Take a moment to reflect where the market was for our friends at Ford in 1958. Starting with the autumn 1957 release of the Edsel, the blue oval was sorting out a lot of…issues. Like the worrying lack of enthusiasm for a new marque that had promised power, styling and a new found social status for its owners and failed so spectacularly. Mercury was losing ground against the mid priced offerings from GM, and Lincoln had taken on the challenge of building the biggest unit body cars ever conceived for the 1958 Continental and Premiere to replace the elegant and well received 1956-57 lines. 1958 also saw the arrival of the all new 4 seat Thunderbird after the three year run of the classic Little Birds. The all new Falcon was in advanced development for its release in late ’59. There was more on Ford’s plate than it could say grace over.
While there was a lot of activity on the periphery, the meal ticket was still the bread and butter Ford. The price leader Custom/ Custom 300 series got buyers in the door. But the metal that the sales staff really wanted to move was the fancier Fairlane/Fairlane 500. It may not sound like much today, but the $300-400 tariff for the Fairlane series was a deal maker/breaker in those days. For the extra skins, you got two more inches of wheelbase, standard features like two (!) sunvisors, real wheel covers, a horn and other assorted bangles that made the car look like a (highly) mobile jukebox, especially in Bangkok (!?).
Longer, lower, wider was the coin of the realm in those days, and the Fairlane 500 had that in spades (although this ad takes that a bit too far). The basic body shell was really a carryover from the very successful 1957 models. But under the hood, the ’58s packed the brand new FE engines, for a price, of course. They came in 332 cube (240/265 hp) and the more familiar 352 cuber (300 hp). 1958 was the year all three of the low-price big boys would finally break the 300 hp barrier. The horsepower war was trying to outshout the cold war. Guess it worked.
Ford was trying to get away from the image as a low-buck, low suds everyman’s car and carve out a more profitable niche upmarket before the wave of compacts and imports could make profit margins non existent. With the Fairlane/500 series, that migration began in earnest. It would reach its ultimate expression just a few years later with the LTD/7 Litre cars in 1965-1966.
The most obvious change in the ’58 was the move to quad headlamps and a stamped-mesh full width grille that sorta kinda reminded you of the T-Bird sitting in the other end of the showroom. Other than a new face and a squared-off butt, the car was basically unchanged in most respects from the very well received ’57,which (depending on who’s counting) outsold the iconic ’57 Chevy.
Well, one thing did change, and not for the better. Lee Iacocca called the ’58 the worst Ford ever screwed together, with multiple quality problems that made ex-Ford owners out of a lot of buyers. Poor rustproofing and “dynamic obsolescence” took care of the rest, so finding a ’58 in good condition is not that common today.
We spotted this gussied up ’58 in repose just outside Dayton ,Tennessee on a warm summers evening. It wears cheesy aftermarket wheel covers and has the odd patch of rust here and there. It is for sale, but the owner wasn’t around to provide any details. But like a colorful parrot with big tail feathers, it squawks its story pretty clearly.
This can’t be a true ’58 Ford- There is no rust above the headlight buckets.
J.C. Whitney sold fibreglass fenders to solve that problem. But better have 3 days to block sand them, especially with Black paint.
Loved my 58, factory stock 352, 3 speed overdrive, 2 door hardtop. P.O. many 335 hp 348 ci Chevs.
This car, in that color combo, with all that (added?) chrome, were those original options? Were those rear skirts original?
This is one of the ugliest Fords ever IMO. Like a decontented Edsel. It even makes the Edsel look good, Well better than this perhaps.
Face & Tail remind me of Felix the Cat somehow.
58 was full of so many blunders between two classic years, 57 & 59…for many Makes.
STILL, the rarity of good rust free survivors Makes these highly desirable in their own right.
I’d prefer perhaps a Pink & Grey color Combo to this White 4 sure….. I am sure you could custom order some mighty questionably tasteful color combinations in & out.
This Green may even be nice with something other than White.
An uncle of mine had one of these from ’63 to ’65, almost identically optioned in the same color scheme — but it was the retractable hardtop model, and the skirts and C-pillars had wide chrome bands along the bottom.
Yes, even more chrome was an option for these cars…. Plus back then most dealers carried a large and eclectic assortment of chrome doodads and geegaws, many of which were quite popular. Some dealers plastered all their cars with a “signature” set of doodads.
It’s certainly true that the ’58 is not beautiful like the ’57, but I still have a lot of love for the ’58. For me, what it lacks in beauty it makes up for with its quirkiness. The taillights are particularly odd yet likeable. The retractable model, with it’s more formal “Thunderbird” roof line, wore the ’58 styling more gracefully than the rest of the line.
True to its rep, my uncle’s ’58 largely fell apart by ’65. It had very low miles on it and was pampered all its life, too. Shame about that build quality.
BTW, the ’58 wagons and Rancheros I’ve seen all had the round ’57 style tailights, appearing to be just the ’57 with a new front clip. I guess adapting the oval taillights to a tailgate would’ve cost too much for a one-year only style.
Between all the family, friends, and neighbors back in the ’60s I knew and rode in many of the finned wonders of the ’50s and most of them really were cheaply-made junk. There were really only two cars of that era I recall being particularly tough and long-lived — my grandmother’s ’57 Olds 98 Holiday Coupe and a neighbor’s ’59 Imperial Crown 4 door. Otherwise, many of the finmobiles were dead and gone by 1971. In fact, (and this is strictly anecdotal based on where I grew up) by ’71 or so there were definitely more ’49-55 models still in use than ’56-60 models.
The “bubble” skirts and the continental spare are not factory. Factory skirts were flush with the rear fenders. You could order a 58 Ford with a continental spare, but that one is definitely not original, and there should be a filler panel to cover the huge gap resulting from pushing the rear bumper back.
Ah yes, you’re right. My uncle’s had the “tailored” skirts like in your pic, but with a chrome band along the bottom.
They might have actually come from a Mercury, he sometimes did things like that with his cars.
I loved watching the top go up and down, and loved riding in it. I was four years old, and fervently believed all vehicles should have a retractable hardtop, LOL.
He had Lakes sidepipes on his as well. I remember being amazed at how tiny the trunk was with the hard top down, but I still wanted one for years.
At the time my mom still drove her ’46 Chevy Master sedan and dad had a hot-rodded ’48 Ford pickup with an Olds Rocket engine. He was racing dirt track cars then, and doing custom work on everything from engines to paint jobs.
It was a fantastic time to be an American child. 🙂
Back in 1958 my neighbor had this exact same car in the same color combo but without fender skirts or continental kit. Also the chrome trim on rocker panels was not on his car. Otherwise all was the same. I was 14 years old at the time and thought it was very sharp though not quite as great as my other neighbor that had a 57 Ford retractable hardtop with continental kit, fender skirts, and twin spotlights – one for driver and one for front seat passenger! Now there was a car to get excited about. It was baby blue and white. Love to have one of those today. My family had a 56 Ford Ranch Wagon in sea foam green and those fabulous vinyl seats that had the little ranch brands all over them. Those seats wore like iron but too bad the fenders didn’t. After 3 PA winters the fenders and rocker panels were covered in rust. It was a constant battle for the 7 years we had the car. The stick shift, thunderbird V-8 and dual exhausts were great except it seemed like my dad was always replacing tailpipes and mufflers!
Always liked these Fords we never got the 2door but fordor 58 were a popular car they looked more up market than the 57though now its an obvious facelift funny thing those 57 Chevy I remember my dad telling me they had trouble moving them of the lot new where the 55/56 had sold well even here with a big tax gulp in the price I guess the 57 Ford looked newer and the Customlines has a great rep out here.
Was there ever a less successful facelift on a car? The 1957 Ford was beautiful from almost every angle. Other than the front, back and sides, I guess this one isn’t that bad. It is funny as I think about it, there are more 58s in my past than 57s. One of my kindergarden carpool bud’s mom had a metallic lavender 58. And the first time I ever saw bondo being used, it was on the front fender eyebrows of one of these.
Most people have forgotten or never knew what an unusual thing Ford was doing with these cars. The Custom/Custom 300 was the “real” Ford on a 116 inch wheelbase, while the Fairlane/Fairlane 500 was a super Ford on a 118 wheelbase. These cars used two separate body shells. I have long surmised that the grand plan at Ford was to finally become a factor in the entire market. Mercury got its own body shell and was moved up from a Pontiac and Dodge fighter to Buick & Chrysler territory. Edsel was to battle Oldsmobile and Desoto (using the Fairlane body for its lower series and the Mercury body for the upper), and the super Ford would take over in the Pontiac/Dodge field. If this was the plan, it was a grand failure.
Also, was there ever a worse choice of engines? I don’t know much about the 332, but when your other choices are the 292 Y block and the 352, then get me to a Plymouth dealer, please.
This car is in my favorite 50s color combination. As a kid, I had a toy 58 Edsel in the same colors.
Huh? The 352, like the rest of the FE family, is one of the most rugged, dependable engines EVER put between 2 fenders…BTW there is no more Plymouth dealers anymore, so who REALLY built a longer lasting product????????
@suzulight – I have no argument with the durability of the 352 or any of the FEs. I am on record as being one of the 390’s biggest fans. But performance wise, the 352 was just a pig. Both the Chevy 348 and the Plymouth 350 were better performers. (Oops – I think my bias is showing again:) )
As for the longest lasting product, this is an interesting question. It was probably possible to park a 58 Ford and a 58 Plymouth next to each other on a Detroit street in the winter then splash them with salt water and watch the rust race. I am not sure which would win. Or is it lose. I think that in 1958-60 nobody in the U.S. was really building cars of great quality. They all had some strengths, but they all had a lot of weaknesses too.
“(Oops – I think my bias is showing again…”
Ha ha ha! I don’t think Paul will chastise you for that!
I agree with you on the Ford 352 engine. It was a dog and made my Chevy 235 six inspire confidence!
Many comments about rust. All 100% true. If you got two years before rust started appearing, boy, were you fortunate! In St. Louis, in my part of town, that’s all you saw – rustbuckets! Rocker panels, quarter panels, little triangular patches where the front fenders were bolted at the bottom corner – those and more. On a 1961 Chevy – try everywhere! I know, I had one!
I’d like to see one in Metallic Lavender With perhaps Black or Grey… I was Way too Harsh Is my Criticism yesterday…
It’s a world better than most years after 1972 in style, at least this one has a unique style.
I don’t quite understand the love for the ’57 Ford. I can’t deal with its gawky headlights — it looks okay from other angles, but the lights make it look like a Pixar character, and not in a good way.
The 332 was an FE; essentially a 352 with a shorter stroke and a fractionally narrower bore.
My father loved this car. That because my father was the Chevrolet dealer in 1958 in our town. The ’58 BelAir and Impala ate Ford’s lunch that year. Badly. I’ve never understood the love for the 55-57 Chevy’s. Ok, the ’55’s I can understand. Good looking and groundbreaking. But Chevy’s next BIG year was 1958 – the blue collar Cadillac. And it was one hell of a success.
There have been many equally-failed “facelifts” – generally, over on the GM side. Where the Fords of that era really missed it, was in longetivity. In a counterpoint to the Ts and As of a generation earlier, planned obsolescence was guaranteed in this era. The whirlwind styling changes promised it, but the warp-speed rust guaranteed it.
I have few memories of this model. Like our family’s 1957 wagon, they rusted faster than they could be paid for. They were here; not in great numbers in my neck of the woods – and they enraged their owners, with the poor quality and fantastic corrosion – and then they were gone, and the customers with them.
My old man was a Ford guy at heart – his first was a Model A. He kept trying, but between a 1957 that only lasted five years, a 1968 that only held up five, and a 1974 Maverick that rusted so badly it was ordered off the road…he gave up.
God bless these folks in outbacks and dry areas that can preserve such fragile automotive specimens, against Nature and reality and all good sense…
LAx reference to Felix the cat is spot on.
This was my first car ride, during a blizzard in Dec. ’60 from Hoboken, NJ in Manhattan’s shadow to our home in suburban Bergen County.
I remember the turn signal “ding” and a half moon speed odometer in that car , that I could be wrong on. It was teal green and white and was very fast from what my Dad said…he had traded a ’54 Chevy Bel Air for the Ford, but ultimately he preferred the Chevy.
I also have a vague memory of being stopped at a traffic light and seeing oil burning smoke slowly rise from the sides of the car. Shortly thereafter there was a ’64 Buick wagon in the driveway. Cars really did not last very long back then; (planned obsolescnese and a license to print money.)
I never understood the fascination and nostalgia for the ’57 Chevy…the ’55 and the ’56 were far more interesting. And the ’57 Ford that beat the Chevy in sales that year, also more appealing.
How Ford ever outsold the ’57 Chevy is beyond me. Seeing cars like this, then and now, brings no satisfaction to me. Ford couldn’t hang with GM on any level when they reached above the “everyman’s Ford” models.
A buddy in the air force bought a 1957 Ford (can’t remember the model) in summer 1970. This was in NoCal, so it was in very nice shape. It was a two door sedan, blue and white paint with a similar interior. It was a basic six-stick on the column, but was a no-nonsense, basic car that really impressed me – it did not try to be anything but, but you felt pretty secure within and confident it would take you anywhere in reasonable comfort and ample room, even in the back seat. The dolled-up models like in the pictures – near-furure junk.
Even though I adored my 1964 Impala, My history has pretty much been basic transportation.
On the ads – all automakers “stretched” the illustrations and even photos to make the cars appear “longer, lower and wider”. I always got a kick out of that. Perhaps because I was in that field, I used to always chuckle and say “who do they think they’re kidding?” I learned to hate the advertising industry. One thing about advertising I really do miss is the realistic color painting – the illustration shown above is a great example of an almost lost art, as often you can communicate ideas better with an illustration than a staged photograph.
@Zackman – How Ford ever outsold the ’57 Chevy is beyond me.
I have read that the stylists who worked on the 57 Chevrolet considered it a botch-job tarting of an already old-looking car. Also, it was a 3 year old design going up against brand new designs from Ford and Plymouth that were larger and lower. Plymouth broke sales records that year, and I suspect siphoned off some Chevy customers who had always been fairly style concious anyway. Plymouth had a good quality rep at the time the 57s were introduced. Also, remember that Ford was selling 2 cars while Chevy only had 1. The 57 Custom/Custom 300 was pretty much a direct competitor size-wise to the older Chevy, and a vehicle that Plymouth could not match.
I have always believed that the 57 Chevy did not become a design icon until they became the universal teenager’s hotrod in the early 60s. By that time the Fords and Plymouths had largely disintegrated while the Chevy’s genes from GM’s mid-50s golden era preserved these cars in great numbers. And the last shall be first.
My understanding is that since the ’57 Fords and Mopars had all-new bodies while Chevy’s was an obvious facelift…and a smaller, more upright body than either Ford or Plymouth…longer, lower, wider and all-new trumped the facelift. I think Chevy won the calendar year by 300 cars but the model year 1957 definitely went to Ford.
GM had spoon-fed the public about the virtues – real or imagined – of “longer lower wider” and “all-new” sheetmetal for decades, and in 1957 it backfired. They’d taught the public a little too well…and of course the whole size=value thing came back to haunt GM time and time again as they tried to meet a profit goal by cheapening the ’60 Corvair…the ’71 Vega…X cars…J cars…
I wonder how different things would be had Chevrolet proceeded with its 1947 Cadet small car.
Funny how time changes people’s perception. Yes the ’57 Ford and Plymouth are attractive but the ’57 Chevy is my all-time favorite and has been since I was a kid in the 60’s.
Someday my ’57 210 Handyman will run again…
JP, I believe you are correct on all points. I did remember that the main designer was interviewed once, and he thought the 1957 Chevy was nothing special – just another car – and had no idea of what he created would become an icon. Of those model years, being the “last man standing” of sorts, probably had a hand in that as you said!
My older brother & two sisters shared a 57 Bel Air 4 door Red-orange & White, probably a manual, knowing my Dad would want to teach them that first.
But anyway, I remember even by 1969 it had the air of a Special Interest car… I was impressed with its cache even as a 10 year old, though in my head I was like “Why couldn’t it Be a Cadillac”… looking back it almost was.
The taillights on the ford look like foil wrapped Throat Lozenges or Sidafed caplets.
You’re referring to the ’58 Ford taillights? I always thought they were odd the way they protruded.
The best promotion for the ’58 was Elizabeth Taylor driving it and instantly upscaling it’s image in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, that I saw recently.
LAx – I know what you mean about the 57’s aura. In the fall of 1970, a college kid volunteered with my scout troop and drove us to a couple of campouts in his orange 57 Bel Air. It was a really, really nice 2 door sedan with a 283 and Powerglide and it was a blast to ride around in.
But what was really funny looking back is that we got to one of those campouts, and everyone was ooing and ahhing over a brand new 71 LTD 2 door. The guy with the Bel Air looked at the LTD and sighed “what I wouldn’t give for that”. How times have changed.
Part of the car-owning experience is, STATUS. As Chairman Lido said, people want not only to be riding around, but to BE SEEN riding around.
In that era, 1970, a late-fifties Chevy said “high-school kid.” A lot of kids had them; and while they were high on the pecking order, they didn’t have much status outside of the Student Lot.
Today, that same car says, CLASSIC. Lots of status; a nice preservation or restoration…and it suggests money to SPEND on old cars.
It’s happened with whole car lines and types. When I was a kid, the nascent SUV market was given over to crew-shuttles and Parks Departments…our local town used an early Jeep Wagoneer to drag the skid around the ball diamond in the park.
Today, that same car says, MONEY. LEISURE. SPORT. TOUGH. What a change, hey?
It’s all in the perception…as you’re being seen riding around.
jpc: I can assure that wouldn’t have been me in 1971, especially with a ’71 Ford!!
The tail lights remind me of railroad crossing signal lights.
Well, Ford had a few things going for it in those days…chief of which were, customers’ memories.
Model T owners were still alive and still buying cars…they remembered Ford when Ford was putting America on wheels.
Model A owners were out there, too, remembering the no-nonsense quality of the vehicle. Even the young people, may have had one of those as a kid’s car.
My old man was one.
And then the Ford IPO, in 1956. Millions of Americans were excited to get a chance to buy into Henry’s company for the first time…never mind that the stock structure was skewed in such a way that the Ford family, with a small minority of ownership, would have near-total voting rights…people were gaga about the chance to partner up with Old Henry.
Then…Ford got into the style race, and in 1957 pulled ahead. The Ford of that year was a better looker than the dowdy, dated 1957 Chevy. The Chevy was built better, and at the end of a three-year body run; so quality was legions above the Ford…but that didn’t become apparent until later.
So, Ford had a lot of public goodwill going for it. Unfortunately for them, a combination of the new Bean-Counter approach to quality, Lido’s hucksterism, and McNamera’s coming austerity of design…were going to toss most of that goodwill right into the dumpster. It would cost the company billions in “Quality is Job One” ads, plus real reworking of the corporate system, to even partly reclaim that goodwill.
Zackman that is a good point about the LOST ART of REALISTIC COLOR PAINTING in advertising.
Seriously love the Pontiac Ads of the 60s, which I believe mimicked the Cadillac ads of the time which generally showed actual Photos, or were those often drawn too?
It’s another case of you don’t know what you got till its gone.
I occasionally consider framing the old CAR Ads I can find to line the walls of a car room. My Mom drove a 63 Grand Prix so the Pontiac Ads come to Mind readily.
Also the LTD Comparison to Rolls Royce ads…
You need to waste a few hours here:
http://www.plan59.com
Not only car ads, but advertising art for may other products. You can actually buy high-quality prints of some of them.
Just for you:
http://www.plan59.com/cars/cars198.htm
Better yet:
http://www.fitz-art.com/home.htm
All Pontiacs, all the time.
My 58 Ford memory is not the car, but a toy. At my Grandfathers house I sometimes played with a toy 58 Ford. It was the same green, highly detailed and it was very large, if I held it on my lap it overhung on both sides.
When my grandparents moved I was 12 or so and I was given the toy car. To my great surprise it had shrunk to about 10 inches long, about half of what I’d remembered. Funny how the world shrinks as you grow up.
Anyway, I’ve always liked the 58s as a result. Nice find..
I hope you still have it.
Not the best facelift in my opinion. In 1958 Chevrolet was the better looking car. 1957 was a close tie, as I love the 57 Fords wider longer body and wilder styling, but I grew up in the 80’s and 90’s when the 57 Chevy was an american icon. I guess it had a lot to do with it being a lightweight car with a decent engine, and as people has mentioned it was the 3rd year for the car so they had time to get most bugs out.
Especially the rear end of the 58 Ford is troubled, even the 59 looks better. But the rest of the body is mostly 57, and the front is OK enough, even if the side trim looks, well, tacked on somehow… 1958 was not a very good year for design at all, I think maybe Plymouth did one of the best , mostly because it looked almost exactly like its 57 model.
“the 57 Chevy was an american icon. I guess it had a lot to do with it being a lightweight car with a decent engine, and as people has mentioned it was the 3rd year for the car so they had time to get most bugs out.”
1957 was (IIRC) the year Chevy hit the one horsepower per cubic inch milestone, a huge deal at the time. Only on the cars with the 283 V8 equipped with mechanical fuel-injection, which as I recall were rare and mostly Corvettes. Still it made for an effective performance halo and helped give the ’57 a bit of mystique.
I believe the ’57-58 Fords countered with supercharged V8s. Some people I knew as a child had a Ranchero with the supercharged “Thunderbird” V8, it may have been 312 cubic inches? It’s been so long now…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the supercharged 312 was 1957-only. It was replaced by the FE big block 352 with a 4 barrel and 300 horsepower.
The 59 Galaxie 500 was a Favorite of mine, style wise… Those taillights reminded me of
aluminum pie plates with Red pot pies in the center.
I never liked the ’59. Like from some horror flick, it appeared it was in the middle of morphing into something else.
I recently saw a ’59 Ranchero on the road here in LA it looked freaky. Still morphing, an enormous hunk of metal on top of tiny wheels.
There was no evolution evident from the ’58-’59-’60. Ford finally got it’s act together with the beautiful ’61 Galaxie.
The old lady next door to one of my father’s bulldozer jobs had a one-year-old 1958 Ford she wanted to sell. It was a black on black Custom 300 2-door sedan with 352 and automatic. Very sharp-looking with almost no miles. Pop wouldn’t let me talk him into buying it though.
In the Pacific northwest these 57 and 58 cars actually lasted pretty well, but in college in Des Moines, Iowa, in September 1957 I met a guy from Detroit whose 1957 Ford Custom 300 4-door was already starting to rust out.
Iacocca criticized the quality of the 1957 Ford, not the 1958 model, which was improved over the previous year’s version in many ways (just not in looks). The grooves in the roof and the hood scoop were designed to stiffen the body panels. Workmanship was also improved, although rust resistance was still not that great. The Ford was better than the Mopars in this regard, which isn’t saying much.
Ford quality improved even more for 1959, but the 1960 model was rushed into production (to counter the batwing 1959 Chevrolet – ironically, the conservative 1959 model proved to be more popular than even Ford had expected it to be). Iacocca also criticized the quality of the 1960 model. Ford again worked to improve the quality of its full-size cars, and the post-1960 models are actually quite good, until the company began cutting corners on rust resistance on the 1967 models. By that time, however, Chevrolet had its own serious issues.
The 58 Custom 300 was about 5 inches shorter than the Fairlane, requiring the shortening of the back doors, a cosmetic necessity, so that the quarter panel would look longer rather than stubby, as it would have if it had been given Fairlane back doors. I think that the shorter Custom series cars are better looking than the longer Fairlane counterpart. I bought a Class 2, nearly perfect one in April 2011 at half the cost of a coupe. The turquoise and the Colonial White (the same color as vanilla yogurt) are a cheering combination to look at.
These are some cool ’58 Fords. Mine is a ’58 Fairlane 500 2-door hard top, automatic, with 352 Interceptor Special engine. It now has fenders skirts. I will post a more recent picture later.
That is beautiful. How can anyone find fault in that graceful styling?
I didn’t like the styling of the 1958 Ford. Compared to the stylish and chaste 1957, it looked bug-eyed with its quad headlights, and the grille/bumper made its face look like the mouth had five wads of Bazooka bubble gum stuffed into it. The chromey “Safety-twin taillights” looked just plain garish.
But the 1958 Ford held a fascination, regardless. As a promotional gimmick, Ford had sent a fleet of them on a trip around the world. One day at the Ford store, I picked up an illustrated, magazine-sized brochure about that adventure. It made for good reading beyond the sales pitch of the run-of-the-mill color catalogs. I wish I still had it; I do see them offered on EBay for $10-12.
My first car at 16, was an 8 year old ’58 Ford. It had only 27K miles and was literally the little old lady’s car, six with auto, black two door with gray seats, with seat covers. I took the seat covers off and the car looked brand new. And, it drove like a new car, but no ps nor pb. I drove the s…. out of that car and have lots of good memories. Took my girl out in Mom’s ’65 Impala one night and proceeded to cause my gal to hit her forehead on the dash at the first stop sign as I was not used to the power brakes. Of course we didn’t wear seat belts! What a night! (I did get to kiss her boo boo though!)
I almost bought another ’58 Ford a couple of years ago, but chose a ’68 Mustang instead as the Mustang surely is more sporty these days.
I enjoy your notes, guys. Thanks.
Here’s how they looked new, at the 1958 McKeesport, PA Auto Show. I’m not sure what time of year this was, but note they are offering a financing deal on the windshield card. Never really liked these – they looked like they designed in the dark.
The ’59 is my all-time favorite design. Not an opinion shared, by many.
I hadn’t realized that Ford overtly said “we’ll now be doing significant restyling every year,” but here it is (fall 1957), along with corporate rationale: