rather stripped. I was too young to drive the ’55 and ’61 but spent a lot of time behind the wheel of the ’67.
As Paul stated, the 250 cu. in. six (155 gross hp) of the latter was powerful for the 65 mph maximum speed limits on Pennsylvania interstates and the Turnpike. We drove across the country to California in 1971, and the car had no trouble cruising at the then-typical 70 mph interstate speed limits (75 mph in Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, as well as on I-10 in western Arizona). I never felt the manual brakes required too much effort, but the steering did require a lot of wheel winding at city speeds.
Years later, I was able to test drive the infamous 1959 Chevy Bel Air as the putative purchaser for the IIHS crash test. What struck me about this car was the relatively smooth ride, as well as the extreme amount of wheel winding that was necessary in parking situations, both just as I had remembered from our ’67 Bel Air. However, what surprised me was the lack of stopping power of the brakes. It wasn’t the effort that was the problem, but rather the brakes seemed quite ineffective compared to modern brakes. The other surprise, given this car also had the 3-on-the-tree shifter, was the narrowness of the neutral gate between the reverse and first gear shift plane vs. the second and third gear plane.
The brakes on GM cars of the era were, in my opinion anyway, ran somewhere between barely adequate and downright dangerous.
Cool cars most of which sold over here but not Comets we got Falcons but they didnt sell well until local assembly started,
Six in a row fleet, very few sixes if any at all came here if you shelled out for an American brand car you wanted the V8, in 59 Chevrolet did not offer powerglide here Aussie 59 Chevys were six cylinder only,
My dad worked at a Chevy dealer 59 was a rinse and repeat of 57, when 58 Chevys sold really well 57 and 59 were lean years but they sold lots of Vauxhalls with normal fins.
I admit growing up in the 50s & 60s and had little contact with basic autos except for the 1966 Pontiac 4-door sedans we drove in High School drivers ed. in 1966. when I was age 15. The only lasting memory I have of your auto selections started back in 1959 San Francisco when Moms boyfriend Tony had a new 1960 Chevy Impala convertible, white with red interior. The road trips we had in beautiful Northern CA remain memorable in that convertible. The other memory relating to these autos was in 1963, when my second best friend, two doors down, his parents bought a beautiful blue 1963 Comet convertible. When the Comets were decked out they were beautiful. Perhaps it was just my neighborhood but first my parents bought a new 1963 T-Bird, weeks later second best friend parents had their new 1963 Comet conv., then best friend across the street parents bought a new 1963 Buick Electra. Months passed and next door neighbor showed up with a new 1964 T-Bird. Great time when anyone you knew came home in a new car and neighbors would come over to look just to see a new body style. Sadly new body styles seem far and few between today.
I have always been attracted to exterior style, then interior style, and anything other not as important. Regarding your autos I vote for your 1959 Chevy. That body style is always going to be an eye-turner in a good way.
I just wanted to come on here and say that while I have absolutely no dog in the fight about how any of these cars stack up against each other, I very much appreciate your intent and the work behind that. Oh, and that you have all four of these cars…Respect.
Personally, I’d choose the Dodge too. Mostly because I like the color and you’ve written about it before. Plus, I too would probably run into trouble with the Chevy and hats.
Great article, Stephen!
I began carspotting about 1967 and remember many late 50s Chevrolets on the road but zero ’58 Fords, which is still unfamiliar to me. The finned Mopars not named Christine or Imperial I tend to get mixed up, so they weren’t a common sight. I don’t believe it was just because my family had GM cars.
Isn’t there a publication or data base that tells you how many of each model and year are still registered in the US? It would be interesting to follow those numbers historically to see how long the bulk of them were still in use. Of course, convertibles by far and then coupes are most likely to survive long term, which is a shame.
Great reading..
I had 3 valiant from 63.. the push button AT was a sci-fi touch that worked by cable to the box same as the column system. Each button had different length extentions that pushed on the cable and caused the effective length to change which then moved the AT lever at the box. Complex and interesting and surprisingly accurate and reliable.
What a great article. I was born after all of these, but do remember my dad not much of a six cylinder fan. Well, let me say not for his driving! But my sister’s each had at least one Chevy six (a 57 with a three speed and the Belair trim and the other a 58 Delray? if that was a model)
No dad stayed true to Buick with nail head engines for the 1960’s, did Chevrolet Caprice and a few Lincoln’s and Cadillacs for most of the 1970’s.
I couldn’t say if these old sixes could run well on the freeway, but I’d have to imagine they were capable.
Interesting to read about the impressions these cars had on the writer. My father bought a 62 Comet with 170 six and three speed manual. Some of what was described about the 60 Comet was true of my father’s Comet. It was comfortable and a really good highway car as we did some long road trips into the US and eastern Canada. I miss that car, not many to be seen at car shows.
Comet experience shows just how cheap Ford went when run by McNamara. Falcon chassis and engine were a product of an “efficiency expert” at the helm. Engineers were still allowed some freedom when creating Corvair and Valiant, Ford winning on the profit side.
McNamara would leave Ford to be JFK’s defense secretary and then later manage the Vietnam war effort with the same Falcon-style efficiency that, sadly, had predictable results.
A Valiant would be LEAPS AND BOUNDS superior to the Falcon or Comet. Better engine, far superior automatic transmission (3-speed A904, instead of the archaic 2-speed), far better suspension geometry, and the most-important but least remembered advance: in 1960, all Valiants had a standard alternator.
Our first station wagon was a ’59 Brookwood, equivalent to Biscayne trim. Main reason was not being cheap, but only wanting a two door so we would not be able to fall out. It had 283 V8, Powerglide, power steering, radio, heater, whitewalls, and a deluxe steering wheel with horn rim that looked a lot better than the standard Biscayne horn button, overall, well equipped. 283/PG combo was enough for easy climbing of mountain grades. I still think the dash is the neatest of any American car.
You lucky chap – nice question to have!
Enjoy the one you like today, and tomorrow is another day…
What a great comparison test. It helps me understand my parent’s decision to replace their used 57 Ford (V8) with a new 64 Valiant (Slant 6). This gave them a downsized six with good ride and handling. Interestingly this was their last American car for 30 years, when Mom bought a Saturn. More interesting is that the Valiant was replace by a used Mercedes 250S.
This owner of a 1958 Ford Custom 300 (standard trim) reports some of the same observations I made–very interesting. He’s selling his car on FB (Location: Manorville NY):
“If you’re looking for a great, affordable, entry level classic to have fun with, this is it! 223 six, gives good mileage, and is renowned as being virtually bullet-proof. Not a V-8 by any stretch of the imagination, but surprisingly zippy, and toddles down the highway just fine at 60 (to modern ears used to overdrive, sounds like it’s winding out, but that’s just the nature of the beast, and will do it all day without complaint) Ford-o-matic 3 speed automatic, P/B (no P/S) rust free, presents itself very well . . . I’ve been more or less daily driving it since I bought it, and this has been one of the most hassle free, reliable cars I ever owned (because there’s so very little to actually go wrong) . . . Not a concours show car, but constantly draws a crowd at cruise nights, because you don’t see them often, and stand out from the lines of ’55-’57 Chevies.”